New license - please comment

[Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.]

The decision is for you to make, of course, but I agree with Mark. With a
slight modification, the LGPL seems to fit.

Rod

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Christophe Dupre" <duprec at scorec.rpi.edu>
To: "Mark Rafn" <dagon at dagon.net>
Cc: <license-discuss at opensource.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 5:11 PM
Subject: Re: New license - please comment


:
: The problem (from our perspective) with your proposition is that if the
: 3rd party is too lazy to submit a patch, is run over by a bus, or is
: unavailable, even if we get the code from a 4th party that got it from the
: 3rd party, we're no longer able to re-license the code to commercial
: entities.
: The type of libraries we're planning on releasing are not general public
: code (as zlib, or gtk, or other could be). They're very specific libraries
: for parallel computing on teraflop-sized machines. They are the result of
: several years of research, and through the years we've found that our
: biggest difficulty is to get patches in from people who've extended them.
: Most of the work is done by grad students, who couldn't care less about
: what happens to their work after they graduate.
:
: Now, what is inherently bad about clause 2(d) ? We're providing the
: libraries freely (money). And you are free to use them in whatever
: programs you want. The only thing we ask is if you modify them, we co-own
: the copyright. You still keep it, which gives you a garantee that there's
: always going to be a free version out there (i.e. we can't just take it
: back).
:
: Giving us co-ownership of the modifications doesn't take anything from
: you, does it ? It doesn't restrain your freedom. It's no different from
: the GPL that makes you give out your code if you link your proprietary
: (closed) code with a GPL library (not LGPL).
:
:
:
: On Tue, 10 Jun 2003, Mark Rafn wrote:
:
: > On Tue, 10 Jun 2003, Christophe Dupre wrote:
: >
: > > 2(a) in our draft has the same purpose as the LGPL : it is for
licensing
: > > libraries that must be usable with commercial software (or at least
linked
: > > with non-free libraries and programs).
: >
: > An important distinction is that the LGPL grants permissions IN ADDITION
: > to those granted by the GPL.  It is not JUST for licensing libraries
that
: > can be linked to non-free programs, it is for doing that in addition to
: > being free software itself.
: >
: > > - Library must be usable in any program, no matter its licensing.
: >
: > LGPL covers this.
: >
: > > - Use of library must not mandate releasing proprietary code, as long
as
: > > no change is made to the library.
: >
: > LGPL covers this.
: >
: > > - Fixes and enhancements made by 3rd party should be incorporated in
the
: > > main line of the library.
: >
: > IMO, this should be up to the 3rd party.  Requiring such a grant of
: > copyright as a consideration for the ability to modify the software is
not
: > free, IMO.  Requesting it (and making it clear that patches explicitly
: > submitted to you imply this) is fine.
: >
: > > - Rensselaer must able to give commercial entited licenses to
: > > commercialise (or make commercial products based on parts of the
library)
: > > without being subject to this license.
: >
: > You're already not subject to the license on code you own.  This seems
to
: > be covered by the previous requirement.
: >
: > > The last point is the reason of 2(d). While it is true that we could
: > > simply refuse code from parties unwilling to give us co-ownership (or
: > > license) their modifications
: >
: > This is the approach taken by many open-source projects, and one I
: > heartily recommend.
: >
: > > Also, asking each 3rd party providing a patch to sign a document is
: > > tedious are requires non-trivial record keeping. We think this is a
way
: > > to avoid that.
: >
: > If you don't need a signed document in your proposed license, why would
: > you need one for the voluntary assignment?
: >
: > I wonder if you can use the LGPL verbatim, and include a seperate notice
: > that says "Any patches or changes sent to "foo at rpi.edu" are assumed to
be
: > intended for inclusion in the main program, and by submitting such a
: > change you assign the copyright to RPI.
: > --
: > Mark Rafn    dagon at dagon.net    <http://www.dagon.net/>
: > --
: > license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
: >
:
:
: --
: Christophe Dupre
: System Administrator, Scientific Computation Research Center
: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
: Troy, NY        USA
: Phone: (518) 276-2578  -  Fax: (518) 276-4886
:
:
: --
: license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3

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