4 ms·

Agreed on all points. In this case, I'm actually interested in a share-alike license. I'm making this code available because it makes the research world stronge

by ISL 12y ago

Agreed on all points. In this case, I'm actually interested in a share-alike license. I'm making this code available because it makes the research world stronger. If someone else extends it, I'd like to encourage them to share the code back to the community. So, the GPL comes up of my own volition. In the case of prose, though, I want people to be clear whose words are whose. Even changing a word or two can change the meaning of the document significantly. The GNU FDL appears to address this sort of thing, but doesn't apply to code. In this case, the prose is laden with included code, so I'm sitting between licenses.

brudgers 12y ago
One of the issues with open sourcing projects after their done is that it's often a lot of work to clean things up. But to me, it comes down to enforcement. If you're not willing to lawyer up, it's rather pointless to get involved in enforceable licenses that lie between all-rights-reserved and do-whatever-you-want. To put it another way, if hiring a lawyer for advice on licensing seems like overkill, how much does the licensing really matter deep down where push comes to shove? Considering that in any academic setting, people should cite you regardless of license and those who don't wouldn't even with all-rights-reserved, why make it harder for the good guys?
- ISL 12y ago
  I'm primarily concerned with encouraging code-sharing. If it's explicit in my act of sharing that "I'm sharing code with you with the understanding that you'll share with me", then perhaps it's more likely that other research groups will share openly, too. Our field is on the verge of developing an open code-sharing culture; this is a chance to define it.
  - brudgers 12y ago
    GPL is conditional sharing. Those conditions can impede acceptance of the offer. Don't get me wrong, I like GPL and admire Stallman's position. I just don't have the dogma in me to believe that lawyering up is always worth the bother of threatening to do so.

by ISL 12y ago

brudgers 12y ago

One of the issues with open sourcing projects after their done is that it's often a lot of work to clean things up. But to me, it comes down to enforcement. If you're not willing to lawyer up, it's rather pointless to get involved in enforceable licenses that lie between all-rights-reserved and do-whatever-you-want. To put it another way, if hiring a lawyer for advice on licensing seems like overkill, how much does the licensing really matter deep down where push comes to shove? Considering that in any academic setting, people should cite you regardless of license and those who don't wouldn't even with all-rights-reserved, why make it harder for the good guys?

ISL 12y ago
I'm primarily concerned with encouraging code-sharing. If it's explicit in my act of sharing that "I'm sharing code with you with the understanding that you'll share with me", then perhaps it's more likely that other research groups will share openly, too. Our field is on the verge of developing an open code-sharing culture; this is a chance to define it.
- brudgers 12y ago
  GPL is conditional sharing. Those conditions can impede acceptance of the offer. Don't get me wrong, I like GPL and admire Stallman's position. I just don't have the dogma in me to believe that lawyering up is always worth the bother of threatening to do so.