6 ms·

Please just use the ISC license. It's a permissive license that is as short as modern law allows. It's well understood and accepted. It's the default license fo

by dmm 9y ago

Please just use the ISC license. It's a permissive license that is as short as modern law allows. It's well understood and accepted. It's the default license for node.js packages and the preferred license for OpenBSD. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISC_license https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISC_license Here it is in it's entirety: Copyright <YEAR> <OWNER> Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute this software for any purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies. THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE AUTHOR DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE.

nerdponx 9y ago
ISC, like MIT/Expat, lacks a contributor license agreement. Is it implied that any contribution to an ISC-licensed (or MIT-licensed) project is granted to the original author?
- gras 9y ago
  Of course not, licenses are for granting rights to use copyrighted works, not for transfering copyright. I also don't see why open source contributors should give away the copyright to their work. All it accomplishes, is that the "original author" (= the copyright holder, usually a company) can re-license the work without agreement from all contributors. It strips contributors from parts of their rights.
  - nerdponx 9y ago
    So if I fix a piece of buggy open-source code and my patch is merged, then I "own" the bug fix and the author no longer owns that portion of the program? Is that really what you're proposing? It makes sense in the case where I contribute, say, an entire new module. Then I should have the right to do with it as I please. But there needs to be a line drawn somewhere, and I sure as hell couldn't tell you where.
    - snakeanus 9y ago
      > So if I fix a piece of buggy open-source code and my patch is merged, then I "own" the bug fix and the author no longer owns that portion of the program? Yes, and it makes sense, after all you made that part of the code. The same holds true for licenses like the GPL. Remember the shitstorm about MIR and the CLA that it required? People do not want to sign their rights away and allow a company to sell away their code.
      - johnny22 9y ago
        I don't mind signing a CLA in some instances: * if the license is permissive * if the license is copyleft and the organization is a non profit. Canonical fit neither of those.
      - nine_k 9y ago
        Transferring copyright has some special consequences if a contribution is made by a company employee as a part of a job, or so I heard. This greatly limits the number of high-quality contributions.
        fourthark 9y ago
        Very, very hard to get corporate lawyers to agree to CLAs, even at companies that encourage contributions to open source.
    - maxlybbert 9y ago
      > So if I fix a piece of buggy open-source code and my patch is merged, then I "own" the bug fix and the author no longer owns that portion of the program? Is that really what you're proposing? If you fix a piece of software, why would you send the fix to the original creator? To show off? The only reason I can see is for the creator to merge your fix into the project. But it seems to me that it makes the most sense to clarify that when the creator merges the changes. I don't see why the license should include a CLA any more than it should encourage potential contributors to be nice to each other, or to look both ways before crossing the street.
- jashkenas 9y ago
  I love ISC — but you're quite on point. It also says nothing about any patents potentially held by the authors. See this HN comment from a year ago for a fuller exploration of how that can be problematic: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12597488 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12597488
  - carussell 9y ago
    The Lil License kind of makes sense if you think about it as an attempt to add explicit patent protection to an ISC or MIT-style license. But only "kind of". What the patent system gives a patentholder is the ability to selectively prohibit others from making, selling, or using some product or method protected by the patent. The Lil License is weird in that it only explicitly mentions the latter. Its text regarding copies of the license is also very weird. Please do not use this license.
    - jsnathan 9y ago
      The term 'usage rights' is a bit confusing here. I think it may be intended to refer to 'use' as defined in the previous half of the sentence, i.e. 'including the rights to run, read, copy, change, distribute and sell'. Maybe this should be made clearer somehow, e.g. 'and including any herefore necessary license to patents the authors may hold'.
CuriousSkeptic 9y ago
I prefer the zero clause BSD license because it gets rid of the annoying requirement to keep the copyright notice around. Any arguments against?
- saint_fiasco 9y ago
  Could somebody attach their own copyright notice and pretend to be the author of your work?
  - CuriousSkeptic 9y ago
    That is a good question indeed! My intent is absolutely yes. Do what you please just don't blame me for it. But I guess legally no. It's license, not a transfer, so I'm still the copyright holder, which creates some doubts, true.
- jashkenas 9y ago
  The argument against is that someone who then encounters the code without the notice will have no idea what license the code is under. They won't be aware of the BSD rights and disclaimers that otherwise should apply to them. What we do here instead is explicitly say that you can include the Lil License text, or link to it instead — as we tend to do in these modern times.
  - CuriousSkeptic 9y ago
    That's just the thing. I want a license that is clear about my intentions when I provide them a copy. What ever copy they receive from someone else is not, and should not, be my problem in any way, I want nothing to do with that transaction.
- teamhappy 9y ago
  The zlib license does the same thing and is OSI/FSF approved. http://zlib.net/zlib_license.html http://zlib.net/zlib_license.html
  - 9y ago
belorn 9y ago
from the FAQ: "in practice, we need just a little bit more: a declaration of the intent not to use software patents against users, and the shared understanding that contributions back to the project will be incorporated under the same terms of the license." ISC don't have either of those. If the authors want a patent grant, why should they not be allowed to have that?
- snakeanus 9y ago
  Why not apache2 then?
  - slfront 9y ago
    Maybe because it's not a great license.
    - radq 9y ago
      What are the issues with it? Anything other than the size/complexity?
  - rodorgas 9y ago
    FAQ actually recommends it if you want something more robust. Lil is small and simple.
lucaspiller 9y ago
Kind of OT, but why does open source software always contain a warranty disclaimer? Has someone ever been sued for releasing open source software that doesn’t do what the user expected?
- jashkenas 9y ago
  I can't help you out with a history of lawsuits to cover damages from faulty open source software, but here's a great little link to explain the legal reasoning for the need for the disclaimer: https://oss.kemitchell.com/#contract-law https://oss.kemitchell.com/#contract-law Quickie TL/DR; OSS is ultimately a product offered under a license. Without a warranty disclaimer, if the code proved to be shoddy, unfit for use, buggy, or crashed and damaged your business — you would have the ability to sue: I offered you a product that claimed to do be able to do a thing, and it didn't.

