How do I release an OS?

[DavidBG]

Okay everyone:

Now I am not at all sure where to post this, is doesn't really seem to fit here, but then it didn't seem to fit anywhere. (Admins move it if you need to) Anyway, I would like to make a first release of my OS. The problem is, I am not planning on releasing my source at this moment. (Maybe later, but not now.) So I can't use the GPL. Do I have to wait, or is there a closed-source freeware license? I looked around but could find anything other than the Creative Commons License. But I don't find this secure enough for something like and OS. Any ideas?

Thanks!
David

[Combuster]

Just use a license that doesn't force you to release the code, and then don't release the code.

The BSD license comes to mind.

[xvedejas]

You could always release your project as freeware for now, asserting all rights reserved. You can just tell people what they're allowed to do, if they can distribute it or whatever. You don't need a license for that. And later, if you feel like releasing the source code, you can then license your project under GPL or BSD.

[DavidBG]

Thanks, I think I going to use sort of a modified BSD style license.

[Gigasoft]

Nothing prevents you from releasing something under GPL without releasing its source code, although its usefulness would be limited. It just means that no one has the automatic right to redistribute your work, since they don't have the source code that they need to distribute with it.

I'm not sure why you think you need to provide a license at all. Licenses are rarely needed. When you, on a website, provide a download link and text encouraging people to download and use the program, you are granting them the right to do so. In many countries, including United States, you also have the right to use bought software on one computer without explicit permission.

[xvedejas]

Untrue. If you release your project under GPL, you must also release its source code alongside.

[Gigasoft]

Where does it say that? I am looking at GPL 3.0, and nowhere can I find any mention of the right to receive the source code from the owner. It only says that a person bound the license must distribute the source code, if he distributes the covered work. Of course, the owner is not bound by it (he is not the "you" that the license refers to).

[NickJohnson]

The owner is definitely bound by the license of a work, if he/she distributes it under that license. The owner just has the ability to relicense and distribute it under that license later.

[Gigasoft]

Yes, he is bound by it, but not in the same sense as is relevant here. The owner agrees to grant the rights specified in the license, and the licensee agrees to be bound by the restrictions, but not vice versa. (If the owner agreed to something else, it would say "I", not "you")

[DavidBG]

When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not
price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you
have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for
them if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you
want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new
free programs, and that you know you can do these things.

Doesn't this mean that if you distribute the program under the GPL, that although you don't have to include the source with it, if a someone asks for it, you need provide it?

I may be wrong.

David

[Combuster]

It does

[DavidBG]

It does

I thought so. Actually though, I have a license I am using. Thanks Combuster for the BSD prod, and clarification.

[Gigasoft]

The "Terms and Conditions" section specify the actual binding conditions of the license. The statement "Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for them if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs, and that you know you can do these things" is not legally enforceable, first of all due to not being labeled as a condition of the license. Saying that the GPLs are designed to do something is just an informal descriptive statement, not a definition of an actual right granted with the license.

[Combuster]

The preamble is meant to be a legible version of the legalese that follows. In fact, the actual restriction is formulated in the 3rd and 0th clause of the GPL: (3) If you distribute you have to add an (offer) for sending the source, and (0) If you label something as GPL then you are bound by its license.

That said, there is a paper in circulation that (for the dutch court) states that any claims are to be resolved in the commonly understood spirit of the license, in places where the license text may allow for a loophole.

[skyking]

Untrue. If you release your project under GPL, you must also release its source code alongside.

I don't think so. The (sole) copyright owner has the right to produce copies anyway. The receiver may not make copies unless the copyright owner gives his permission in some way. Basically the GPL gives the receiver, if he chooses to accept the terms of the GPL, to produce copies (which he can't unless he has possession of the source code without breaking the terms). Unless of course the GPL also contains terms that requires the copyright owner to provide the source on request (which I doubt it does, since then the requirement for the other part to provide it (when doing verbatim copies) would be somewhat pointless).

Also if the copyright owner does not take legal actions against someone that makes copies it's not obvious that there will be any consequences for whoever that produces copies.

Just my 2c...