4 ms·

"I assumed the license was OK considering its popularity." Always check the licence. Public domain, MIT, simple, plain BSD, GPL (any version), apache - if it's

by pmlnr 9y ago

"I assumed the license was OK considering its popularity." Always check the licence. Public domain, MIT, simple, plain BSD, GPL (any version), apache - if it's anything else, be extremely cautious.

Hasknewbie 9y ago
If it's anything else, I would say start by checking the Open Source Initiative Web site: https://opensource.org/licenses https://opensource.org/licenses
- bhickey 9y ago
  Still, be cautious. The OSI has approved a number of bad licenses. The UPL (https://opensource.org/licenses/UPL https://opensource.org/licenses/UPL) stands out to me as one that should've been rejected.
  - smichel17 9y ago
    Why?
    - bhickey 9y ago
      The discussion around its approval was contentious. My reading is that it exists primarily as an Oracle CLA. The license wasn't rigorously reviewed by non-Oracle counsel and there's some worry about hidden landmines. https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2014-August/002186.html https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2014-A... https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2014-September/002205.html https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2014-S...
brianwawok 9y ago
As AGPL still on most proples danger list? Or did you not include it in your GPL any version list.
- halomru 9y ago
  I can't speak for corporate lawyers, but I treat AGPL v3 similar to GPL v3 (a bit truer to the GPL spirit, but in consequence a bit stricter). Then again, GPL v3 is on many people's danger list
bhickey 9y ago
> Public domain There are jurisdictions that don't recognize PD grants. I can't think of a good reason to use CC0 over MIT or BSD. > GPL (any version) This might be doctrinaire but I won't use the (L)GPLv3 because of the AGPL linking clause: > Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, you have permission to link or combine any covered work with a work licensed under version 3 of the GNU Affero General Public License into a single combined work, and to convey the resulting work. The terms of this License will continue to apply to the part which is the covered work, but the special requirements of the GNU Affero General Public License, section 13, concerning interaction through a network will apply to the combination as such.
- floatboth 9y ago
  CC0, Unlicense etc. always contain fallbacks for jurisdictions without PD grants. That's the whole point of using them instead of just saying "public domain" and nothing more. There's also the Zero-clause BSD License https://spdx.org/licenses/0BSD.html https://spdx.org/licenses/0BSD.html which is the same kind of thing except it does not even mention the words "public domain".
CodeWriter23 9y ago
Hey now, the Artistic License is also one you can trust not to bite you in the ass.
kevinmgranger 9y ago
What about MPL?

by pmlnr 9y ago

"I assumed the license was OK considering its popularity." Always check the licence. Public domain, MIT, simple, plain BSD, GPL (any version), apache - if it's anything else, be extremely cautious.

Hasknewbie 9y ago

If it's anything else, I would say start by checking the Open Source Initiative Web site: https://opensource.org/licenses https://opensource.org/licenses

bhickey 9y ago
Still, be cautious. The OSI has approved a number of bad licenses. The UPL (https://opensource.org/licenses/UPL https://opensource.org/licenses/UPL) stands out to me as one that should've been rejected.
- smichel17 9y ago
  Why?
  - bhickey 9y ago
    The discussion around its approval was contentious. My reading is that it exists primarily as an Oracle CLA. The license wasn't rigorously reviewed by non-Oracle counsel and there's some worry about hidden landmines. https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2014-August/002186.html https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2014-A... https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2014-September/002205.html https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2014-S...

brianwawok 9y ago

As AGPL still on most proples danger list? Or did you not include it in your GPL any version list.

halomru 9y ago
I can't speak for corporate lawyers, but I treat AGPL v3 similar to GPL v3 (a bit truer to the GPL spirit, but in consequence a bit stricter). Then again, GPL v3 is on many people's danger list

bhickey 9y ago

> Public domain There are jurisdictions that don't recognize PD grants. I can't think of a good reason to use CC0 over MIT or BSD. > GPL (any version) This might be doctrinaire but I won't use the (L)GPLv3 because of the AGPL linking clause: > Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, you have permission to link or combine any covered work with a work licensed under version 3 of the GNU Affero General Public License into a single combined work, and to convey the resulting work. The terms of this License will continue to apply to the part which is the covered work, but the special requirements of the GNU Affero General Public License, section 13, concerning interaction through a network will apply to the combination as such.

floatboth 9y ago
CC0, Unlicense etc. always contain fallbacks for jurisdictions without PD grants. That's the whole point of using them instead of just saying "public domain" and nothing more. There's also the Zero-clause BSD License https://spdx.org/licenses/0BSD.html https://spdx.org/licenses/0BSD.html which is the same kind of thing except it does not even mention the words "public domain".

CodeWriter23 9y ago

Hey now, the Artistic License is also one you can trust not to bite you in the ass.

kevinmgranger 9y ago

What about MPL?