OT another place to discuss software licenses ?
Hi Everyone
I have asked questions about software licenses on this list in the past.
It's really not fair as it's off topic and it's flame war bait.
Is there somewhere else where I could discuss a variety of licenses? I
tried the FSF list but everyone seemed to insist GPL was the only way to
go and I can't find anywhere else.
Thanks-Patrick
I suppose it means what you mean by discussing other licenses. Were you looking to discuss other free software licenses? Or proprietary ones? Or...?
Hi Jason
I am pretty mixed up but basically I am thinking about source included
ones that may or may not be FSF approved.
On 12-10-02 10:51 PM, name at domain wrote:
> I suppose it means what you mean by discussing other licenses. Were
> you looking to discuss other free software licenses? Or proprietary
> ones? Or...?
>
There is a lot of different licenses approved by the FSF as Free Software License but don't have the same purpose as the Gnu Public Licence. Like for example the zlib license (I heard of it only yesterday), that is a license that allows the developer (if I'm not wrong, and please correct me if I am) to distribute a binary version of the software without releasing the source code. But that is just an example... Don't know if this really apply as a Free Software if this particular part of the license is used.
As for your license question, you could specify want you want for your software and we "could try" to help you with that.
PS: You can still use the WTFPL License (http://sam.zoy.org/wtfpl/). I'm kidding on this one, but it is fun to see a license that allows you to do.. well... everything you want.
Thanks
zlib is weird, I don't understand this at all.
Thanks for being open to hearing about licences. I don't know if
everyone else feels that way though. I don't want to poison the list. If
you know somewhere else I could go, that would probably be best.
Thanks
On 12-10-03 08:04 AM, name at domain wrote:
> There is a lot of different licenses approved by the FSF as Free
> Software License but don't have the same purpose as the Gnu Public
> Licence. Like for example the zlib license (I heard of it only
> yesterday), that is a license that allows the developer (if I'm not
> wrong, and please correct me if I am) to distribute a binary version
> of the software without releasing the source code. But that is just an
> example... Don't know if this really apply as a Free Software if this
> particular part of the license is used.
>
> As for your license question, you could specify want you want for your
> software and we "could try" to help you with that.
>
> PS: You can still use the WTFPL License (http://sam.zoy.org/wtfpl/).
> I'm kidding on this one, but it is fun to see a license that allows
> you to do.. well... everything you want.
>
I do not know any free software license that prohibits distributing binaries without the source code. For instance, you can distribute GPL-licensed software without the source code. You must however distribute the source code to any user that requests it (otherwise it is not free software). Besides, the zlib license does not include any single clause about the way binaries ought to be distributed.
This is what I hate about licenses (in general), there are sometimes questions that can't be answered by it directly and it makes difficult for us (generally me xD) to understand what I can and what I can't do. And as you pointed very well, the ZLIB license is one of them, so... since it doesn't say anything, does it mean that we can do what we want on this part ? (it is quite confusing :S)
The licenses basically states that "the user can do anything but some restrictions":
Permission is granted to anyone to use this software for any purpose, including commercial applications, and to alter it and redistribute it freely, subject to the following restrictions
And, again, none of the restriction is about the distribution of binaries. Although I am not a lawyer, it looks clear to me that the user is allowed to redistribute binaries as she wishes.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Le 12-10-02 10:11 PM, Patrick a écrit :
> Hi Everyone
>
> I have asked questions about software licenses on this list in the
past. It's really not fair as it's off topic and it's flame war bait.
>
> Is there somewhere else where I could discuss a variety of licenses? I
tried the FSF list but everyone seemed to insist GPL was the only way to
go and I can't find anywhere else.
>
> Thanks-Patrick
>
>
>
This mailing list (part of the FSF infrastructure/resources) should
yield better results:
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss
F.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: PGP/Mime available upon request
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/
iEYEARECAAYFAlBsNREACgkQfUcTXFrypNUdCQCdFCcPA/KjYojW8HsPm9JvFsZq
Dh8AoMWKBpyekglKRUYZvtbZVJjn1TF6
=3wOD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
I am a member!
Without looking into it they may not have understood or maybe it wasn't explained right. The FSF does encourage use of other licenses in certain situations.
Maybe there was only one good clear cut choice based on your description?
Generally speaking I think for most projects the GNU GPL is the recommended/right license.
Indeed. Here is the link: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-recommendations.html
Afaik, the most comprehensive collection of free software licences is the one maintained by the Open Source Initiative. There is also a discussion forum for each license they list.
The Free Software Foundation has listed (and commented) even more licenses: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html
Thanks very much.
I'll keep the craziness away from this list now!
On 12-10-03 12:04 PM, name at domain wrote:
> Afaik, the most comprehensive collection of free software licences is
> the one maintained by the Open Source Initiative. There is also a
> discussion forum for each license they list.
>
> http://opensource.org/licenses/index.html
>
You could discuss licenses in #gnu and #fsf in freenode IRC. There are people who know the details very well.