[clug-talk] Article on Licensing
lewkor at telus.net
Mon Nov 22 10:29:23 PST 2004
On November 22, 2004 10:29 pm, Jarrod Major wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> What do people think about this? I know that I have been reading up on this
> topic. There has been more interest in Creative Commons as well.
> With the contention over Intellectual Property this certainly feels like an
> issue that is likely to get worse before it gets better. SCO was only the
> start. Last week there was the news about MS threatening litigation against
> Asian governments using Linux. Both are issues about IP violations.
> Most of us know this to be FUD but it begs the deeper question: are our
> licenses strong enough? Or more importantly, can programming constructs
> that we rely upon actually be copyrighted or patented or otherwise deemed
> as something that can be licensed? It makes my head spin thinking about the
> legal ramifications. Groklaw is great for explaining some of these issues
> but this is so entrenched where does one begin to fathom it all? Where does
> one start to fight for fair use of copyrighted material or IP?
> This is one area where I would like to see a champion.
Generally, I may not have thought this through as thouroughly as some (say
Aaron perhaps), but my opinion is this:
If a software project is a piece of infrastructure, by that I mean a protocol
implementation, a library that reads and writes a file format or something
that implements authentication, then I would mandate that that software be
licenced under the GPL. Generally, any software that allows programs to
interoperate shall be GPL or LGPL if GPL licencing would limit its adoption.
In addition there may be certain applications that I would add to this list.
In my ideal world OS's would use the GPL. What I have observed is that under
this licence, the most varied development happens while creating the climate
for the least forks. Look at the number of versions of BSD to see what
happens under the BSD licence.
Using the LGPL for libraries like Kerberos, libraries that write file formats
etc.; generally, any software that provides interoperablilty between
applications(wow is that ever general) is where I'd use the GPL or LGPL.
Would MS have been able to add the incompatibilities to Kerberos if it were
licenced under the LGPL?
That leaves everything else for the other licences. If an author wants to
licence an application under the BSD licence and a company takes the code and
commercializes it without his consent then so be it!
More information about the clug-talk