5 ms·

Every time I think I understand software licenses, I immediately think I don't. The posts I've seen today have only served to confuse me more. Is there a simple

Every time I think I understand software licenses, I immediately think I don't. The posts I've seen today have only served to confuse me more. Is there a simple, understandable, maybe even FUN, required reading page on this subject? I'm looking for "talk to me like I'm a 3 year old" but also "don't waste my time". Suggestions?

jacobian 17y ago
The best single work I've read on the subject is Van Lindberg's _Intellectual Property and Open Source_ (http://www.amazon.com/dp/0596517963/ http://www.amazon.com/dp/0596517963/). I don't think it's quite "talk to me like I'm a 3 year old" territory -- it assumes a basic understanding of code and property -- but I don't think it's a waste of time.
galactus 17y ago
From Richard Gabriel & Ron goldman "Innovation happens elsewhere". Gabriel's prose is almost always very pleasant to read: http://www.dreamsongs.com/IHE/IHE-42.html#pgfId-956546 http://www.dreamsongs.com/IHE/IHE-42.html#pgfId-956546 http://www.dreamsongs.com/IHE/IHE-47.html#pgfId-956575 http://www.dreamsongs.com/IHE/IHE-47.html#pgfId-956575
tsally 17y ago
The licenses are actually not that long. Just read them. You'll be able to make a pretty good guess as to what they are meant for and how they will work in practice. If you want airtight legal advice, only a lawyer can get you that.
lucifer 17y ago
Here is the exact opposite of what you asked for: http://www.ifosslr.org/ifosslr http://www.ifosslr.org/ifosslr (via boing boing)
petercooper 17y ago
The Wikipedia entries for various licenses are pretty concise and straight shooting, I find. I had the same problem as you until I read them.
jon_dahl 17y ago
As a partial answer to your question, I for one thought that Zed's final point made sense (and made me better understand the GPL): Open source to open source, corporation to corporation. Basically, you can do just about anything with MIT- or BSD-licensed software. But the GPL tries to make everything around it GPL too. If you build software that integrates with a GPL'd library, you have to release your software with a GPL (or similar) license. So Zed's plan is to offer his software under a GPL license for free (open-source to open-source), and also sell it without the GPL license for pay (corp to corp). Good place to go for GPL info: the GPL FAQ (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html)
- enjo 17y ago
  In the case of mongrel or lamson, I don't see the difference. All of the binding clauses of the GPL apply to distribution. It isn't until I distribute it that I have any responsibilities at all. So if I use mongrel or lamson I'm not distributing that code in binary or source form. Thus, if I want to use the code I can do whatever the hell I want (modify it, use it, print it out and bathe in)... until I distribute it somehow (which a typical web-app never does) it makes zero difference. I'm VERY confused after reading this rant as to what Zed thinks this actually does.
  - nudded 17y ago
    say Zed released Mongrel under a BSD-license, then any big company (or any person really) could come in and modify it, make it better and then sell it. And Zed would be left with nothing. That's what GPL is for, adjusting it is fine, but you can't make money out of a redistributed modified version.
    - Tichy 17y ago
      You can sell GPLed software, Linux distributors did it for years.

jacobian 17y ago

The best single work I've read on the subject is Van Lindberg's _Intellectual Property and Open Source_ (http://www.amazon.com/dp/0596517963/ http://www.amazon.com/dp/0596517963/). I don't think it's quite "talk to me like I'm a 3 year old" territory -- it assumes a basic understanding of code and property -- but I don't think it's a waste of time.

galactus 17y ago

From Richard Gabriel & Ron goldman "Innovation happens elsewhere". Gabriel's prose is almost always very pleasant to read: http://www.dreamsongs.com/IHE/IHE-42.html#pgfId-956546 http://www.dreamsongs.com/IHE/IHE-42.html#pgfId-956546 http://www.dreamsongs.com/IHE/IHE-47.html#pgfId-956575 http://www.dreamsongs.com/IHE/IHE-47.html#pgfId-956575

tsally 17y ago

The licenses are actually not that long. Just read them. You'll be able to make a pretty good guess as to what they are meant for and how they will work in practice. If you want airtight legal advice, only a lawyer can get you that.

lucifer 17y ago

Here is the exact opposite of what you asked for: http://www.ifosslr.org/ifosslr http://www.ifosslr.org/ifosslr (via boing boing)

petercooper 17y ago

The Wikipedia entries for various licenses are pretty concise and straight shooting, I find. I had the same problem as you until I read them.

jon_dahl 17y ago

As a partial answer to your question, I for one thought that Zed's final point made sense (and made me better understand the GPL): Open source to open source, corporation to corporation. Basically, you can do just about anything with MIT- or BSD-licensed software. But the GPL tries to make everything around it GPL too. If you build software that integrates with a GPL'd library, you have to release your software with a GPL (or similar) license. So Zed's plan is to offer his software under a GPL license for free (open-source to open-source), and also sell it without the GPL license for pay (corp to corp). Good place to go for GPL info: the GPL FAQ (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html)

enjo 17y ago
In the case of mongrel or lamson, I don't see the difference. All of the binding clauses of the GPL apply to distribution. It isn't until I distribute it that I have any responsibilities at all. So if I use mongrel or lamson I'm not distributing that code in binary or source form. Thus, if I want to use the code I can do whatever the hell I want (modify it, use it, print it out and bathe in)... until I distribute it somehow (which a typical web-app never does) it makes zero difference. I'm VERY confused after reading this rant as to what Zed thinks this actually does.
- nudded 17y ago
  say Zed released Mongrel under a BSD-license, then any big company (or any person really) could come in and modify it, make it better and then sell it. And Zed would be left with nothing. That's what GPL is for, adjusting it is fine, but you can't make money out of a redistributed modified version.
  - Tichy 17y ago
    You can sell GPLed software, Linux distributors did it for years.