Re: Request for a sponsor for Felix
On Thu, 2005-05-26 at 21:33 -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> On Fri, May 27, 2005 at 10:44:49AM +1000, John Skaller wrote:
> >
> > Felix is a 'free for any use' open source advanced
> Copyright (C) 2004 John Skaller.
>
> Felix is Free For Any Use.
>
> Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
> modification, are permitted.
>
> --------------------
>
> No offense, but you might want to consider using one of the many
> licenses out there [1].
BSD w/o ads is fine for a Debian package.
Just to explain:
* I do not wish to require redistributions use the same
licence (for my code)
* I do not wish to require any copyright notices be
included in header files, or even with the redistributions,
except as noted below
* I wish to permit anyone to use whatever licence they want
to with copies of the sources, except as noted below
* Whilst I would prefer to be acknowledged as the author,
I do not wish to require this -- I would not be happy if
someone else claimed authorship, but believe existing
laws in various countries already cover fraud and misrepresentation.
* I don't have a problem with other people claiming *ownership*
of a copy of the code (that's different from authorship)
* where I have used other peoples code, the original licences
pertain -- three subcomponents of the package (I think) have
BSD licences (and were actually produced at Berkeley .. :)
The idea is *the code is not encumbered in any way by
any legal mumbo jumbo* except that which is required
to explicitly release any such encumberance.
Basically, *I want users* and I'm happy if they're
commercial users creating proprietary packages.
The original software was developed for a telco, and such
a client may well require ownership of any code they
wish to on-sell to their clients: such a customer would
need to be free to take the source and claim they
own it without encumberance before they can sell it,
the Felix licence tries to make it clear that is
permitted.
> Your license may leave out things that become
> important in the future. Based on what your license is trying to say,
> you may want to consider the MIT/X license, BSD (w/o advertising
> clause), or public domain.
Public domain isn't viable I believe: I am told by people in
Europe 'public domain' only applies to a particular media,
an actual Copyright with a release licence actually provides
more freedom from legal complications. This is a pity, because
the basic idea is that the code is 'in the public domain' but
it seems that actually raises more problems than it solves ;(
Anyhow, BSD w/o advertising will do for the purposes of a Debian
package if it keeps Debian legal people happy.
-----
John Skaller, skaller at users.sf.net
PO Box 401 Glebe, NSW 2037, Australia Ph:61-2-96600850
Download Felix here: http://felix.sf.net
Reply to: