#82130 - Lini - Thu May 04, 2006 3:56 am
SourceForge is asking what General Use License (or something like that) I want to use for my PixShip project that I want to put up there.
Any suggestions on what I should use, or any suggestions on any other service I should use to store my source?
#82132 - tepples - Thu May 04, 2006 4:00 am
Open Source Initiative maintains a list of free software licenses (called "open source licenses" by OSI).
Free Software Foundation maintains another list of free software licenses. Each license in this list has a description that briefly explains on the pros and cons of each license as well as its compatibility with FSF's own GNU licenses.
Which license to use depends on what you want to let others do with your software:
- For a permissive license, allowing use even in proprietary software, use Zlib license. Libnds itself uses this license.
- For a weak copyleft, allowing use in proprietary software as long as source code for any modified module is published, use the Mozilla tri-license, which consists of the disjunction of Mozilla Public License, GNU General Public License, and GNU Lesser General Public License. (This license is very similar to the "License of Netscape JavaScript" described on FSF's page.)
- For a strong copyleft, requiring publication of source code for any module linked to your module, use the GNU General Public License.
_________________
-- Where is he?
-- Who?
-- You know, the human.
-- I think he moved to Tilwick.
#82156 - DakeDesu - Thu May 04, 2006 8:56 am
I am just wondering how ROMs fit into the GPL. I know that with Perl and Java, due to how they include all source into one file (rather than other langauges where if files still remain seperate), then all source must be made available.
This mostly done because of how Perl and JDK handle compile code, and have compiled code as one "binary"
So what I am asking what is FSF's and Gnu's stance on ROMs are.
Just figured it was relevant.
_________________
[ Main Site | Kid Radd Fan Project | Forums ]
#82187 - tepples - Thu May 04, 2006 2:18 pm
A compiled program formatted as a ROM image is no different from any other compiled program. The GPL and "written offer" to distribute source code, or the LGPL and "written offer" to distribute source code for the free parts and object code for the proprietary parts, can be printed in the manual.
_________________
-- Where is he?
-- Who?
-- You know, the human.
-- I think he moved to Tilwick.
#82189 - wintermute - Thu May 04, 2006 2:31 pm
The GPL requires that all source code be made available, the medium the binary is distributed on is irrelevant. This means that GPL'd code may not be used in tandem with proprietary, closed source libraries where the license prevents distribution of the object files required to link the final application.
_________________
devkitPro - professional toolchains at amateur prices
devkitPro IRC support
Personal Blog
#82207 - Lynx - Thu May 04, 2006 4:08 pm
Heck, with open source, you don't even have to provide the ROM. Just the source.
#82245 - DakeDesu - Thu May 04, 2006 7:32 pm
Okay it appears to have changed since that long past heated debate on perlmonks.org
for those interested (I did some research on the Java binary stuff)
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-java.html
I guess it would be the same on GBA
(I am pretty sure that atleast some previous version of the GPL contained something about Perl and Java--maybe I switched timelines again... I need to start thinking fourth dimensionally)
_________________
[ Main Site | Kid Radd Fan Project | Forums ]
#82403 - Lini - Sat May 06, 2006 12:48 am
I'm not quite sure which license I would want (I think the GPL, but not sure).
Personally, I don't care if other people use my code for inspirational/instructional purposes, or if they modify and re-compile it. I just would like to get credit for the work that I, personally, did.
#82408 - wintermute - Sat May 06, 2006 1:27 am
MIT license might suit you.
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php
unless you want to require modifications to be publicly available and forbid commercial use, where GPL is a better fit.
_________________
devkitPro - professional toolchains at amateur prices
devkitPro IRC support
Personal Blog
#82411 - Lini - Sat May 06, 2006 1:53 am
ah, ok. Thanks wintermute! That's probably exactly what I'm looking for then (the GPL). I'll put this up on sourceforge ASAP.
If anyone wants the source, I can PM it to you.
#82546 - tepples - Sun May 07, 2006 6:10 am
GNU GPL does not prohibit commercial use. For instance, Fedora Core is a collection of free software including a Linux? kernel, and Red Hat Enterprise Linux is a commercial distribution of Fedora Core. RHEL satisfies the GNU GPL by including source code and allowing redistribution of all covered components. But anything linked into an executable with GPL covered code does have to be GPL compatible free software, which destroys the proprietary software business model that many commercial distributors (such as Microsoft) rely on.
_________________
-- Where is he?
-- Who?
-- You know, the human.
-- I think he moved to Tilwick.
#82579 - Lini - Sun May 07, 2006 1:44 pm
By 'commercial use', do you mean selling the software?
I don't mind if my code is given out for free (and under the same license), I just don't want it sold.
#82603 - tepples - Sun May 07, 2006 7:12 pm
| Lini wrote: |
By 'commercial use', do you mean selling the software?
I don't mind if my code is given out for free (and under the same license), I just don't want it sold. |
The GNU GPL and all other free software licenses permit licensees to distribute copies of your software for a fee, although the copies that users get are still governed by the license. In the case of copyleft licenses such as the GNU GPL, this means that a distributor cannot make your software proprietary.
_________________
-- Where is he?
-- Who?
-- You know, the human.
-- I think he moved to Tilwick.