New Software License
I am writing my own open source freeware license called the FDCLA (Free Distribution Coding License Agreement). What sort of thing would you like to see in it?
The concept of the license is to grant the right to:
- Use the program in any way you want to.
- Use the source code in any way you want to.
- Redistribute the program or source code.
- To be editedable to a small degree (unlike the GNU GPL and the GNU LGPL).
The concept of the license is to grant the right to:
- Use the program in any way you want to.
- Use the source code in any way you want to.
- Redistribute the program or source code.
- To be editedable to a small degree (unlike the GNU GPL and the GNU LGPL).
Um, why? That sounds a lot like the BSD or zlib license anyway. Just use it.
I have never heard of it. Until I know something about it I am not going to use it. Is it anything like the GNU?
I'd take Merlin's word for it, after all, he IS magic..
We have enough software licenses already, and as Merlin says, it does sound similar to BSD.
I will NOT simply take someone else's word for it. That is irrational. The only rational thing to do would be to research it myself and then make a decision. And besides I bet it won't be exactly to my liking. If it is anything like the GNU I will not like it.
If it's anything like a normal license it will be too long winded for my liking. Most people don't read licenses because they are too long. I want to make one that ins't.
And the fect that we apparently "have too many licenses" isn't going to stop me from making one that suits me.
And the fect that we apparently "have too many licenses" isn't going to stop me from making one that suits me.
Well you're asking for opinions, yet you only want a licence that is exactly to YOUR liking?
The BSD license:
The zlib license:
Copyright (c) <YEAR>, <OWNER>
All rights reserved.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
* Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
* Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
* Neither the name of the <ORGANIZATION> nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
The zlib license:
Copyright (c) <year> <copyright holders>
This software is provided 'as-is', without any express or implied warranty. In no event will the authors be held liable for any damages arising from the use of this software.
Permission is granted to anyone to use this software for any purpose, including commercial applications, and to alter it and redistribute it freely, subject to the following restrictions:
1. The origin of this software must not be misrepresented; you must not claim that you wrote the original software. If you use this software in a product, an acknowledgment in the product documentation would be appreciated but is not required.
2. Altered source versions must be plainly marked as such, and must not be misrepresented as being the original software.
3. This notice may not be removed or altered from any source distribution.
There's one reason why I hardly read any licenses. Dang ALL-CAPS. I don't read ALL-CAPS forum posts, nor do I read ALL-CAPS licenses.
Pet peeve of mine, never got it cured.
Pet peeve of mine, never got it cured.
You could make it even shorter:
Do whatever you want with this program, as long as you don't hold me responsible for any problems you might get. Oh, and you have the right to distribute this program.
Now that's short!
Do whatever you want with this program, as long as you don't hold me responsible for any problems you might get. Oh, and you have the right to distribute this program.
Now that's short!
As a joke I usually add jokes in my EULAs like
By installing this game you agree to the following:
* legal crap
* Gustav is the sexiest man in the world
By installing this game you agree to the following:
* legal crap
* Gustav is the sexiest man in the world
Then I wouldn't be able to install your game, Gustav. The second one kills it.
Replace it with:
Gustav is the most sexistic man in the world
And I *might* consider installing it...
Gustav is the most sexistic man in the world
And I *might* consider installing it...
Well I was hoping people could give me suggestions for part of the license that I would like.
They aren't really the sort of thing I'm looking for.
But not descriptive enough or what i am looking for. I do want to put SOME restrictions in. I think yours is too short.
Why do you want to restrict the ability to edit/use your code? That kind of beats the purpose of putting it into the open, if you can't use it for anything anyway.
Then I misunderstood this one:
- To be editedable to a small degree (unlike the GNU GPL and the GNU LGPL).
Since the GNU GPL/LGPL allows unrestricted editing to existing code (as long as you distribute your changes, fair and square), I figured that what you meant was to restrict edits.
And if you mean edit the actual license, I don't see why you can't edit the GPL to suit your own needs. I suppose you can't call it the "GNU GPL" license anymore, but I doubt that you're not allowed to change the license...
- To be editedable to a small degree (unlike the GNU GPL and the GNU LGPL).
Since the GNU GPL/LGPL allows unrestricted editing to existing code (as long as you distribute your changes, fair and square), I figured that what you meant was to restrict edits.
And if you mean edit the actual license, I don't see why you can't edit the GPL to suit your own needs. I suppose you can't call it the "GNU GPL" license anymore, but I doubt that you're not allowed to change the license...
I meant that the license it editable. If you edit the GPL then legally it isn't the GPL. My license will still allow some small edits and still be the same license name wise (and overall).
I mean that develepors can edit it for use with their software not end users can edit it.
So, you want to build a template that developers can alter so that the license suits their needs?
The list of requirements in your OP made it feel like you wanted to mildly restrict the software but not really, kinda.
I think items 1-3 were wishes for the software this template would serve, whereas #4 dealt with the copyright of the license text, and not the software it would serve.
mm.
The list of requirements in your OP made it feel like you wanted to mildly restrict the software but not really, kinda.
I think items 1-3 were wishes for the software this template would serve, whereas #4 dealt with the copyright of the license text, and not the software it would serve.
mm.