4 ms·

I like the BSD license. I made my first money on the nets by benefitting a lot from BSD licenses, and all open source software I ever write will be BSD. I beli

I like the BSD license. I made my first money on the nets by benefitting a lot from BSD licenses, and all open source software I ever write will be BSD. I believe - if you want it to be free, make it free. If you want it to be closed, then make it closed. The in-between that is the GPL is not cool. I do wonder though, how many people have contributed to this project? It seems to me it would be a better idea to have a single sponsor than several big sponsors. Someone who has a vested interest in making Mongrel2 work.

zedshaw 16y ago
There's about 5 people who've made contributions, mostly in writing external projects to implement protocol handlers for their favorite language (C++, Ruby, PHP, and Python so far). Most of the work is done by myself though since it's rather early for other folks to get in, but I'm looking for contributors. Anyway, stay tuned for more information on the sponsorship thing.
alnayyir 16y ago
What little I've managed to open source so far, is licensed under what amounts to a 2-clause BSD + what I call the "Diane Bruce clause". http://it.toolbox.com/blogs/bsd-guru/have-we-lost-the-fun-21360 http://it.toolbox.com/blogs/bsd-guru/have-we-lost-the-fun-21... * db@FreeBSD.ORG wrote this file. As long as you retain this notice you * can do whatever you want with this code, except you may not * license it under any form of the GPL. * A postcard or QSL card showing me you appreciate * this code would be nice. Diane Bruce va3db
- protomyth 16y ago
  Where in the BSD License does it say you can re-license the code? Or does this just mean no including this code with GPL code?
  - anthonyb 16y ago
    Where in the BSD license does it say that you can't?
  - alnayyir 16y ago
    There have been multiple cases where GPL fanatics stole BSD code and relicensed it without discussing it with the original creators, which is technically permitted, but dirty as hell. Some wireless drivers for Linux derived from this theft. (Broadcom, being one)
    - caf 16y ago
      There is a certain amount of cognitive dissonance evident here. The whole point of favouring the BSD license over the GPL is that you don't care how people license the code that they incorporate your code into. It makes no sense at all to be happy with someone "stealing" BSD code and putting it into a closed-source product, but not be happy with them putting it into a GPL-licensed product.
      - JoachimSchipper 16y ago
        Actually, the OpenBSD people grumble about all the companies incorporating their code (mostly OpenSSH) and not contributing anything back, too. There's a difference between what is legally allowed and what is (considered) ethical. It's just that the GNU people, being (more or less) on the same team and fond of open-source retoric, are more vulnerable to pressure.
      - alnayyir 16y ago
        The whole point of favoring BSD over GPL, in addition to prohibiting a GPL fork, is that I want the code and all derivations to be free for personal and commercial use with no obligations made upon the user/re-implementer.
        caf 16y ago
        Then you have chosen completely the wrong license, because that is not what the BSD license provides. The BSD license allows derivations to be unmodifiable, or to be useable only with a fee paid, or any other restriction the copyright holder (of the derivation) cares to add. For example, a derivation of your code could be licensed under the hypothetical ICBINTGPL License ("I Can't Believe It's Not The GPL") that was the same as the GPL in all but name. The tension in what you want is evident in your comment: you "want the code and all derivations to be [list of attributes]", which implies obligations on the user of the code (amusingly, GPL-like obligations!); but you also want "no obligations made upon the user/re-implementer". So you want obligations that there be no obligations. That's the problem I'm trying to point out.
- aarongough 16y ago
  Is there a reason you would choose to make up your own, untested, license rather than something that has been examined by legal professionals? Did the MIT, BSD or GPL licenses not meet your needs?
  - alnayyir 16y ago
    Pique, whimsy. Same reasons as db really.
- ekiru 16y ago
  Such a clause seems to indicate that you would prefer that your code be incorporated into a proprietary project to it being incorporated into another open-source project. Is this the case? If not, why adopt a license that is incredibly hostile to the free-software folks, explicitly forbids them from incorporating it into their projects, and allows people to incorporate it into proprietary projects freely? If so, why open source it at all?
  - alnayyir 16y ago
