DeBug wrote:
[1]
> Why is it necessary to copyright the software in order 
> to make it free ?           
>
[2]
> My question is what are the restrictions in lesser GPL ? 
> In other words what is the difference between 
> a) I write software and give it away for free without copyrighting it 
> b) I write software copyright it and issue it under lesser GPL 
>
[3]
> One more question 
> If i decide to do not copyright my software 
> does it mean that someone else can later copyright it 
> In other words do i have to explicitly state - 
> "THIS SOFTWARE IS NOT COPYRIGHTABLE" 

[3] you can't say something isn't copyrightable.

if you want, you can copyright something, and then
license all your rights away by saying
"You may copy, modify, and redistribute this work any way you see fit."

this may be effectively the same thing as placing it in the
"public domain". you surrender all rights to the work.

The thing of it is that it turns out this isn't necessarily 
a good idea in the realm of free software. Some of the OSI approved
licenses do something similar to this (read the MIT license)
but I wouldn't recommend using them to license your code.

[1] copyright gives the author control over derived works.
and if you give away all rights to derived works, 
someone can make a derived version of your work and
put a nice, air-tight, proprietary license on it.

your code has just been "forked".
your version is still public, but another version
is proprietary. if people want the proprietary functionality,
they have to get teh proprietary code.

licensing can prevent code forking, allowing people to
make derived works, but if they distribute it, they
have to license it under the same terms as the original.

If forking is not a concern, use the MIT license or something
similar to give away all rights to the code.

[2]
the GPL and LGPL both require re-distributed derived works
to be licensed under the same terms as the original.
This is how they are different than putting the code in public domain.

The difference between the GPL and LGPL is that what they
classify as 'derived'.

when you link someone's code, you are creating a derived version.

(personally, I don't like this. I see it nearly as evil as certain
dumb patent laws. I think the only way to use code is to link it,
so linking should not be restricted as a derived work. 
but it is legally recognized as a derived work.)

anyway, the GPL says that derived works, including linked code,
must be licensed under GPL if you distribute it as an executable.
therefore, the only way to distribute non-GPL code with GPL code
is with a make file, and have the user create the executable.

The LGPL gives away this right. You can take non-LGPL code, compile
and link it with LGPL code, and distribute the whole thing
as an executable. (you still have to include all the original
LGPL source code, etc) But you make it easier for the user ot 
actually use your code.

personally, I can see a need to control derived works to prevent forking.
but, for the life of me, I see no threat in allowing people
to distribute your code as a compiled executable, as long as
they have to include your original source code.

if you wish to give away all your rights, 
use something like the MIT license. 

if you wish to give away most of your rights, 
but want to prevent people from forking your code into proprietary versions,
use something like the LGPL license.

IANAL TINLA IMHO YADA YADA YADA

end of rant.
Greg

           


--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3