by dmm 9y ago

nerdponx 9y ago

ISC, like MIT/Expat, lacks a contributor license agreement. Is it implied that any contribution to an ISC-licensed (or MIT-licensed) project is granted to the original author?

gras 9y ago
Of course not, licenses are for granting rights to use copyrighted works, not for transfering copyright. I also don't see why open source contributors should give away the copyright to their work. All it accomplishes, is that the "original author" (= the copyright holder, usually a company) can re-license the work without agreement from all contributors. It strips contributors from parts of their rights.
- nerdponx 9y ago
  So if I fix a piece of buggy open-source code and my patch is merged, then I "own" the bug fix and the author no longer owns that portion of the program? Is that really what you're proposing? It makes sense in the case where I contribute, say, an entire new module. Then I should have the right to do with it as I please. But there needs to be a line drawn somewhere, and I sure as hell couldn't tell you where.
  - snakeanus 9y ago
    > So if I fix a piece of buggy open-source code and my patch is merged, then I "own" the bug fix and the author no longer owns that portion of the program? Yes, and it makes sense, after all you made that part of the code. The same holds true for licenses like the GPL. Remember the shitstorm about MIR and the CLA that it required? People do not want to sign their rights away and allow a company to sell away their code.
    - johnny22 9y ago
      I don't mind signing a CLA in some instances: * if the license is permissive * if the license is copyleft and the organization is a non profit. Canonical fit neither of those.
    - nine_k 9y ago
      Transferring copyright has some special consequences if a contribution is made by a company employee as a part of a job, or so I heard. This greatly limits the number of high-quality contributions.
      - fourthark 9y ago
        Very, very hard to get corporate lawyers to agree to CLAs, even at companies that encourage contributions to open source.
  - maxlybbert 9y ago
    > So if I fix a piece of buggy open-source code and my patch is merged, then I "own" the bug fix and the author no longer owns that portion of the program? Is that really what you're proposing? If you fix a piece of software, why would you send the fix to the original creator? To show off? The only reason I can see is for the creator to merge your fix into the project. But it seems to me that it makes the most sense to clarify that when the creator merges the changes. I don't see why the license should include a CLA any more than it should encourage potential contributors to be nice to each other, or to look both ways before crossing the street.
jashkenas 9y ago
I love ISC — but you're quite on point. It also says nothing about any patents potentially held by the authors. See this HN comment from a year ago for a fuller exploration of how that can be problematic: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12597488 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12597488
- carussell 9y ago
  The Lil License kind of makes sense if you think about it as an attempt to add explicit patent protection to an ISC or MIT-style license. But only "kind of". What the patent system gives a patentholder is the ability to selectively prohibit others from making, selling, or using some product or method protected by the patent. The Lil License is weird in that it only explicitly mentions the latter. Its text regarding copies of the license is also very weird. Please do not use this license.
  - jsnathan 9y ago
    The term 'usage rights' is a bit confusing here. I think it may be intended to refer to 'use' as defined in the previous half of the sentence, i.e. 'including the rights to run, read, copy, change, distribute and sell'. Maybe this should be made clearer somehow, e.g. 'and including any herefore necessary license to patents the authors may hold'.

