Author Topic: Looking for a new License  (Read 708 times)

n00b

  • Newcomer
  • *
  • Posts: 44
    • View Profile
Looking for a new License
« on: 05. May 2016, 08:17:15 »
I am getting ready to upload a new release later today with a lot of fixes and improvements.  I have been looking over my current license and I realize that it requires any program written in RCBasic to distribute a copy of the MIT License with it.  Is there a open source license that will allow my users to not have to distribute a license with there works?

Cybermonkey

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 573
    • View Profile
    • Home of EGSL
Re: Looking for a new License
« Reply #1 on: 05. May 2016, 19:49:40 »
Zlib?

Quote
This software is provided 'as-is', without any express or implied warranty. In no event will the authors be held liable for any damages arising from the use of this software.

Permission is granted to anyone to use this software for any purpose, including commercial applications, and to alter it and redistribute it freely, subject to the following restrictions:

    1. The origin of this software must not be misrepresented; you must not claim that you wrote the original software. If you use this software in a product, an acknowledgment in the product documentation would be appreciated but is not required.

    2. Altered source versions must be plainly marked as such, and must not be misrepresented as being the original software.

    3. This notice may not be removed or altered from any source distribution.

The notice must only included in a source distribution of the software ...
Best regards,
Cybermonkey

n00b

  • Newcomer
  • *
  • Posts: 44
    • View Profile
Re: Looking for a new License
« Reply #2 on: 05. May 2016, 20:24:06 »
I can't believe I missed this. I thought MIT and zlib were identical so I just went with MIT because github had a template for it already.  Thanks.

Tomaaz

  • Guest
Re: Looking for a new License
« Reply #3 on: 05. May 2016, 21:13:33 »
I am getting ready to upload a new release later today with a lot of fixes and improvements.  I have been looking over my current license and I realize that it requires any program written in RCBasic to distribute a copy of the MIT License with it.

I don't think that's true. Each copy of RCBasic itself must be distributed with a copy of MIT license, but it doesn't apply to programs written in it.

Cybermonkey

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 573
    • View Profile
    • Home of EGSL
Re: Looking for a new License
« Reply #4 on: 05. May 2016, 22:17:34 »
The MIT license says:
Quote
The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
So n00b might be right...
Best regards,
Cybermonkey

Tomaaz

  • Guest
Re: Looking for a new License
« Reply #5 on: 06. May 2016, 00:00:39 »
I don't think so. The Software in this case is RCBasic interpreter and programs written in RCBasic dialect are not substantial portions of the Software (that would be important pieces of RCBasic interpreter source code), the same way as web page code is not a substantial portion of a browser and code written using Geany is not substantial portion of Geany. You're mixing two separate things here. One is a language as a design, syntax, logic etc. Second is the interpreter of this language. Just look at web browsers situation. The license a browser is distributed under has nothing to do with the license of the HTML/JavaScript code a browser is interpreting.
« Last Edit: 06. May 2016, 00:02:25 by Tomaaz »

n00b

  • Newcomer
  • *
  • Posts: 44
    • View Profile
Re: Looking for a new License
« Reply #6 on: 06. May 2016, 07:48:42 »
I don't think so. The Software in this case is RCBasic interpreter and programs written in RCBasic dialect are not substantial portions of the Software (that would be important pieces of RCBasic interpreter source code), the same way as web page code is not a substantial portion of a browser and code written using Geany is not substantial portion of Geany. You're mixing two separate things here. One is a language as a design, syntax, logic etc. Second is the interpreter of this language. Just look at web browsers situation. The license a browser is distributed under has nothing to do with the license of the HTML/JavaScript code a browser is interpreting.

I kind of see your point.  The reason the MIT license concerned me was really that because it is worded so poorly it can be misinterpreted by anyone.  It is not a concern as long as I am the sole developer because I would be the only one who could enforce it but my hope is that like any other successful open source project, eventually more people contribute to it.  In such a case, new developers contribute code under its current license which means they can expect users to abide by the conditions outlined in the license agreement.  I want any future user to have clearly defined freedom to distribute there programs with the interpreter without the possibility of license infringement.  After reading the zlib license more carefully I think it is the best possible license for this project.