Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

MLG License

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • MLG License

    I would like to release MLG as Open Source Code. The only constraint I'd like put in place is that modifications made to MLG source code by programmers must also be released as Open Source Code.

    Is there such a license? I'd like something simple, but the simple MIT License seems to fall short of what I want.

    https://choosealicense.com/licenses/mit/


    I've read the GNU GPLv3 license but it will take a lot more reading before I understand what it says. It seem more restrictive than I want, but that may be because I don't understand it well enough.


    If anyone has been through software licensing and can offer suggestions, I'd be happy to listen!

  • #2
    Public Domain? Not many still around here to tackle such code, so I see no point in restrictions.

    Comment


    • #3
      Copyleft could be worth a look.
      Dale

      Comment


      • #4
        Sunds like you want LGPL:

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Le...Public_License

        The GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL) is a free-software license published by the Free Software Foundation (FSF). The license allows developers and companies to use and integrate a software component released under the LGPL into their own (even proprietary) software without being required by the terms of a strong copyleft license to release the source code of their own components. However, any developer who modifies an LGPL-covered component is required to make their modified version available under the same LGPL license. For proprietary software, code under the LGPL is usually used in the form of a shared library, so that there is a clear separation between the proprietary and LGPL components. The LGPL is primarily used for software libraries, although it is also used by some stand-alone applications.

        Comment


        • #5
          As Stuart pointed out, the LGPL would do exactly what you want, and for us developers it is one of the most preferred.

          Comment


          • #6
            Avoid GPL like the plague, bother to read the licence and GPL will OWN YOUR CODE !!!! Write your own licence and distribute it as freeware, makes it available to all but so no-one can give it to the GNU organisation. You can call it the GBL (Gary Beene Licence).
            hutch at movsd dot com
            The MASM Forum

            www.masm32.com

            Comment


            • #7
              Thanks, everyone, for the responses.

              Borje, the only point of "restrictions" is that for having free access to the code, I want developers to share the changes they make with the community.

              Stuart, the LGPL does sound like what I was looking for.

              So, what are the steps required to release MLG under an LGPL?

              Is providing a "release.txt" file with this content all that is needed?

              "My Little Grid is released under the GNU Lesser General Public License, "LGPL-3.0-only or LGPL-3.0-or-later."

              Or, does that statement need to be inserted into the source code itself?

              Nothing I've read gives a step-by-step description of how to implement a specific license.





              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Gary Beene View Post
                Stuart, the LGPL does sound like what I was looking for.

                So, what are the steps required to release MLG under an LGPL?
                It looks complicated, but it's not once you make sense of it:
                It's all here
                https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html

                1. Add a copyright line and a LGPL "License Notice" at the start of every source code file and the .inc file.
                2. Include COPYING and COPYING.LESSER text files in the MLG distribution (these are files containing the actual license details)

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Steve Hutchesson View Post
                  Avoid GPL like the plague, bother to read the licence and GPL will OWN YOUR CODE !!!! Write your own licence and distribute it as freeware, makes it available to all but so no-one can give it to the GNU organisation.
                  Totally false!

                  Nowhere in the GPL does is say anything about anyone "owning your code".

                  GPL is a license agreement between the copyright holder (Gary) and the person/organisation he has distributed MLG to.
                  GPL is not an entity that can "own" anything.

                  There is no "GNU organisation".
                  There is a "GNU Project" developing free software, especially a free operating system. The Gnu Project is a project of the "Free Software Foundation" (FSF). The FSF uses the GNU GPL for its own GNU Project software and promotes the use of the same license for other free software.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I would stay away from any form of GPL, if you want people that are not lawyers to understand your license then use something understandable like the MIT license, use the MIT license as a template and add whatever else you want
                    as the salmon fish is compelled to go back to it's birthplace to spawn, so comes a day when man is compelled to go back to it's source.. GOD

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      The source code for SQLitening contains the following text. Very simple and understandable:
                      ' ==========================================================================
                      ' PUBLIC DOMAIN SOFTWARE
                      ' The author or authors of this code dedicate any and all
                      ' copyright interest in this code to the public domain.
                      ' Anyone is free to copy, modify, publish, use, compile,
                      ' sell, or distribute the original code, either in source
                      ' code form or as a compiled binary, for any purpose,
                      ' commercial or non-commercial, and by any means.
                      ' Fred Meier - July 2012
                      ' ==========================================================================
                      Fim Wästberg

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Stop pulling my leg Stuart.

                        GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
                        Version 3, 29 June 2007

                        You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
                        along with this program. If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
                        Does the "gnu.org" tell you something ?

                        > When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price.

                        Term redefinition, AKA bovine excrement. FREE means FREE (no price).

                        > Our General Public Licenses .........

                        Note the possessive.

                        Developers that use the GNU GPL protect your rights with two steps:
                        (1) assert copyright on the software, and (2) offer you this License
                        giving you legal permission to copy, distribute and/or modify it.
                        What have you missed here ?

                        I have no beef with anyone who writes their own code, its the army of bludgers armed with the GPL licence that will steal anything they can and GIVE it to the GNU organisation. They will take anything they can get but offer nothing in return except their bullsh*t licence.

                        My comment to Gary was, write your own licence, distribute it under terms you design that satisfy the type of distribution you require. Retain the copyright so that no-one else can steal it and allow usage under your own terms. All you gain with a GNU GPL licence is an army of bludgers armed with their licence.

                        hutch at movsd dot com
                        The MASM Forum

                        www.masm32.com

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Gary, you may want to read this before deciding

                          http://geoffg.net/OpenSource.html

                          I hope it's helpful to you.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Fim Wästberg View Post
                            The source code for SQLitening contains the following text. Very simple and understandable:
                            ' ==========================================================================
                            ' PUBLIC DOMAIN SOFTWARE
                            ' The author or authors of this code dedicate any and all
                            ' copyright interest in this code to the public domain.
                            ' Anyone is free to copy, modify, publish, use, compile,
                            ' sell, or distribute the original code, either in source
                            ' code form or as a compiled binary, for any purpose,
                            ' commercial or non-commercial, and by any means.
                            ' Fred Meier - July 2012
                            ' ==========================================================================
                            But that does NOT cover Gary's sole requirement that "modifications made to MLG source code by programmers must also be released as Open Source Code."

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Here we go again:

                              Originally posted by Steve Hutchesson View Post
                              Does the "gnu.org" tell you something ?
                              Yes, it tells me that the FSF's GNU Project has a website to support there development of the GNU/Linux operating system.
                              You clearly haven't actually looked at that site. if you had you would know that you are totally wrong in your assumptions.

                              > Our General Public Licenses ........

                              Note the possessive.
                              .
                              Yep, the FSF under the GNU Project wrote a license agreement (the GNU GPL) for people using their operating system and they have made that same agreement freely available for any software developer to use verbatim.

                              The word "Our" is just a statement of the origin of the wording of the license terms.


                              "Developers t...
                              (1) assert copyright on the software, and (2) offer you this License
                              giving you legal permission to copy, distribute and/or modify it."


                              What have you missed here ?
                              Nothing. But you have missed a lot. In fact you have missed the whole intent of "copyleft" and the GPL and other similar licensing schemes. What part of "assert copyright on the software" don't you understand?

                              I have no beef with anyone who writes their own code, its the army of bludgers armed with the GPL licence that will steal anything they can and GIVE it to the GNU organisation. They will take anything they can get but offer nothing in return except their bullsh*t licence.
                              Again the provocative, insulting language comes out while making a totally untrue accusation.

                              Who is "giving" anything to the mythical "GNU organisation"? What exactly do you think this non-existent "GNU Organisation" is taking?

                              My comment to Gary was, write your own licence, distribute it under terms you design that satisfy the type of distribution you require. Retain the copyright so that no-one else can steal it and allow usage under your own terms.
                              That's exactly what the GPL and LGPL do.
                              All of the source code should contain Gary's copyright notice asserting his ownership. Any work derived from it must still retain Gary's copyright notice and a notice clearly identifying who has modified it.

                              You really have totally misunderstood this one.

                              Comment


                              • #16
                                Originally posted by Grant Mac View Post
                                Gary, you may want to read this before deciding

                                http://geoffg.net/OpenSource.html

                                I hope it's helpful to you.
                                There's a lot wrong with what that site says. If "they also took my name off my software and assigned the copyright to themselves.", they were in total contravention of the GPL. and it should have gone to court. If someone is going to do that, they will do it to any license agreement. In which case you are better off using a tried and tested agreement rather than a "homebrew" one which the lawyers will love picking to bits.

                                Comment


                                • #17
                                  @Stuart McLachlan
                                  it's apparent that you are a strong supporter of the GPL license, my main reasons to not supporting it is that 1) it takes a lawyer to fully understand it and 2) you cant't statically link against a library without being obliged to release one's source code
                                  as the salmon fish is compelled to go back to it's birthplace to spawn, so comes a day when man is compelled to go back to it's source.. GOD

                                  Comment


                                  • #18
                                    Originally posted by Johan Klassen View Post
                                    @Stuart McLachlan
                                    you cant't statically link against a library without being obliged to release one's source code[/B]
                                    So you release the DLL code under LGPL but not the SLL code?

                                    Comment


                                    • #19
                                      that's basically it
                                      as the salmon fish is compelled to go back to it's birthplace to spawn, so comes a day when man is compelled to go back to it's source.. GOD

                                      Comment


                                      • #20


                                        > Nothing. But you have missed a lot. In fact you have missed the whole intent of "copyleft" and the GPL and other similar licensing schemes.

                                        There is Copyright (A legal definition) and there is CopyWrong (the rest), forget CopyLeft, its just another bullsh*t re-definition to confuse people who don't understand the legal rights they have with their own Copyright of their own work.

                                        > In fact you have missed the whole intent of "copyleft"

                                        No I have not, its called FRAUD.

                                        I make the point that I have no beef with anyone who writes their own code and the ability to licence it any way they like and this extends to the Unix server I use as well as the two Linux boxes I have up and going which are almost exclusively GPL software but I draw the line on the army of bludgers armed with their GPL licence cannibalising anything they can get their hands on to give to the GNU organisation.

                                        Differing from "Freeware", Free Beer Ware is like a disease trying to take over commercial software by stealth where if you use ANY of their software, you must publish your own software for others to use.

                                        GPL worked well producing a variety of Linux operating systems as it depended on wide scale contributions by many people and needed a compatible licence for it to work properly but it does not address the rest of the world, especially what came before it that has worked well for many years.

                                        Now the difference between writing your own licence to do exactly what you want it to do and being conned into using a GPL licence is this, once you have the latter you have this army of bludgers armed with the GPL licence who can massacre your code and do what they like with it including taking over your project simply by flooding your project off the internet.

                                        You can also end up with massive fragmentation if its an app worth having, you end up with a forked fork forking a forked fork with little of it ever being cross compatible.

                                        I do have a parting comment for the army of GPL bludgers, get off their behind and write their own code.
                                        hutch at movsd dot com
                                        The MASM Forum

                                        www.masm32.com

                                        Comment

                                        Working...
                                        X