Re: Re: Licening ibwebadmin and JSRS
>What exactly is this trying to require? I can see several things:
>
>1) You may not change the license on this code. This is a no-op;
> I have no standing to do that.
>
>2) You may not bring legal action to stop others' use of this code.
> For example, you may not sue for patent infringement. Free? Who
> knows; massive can o' worms. [This is how I'd read it]
>
>3) You must distribute all derivative works under this license.
> Free, but GPL-incompatible. Also not really a copyleft; I
> don't have to distribute source.
>
>4) You must distribute all derivative works under this license.
> You must also distribute source, because failing to do so
> would prevent others from using it as they see fit.
>
>5) You must distribute all derivative works under this license.
> You must also distribute source. You must also make sure your
> modifications are clearly documented and cleanly written,
> because obscure, undocumented code restricts others' use.
> [This is the most far-stretched reading I could even attempt
> to justify.]
>
>For (1), I suggest using the MIT X11 license, or two-clause BSD
>license. For 2, reconsider. For 3, I suggest reconsidering, but if you
>really must, GPL with an optional exception that you don't have to
>provide source. For 4, GPL. For 5, non-free.
>
>Do we know which the author intends?
I suspect 1 or 3. But I think the author wrote and named the No Nonsense
License this way not to be bothered by all kinds of legal details. Which
is quite ironic that I had to bring this upon him.
I don't think he really cares about the differences. How about just
offering some choices like:
BSD would be best. This will probably never bring up any licensing
issues again, here is the text.
Alternatively here is a modified No Nonsense License which is considered
free. It is still GPL incompatible and could raise issues in future, but
it has been fixed for now by the linking exception in ibwebadmin.
Cheers,
Remco.
Reply to: