[Home]UseModCopyright

MeatballWiki | RecentChanges | Random Page | Indices | Categories

1. Preamble
2. Uncontested constraints
3. Proposed constraints
4. WikiAsSourceControlRepository constraints
5. Discussion


1. Preamble

In particular, the UseMod developer community is having a problem coming to an agreement over what the future copyright of the script will be. Right now, many people have stepped forward with a new version and new ideas for the future release of 2.0. Currently, SunirShah is writing a basic bench to incorporate all such ideas. This involves in part developing on a WikiAsSourceControlRepository.

For a general list of constraints, see UseMod:UseModWiki/FuturePlanning. This page is to discuss the list of constraints particular to choosing a new license. Since all the bench code is new, we can choose a new copyright license. The page is here, on MeatballWiki, because the problem of choosing copyright licenses is a very common one. Hopefully, after the discussion, we can generalize the salient points made to other cases. For instance, web servers have their own copyright licensing issues that are distinct from a normal user application. In the context of MeatBall, it seems that most of the software we will create will be server-oriented, so this will be relevant. Also, the WikiAsSourceControlRepository creates new copyright issues that haven't been considered before, and it seems particularly appropriate to discuss them here.

CategoryCopyright CategoryCase


2. Uncontested constraints

If you contest these constraints, do the wiki thing and move them down.

Justification

I moved encouraging development above encouraging its use. The development is more important than the use because if the products are not well developed, they are not used widely too. Unix is an good instance. It is hard to use but easy to write a new program for it. -- TakuyaMurata Jan 3, 02


3. Proposed constraints


4. WikiAsSourceControlRepository constraints

I've separated thesed constraints away because no one is entirely sure of the constraints here as it's never been done before. The other constraints may be considered "conventional" in that they apply to a monolithic project, like the MozillaProject? or the JabberProject, but not necessarily to something as nimble as a WikiAsSourceControlRepository. -- SunirShah


5. Discussion

As you can tell, for me there are two major reasons for proposing to change the license. One is my personal NetWar on the cryptonauts, which you may or may not share. The second reason is that the GPL doesn't make much sense for a WikiAsSourceControlRepository because it didn't have such a creation in mind. -- SunirShah

I still fail to understand what protection the GPL gives you over a BSD-style license in the context of Perl and in the context of a web application. What about an LGPL-style license? -- SunirShah

As people and I say, GPL guarantee the GPL'd works last free of hack in the future. I don't think BSD can do that, can't it?. Some may think it is not a big deal, some care about it. -- TakuyaMurata

Since the script generator is a program, we might be able to solve the problem programmatically. Suppose we tagged each code snippet with licensing terms, like LicenseGPL and LicenseBSD. The script generator can then ensure that if the user wants to generate a GPLed script, she can include both license types, but she wants to generate only a BSD script, then the script generator will only permit BSD fragments. Then it becomes the code authors' discretion to place their code under a license they choose. While the BSD tree will be a smaller pool to pull from, it will still be there for GPL-allergic commercial interests to draw upon. If they want more functionality, this will also nudge them towards assimilating their codebase with the GPL, which I'm sure some of you might like. The drawbacks are extra complication, of course, but we could make the default GPL and BSD the exception. -- SunirShah

I relly like the idea that the script generator mixes GPL'd code and BSD code. -- TakuyaMurata


Moved from Uncontested Contrains:

And also an answer to the related comment: "I still fail to understand what protection the GPL gives you over a BSD-style license in the context of Perl and in the context of a web application."

It depends on what you mean by "open". If you mean Perl source can always be viewed, then I agree. However, this isn't "open" as in "open source". Imagine that UseModWiki is covered solely a BSD-style license. A company can incorporate the code into their own product and releases it under a restrictive license. Let's also imagine that they make insanely cool modifications to the UseMod script. Sunir examines the modified Perl code and loves it. Too bad. Those modifications cannot be incorporated into the base UseMod script. Not only that, but because the Perl code is viewable but not reusable, if Sunir wants similiar features in UseMod, he will have to completely rewrite them without using any of the code he has examined. Furthermore, even if he is successful, the company may take exception to the fact that their powerful features have been made available for free. They many go so far as to sue Sunir for copyright infrigment, even if they don't have a particularly strong case:

This for loop in UseMod is almost identical in structure to the one in our Ultra Wiki Solution Series. Clearly, your Honour, Mr. Shah has used our code to implement our features in his own script.

A copyleft license ensures that any and all modification and improvements made to the script are available for reincorporation into the original. Thus, I would recommend the LGPL over a BSD-style license. -- StephenGilbert


Discussion

MeatballWiki | RecentChanges | Random Page | Indices | Categories
Edit text of this page | View other revisions
Search: