Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 11:49:57 -0700 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: cfuhrman@iwaynet.net Cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Switching from LGPL to ??? License Message-ID: <3B8BE7D5.B9A0B3A5@mindspring.com> References: <999001492.3b8b8d94b71c3@webmail.iwaynet.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
cfuhrman@iwaynet.net wrote: > I'm the author of a perl module used for printing to remote printers. Within > the next month or so, I'm planning on giving it a fairly complete overhaul to > make it easier to maintain. Another major change that I'm planning on > undertaking is to release it under a different license. Be careful. If you have accepted any contributions to the code, you will either need to back them out, get the authors to assign rights to the changes to you, or get the authors to agree with your change in license, before you can do this. This is because the combined work is derived from LGPL'ed code from those contributors, since their code is a derived work from the original LGPL'ed work. > So, this brings me to two questions: > > 1) Which license to distributed the module under: the Perl > Artistic License or the BSD one. This depends on the level of control you want to maintain over the code: o If you liked the goals of the LGPL,you might even want to consider the eCOS license, etc.; there are much better instrumentalities of the GNU manifesto than the LGPL/GPL. o If you would do public domain, but want to have a hold harmless, you would probably be best served by a BSD two clause license. o If you want to have a hold harmless, and not have someone else claim credit for your ideas, the four clause Berkely license is the same as the two clause, but includes the "claim credit clause". This is sometimes incorrectly called "the advertising clause", but since it only kicks in when the mention _fetaures_ or _use_ of your software, it doesn't affect the advertising unless the user intentionally claims your features as theirs. o The CMU License is similar to the BSD three clause license: it has the restriction that you can't use the author's name without permission, and it has the same effect as the two clause "hold harmless"; it also _requests_ that changes be sent back to the authors, but doesn't require it. o The Artistic License permits you editorial control over future versions of the code. It is rather more restrictive with what can be done with the code, if you are not involved. If you think you might get hit by a bus, and want your code to survive you, you probably don't want the Sun Community Source License, the IBM Open Source License, or the Artistic License, since there will no longer be a seat of editorial control if you are no longer around, which would send the code into "limbo". > 2) What is the best means of changing the license? Basically > strip out the LGPL and replace it? You must obtain the consent of all authors, or remove their contributions, if they refuse consent. See above. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3B8BE7D5.B9A0B3A5>