[SOLVED] What license

[Kevin]

The license I use for the PDCLib is here.

Hm, is this license self-written or has a lawyer been involved with it? To me, the disclaimer part looks like it's ineffective in Germany.

[qw]

GPL does not forbid receiving money for distributing or servicing your GPL product, but it does forbid using your product as part of another commercial product without opening its code under GPL.

AFAIK, it forbids using your product as part of any other product without opening its code under GPL.

Hence not free.

Well, that's what the permissive vs. copyleft debate is all about.

Edit: fixed typo.

[Solar]

The license I use for the PDCLib is here.

Hm, is this license self-written or has a lawyer been involved with it? To me, the disclaimer part looks like it's ineffective in Germany.

A lawyer has been involved in it, although I admit that copyright / licensing is not his speciality. (You can't be picky when you get advice for free. )

The disclaimer has been phrased very much alike the disclaimers in several other licenses. I don't worry too much about the disclaimer part as long as any "release" of PDCLib screams "pre-alpha" at you; I might search more lawyer advice when I get close to v1.0 release.

[qw]

Well, Solar, you could pick a permissive license too. BSD, MIT, ISC should fit your purpose.

[Solar]

BSD, MIT and ISC all carry the passus "provided that the above copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies."

I do not want that limitation. My code is free.

[qw]

Solar,
I see, but it would still permit anybody to use the code any way he likes, in permissive, copyleft and proprietary code. It only prevents him for claiming it is his.

[Owen]

In that case, I would be tempted to take the ISC license (As it's shortest) and excise that requirement.

[Solar]

...which would result in a license text that is only marginally different from the one I already use, only a bit longer.

[Brynet-Inc]

BSD, MIT and ISC all carry the passus "provided that the above copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies."

I do not want that limitation. My code is free.

In some countries you cannot revoke your own copyright, even if you really really want to.. so public domain just isn't legal, so you could just use a permissive licence (..ISC) and simply ignore anyone who doesn't follow the terms.

Or.. use the WTFPL licence, effectively you still hold the copyright.. but have none of the typical responsibilities.

Germany supports the Berne Convention, has since the 80's.. which automatically assigned copyright to you.

Here is my absolutely permissive licence:

Code: Select all

Copyright ME! - 2010 - (..forever!)

* Do not sue me, or hold me in any way liable for damages resulting from anything licenced hereunder.
* Do not contact me, even with gifts of delicious pizza.
* You're free to build a baby mulching machine, death rays, end the world as we know it.. etc.
* If you violate the first two rules, your licence will be revoked.. and I will end you, quite gruesomely.

[Solar]

Erm... what are we talking about, here?

I wrote the PDCLib license because I cannot put my work under Public Domain. It does not waive my copyright, but it explicitly grants license to use the code, or parts of it, with or without giving credit.

The WTFPL has the same spirit, but I prefer a more civil wording.

[qw]

I'm pretty sure NO lawyer ever reviewed Brynet-Inc's license!

[stephenj]

I'm pretty sure NO lawyer ever reviewed Brynet-Inc's license!

The FSF probably has: FSF:WTFPL

[Brynet-Inc]

I'm pretty sure NO lawyer ever reviewed Brynet-Inc's license!

Not a single one, but at least mine doesn't include any vague terms such as "Copyleft".

[earlz]

BSD, MIT and ISC all carry the passus "provided that the above copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies."

I do not want that limitation. My code is free.

In some countries you cannot revoke your own copyright, even if you really really want to.. so public domain just isn't legal, so you could just use a permissive licence (..ISC) and simply ignore anyone who doesn't follow the terms.

Or.. use the WTFPL licence, effectively you still hold the copyright.. but have none of the typical responsibilities.

Germany supports the Berne Convention, has since the 80's.. which automatically assigned copyright to you.

Here is my absolutely permissive licence:

Code: Select all

Copyright ME! - 2010 - (..forever!)

* Do not sue me, or hold me in any way liable for damages resulting from anything licenced hereunder.
* Do not contact me, even with gifts of delicious pizza.
* You're free to build a baby mulching machine, death rays, end the world as we know it.. etc.
* If you violate the first two rules, your licence will be revoked.. and I will end you, quite gruesomely.

You know I was going to send you a pizza.. oh well, more pizza for me now.

[AndrewAPrice]

You know I was going to send you a pizza.. oh well, more pizza for me now.

Like postcardware or beerware. I remember in high school I came across one software that was sisterware[/sisterware]. Perhaps [url=http://forum.osdev.org/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=21405&start=30]Freud was right. I don't think he got a date

Code: Select all

Copyright ME! - 2010 - (..forever!)

I don't like how some people put the end date on the copyright - for example if I use some old software that says "Copyright 1989-1995" then if I didn't know any better I would assume the copyright would be voided. It'd be much more sense just to write the year of the latest release so it does not look as if the copyright terminates on a specific date. Or at least read the clock and insert a current year if higher than the hardcoded year. I stumbled upon an online store still very active but at the bottom of each page there was "Copyright 2002-2006".