    >Such a clause seems to indicate that you would prefer that your code be incorporated into a proprietary project to it being incorporated into another open-source project. Is this the case? Nope. Please don't put words in my mouth either, thank you. >If not, why adopt a license that is incredibly hostile to the free-software folks Spare me. It's hostile to GPL/affero, not to open source in general. >allows people to incorporate it into proprietary projects freely? You know this whole web thing we've been doing, where we can take any javascript library we like and use it in professional / day-to-day work? Yeah, that. I'd kind of like to preserve the usefulness of code for actual work. Pardon me for having a day job. >If so, why open source it at all? Because I want to preserve peoples' right to do anything they want with it. The only way to ensure that is to make certain a GPL fork never happens. GNUists thought they were being cute with copyleft, claiming it was preserving 'user rights' by using the same tactics as traditional copyright. It was a perversion that preempted peoples' ability to use any of the code in their actual day to day work, thereby enslaving them to same proprietary code all over again. Then, the Javascript and other universal web exchanges of code start occurring and BSD takes off because people want to actually use the code, not toy with it on the weekend. http://jquery.org/license http://jquery.org/license jQuery's status as an MIT licensed project is pretty much exemplary of what I'm trying to encourage. Are you then to claim that jQuery is hostile to open source because it'll allow proprietary projects to make use of it?
    - ekiru 16y ago
      > Nope. Please don't put words in my mouth either, thank you. I was not trying to put words in your mouth. I was trying to understand your motivation. > Spare me. It's hostile to GPL/affero, not to open source in general. I said "free software", not "open source". People who consider themselves "free software" people tend to be the ones who belief in free software as an issue of morality; they tend to prefer copyleft licenses as a result. > You know this whole web thing we've been doing, where we can take any javascript library we like and use it in professional / day-to-day work? I don't do this whole web thing in any serious manner, but yes, I'm aware of it. > Yeah, that. I'd kind of like to preserve the usefulness of code for actual work. But if you came up with a great scheduler implementation or some such, you wouldn't want the Linux kernel to be able to use it? You wouldn't want gitorious to be able to use some useful library you've written? According to http://www.blackducksoftware.com/oss/licenses#top20 http://www.blackducksoftware.com/oss/licenses#top20 , over 60% of open-source/free software is licensed under some from of GPL or LGPL. Even assuming that figure is excessively high, do you really want them to not be able to use it, just because they chose to adopt a license that, while more restrictive than BSD, is less restrictive than other licenses that you allow people to create forks of your code with? > Because I want to preserve peoples' right to do anything they want with it. The only way to ensure that is to make certain a GPL fork never happens. If you licensed with a normal BSD, MIT, or similar license, a GPL fork wouldn't make the original BSD version go away, any more than a company using your software in their proprietary software would make your original BSD version disappear. Besides, how many GPL forks of BSD projects are there? There are many more proprietary forks of BSD projects. A much more likely scenario that your license prevents is for a [L|A]?GPL licensed project to use a library you've licensed under it. Why is this so undesirable? > GNUists thought they were being cute with copyleft, claiming it was preserving 'user rights' by using the same tactics as traditional copyright. > It was a perversion that preempted peoples' ability to use any of the code in their actual day to day work, thereby enslaving them to same proprietary code all over again. The GPL restricts the ability of people to redistribute modified proprietary versions of code. Your license restricts the ability of people to redistribute open source version of code. I'm not saying it eliminates that ability; it just prevents it from ever being incorporated into or linked with any GPL program. > jQuery's status as an MIT licensed project is pretty much exemplary of what I'm trying to encourage. Then just release it as MIT or BSD licensed. Disclaim copyright to the extent legally possible. Do something that doesn't restrict the ability of people to incorporate your code into other open source/free software projects more than it does the ability of people to incorporate it into proprietary software. > Are you then to claim that jQuery is hostile to open source because it'll allow proprietary projects to make use of it? No. I also didn't say that you're hostile to open source. I said that your licensing is hostile to '"free software" folks', in other words, people who refer to what they do as "free software". jQuery's licensing isn't hostile to them because it allows them to freely incorporate it into their projects to the same extent it allows proprietary projects to do so. Your license allows incorporation into proprietary software but restricts incorporation into the projects of the free software folks.

