how to Launch OS Project 2: license

[sneakyimp]

ok....

i still would like to start an open source software project. this week's question: what sort of license agreement??

I've been reading the GNU license. I've seen that one with a few projects that I've installed before. Seems rather high-fallutin' and excessively noble to me.

I just want a simple license that says, in essence the following:

1) i wrote this.
2) you may modify it as you wish and redistribute, but we must be credited.
3) you can charge people to implement it for them
4) if you make some successful commercial product using this as a basis, this open source group expects some compensation.


part 4 is kinda optional but would be nice.

any suggestions about other common license options?

[drawmack]

GNU does pretty much, exactly that it just uses legalese as any good contract should

[sneakyimp]

thanks, mack...

does it limit my ability to distribute my code for $$? Just curious. Not exactly hell-bent on trying to make $$ on this--it seems like such a remote possibility...just want to know before i put it out there.

j

[Weedpacket]

Find out what the writers of the licence have to say...
http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney

[sneakyimp]

thanks, weedpacket...

i was aware that people can charge anything they want for open source software (and other folks should feel free to undercut their price)...

i guess my question was more "can I make a proprietary offering based on my open source project"?

obviously, no one else can because they all acquired the code through gnu license. however, as originator of the project, i own copyright and reserve the right to do so, correct?

i'll read that FAQ some more and try to find out myself, but it's pretty mind-numbing.

[sneakyimp]

these appear to be the relevant FAQ questions...i hate legal speak...sounds like as chief developer, you can do what you want, but i think the picture is actually more complicated....

I would like to release a program I wrote under the GNU GPL, but I would like to use the same code in non-free programs.
To release a non-free program is always ethically tainted, but legally there is no obstacle to your doing this. If you are the copyright holder for the code, you can release it under various different non-exclusive licenses at various times.

Is the developer of a GPL-covered program bound by the GPL? Could the developer's actions ever be a violation of the GPL?
Strictly speaking, the GPL is a license from the developer for others to use, distribute and change the program. The developer itself is not bound by it, so no matter what the developer does, this is not a "violation" of the GPL.
However, if the developer does something that would violate the GPL if done by someone else, the developer will surely lose moral standing in the community.

Can the developer of a program who distributed it under the GPL later license it to another party for exclusive use?
No, because the public already has the right to use the program under the GPL, and this right cannot be withdrawn.

[Weedpacket]

If you want, you can look at some of the other Open Source licenses out there, for a bit of comparison.
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/

[Weedpacket]

but i think the picture is actually more complicated....
Sounds straightforward enough to me. You can pretty much do what you like (as long as you don't care about your reputation).

But once you've released stuff to the public under the GPL, you can't release it again to J. Random Corp under an exclusive licence. If you think about it, it's obvious why: you've made an agreement to Corp that they have exclusive rights to the stuff, and you're already in breach of the terms of such an agreement because the stuff is already out in the open. You're promising Corp something you can't deliver - it would be like being a married bachelor (to bowdlerise).

[sneakyimp]

thanks, weedpacket.

i don't expect this little thing to ever make any money. it's merely a flash/php hybrid to help flash developers build multiplayer games.

and i would never promise any kind of exclusive license to EvilCorp for stuff that was in the public domain. I was mostly hoping that if I were to start this open source project and were to learn some nifty new stuff from developers who helped out that I could perhaps take my expertise (and enhanced source code) and develop a proprietary derivative for EvilCorp (or perhaps NotSoEvilCorp).

thanks for that open source agreements link...looks very helpful--even though legalese makes my head hurt.

[laserlight]

For starters, I recommend the book "Open Source Licensing - Software Freedom and Intellectual Property Law" by Lawrence Rosen, legal counsel to the Open Source Initiative (http://www.opensource.org).
Of course, some of his views contradict those of the Free Software Foundation (http://www.fsf.org), but yeah, "infinite are the arguments of mages".

GNU does pretty much, exactly that it just uses legalese as any good contract should
Though the GPL is a bare copyright license rather than a contract, since there is no acceptance required.
Oh well.

and i would never promise any kind of exclusive license to EvilCorp for stuff that was in the public domain.
You cant even license that which is in the public domain to begin with.
While software in the public domain can be considered Free/Open Source software, Free/Open Source software may not (and usually isnt) in the public domain.

i guess my question was more "can I make a proprietary offering based on my open source project"?
Yes, with a dual-licensing scheme, assuming that you hold the copyright to your project's software.
When more than one developer contributes, things can be a little more difficult since it isnt just your copyright that is involved, unless the copyrights are assigned to you, or some other agreement is made.

Actually, if this is the case, you probably could release your project under any OSI approved license, since they all should fulfill 1-3.
Of course, what exactly you mean by "credited" isnt clear, while #1 doesnt even need a license to do this for you, a copyright statement would be enough.

Aside from the GPL, LGPL, (modfied) BSD license, MIT (or Expat) license, and zlib/libpng licenses, I would suggest that you take a look at the Academic Free License (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/afl-2.1.php) and Open Software License (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/osl-2.1.php).

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice/opinion.

[sneakyimp]

thanks, laser!

I'm totally baffled by most legal language and legal concepts....ther always seem to be subtleties that are obvious to lawyers which completely escape me.

As best I can tell, if I plan to publish or distribute my derivative work, it must be under the GNU license. Does installing and modifying phpBB for a client cound as 'publication' or 'distribution'???

Also, am I required to post a notice about no warranties and stuff? this passage seemed a bit confusing:

c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively
when run, you must cause it, when started running for such
interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an
announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a
notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide
a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under
these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this
License. (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but
does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on
the Program is not required to print an announcement.)

[Weedpacket]

Originally posted by sneakyimp
I'm totally baffled by most legal language and legal concepts....ther always seem to be subtleties that are obvious to lawyers which completely escape me.That's why most licences start out with a section of definitions of terms used later on (which are emphasised by being Capitalised); I guess you could say that legalese is a declarative language. Most of the "subtleties" are due to interaction with existing law (for example, existing consumer-protection legislation overrides warranty disclaimers in any licence; such legislation varies from territory to territory - any conflicts between the two are automatically decided in favour of the legislation). Law is not trivial.

Also, am I required to post a notice about no warranties and stuff? It says that you should notify the user of what warranties you do (or don't provide). That's to protect you: if you disclaim warranty and don't ensure that the user knows this, then they can argue that they thought they were covered. And they'd have a case. "Your application destroyed my work! I'm taking you to court!"

Needless to say, if you're charging for the work, or if it's on contract to someone, then they have every right to expect the software to do what they're paying you for.

[sneakyimp]

i know you guys aren't lawyers, but I sure appreciate your feedback here. I reckon I'll just take my little open source thing (which is trivial, by the way) and just release it GNU license.

I just landed a client who wants phpBB mods. The client has a lawyer and has agreed to indemnify me thusly:

The Contractor shall further be indemnified and held harmless by the Company for any claims made against him in connection with the misuse or violation of software licenses or user agreements that the company has procured, agreed or contracted.

That's good enough for me I suppose.

And YES, the software should work!