08 Sep, 2007, David Haley wrote in the 22nd comment:
It's "slightly" ridiculous to say that I might as well have called it a 'slightly modified GPL license'. I have no problem removing the word 'slightly' but it's hyperbolic to equate adding a commercial usage clause to the BSD and turning the GPL into what I have. My license is exactly the BSD license in all cases except that of commercial usage.
I'm not sure why you say that. I thought my wishes would be obvious: to release it exactly as BSD except when used in commercial applications. If somebody wants to use it in a free (as in beer) GPL-licensed project but the GPL is so possessive and invasive as to want to apply to my stuff too, that is the GPL's problem, not mine. I'd have absolutely no problem with somebody using my code in open source projects as long as my license remains on my code alone. What they do with their code is irrelevant to me. And anyhow, as I explained above, the GPL silliness can be circumvented.
The fact remains, as I said a few posts ago, that the majority of people who care about licensing issues are precisely those who would take the time to go read it. It's not as if it's very long, and the modifications are very clearly marked.
Tyche said:
Something which would clearly be against his wishes.
I'm not sure why you say that. I thought my wishes would be obvious: to release it exactly as BSD except when used in commercial applications. If somebody wants to use it in a free (as in beer) GPL-licensed project but the GPL is so possessive and invasive as to want to apply to my stuff too, that is the GPL's problem, not mine. I'd have absolutely no problem with somebody using my code in open source projects as long as my license remains on my code alone. What they do with their code is irrelevant to me. And anyhow, as I explained above, the GPL silliness can be circumvented.
The fact remains, as I said a few posts ago, that the majority of people who care about licensing issues are precisely those who would take the time to go read it. It's not as if it's very long, and the modifications are very clearly marked.
08 Sep, 2007, KaVir wrote in the 23rd comment:
Quote
It's "slightly" ridiculous to say that I might as well have called it a 'slightly modified GPL license'. I have no problem removing the word 'slightly' but it's hyperbolic to equate adding a commercial usage clause to the BSD and turning the GPL into what I have.
In regards to wording, please bear in mind that there's already a "Modified BSD license", which is the same as the original BSD license except without the advertising clause - see: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list...
Quote
My license is exactly the BSD license in all cases except that of commercial usage.
Unfortunately that one clause is sufficient to change your licence from "Free software" to "Semi-free software", based on the definitions of the Free Software Foundation - see: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories...
The BSD licenses are among the most widely used free software licences, so creating a BSD variant which isn't actually a "free software" licence is indeed likely to cause confusion.
08 Sep, 2007, David Haley wrote in the 24th comment:
KaVir said:
In regards to wording, please bear in mind that there's already a "Modified BSD license", which is the same as the original BSD license except without the advertising clause - see: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list...
My understanding is that almost everybody uses said 'modified' BSD as 'the BSD' (in fact the GNU page mentions this). My modified license is actually a modification of the modification. If you have a better word than 'modified' I would like to hear it. :)
KaVir said:
Unfortunately that one clause is sufficient to change your licence from "Free software" to "Semi-free software"
That's ok with me. In fact, that was the whole point! :smile: I'm not terribly interested in GNU's version of 'mandatory freedom'. My license is free (as in speech) for free (as in beer) projects.
It seems to me that the best approach is to simply tack on a sentence saying that the modification is a restriction on commercial usage.
08 Sep, 2007, kiasyn wrote in the 25th comment:
DavidHaley said:
If you have a better word than 'modified' I would like to hear it. :)
changed, altered, updated, adapted, adjusted, amended, doctored
08 Sep, 2007, David Haley wrote in the 26th comment:
Somehow I think the joke was lost…
Random Picks
We don't have to agree on anything. It's his software and he can call it anything or license it under any restrictions he wants. He might just as well have said it's "slightly modified" GPL. I'd simply point out again that it would cause similar confusion. The sort of confusion that might cause someone less attentive to simply copy his library code into some other GPL , BSD or other "open source" licensed application. Something which would clearly be against his wishes.