zedshaw 16y ago

There's about 5 people who've made contributions, mostly in writing external projects to implement protocol handlers for their favorite language (C++, Ruby, PHP, and Python so far). Most of the work is done by myself though since it's rather early for other folks to get in, but I'm looking for contributors. Anyway, stay tuned for more information on the sponsorship thing.

alnayyir 16y ago

What little I've managed to open source so far, is licensed under what amounts to a 2-clause BSD + what I call the "Diane Bruce clause". http://it.toolbox.com/blogs/bsd-guru/have-we-lost-the-fun-21360 http://it.toolbox.com/blogs/bsd-guru/have-we-lost-the-fun-21... * db@FreeBSD.ORG wrote this file. As long as you retain this notice you * can do whatever you want with this code, except you may not * license it under any form of the GPL. * A postcard or QSL card showing me you appreciate * this code would be nice. Diane Bruce va3db

protomyth 16y ago
Where in the BSD License does it say you can re-license the code? Or does this just mean no including this code with GPL code?
- anthonyb 16y ago
  Where in the BSD license does it say that you can't?
- alnayyir 16y ago
  There have been multiple cases where GPL fanatics stole BSD code and relicensed it without discussing it with the original creators, which is technically permitted, but dirty as hell. Some wireless drivers for Linux derived from this theft. (Broadcom, being one)
  - caf 16y ago
    There is a certain amount of cognitive dissonance evident here. The whole point of favouring the BSD license over the GPL is that you don't care how people license the code that they incorporate your code into. It makes no sense at all to be happy with someone "stealing" BSD code and putting it into a closed-source product, but not be happy with them putting it into a GPL-licensed product.
    - JoachimSchipper 16y ago
      Actually, the OpenBSD people grumble about all the companies incorporating their code (mostly OpenSSH) and not contributing anything back, too. There's a difference between what is legally allowed and what is (considered) ethical. It's just that the GNU people, being (more or less) on the same team and fond of open-source retoric, are more vulnerable to pressure.
    - alnayyir 16y ago
      The whole point of favoring BSD over GPL, in addition to prohibiting a GPL fork, is that I want the code and all derivations to be free for personal and commercial use with no obligations made upon the user/re-implementer.
      - caf 16y ago
        Then you have chosen completely the wrong license, because that is not what the BSD license provides. The BSD license allows derivations to be unmodifiable, or to be useable only with a fee paid, or any other restriction the copyright holder (of the derivation) cares to add. For example, a derivation of your code could be licensed under the hypothetical ICBINTGPL License ("I Can't Believe It's Not The GPL") that was the same as the GPL in all but name. The tension in what you want is evident in your comment: you "want the code and all derivations to be [list of attributes]", which implies obligations on the user of the code (amusingly, GPL-like obligations!); but you also want "no obligations made upon the user/re-implementer". So you want obligations that there be no obligations. That's the problem I'm trying to point out.
aarongough 16y ago
Is there a reason you would choose to make up your own, untested, license rather than something that has been examined by legal professionals? Did the MIT, BSD or GPL licenses not meet your needs?
- alnayyir 16y ago
  Pique, whimsy. Same reasons as db really.
ekiru 16y ago
Such a clause seems to indicate that you would prefer that your code be incorporated into a proprietary project to it being incorporated into another open-source project. Is this the case? If not, why adopt a license that is incredibly hostile to the free-software folks, explicitly forbids them from incorporating it into their projects, and allows people to incorporate it into proprietary projects freely? If so, why open source it at all?
- alnayyir 16y ago
