Including open source within a larger package

[Ernest Prabhakar]

Hi Chris,

Some of your constraints may be mutually contradictory, depending on 
how rigidly you interpret them.  In order, have you considered:

a) LGPL

b) Mozilla Public License

c) Larry Rosen's Open Software License

If you can clarify precisely why one or the other of those won't work 
for you, we might better understand whether its even possible to 
satisfy your constraints.

-- Ernie P.

On Dec 3, 2004, at 8:45 AM, Chris F Clark wrote:

> I wrote:
>> I am a little concerned about releasing something that is not source
>> (i.e. not human readable) under the GPL without providing the source
>> material (which I am unable to do as some of the source material is
>> under non-disclosure or other license terms, although I have the right
>> to release non-human readable versions
>
> Russ Nelson replied:
>> You should be very concerned about doing that.  Why are you obsessed
>> by the GPL?  There are dozens and dozens of other licenses which are
>> more appropriate to your situation.  You don't need a new license.
>
> I am not obsessed with the GPL.  I would be willing to replace it with
> any license that offers similar protections.  I have 4 criteria for
> the license.
>
> 1) That the source code be "open source".  That is, it is clear to
>    users that they can use the source code to create their own
>    derivative works and that they can redistribute either what I've
>    given them or their derivative works. The ability of the users to
>    create derivative works is a key as the "open source" part is
>    specifically designed to be used in a derivative work. As far as I
>    can tell, any open source licesne will satifisy this part.
>
> 2) That the resulting code cannot be "privatized" (i.e. that
>    derivative works must also be "open source"--the so called "viral"
>    property of the license).  Thus, a BSD or MIT-like license won't
>    work.  This is what prompted me to put the source code portion
>    under the GPL, although I'm not obsessed with that decision.
>    However, protecting the derivative works from privitization is
>    important, as the software is already available under a proprietary
>    license and I wish to continue having "extracting monopoly rent"
>    from those customers who wish to build private proprietary
>    derivative works.
>
> 3) That the license is generally compatible with other open source
>    projects, so that the source code can be combined with other open
>    source code to make larger projects.  Since a large body of works
>    are already under the GPL, this clearly makes it acceptable for
>    this part.
>
> 4) That the license doesn't require me to distribute sources for
>    things which I cannot (or will not), and that my not doing so
>    doesn't impact further redistributions of things which I am giving
>    away.  This is the sticky point.  I specifically want to give away
>    some "shareware" type code as part of the distribution, but I don't
>    want that impacting the "open source" status of the source code
>    part of the distribution.  Note that it doesn't make sense for me
>    to distribute the open source parts separate from the shareware
>    parts.  While the shareware parts play no role in the finished
>    application (derivative work), they are an integral part of
>    adapting the open source part to its use in a finished application.
>    Thus, distributing the two entities as seaprate things is to my
>    mind merely subtrefuge. (see analogy below)
>
>    It is not as important that others be able to redistribute the
>    "shareware" parts, but it is strongly preferrable.  If some
>    [re]distributor happens to include my package as part of something
>    that they are [re]distrbuting, I would like that to be clearly
>    permitted.
>
> Any license that can satisfy all 4 points is acceptable to me. I am
> willing to listen to any recommendations as to what license I should
> use to satisfy the 4 concerns.
>
> analogy:
> Imagine that I am giving away a box of special screws (the open source
> part) and the matching screwdriver (the shareware part).  When the
> user has built the bookcase, only the screws are relevant, but the
> screwdriver is needed to drive the screws in the first place.  I want
> the user to be able to build "open source" bookcases from my screws.
> However, I can't give the user an open source screwdriver yet.  It
> will take me around a year to produce an open source screwdriver.
> However, I would like people to have the open source screws in the
> meantime.
>
> Obviously, if I had an open source scrwdriver today, I could put the
> entire work under the GPL (or similar license) and life would be
> simple.
>
> -Chris