[bip] MIT/BSD license question

[Josh Wilcox]

  I think we should consider a grace period hack, like that proposed in the
following:

Quoted with the author's permission:
"One thing that I have learned, though, is that sometimes a GPL'ed or
LGPL'ed project can actually get *more* users than a BSD'ed project,
because some people think that the GPL/LGPL'ed project is more likely
to survive and grow over time.  BSD'ed projects sometimes die out
because too much of the development goes on behind closed doors and
stays there.  This is one possible explanation for why Linux is a 900-
pound gorilla of operating systems, when the technically comparable
*BSD Free Software operating systems are tiny niche players --
because the BSD projects have historically suffered from companies
trying to use BSD OS'es commercially without contributing all that
much back to the public sphere.  By contrast, the vast majority of
Linux development for the last half-decade or so has been done by
large companies (IBM, Novell, SGI, RedHat, NetApp, Sun) who are
obligated to release their work by Linux's GPL licence.

On the other hand, there are plenty of people who strongly prefer a
BSD licence over a GPL/LGPL licence if they have a choice.

So the motivation to get more users might suggest a GPL/LGPL licence
or a BSD licence, depending on who your potential users are.

An additional option is a grace period clause for either GPL or
LGPL.  As compared to the standard GPL or LGPL, the grace period
might encourage companies to use the code more than they would
without it.

Examples:

Grace period hack for GPL:

http://allmydata.org/trac/tahoe/browser/COPYING

Grace period hack for LGPL:

http://allmydata.org/source/pyutil/pyutil/COPYING

Regards,

Zooko"

On 9/27/07, Bruce Southey <bsouthey at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
> You probably read the information provided by the Software Freedom Law
> Center (SFLC) on including permissive-licensed in GPL code (or probably any
> code that is more restrictive than the BSD license) at: http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2007/gpl-non-gpl-collaboration.html
>
>
> Also, please take very careful note the terms of the BSD/MIT license
> actually used just in case there are no surprises (like unexpected
> additional terms).
>
> Note also that the whole package may be under a different license provided
> components have compatible licenses. Thus, the Linux kernel is GPL V2 but
> contains code under other licenses like BSD.
>
> BRuce
>
>
>
> On 9/27/07, Titus Brown <titus at caltech.edu> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 10:33:20AM -0700, Glen Otero wrote:
> > -> 1) Do the BSD and MIT licenses allow someone to modify BSD/MIT
> > -> licensed code to create a proprietary product, sell the product, and
> > -> *not* permit people to redistribute the new product?
> >
> > IANAL, but BSD/MIT does not restrict your ability to license your own
> > code under whatever license you care to use.  So while you can't
> > relicense the BSD/MIT code, you can place your own code under a
> > restrictive license.
> >
> > -> 2) If 1) is true, then how does one keep the original license intact
> > -> and also include a license for the product that doesn't allow
> > -> redistribution?
> >
> > I think you would just license your own code under a proprietary
> > license.
> >
> > --titus
> >
> > p.s. I would like to take this opportunity to encourage people to
> > *write* and *release* some code.  License discussions are all good and
> > well, but ... what are we licensing? ;)
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > biology-in-python mailing list
> > biology-in-python at lists.idyll.org
> > http://lists.idyll.org/listinfo/biology-in-python
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> biology-in-python mailing list
> biology-in-python at lists.idyll.org
> http://lists.idyll.org/listinfo/biology-in-python
>
>


-- 
"...the policy of preparing oneself for tough choices by arranging to be
determined to do the right thing when the time comes is one of the hallmarks
of mature responsibility..."
--Dan. D.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.idyll.org/pipermail/biology-in-python/attachments/20070927/be00c439/attachment.htm