Keith Devens .com - Weblog: Open source software license

Friday, December 24, 2004

Open source software license

I want to revise my open source software license and use a "standard" one if I can (i.e. one that's available at OpenSource.org). Basically, I want one that says:

Use for any purpose, or within a larger product with no restrictions.
Redistribute unmodified source with no restrictions.
Redistribution of modified source requires you to:
- place the changes in the public domain or under "this" license
- keep the initial comment header (copyright info, etc.) intact
- clearly indicate what was modified (in a comment block under the initial comment block, as well as optionally within the code or in an accompanying "changes" file)

My goals are:

Let the software be used by anyone who wants to use it without concern for license issues (so, I don't want GPL-like viral-ness)
But still maintain ownership over the code and have no one claim it as their own (so, not public domain)
Have it be clear when someone other than me changes something

Any recommendations?

Permalink | 6 Comments | Tags: Programming | id 6280

15:39 (utc-5)
edited: 18:10 (utc-5)

Comments

Born Free wrote:

Check out the ID Software agreements at www.idsoftware.com.

They allow anyone to modify and distribute code on their old games, and provide access to copies of the source code.

At least, they did the last time I looked.

∴ Born Free | 24-Dec-2004 5:12pm est | #6694

You could dual-license it. BSD/MPL? (I'm not entirely into OSS licences too;)

∴ Breyten | 24-Dec-2004 5:58pm est | http://bje.nu/ | #6695

Argh! Dual license? I can't even figure out one! I don't even know how that would work. Your suggestion might have merit, but I don't think it gets me any closer to where I want to be.

∴ Keith | 24-Dec-2004 6:08pm est | http://keithdevens.com/ | #6696

G wrote:

∴ G | 24-Dec-2004 9:44pm est | #6697

I don't like the BSD license because it says the people who use the software (i.e. if they redistribute in binary form) have to make note of the fact that they use it, and it doesn't contain the provisions about redistributing modified source I stipulated above.

I kind of like the Zlib license and the Artistic license, though the Artistic license contains some stuff I don't want, and I'm not sure the Zlib license says enough even though I really like the spirit of it.

∴ Keith | 24-Dec-2004 10:36pm est | http://keithdevens.com/ | #6698

In fact, I'm discovering my license is "more free" than many of the most free licenses. The only thing I care about is that the original source of the code, and that the code was changed, is made clear when modified source is distributed. Others require you to state that you've used the software as part of your product and contain other provisions my license doesn't.

∴ Keith | 24-Dec-2004 10:48pm est | http://keithdevens.com/ | #6699

Feel free to post a comment below. Please see my comment policy.

Formatting Rules (No HTML):

**bold**, *italic*, _underlined_, --strikeout--
"text"="url" creates a link, and URLs are auto-highlighted
Blockquote: Like e-mail, begin paragraph with > (greater-than sign)
Lists: begin paragraph with *,-, or + (unordered), or # (ordered)
Code block: ?!code:language=perl|php|sql|javascript|etc.{\n}...{\n}?!/code

RSS feed RSS feed for Keith's Weblog
Atom feed Atom feed for Keith's Weblog
Weblog archive
Recent comments
on 7 posts