Which license to use?

[kloprogge at pointlogic.com]

Matthew, thanks this is very helpful.

Just one more question, if the holder of the company remains the owner of the copyright (and basically license others to certain rights including obligations), would this mean that the rules set out in the license agreement don't apply to the holder of the copyright. To give an example: if I choose a license that states that all versions of the software should remain open source, would I then be able to create a version that is not open source?

Regards,

Peter


Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile  

-----Original Message-----
From: Matthew Flaschen <matthew.flaschen at gatech.edu>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 18:45:32 
To:License Discuss <license-discuss at opensource.org>
Subject: Re: Which license to use?

kloprogge at pointlogic.com wrote:
> I'm quite new to open source and feel somewhat overwhelmed with all the licenses available and OSI approved.

That's understandable.  The OSI has been (vaguely) trying to correct this.

> - I represent a for profit comapny and considering turning one or two products to become open soure (OSI approved). 
> However, I would like to assure that my company is seen as the driving
force behind those products and get the credit for this.
> As such I would like the product to be branded towards the company.
> Is there any license you would recommend, I would like a simple
basriic and clear license that would cover this.


Great.  Almost every open source license requires that the copyright
notice is maintained, so they will never be denied credit.  Now, you
need to think about other criteria.

Do you want all interactive versions of the program to display some form
of attribution?

Consider the GPL and the Attribution Assurance License.

Do you want all versions of the program to remain open source?

Consider the GPL, Common Public License, etc..

Do you want to allow the program to be incorporated into proprietary
software?

Consider the MIT License, New BSD license, etc.

> - What are the rules with regards to having software that includes modules that can be distributed freely but for which source code is not available?
> They're not open source.  Source availability is a prerequisite for
OSI-approved (and free) software.  Even if the software is licensed
under an OSI-approved license, you may not use the certification mark if
any part of the software does not have published source.

Matthew Flaschen