Poll

Under which open-source license would you like PasswordMaker released (click license name to read the license on opensource.org)?

GPL
1 (100%)
LGPL
0 (0%)
BSD
0 (0%)
MPL
0 (0%)
MIT
0 (0%)
Other (please post a reply telling me which one)
0 (0%)
Don't Care
0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 1

Author Topic: License  (Read 8743 times)

Offline Eric H. Jung

  • grimholtz
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3353
License
« on: July 01, 2005, 07:43:42 PM »
Hi,
I've decided to release PasswordMaker under an open-source license. I'm trying to decide which one to use and would like opinions. It seems the most popular are (in no particular order):
  • GPL
  • LGPL
  • BSD
  • MPL
  • MIT
Does anyone know how these differ, particularly GPL and LGPL? I've read some of OpenSource.org, but there is a lot of information to consume...

-Eric

Guest

  • Guest
License
« Reply #1 on: July 02, 2005, 09:45:42 AM »
According to the Mozdev rules, if you don't explicitly state a OSS licence when you start a project, Mozdev automatically applies the MPL; so your code IS already MPL. The question is what additional licences do you want to release your code under. After internal discussions we released Flashblock under the Mozilla Tripple Licence MPL/GPL/LGPL since all the Mozilla core products are released under this licence.

Offline Eric H. Jung

  • grimholtz
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3353
License
« Reply #2 on: July 02, 2005, 04:31:13 PM »
Quote
if you don't explicitly state a OSS licence when you start a project, Mozdev automatically applies the MPL

PasswordMaker is no longer hosted on Mozdev. Moreoever, when it was hosted there, I did state a license. Do your homework :)
« Last Edit: July 03, 2005, 02:21:13 AM by grimholtz »

Offline E.Z

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 12
License
« Reply #3 on: July 03, 2005, 12:38:20 PM »
Eric,

I read again the article about GPL vs. LGPL (see http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html) and I think I've found the key paragraph:

"The GNU Project has two principal licenses to use for libraries. One is the GNU Library GPL; the other is the ordinary GNU GPL. The choice of license makes a big difference: using the Library GPL permits use of the library in proprietary programs; using the ordinary GPL for a library makes it available only for free programs."

If you release under the LGPL anyone can use your code, as a "black box" library, for any purpose. Under the GPL your code can be used only with GPL programs. If you ever plan to derive a commercial (ie. not "free beer") product from PasswordMaker, then you should use the GPL.

EZ.

Offline Eric H. Jung

  • grimholtz
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3353
License
« Reply #4 on: July 03, 2005, 02:20:26 PM »
Hm, OK, thanks for the information!

License
« Reply #5 on: July 03, 2005, 06:24:39 PM »
Quote
PasswordMaker is no longer hosted on Mozdev. Moreoever, when it was hosted there, I did state a license. Do your homework :)
Mozdev Org Licence Policy "...All code for each project hosted on the Site must be made available under the Mozilla Public License (MPL) unless otherwise noted on the project pages. More information about the MPL can be found at http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/. If a project is not using the MPL it must to use one of the other OSI-approved open source licenses."

The licence posted on the passwordmaker.mozdev.org webpage does not appear to be OSI-approved; especially this part:

"No Reverse Engineering. Customer may not reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble the SOFTWARE."

But the whole point is moot anyway since you aren't on mozdev any longer.

Phil

Offline Eric H. Jung

  • grimholtz
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3353
License
« Reply #6 on: July 03, 2005, 08:28:08 PM »
Quote
..All code for each project hosted on the Site must be made available under the Mozilla Public License (MPL) unless otherwise noted on the project pages.
I'm aware of this statement. We discussed it on the [email protected] maiilng list weeks ago (you were part of that discussion, too, Philip, as I recall).

I ran the policy by the LeahScape attorney when that discussion came up. He said two things: (1) it's his opinion that the mozdev group does not have the legal right to impose a license on the copyrighted material of others', and such an imposed license probably would not hold up in a court of law but (2) that, so as not to offend or step on anyone's toes, LeahScape should consider meeting their request of an OSS license or simply host its own projects.

So now you see why A Small Orange and not mozdev is hosting this project.

HOWEVER, PasswordMaker will be released as open source in the coming weeks anyway because it is the right thing to do.
« Last Edit: July 03, 2005, 08:29:13 PM by grimholtz »

License
« Reply #7 on: July 04, 2005, 11:35:08 AM »
Quote
I'm aware of this statement. We discussed it on the [email protected] maiilng list weeks ago (you were part of that discussion, too, Philip, as I recall).
I remember a discussion on news://public.mozdev.project_owners, but I can never remember which online nic goes with which person in which forum.
Quote
HOWEVER, PasswordMaker will be released as open source in the coming weeks anyway because it is the right thing to do.
Whee. Great!

Phil

License
« Reply #8 on: July 04, 2005, 11:36:29 AM »
Quote
I'm aware of this statement. We discussed it on the [email protected] maiilng list weeks ago (you were part of that discussion, too, Philip, as I recall).
I remember a discussion on news://public.mozdev.project_owners, but I can never remember which online nic goes with which person in which forum.
Quote
HOWEVER, PasswordMaker will be released as open source in the coming weeks anyway because it is the right thing to do.
Whee. Great!

Phil

Offline Eric H. Jung

  • grimholtz
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3353
License
« Reply #9 on: July 12, 2005, 06:24:34 AM »
As of 0.6.1 beta6, PasswordMaker is open-source and released under the LGPL license.

Thanks for everyone's feedback,
Eric

PasswordMaker Forums

License
« Reply #9 on: July 12, 2005, 06:24:34 AM »