Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Maximal: A New Open-Source License...

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by phoronix View Post
    Phoronix: Maximal: A New Open-Source License...

    Some user, after having communicated with Richard Stallman, decided to write a new open-source license. This new open-source license is quite simple and is being called Maximal...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTA5NTQ
    Some journalist, after having run out of real news, picked a random post on the linux kernel mailing list. The resulting article is being called Crapimal...

    Comment


    • #17
      Great Idea

      What a great idea to come up with a new license. I can do it too!

      DtRT License.

      This source code is released under the DtRT license. To comply with this license, you must Do the Right Thing with the source code.

      Comment


      • #18
        If there is anything but querulants here, have a look at my thinking here, where I actually detail some of the happenings around this. I wrote this licence after realizing RMS associated idolaterous religion, and unreasonable thinking (open source is not open source etc) with this.

        http://phoronix.com/forums/showthrea...gressing/page6

        Please also see my standard reply to retards at the end.

        Comment


        • #19
          Catch 22

          Well, the legal issue is a bit of a catch 22. Because if something ends up in court, it basically comes down to "But these are the terms which you have read and agreed to."

          But now, we have the situation that for a lisence agreement to stand up in court it has to be so complicated that no one can understand the agreement that "they agreed too". But, if you make it simpler and shorter, like this lisense, people might actually read AND understand it. But, then it won't hold up in court.

          Personally, I think that it should become an international law, that each and every single lisense agreement has a short layman's explanation at the top of what they're basically agreeing too. That way, ordinary users know what they are agreeing too, and if it does turn into a law-suit the laywers can throw the specific detailed clauses at each other to their heart's content.

          Comment


          • #20
            What should be so difficult to understand about open vs closed source? What country is this?

            Comment


            • #21
              This is Canada, but that probably wasn't what you meant

              Believe it or not, terms like "open source" are *not* as clear as one would like - partly from years of abusing the term and partly because there actually *are* a bunch of corner cases, particularly when it comes to combining code which was obtained under different licenses.

              Comment


              • #22
                Open source.

                Even wikipedias definitions are pretty clear.

                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source

                In production and development, open source is a philosophy,[1][not in citation given][2][not in citation given] or pragmatic methodology[2][not in citation given] that promotes free redistribution and access to an end product's design and implementation details

                So all we need to say is, "not closed sorce in anyway". For instance Mit/Bsd allows opensource becoming closed source, so it is really not open source.

                Peace.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Heh. Speaking of esoteric licenses, this one is by far the best I've seen:
                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTFPL

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    I already commented on that in the other thread. Please read that please, if you want to understand the thinking behind this licence. It is really about having something that is commonly acceptable, without WTF`s and burgers/GNU/beer etc. Since I am now turned off Gplv3 I just wrote my own licence, from what I thought the GPL was about. And kindof shedding now redundancy.

                    Peace.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Btw, I wrote this licence for my own plugins @ https://sourceforge.net/projects/pxu/files/

                      Which might be newsworthy when they get GUI`s etc. (It seems that that is what most people look at).

                      They are for windows though, because developing with LADSPA in mind, became too tedious.

                      Hopefully plugins and sequencers etc, develop on Linux, and people can enjoy this system, fully professionaly, as it is excellent at low latency operation, and a hackers dream in that you can learn about it all the way down to the core, and make as small or large tweaks as you want. Without depency on corporations or the often pretensious DSP-programmer idol.

                      I also have this low-latency config, if anyone is interested in that. http://paradoxuncreated.com/tmp/.config39 as I have also discussed in other threads. Extremely smooth doom3 gameplay, and 0.33 ms latency in renoise (on professional soundcard).

                      Praised Be God.

                      Peace.
                      Last edited by Paradox Uncreated; 05-02-2012, 04:33 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Heh. Speaking of esoteric licenses, this one is by far the best I've seen:
                        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTFPL
                        That one is pretty good. A lot of the times, when reading about law suites, or police cases I just wish we could write a law or a lisence agreement that says "Don't be an asshole".

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Minimal commercial non-free licence

                          Some user, after having communicated with Richard Stallman, decided to write a new open-source license. This new open-source license is quite simple and is being called Maximal.

                          Here's the license text by Uwaysi Bin Kareem:
                          This program, plugin, or function is licenced under the Maximal Opensource Licence. That means that it`s source should always stay open source. And any changes must be available with the branches. And its derivatives can never in anyway be released as closed source.

                          Authorship can be included, but it is not neccesary. A list of changes by author is though recommended.
                          And I have written a new commercial licence. This new commercial non-free licence is quite simple and is being caller Minimal.
                          Here's the licence text:
                          This code is not yours! You are not allowed to see it! Please avert your eyes.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            I think Beavis and Butthead probably made a licence like that.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Paradox Uncreated View Post
                              Even wikipedias definitions are pretty clear.

                              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source

                              In production and development, open source is a philosophy,[1][not in citation given][2][not in citation given] or pragmatic methodology[2][not in citation given] that promotes free redistribution and access to an end product's design and implementation details

                              So all we need to say is, "not closed sorce in anyway". For instance Mit/Bsd allows opensource becoming closed source, so it is really not open source.

                              Peace.
                              So a BSD license doesn't count as open source? That's probably not what the original license writer intended.

                              How about the MS license that allows for free redistribution and viewing of their source code, but no grant to modify or use it? Even a terrible lawyer would certainly argue that meets an "open source" requirement if the license doesn't go into any details about what "open source" entails.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                BSD licence = you work 10 years, on a project. A company comes along picks it up, lets you starve, picks up your patches, and makes money. killing it`s developer and itself. Is that what you call open source?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X