Which license to choose?

[Tzeng, Nigel H.]

EPL isn't likely an option given he uses GPL libraries.

http://www.eclipse.org/legal/eplfaq.php#MODULEDIST

"The EPL and the GPL are not compatible in any combination where the result would be considered either: (a) a "derivative work" (which Eclipse interprets consistent with the definition of that term in the U.S. Copyright Act ) or (b) a work "based on" the GPL code, as that phrase is used in the GPLv2<http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html>, GPLv3<http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl.html> or the GPL FAQ<http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html> as applicable. Further, you may not combine EPL and GPL code in any scenario where source code under those licenses are both the same source code module.

Based upon the position<http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/> of the Free Software Foundation, you may not combine EPL and GPL code in any scenario where linking exists between code made available under those licenses. The above applies to both GPL version 2 and GPL version 3."

While I believe that the EPL position is correct wrt derivative works IANAL and I wouldn't care to be the guinea pig to test that position.

He can release his code using LGPL but I doubt anyone but another GPL project would reuse his code anyway given the dependencies on GLPK.


For the data in his database he can release using Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike (CC-SA-BY).  I think that is the closest match to what he wants.



Regards,



Nigel


From: David Shofi [mailto:DShofi at atmi.com]
Sent: Friday, February 26, 2010 1:00 PM
To: David Woolley
Cc: Kevin Hunter; License Discussion
Subject: Re: Which license to choose?


Kevin,

Consider the CPL or EPL.  It has an inheritance concept but allows commercial proprietary modules to be developed.

David


David Woolley <forums at david-woolley.me.uk>

02/26/2010 02:46 AM

To

Kevin Hunter <hunteke at earlham.edu>

cc

License Discussion <license-discuss at opensource.org>

Subject

Re: Which license to choose?







Kevin Hunter wrote:
> At 11:59pm -0500 Thu, 25 Feb 2010, John Cowan wrote:
>> Kevin Hunter scripsit:
>>> For the code part, what Joe would eventually like is for users to be
>>> able to freely engage and modify his code, but he wants to ensure that
>>> they give back any updates, fixes, or enhancements they make.
>> [ GPL does not require downstream licensees to pass changes back, only
>>   forward to users of the downstream code. ]
>>
>> [ GPL further only enforces this rule *if* code is distributed. No
>>   distribution, no code sharing necessary. ]
>
> Noted about the distinction.  Thank you *very* much for clarifying my
> misunderstanding.  The point is that he wants to make his project as
> Free as possible, while not deterring commercial use.  Is the LGPL the

He doesn't want it as free as possible.  If he did, BSD would be the
clear option.  He wants to put restrictions on what commercial
organisations typical want to do, which is to keep the source and
modifications to it secret.

> best course then?  As I understand his project, it's to be in parts,
> both a front-end for end-user use, and libraries for linking and
> development purposes.
>
> Does the LGPL only apply to libraries, for instance?

No L now stands for "lesser".


> Fair enough; my assumption and projections of his code base may be
> incorrect, but the question is still out there: Is there a way to
> protect his name if someone else does something stupid with his project
> (and then advertises it)?

Live in an enlightened part of the world, like Europe, that respects
"moral rights" in intellectual property?
>

--
David Woolley
Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam,
that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.


*************************************************
This email message may contain information that is confidential and/or privileged and is intended only for use of the individual or entity named above.  If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this communication in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy the original message.  Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20100226/4c216983/attachment.html>