Page 1 of 2
Licenses
Posted: Sun May 20, 2012 4:55 am
by LindusSystem
How many types are there which can be used in for OS Development?
And what is recommended by most users and why?
Can we make our own custom Li...?
Re: Licenses
Posted: Sun May 20, 2012 8:42 am
by AndrewAPrice
I try to avoid GPL too. GPL is like open source vendor lock in - if you use GPL you have to use all GPL components. Non-GPL software cannot use GPL components.
The only exception is GPL software is allowed to dynamically link with a non-GPL library already on the system. But if there is a chance that your software may go commercial don't use GPL. Alternatively you may duel license (but then you must find duel license components).
Re: Licenses
Posted: Sun May 20, 2012 2:57 pm
by Combuster
For the full rant, see
Licensing
Re: Licenses
Posted: Sun May 20, 2012 4:08 pm
by Griwes
Also, one of simplest licenses out there is worth mentioning - I, personally, really like it. I mean
zlib license.
Re: Licenses
Posted: Sun May 20, 2012 4:39 pm
by NickJohnson
I always use the new-style OpenBSD copyright statement for my code. It's the most brief and least restrictive of the BSD license variants, and is used by at least one major project (i.e. OpenBSD; this is evidence that it is safe to use.)
e.g.
Code: Select all
Copyright (C) 2009-2012 Nick Johnson <nickbjohnson4224 at gmail.com>
Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software for any
purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above
copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies.
THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE AUTHOR DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES
WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR
ANY SPECIAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES
WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN
ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF
OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE.
I think most people here use BSD-style licenses or something functionally similar.
Re: Licenses
Posted: Sun May 20, 2012 4:39 pm
by NickJohnson
I always use the new-style OpenBSD copyright statement for my code. It's the most brief and least restrictive of the BSD license variants, and is used by at least one major project (i.e. OpenBSD; this is evidence that it is safe to use.)
e.g.
Code: Select all
Copyright (C) 2009-2012 Nick Johnson <nickbjohnson4224 at gmail.com>
Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software for any
purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above
copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies.
THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE AUTHOR DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES
WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR
ANY SPECIAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES
WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN
ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF
OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE.
I think most people here use BSD-style licenses or something functionally similar.
Re: Licenses
Posted: Sun May 20, 2012 4:54 pm
by bubach
I realize that the BSD style licenses are almost the same as MIT/X11 but are there other reasons why it's not even mentioned on the OSdev wiki? Doesn't seem like many people use it..
Re: Licenses
Posted: Sun May 20, 2012 10:47 pm
by LindusSystem
Thanks all.
@Combuster Ops,I forgot to check that wiki page
Sorry!
Re: Licenses
Posted: Sun May 20, 2012 11:12 pm
by Combuster
bubach wrote:I realize that the BSD style licenses are almost the same as MIT/X11 but are there other reasons why it's not even mentioned on the OSdev wiki? Doesn't seem like many people use it..
The BSDs came first. Why (MIT/X11/Apache/ISC) had to modify things slightly to make an incompatible but functionally equivalent license is beyond me. Legal stuff stinks.
Re: Licenses
Posted: Mon May 21, 2012 12:36 am
by Solar
berkus wrote:Some people prefer GPL but I know of at least two people on this forum with an irritating aversion to it.
Re: Licenses
Posted: Mon May 21, 2012 4:50 am
by JuEeHa
I used to be a fan of GPL, then after I understood that it was actually pretty restricting I used FreeBSD license and now I have switched to WTFPL because I want my code to be as free as it can get.
Re: Licenses
Posted: Mon May 21, 2012 5:39 am
by gerryg400
JuEeHa wrote:... now I have switched to WTFPL because I want my code to be as free as it can get.
Dude, aren't you too young for language like that ?
Re: Licenses
Posted: Mon May 21, 2012 5:49 am
by Solar
I.e., CC0 / PD, just more explicitly worded.
Re: Licenses
Posted: Mon May 21, 2012 6:44 am
by qw
How much more explicit than "WTFPL" can you get?
Re: Licenses
Posted: Mon May 21, 2012 8:07 am
by Griwes
Wikipedia:WTFPL wrote:The license was approved as a GPL-compatible free software license by the Free Software Foundation.
And it's even compatible with Church of GNU's license!