  >Such a clause seems to indicate that you would prefer that your code be incorporated into a proprietary project to it being incorporated into another open-source project. Is this the case? Nope. Please don't put words in my mouth either, thank you. >If not, why adopt a license that is incredibly hostile to the free-software folks Spare me. It's hostile to GPL/affero, not to open source in general. >allows people to incorporate it into proprietary projects freely? You know this whole web thing we've been doing, where we can take any javascript library we like and use it in professional / day-to-day work? Yeah, that. I'd kind of like to preserve the usefulness of code for actual work. Pardon me for having a day job. >If so, why open source it at all? Because I want to preserve peoples' right to do anything they want with it. The only way to ensure that is to make certain a GPL fork never happens. GNUists thought they were being cute with copyleft, claiming it was preserving 'user rights' by using the same tactics as traditional copyright. It was a perversion that preempted peoples' ability to use any of the code in their actual day to day work, thereby enslaving them to same proprietary code all over again. Then, the Javascript and other universal web exchanges of code start occurring and BSD takes off because people want to actually use the code, not toy with it on the weekend. http://jquery.org/license http://jquery.org/license jQuery's status as an MIT licensed project is pretty much exemplary of what I'm trying to encourage. Are you then to claim that jQuery is hostile to open source because it'll allow proprietary projects to make use of it?
  - ekiru 16y ago
    > Nope. Please don't put words in my mouth either, thank you. I was not trying to put words in your mouth. I was trying to understand your motivation. > Spare me. It's hostile to GPL/affero, not to open source in general. I said "free software", not "open source". People who consider themselves "free software" people tend to be the ones who belief in free software as an issue of morality; they tend to prefer copyleft licenses as a result. > You know this whole web thing we've been doing, where we can take any javascript library we like and use it in professional / day-to-day work? I don't do this whole web thing in any serious manner, but yes, I'm aware of it. > Yeah, that. I'd kind of like to preserve the usefulness of code for actual work. But if you came up with a great scheduler implementation or some such, you wouldn't want the Linux kernel to be able to use it? You wouldn't want gitorious to be able to use some useful library you've written? According to http://www.blackducksoftware.com/oss/licenses#top20 http://www.blackducksoftware.com/oss/licenses#top20 , over 60% of open-source/free software is licensed under some from of GPL or LGPL. Even assuming that figure is excessively high, do you really want them to not be able to use it, just because they chose to adopt a license that, while more restrictive than BSD, is less restrictive than other licenses that you allow people to create forks of your code with? > Because I want to preserve peoples' right to do anything they want with it. The only way to ensure that is to make certain a GPL fork never happens. If you licensed with a normal BSD, MIT, or similar license, a GPL fork wouldn't make the original BSD version go away, any more than a company using your software in their proprietary software would make your original BSD version disappear. Besides, how many GPL forks of BSD projects are there? There are many more proprietary forks of BSD projects. A much more likely scenario that your license prevents is for a [L|A]?GPL licensed project to use a library you've licensed under it. Why is this so undesirable? > GNUists thought they were being cute with copyleft, claiming it was preserving 'user rights' by using the same tactics as traditional copyright. > It was a perversion that preempted peoples' ability to use any of the code in their actual day to day work, thereby enslaving them to same proprietary code all over again. The GPL restricts the ability of people to redistribute modified proprietary versions of code. Your license restricts the ability of people to redistribute open source version of code. I'm not saying it eliminates that ability; it just prevents it from ever being incorporated into or linked with any GPL program. > jQuery's status as an MIT licensed project is pretty much exemplary of what I'm trying to encourage. Then just release it as MIT or BSD licensed. Disclaim copyright to the extent legally possible. Do something that doesn't restrict the ability of people to incorporate your code into other open source/free software projects more than it does the ability of people to incorporate it into proprietary software. > Are you then to claim that jQuery is hostile to open source because it'll allow proprietary projects to make use of it? No. I also didn't say that you're hostile to open source. I said that your licensing is hostile to '"free software" folks', in other words, people who refer to what they do as "free software". jQuery's licensing isn't hostile to them because it allows them to freely incorporate it into their projects to the same extent it allows proprietary projects to do so. Your license allows incorporation into proprietary software but restricts incorporation into the projects of the free software folks.