Re: [opennic-discuss] Root Generation Script

----- 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[0] 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.