7 Nov 2008 01:38
Re: [opennic-discuss] Root Generation Script
Aaron J Angel <thatoneguy <at> aaronjangel.us>
2008-11-07 00:38:25 GMT
2008-11-07 00:38:25 GMT
----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian Koontz" <brian <at> pongonova.net> To: <discuss <at> lists.opennicproject.org> Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 7:45 AM Subject: Re: [opennic-discuss] Root Generation Script > On Thu, Nov 06, 2008 at 04:08:56PM +1000, Julian De Marchi wrote: >> Why am I telling you this? We need to license our script. The license >> will have to be DFSG compatible for it to be considered. I have >> never done licensing before, and thus would like assistance in this. Says who? Unless I'm severely out of the loop, this is the first mention of DFSG on this list. Is this a proposed policy? > Both the GPL and BSD licenses are compatible with the DFSG. I'm > fundamentally opposed to the BSD license because I believe it enables > those who are not so honest to literally steal code for their own use > without attribution. So my recommendation would be the GPL. The BSD license does not allow people to "steal code". One who releases code under a BSD-style license are fully aware of the fact that there code might be used by third-parties and even accept the fact that third-parties are allowed to modify the code without releasing the source of the modified version. Derivatives must still provide attribution (the copyright statement of the original source), license conditions and the as-is disclaimer. I know this may be a hard concept to understand, but: BSD coders license their code under BSD-style licenses on purpose. The text of the license is there for anyone to read; I suggest to those who may be unfamiliar with BSD-style licenses that they Google it; or feel free to browse the Open Source Initiative's web site at www.opensource.org. The BSD licenses are listed as "New and simplified BSD licenses". As for the GPL, its magnificence is overstated. It does not encourage people to use or create derivatives of software. It simply demands publishers to share the source code of derivatives. It causes problems for companies with policies that do not permit the distribution of their source code, thereby reducing the usefulness to those companies of software licensed under the GPL. Just like BSD people accept the fact that their code can be used by third-parties without requiring them to distribute the derivative's source code, GPL people accept the fact that their code /cannot/ be used by third-parties without the same. There is nothing "wrong" with either license; they are simply different. As for myself, I would rather see OpenNIC code released under a BSD-style license. Mind you, contributors in agreement can distribute their code however they want -- they could release code under both licenses, or neither license, if they wish. We need not limit ourselves, nor should we limit others in the process. GPL it if you want, but I won't write code that is released solely under GPL; I have no such obligation, nor does anyone else. We have signed no agreements. - To unsubscribe, email majordomo <at> lists.opennicproject.org with the words "unsubscribe discuss" in the body of the message.