Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Maximal: A New Open-Source License...

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

  • #21
    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


    • #22
      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


      • #23
        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


        • #24
          Originally posted by Paradox Uncreated View Post
          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?
          I have a suspicion based on Michael's earlier comment that all he really intended with this post was to ignite a GPL vs BSD flamewar in his comment section, so we are now playing right into his hands.

          Anyway, yes. I would not license any project I was working on as BSD, but I would consider it an open source license if someone else used it.

          Comment


          • #25
            Originally posted by Paradox Uncreated View Post
            Imagine this ok, you have a company, with professional salesmen, who hire people to organize BSD code from around the world. Genious kids from around the world all contribute, they make a product, and sell it. They don`t even tell the kids what code they use, and they will even have to pay for the product.
            You are missing the point.

            The BSD code is open source.

            Once the company takes it then it becomes proprietary.

            The fact that the code was re-licensed has no bearing on the original license.

            Anyway, I don't have time to argue about this, so I'll pre-emptively state that you've won this internet argument. Congratulations!

            Comment


            • #26
              Originally posted by uid313 View Post
              This is not newsworthy.
              The idiot who wrote it knows as little about IP law as he knows about grammar and spelling.
              Who wrote this, some 10-year-old kid?
              I wouldn't expect it to stand up in court.

              If you want a good license, check out the ISC license, it is similar to the 2-clause BSD and MIT license, but even shorter due to things being striped out that were made redundant by the Berne convention.
              I agree the ISC looks unambiguous and uses legally meaningful terms.

              Comment


              • #27
                Originally posted by Paradox Uncreated View Post
                What should be so difficult to understand about open vs closed source? What country is this?
                There is no legal definition of these terms, nor is there any scientific or expert consensus. There is an array of popular definitions, none of which really have the better claim. The author should really work what his ideas mean in terms of the current legal structure of copyright as the substantial body or the text.

                Comment


                • #28
                  Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
                  I have a suspicion based on Michael's earlier comment that all he really intended with this post was to ignite a GPL vs BSD flamewar in his comment section, so we are now playing right into his hands.
                  Suspicion? I'd say it was obvious flame-bait.

                  As for licences, anyone can create a licence and as such there are tons of software licences out there. However unless someone actually use them to licence their code these licences won't make a lick of difference. The open source world we live in has pretty much settled on GPL/LGPL and BSD/MIT.

                  Comment


                  • #29
                    Legal or not we need something better than GPL3

                    Hopefully this gets people thinking. GPL does about as much damage as good relative to open source. This is probably why there is a proliferation of open source licenses as it is. Which brings up the question of why bother with another license if so many are already available.

                    Comment


                    • #30
                      Originally posted by wizard69 View Post
                      Hopefully this gets people thinking. GPL does about as much damage as good relative to open source.
                      What are you yapping about? No one is forced to use GPL (or GPLv3 as your title stated), you can licence your code as GPLv2 only (Linux, Git) or use any other licence you want.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X