license ?
Locked
 
|
Hi!
I would like to make explicit and homogenize the license of Moose and its components. For example: - C Analyzer does not have a license (nothing is specified on http://www.moosetechnology.org/tools/canalyzer) - http://www.moosetechnology.org/about says Moose is available under the MIT and BSD licenses. Why not having just one? MIT is the choice of Pharo. - Glamour has a MIT license, Mondrian a BSD, PetitParser a MIT, SmallDude a BSD I am not sentimentally attached to a particular license. I am neither expert in licensing and maybe these question do not really make sense. But I am wondering. Cheers, alexandre -- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list [hidden email] https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev |
|
|
On 31 mars 2010, at 16:02, Alexandre Bergel wrote: > Hi! > > I would like to make explicit and homogenize the license of Moose and its components. > For example: > > - C Analyzer does not have a license (nothing is specified on http://www.moosetechnology.org/tools/canalyzer) It means it's still under normal copyright, although the notion of copyright depends on the country where you live, so it's fuzzy. > > - http://www.moosetechnology.org/about says Moose is available under the MIT and BSD licenses. Why not having just one? MIT is the choice of Pharo. > > - Glamour has a MIT license, Mondrian a BSD, PetitParser a MIT, SmallDude a BSD Yep, I guess that the historic pieces of Moose are under BSD, while the new ones go with MIT to follow Pharo. Nowadays MIT and BSD are saif "roughly equivalent" especially if the "no-endorsement" clause is dropped from the BSD license (simplified BSD license) The only potential problem I see is relicensing: can we relicense the code? -- Simon _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list [hidden email] https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev |
|
|
> The only potential problem I see is relicensing: can we relicense
> the code? I have no idea. But what is the danger if I change the line BSD to MIT in the Mondrian wiki page? Alexandre -- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list [hidden email] https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev |
|
|
Hi,
I have been looking at this for a while. Actually, we should make the license clear in the distributed code. The problem is that we can only relicense a piece of code if all copyright holders agree to it. If the license allows it, you can license a derived piece of work with another license that is compatible with the existing one. Now, the BSD is slightly stronger than MIT in the sense that it has the "No Endorsement": http://creativecommons.org/licenses/MIT/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/BSD/ So, maybe one idea is to clearly state that Moose, Mondrian, SmallDude and other pieces were BSD until 2010 and MIT since then (similar to the current situation of Pharo). Cheers, Doru On 31 Mar 2010, at 17:56, Alexandre Bergel wrote: >> The only potential problem I see is relicensing: can we relicense >> the code? > > I have no idea. But what is the danger if I change the line BSD to > MIT in the Mondrian wiki page? > > Alexandre > -- > _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: > Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu > ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Moose-dev mailing list > [hidden email] > https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev -- www.tudorgirba.com "There are no old things, there are only old ways of looking at them." _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list [hidden email] https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev |
|
|
Ok, I added for Mondrian & CAnalyzer
!License: -MIT (since January 1st, 2010) -BSD (until December 31st, 2009) Cheers, Alexandre On 31 Mar 2010, at 11:14, Tudor Girba wrote: > Hi, > > I have been looking at this for a while. > > Actually, we should make the license clear in the distributed code. > The problem is that we can only relicense a piece of code if all > copyright holders agree to it. > > If the license allows it, you can license a derived piece of work > with another license that is compatible with the existing one. Now, > the BSD is slightly stronger than MIT in the sense that it has the > "No Endorsement": > http://creativecommons.org/licenses/MIT/ > http://creativecommons.org/licenses/BSD/ > > So, maybe one idea is to clearly state that Moose, Mondrian, > SmallDude and other pieces were BSD until 2010 and MIT since then > (similar to the current situation of Pharo). > > Cheers, > Doru > > > On 31 Mar 2010, at 17:56, Alexandre Bergel wrote: > >>> The only potential problem I see is relicensing: can we relicense >>> the code? >> >> I have no idea. But what is the danger if I change the line BSD to >> MIT in the Mondrian wiki page? >> >> Alexandre >> -- >> _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: >> Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu >> ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Moose-dev mailing list >> [hidden email] >> https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev > > -- > www.tudorgirba.com > > "There are no old things, there are only old ways of looking at them." > > > > _______________________________________________ > Moose-dev mailing list > [hidden email] > https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev -- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list [hidden email] https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev |
«
Return to Moose
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |