Re: Extending and releasing open source software
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
On 03/15/2011 03:26 PM, Nate Bargmann wrote:
> To the OP: IANAL, etc.
>
> My question upon reading the initial post was whether the MIT license
> allows changing the licensing terms? Is it like the BSD no attribution
> clause license in that respect? If so, then licensing under the GPL3 is
> likely legal. If not, then that opens an entire can of legal worms.
>
> I would be very careful to assure that whatever action the OP takes does
> not result in legal action from the copyright holder/licensor. This may
> be a proper question for the Free Software Foundation. Their advice
> is likely more sound than the opinions you'd get from a user mailing
> list (mine included). IIRC, there is also a Debian-legal list that you
> could bounce this idea off of. Whatever you do, don't make your code
> public until you believe you have a firm legal standing,
Yes, I might just do that.
>
> * On 2011 15 Mar 08:23 -0500, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
>> On 2011-03-15 07:22:50 Nick Douma wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On 03/14/2011 06:15 PM, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
>>>> On 2011-03-14 11:12:35 Nick Douma wrote:
>>>>> I have a question about developing software and licenses. I have taken a
>>>>> MIT-licensed library (https://github.com/peej/tonic), and modified and
>>>>> extended it. The result is a REST library for PowerDNS, which I would
>>>>> like to release under GPL. However, it is not clear to me how I should
>>>>> do it.
>>>>
>>>> Why not keep the existing MIT license?
>>>
>>> Because the GPL license is a better match for the project.
>>
>> How so? Using the MIT license makes it easier for you to share changes with
>> upstream. It also makes it easier for users to switch between your fork and
>> upstream. It also gives your users the same freedoms 0-3 that the GPL does.
>>
>> I'm a big fan of the GPL, especially version 3, and it's variants. I just
>> don't understand your exact motivations for breaking compatibility with the
>> existing library. What are you trying to allow / prevent?
>
> I'm guessing here, but speaking only for myself, assuming the MIT
> license is similar to the BSD no attribution clause license, unless the
> modification is trivial, I don't wish to have my code used by a
> proprietary interest without compensation. Not that my code is world
> class, mind you. With the GPL that compensation exists in the form of
> later contributors making their code available under the same terms I
> provided it to them. The BSD license does not provide the protect to
> the code I wish to see it have so I can understand the OP's desire for
> the same, assuming he has the same motivation.
This is basically my motivation as well. I developed my software for my
employer, but we want to release it to the public. We do want to avoid
having our code disappear into some other proprietary project, we want
to keep the code open. I don't feel that the MIT license can enforce that.
Kind regards,
Nick Douma
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAk1/fB0ACgkQkPq5zKsAFihkEwCffAwFDyR6A0EzYDsXZgejBvw+
gdYAoIIe0juV7UjLKPdKYS0ksAH05tPD
=OwO+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: