Sebastien Bigaret
2004-06-20 18:04:01 UTC
[Note: technical details and schedule follow in an other post]
In short: the Modeling framework is about to switch to a BSD-like
license.
And now for the long version of it!
Hi all,
At the end of february a discussion was initiated about the licensing
model for the framework. The corresponding threads can be found here:
https://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_id=3884124&forum_id=10674
https://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_id=3887729&forum_id=10674
First at all, I'd like to thank everyone for the comments, positive
feedbacks I received at that time and since, either on the mailing-list
or through private emails. Thanks also to all those who took some of
their time to give me the necessary clarifications when I needed them:
the few papers, discussions and analysis I've read about licenses have
regularly thrown me into confusion for the last 4 months!
Changing a software's license is not exactly something I like to do
(this probably explains why I come back on the subject so lately) ;
being a developper and not a lawyer, I simply do not feel comfortable
with these things --I'm sure you all know that feeling...
As stated in the subject of this post, the decision is taken to switch
to a 3-clause BSD-like license, whose template is available at:
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php
I'll try to summarize my motivations here. Hopefully this won't be too
much cumbersome... However do not misunderstand me: I do not pretend to
be a specialist of the question. I just want to express the reasons for
my choice and the ideas behind, I want to make it clear once and for all
the way I consider people can use framework. So, please, no flame-war ;)
First, I'll quote a portion of an email I wrote in a private discussion:
My intention is just to give back my contribution to the open-source
community, not to prevent people from using the software --I have
myself done some business by selling services on open-source
software, so I'm definitely not opposed to the idea of a commercial
usage of open-source software.
Connected to this, there is also the point raised by Ernesto about
<< finished applications [which] sometimes should not be free >>.
At this point, people usually express political & ethical ideas about
the choice of a license. I reached this point, obviously ;)
| My intention is that I want to make sure that all developpers can
| use the framework freely --including earning one's life by selling
| products, possibly closed-source, containing the software.
The LGPL permits this, however:
- I must admit that I prefer a clear and small license that I can fully
understand :)
- I am *personally* not convinced by the arguments about copyleft:
Quoted from http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/x.html:
Non-copylefted software is vulnerable from all directions; it
lets anyone make a non-free version dominant, if he will invest
sufficient resources to add significantly important features
using proprietary code
--> Any individual, organization, company etc. with enough means
and/or willingness can always propose an alternative to any software.
Hey, precisely, isn't the framework inspired by the fabulous
Enterprise Object Framework(tm) ?
Last, even (L)GPL does not garanty that we get anything back, since
distributing modifications isn't mandatory --the only obligation is that
*if* the modified software is distributed, source code must be
available.
So I really prefer to stand on the optimist side: people will share,
rather than on the pessimistic side, trying to find ways to force
people to share. This is an arguable point of view, agreed, but it's
mine ;)
All these considerations have finally led me to the decision to switch
back to the revised BSD license. Hopefully I did answer every questions
that showed up since the discussion about this topic began. Now you'll
find in the next post technical details and the schedule for the switch.
And, naturally, I'll always be pleased to receive testimonials
and description of your applications using the framework!
-- Sébastien.
In short: the Modeling framework is about to switch to a BSD-like
license.
And now for the long version of it!
Hi all,
At the end of february a discussion was initiated about the licensing
model for the framework. The corresponding threads can be found here:
https://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_id=3884124&forum_id=10674
https://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_id=3887729&forum_id=10674
First at all, I'd like to thank everyone for the comments, positive
feedbacks I received at that time and since, either on the mailing-list
or through private emails. Thanks also to all those who took some of
their time to give me the necessary clarifications when I needed them:
the few papers, discussions and analysis I've read about licenses have
regularly thrown me into confusion for the last 4 months!
Changing a software's license is not exactly something I like to do
(this probably explains why I come back on the subject so lately) ;
being a developper and not a lawyer, I simply do not feel comfortable
with these things --I'm sure you all know that feeling...
As stated in the subject of this post, the decision is taken to switch
to a 3-clause BSD-like license, whose template is available at:
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php
I'll try to summarize my motivations here. Hopefully this won't be too
much cumbersome... However do not misunderstand me: I do not pretend to
be a specialist of the question. I just want to express the reasons for
my choice and the ideas behind, I want to make it clear once and for all
the way I consider people can use framework. So, please, no flame-war ;)
First, I'll quote a portion of an email I wrote in a private discussion:
My intention is just to give back my contribution to the open-source
community, not to prevent people from using the software --I have
myself done some business by selling services on open-source
software, so I'm definitely not opposed to the idea of a commercial
usage of open-source software.
Connected to this, there is also the point raised by Ernesto about
<< finished applications [which] sometimes should not be free >>.
At this point, people usually express political & ethical ideas about
the choice of a license. I reached this point, obviously ;)
| My intention is that I want to make sure that all developpers can
| use the framework freely --including earning one's life by selling
| products, possibly closed-source, containing the software.
The LGPL permits this, however:
- I must admit that I prefer a clear and small license that I can fully
understand :)
- I am *personally* not convinced by the arguments about copyleft:
Quoted from http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/x.html:
Non-copylefted software is vulnerable from all directions; it
lets anyone make a non-free version dominant, if he will invest
sufficient resources to add significantly important features
using proprietary code
--> Any individual, organization, company etc. with enough means
and/or willingness can always propose an alternative to any software.
Hey, precisely, isn't the framework inspired by the fabulous
Enterprise Object Framework(tm) ?
Last, even (L)GPL does not garanty that we get anything back, since
distributing modifications isn't mandatory --the only obligation is that
*if* the modified software is distributed, source code must be
available.
So I really prefer to stand on the optimist side: people will share,
rather than on the pessimistic side, trying to find ways to force
people to share. This is an arguable point of view, agreed, but it's
mine ;)
All these considerations have finally led me to the decision to switch
back to the revised BSD license. Hopefully I did answer every questions
that showed up since the discussion about this topic began. Now you'll
find in the next post technical details and the schedule for the switch.
And, naturally, I'll always be pleased to receive testimonials
and description of your applications using the framework!
-- Sébastien.