CuriousSkeptic 9y ago

I prefer the zero clause BSD license because it gets rid of the annoying requirement to keep the copyright notice around. Any arguments against?

saint_fiasco 9y ago
Could somebody attach their own copyright notice and pretend to be the author of your work?
- CuriousSkeptic 9y ago
  That is a good question indeed! My intent is absolutely yes. Do what you please just don't blame me for it. But I guess legally no. It's license, not a transfer, so I'm still the copyright holder, which creates some doubts, true.
jashkenas 9y ago
The argument against is that someone who then encounters the code without the notice will have no idea what license the code is under. They won't be aware of the BSD rights and disclaimers that otherwise should apply to them. What we do here instead is explicitly say that you can include the Lil License text, or link to it instead — as we tend to do in these modern times.
- CuriousSkeptic 9y ago
  That's just the thing. I want a license that is clear about my intentions when I provide them a copy. What ever copy they receive from someone else is not, and should not, be my problem in any way, I want nothing to do with that transaction.
teamhappy 9y ago
The zlib license does the same thing and is OSI/FSF approved. http://zlib.net/zlib_license.html http://zlib.net/zlib_license.html
- 9y ago

belorn 9y ago

from the FAQ: "in practice, we need just a little bit more: a declaration of the intent not to use software patents against users, and the shared understanding that contributions back to the project will be incorporated under the same terms of the license." ISC don't have either of those. If the authors want a patent grant, why should they not be allowed to have that?

snakeanus 9y ago
Why not apache2 then?
- slfront 9y ago
  Maybe because it's not a great license.
  - radq 9y ago
    What are the issues with it? Anything other than the size/complexity?
- rodorgas 9y ago
  FAQ actually recommends it if you want something more robust. Lil is small and simple.

lucaspiller 9y ago

Kind of OT, but why does open source software always contain a warranty disclaimer? Has someone ever been sued for releasing open source software that doesn’t do what the user expected?

jashkenas 9y ago
I can't help you out with a history of lawsuits to cover damages from faulty open source software, but here's a great little link to explain the legal reasoning for the need for the disclaimer: https://oss.kemitchell.com/#contract-law https://oss.kemitchell.com/#contract-law Quickie TL/DR; OSS is ultimately a product offered under a license. Without a warranty disclaimer, if the code proved to be shoddy, unfit for use, buggy, or crashed and damaged your business — you would have the ability to sue: I offered you a product that claimed to do be able to do a thing, and it didn't.