BSD+1 License

[Stefano Vincenzi]

Thank you! I wasn't aware of the EUPL. I was reading it and think I  
will use this license.

I don't like that it is too long; this was one of the reasons I wanted  
to make a new license (what I like about the BSD License is its  
simplicity) but at least it is a comfortable and understandable  
reading... better leave the attorneys to write laws =)

Can I publish source code with any license and the draft of my  
"license" as a non-binding comment on licensing? It can act as a  
briefing/summary and a recommendation or preference on how to  
distribute the derivatives... or is that too complicated?

Schmitz, Patrice-Emmanuel ha scritto:

> Hi Stefano,
>
> I am a little bit confused on this debate (where I stepped in :-)  
> because your first idea was to propose a kind of BSD licence, but -  
> reading it - it is not really a permissive license. In fact your  
> draft is copyleft, because - if I understand your intention  
> correctly - your code cannot become proprietary, even if you do not  
> specify which "other licenses" can be used in the proposed provision:
> "* Source code derived of the original source code, that is  
> distributed as  executable code for commercial use, must be made  
> public using this license and other licenses in which the original  
> source code was made public and distributed".
>
> Then the discussion turn around the strong copyleft GPL... Which one  
> - V2 or V3?
>
> And finally a very important point for you is the availability of  
> the license in languages other than English (you will use Italian,  
> Spanish and English).
>
> Therefore my question: did you consider the EUPL (European Union  
> Public Licence) which is:
> - copyleft (but GPLv2 compatible),
> - written by European attorneys,
> - used by the European Commission,
> - OSI approved and
> - has 22 linguistic versions with identical value?  http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/en/document/7774
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Patrice-E. Schmitz
> Lawyer
> www.OSOR.eu
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stefano Vincenzi [mailto:s_vincenzi at lavabit.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 5:31 AM
> To: license-review at opensource.org
> Subject: BSD+1 License
>
> What about publishing and using the software license in languages
> other than english (in my case I will use italian, spanish and
> english)? If the local official language is not english how much is an
> english license enforcable? For reference, CC has translations in the
> most used languages (even if the english version takes precedence).
>
> The current clause:
>     * If any software derived from the original source code is
> published and distributed as executable code, the modified source code
> must be included in the distribution or made available by other means
> (including but not limited to: websites and software repositories).
> This applies only to source code derived directly from the original
> software. Source code that is distributed with the original source
> code or executable code that uses it indirectly (including but not
> limited to: an inherited class or an API call), can use any other
> license.
>
> // Bani ha scritto:
>>> By publishing I mean in general, the clause doesn't state "publish
>>> to the
>>> original author". It is implied (I know, bad idea for a license to
>>> use
>>> assumptions) that publishing means making the source code available.
>>>
>>> N/ please reply to the list also so that we don't get 2 identical
>>> posts on
>>> our inbox.
>>
>> Just keep in mind that if the code isn't distributed, then you can't
>> make people publish the code if they don't want to. This has to do
>> with the copyright law in U.S., which doesn't protect "personal" use.
>
> Then the clause should include something like: "if you publish any
> software derived from the original source code, you must include the
> modified source code in the distribution, or make it available by
> other means (including but not limited to: websites and software
> repositories)."