Personally, I favor the LLoNBaD v1.1.
[spoiler]The Luke License of Not Being a c v1.1:
You must not sell this intellectual property or take credit for it, and you must credit the original creator. Otherwise have fun.[/spoiler]
Quote from: gogogoluke on April 27, 2016, 11:29:58 PM
Personally, I favor the LLoNBaD v1.1.
[spoiler]The Luke License of Not Being a d*** v1.1:
You must not sell this intellectual property or take credit for it, and you must credit the original creator. Otherwise have fun.[/spoiler]
Oh, cool, no sublicensing clause. Let me sublicense it into GPLv3And now you have a problem.
(See, licenses are hard)
Obviously it depends what do you want to do with your software, but you should use an existing one to make sure it covers every detail that could occur when it comes to licensing your software.
Best one I found are the LiLiQ licences (available in Permissive, Reciprocity and Reciprocity Plus flavors, pick one), they're not much of a pain to read, like the Creative Commons you can pick one that suits you best, they're compatible with most of the OSI licences, they're government-backed and they're in French. As soon I heard of this one I decided to use it for all my future projects.
https://www.forge.gouv.qc.ca/participez/licence-logicielle/licence-libre-du-quebec-liliq-in-english/quebec-free-and-open-source-licence-reciprocity-liliq-r-v1-1/
My license of course :
https://gameblabla.olympe.in/license/gameblabla_license_v3_3.txt (https://gameblabla.olympe.in/license/gameblabla_license_v3_3.txt)
But you know what's a better license ? Destroy copyright
Quote from: Adriweb on April 27, 2016, 11:31:53 PM
Quote from: gogogoluke on April 27, 2016, 11:29:58 PM
Personally, I favor the LLoNBaD v1.1.
[spoiler]The Luke License of Not Being a c v1.1:
You must not sell this intellectual property or take credit for it, and you must credit the original creator. Otherwise have fun.[/spoiler]
Oh, cool, no sublicensing clause. Let me sublicense it into GPLv3
And now you have a problem.
(See, licenses are hard)
Nobody will be sublicensing a 15 year old's crappy HP PPL math program.
Quote from: gogogoluke on April 27, 2016, 11:42:12 PM
Nobody will be sublicensing a 15 year old's crappy HP PPL math program.
Except that copyright lasts longer than a human being.
A sub-licensing clause would definitively be a must.
For small games like OMS, i mostly use the MIT license. (sometimes called expat license)
For big games however, i would use the GPLv3, the Apache License v2 or at least a license with a non-endorsement clause.
However, no license can beat my own ! (https://gameblabla.olympe.in/license/gameblabla_license_v3_3.txt)
I just don't use any. I am that lazy. I just put a readme disclaimer saying they are free or not free to use my code, and to give me credits, and stuff like that. But I should look into using a more generic license. What is better in GPL over MIT?
Also yeah, if an author wants to use restrictions on re-use of their software such as not redistributing verbatim copies without permission, I will respect their decision. However, what I don't like are licenses that can be modified at any time at the author's discretion. If the author dislikes you then he can abuse the hell out of his license modification clauses against you if he decides to be an ass.
Quote from: DJ Omnimaga on April 28, 2016, 12:45:05 AM
What is better in GPL over MIT?
It's not really better, just different.
The MIT is easy to follow i guess, the GPL is huge in comparaison.
The GPL is kind of better though because companies hate it, and the more you piss off companies like Apple, the better.
The GPL in particular requires you to release any modifications you do to the source code.
Any project using the GPL also must be GPL-compatible, this is the reason why Ballmer called it a "cancer" that spreads like a "virus".
My license is EVEN better than the GPL because anyone redistribuying an application must give their patents to the licensees.
Ah I see. I tend to dislike long texts, and some other people with short attention spans are the same too. But yeah personally if I was to open-source something I release such as an emulator, I would prefer to use a license that requires people forking my program to release their source modifications. This would avoid unwanted scenarios such as Nspire Emu which used the wrong license and thus, was forked into a closed-source project (IIRC it was against the original author's wishes, but the license allowed it, but I could be wrong)
Also for softwares and hardware I release, I kinda like to at least get a minimum of credits if I spent a lot of effort on it, so ideally I would prefer choosing a license that doesn't allow my code to be re-used inside vendor lock-in softwares with barely any attribution.
The GPL is pretty much made to oppose proprietary software, to make sure free software stays free software and that it would stand behind the court down to the technicality if someone would sue you for it. In short, people using your software should be able to do pretty much what they want with it, including modifying it themselves, and people should also be able to do what they want with the modified copy, pretty much what Richard Stallman and the FSF advocates for.
Other licenses, such as BSD and MIT, allows some stuff the GPL isn't, but it's pretty much some particular technicalities. That or you pretty much want to put your software under public domain (http://www.wtfpl.net/about/).
I'm partial to the WTFPL (http://www.wtfpl.net/about/) license.
TO be honest I am more a fan of the GPL, even if it's a bit more restrictive, because of the modified source code redistributing thing mentioned by Gameblabla. If I spend years making a software for the community, I might not necessarily want someone to make a closed-source fork of it that nobody can contribute to and especially not a fork of my free software that gets sold for money without significant modifications. Also, it's not just about open vs closed-source nor just softwares that licensing choice can be a problem.
Generally, I like to force everyone using my work to use GPL because I don't think the things I do should be closed source. In general, open sourceness is better for the calculator community since I doubt anyone in the active community has pecuniary interests, and closed source projects hinder learning and development. But that's my opinion.
The problem I have with GPL is that it forces the same license to be used on the whole project the code is used in :/ Licenses are hard though, 'cause GPL of course has its good sides too.
Quote from: aeTIos on April 28, 2016, 07:16:25 AM
The problem I have with GPL is that it forces the same license to be used on the whole project the code is used in :/ Licenses are hard though, 'cause GPL of course has its good sides too.
Yeah I know, but at least it can prevent abuse or unethical re-use of other people's hard work. Of course, whether people think it's unethical or not depends of their views, but as
@CVSoft says, in the TI community in particular it is generally seen as a bad practice to take someone else's code, make it closed-source then use it solely for personal gains and disallow anyone to freely contribute to the forked project in the process. The GPL at least prevents that.
Personally, though, an alternative could be a license that requires any direct or indirect fork of your open-source project to be open-source if it uses over a certain percentage of the original code, while not forcing the new project to use the GPL. Does such license exist?
You'd have to plan it in advance, but yeah, I think you can declare a few files as GPL and the others as another license. Like the Linux kernel, it's basically GPLv2 but I think there's some code/binary blobs here and there under another license and/or proprietary.
Having a license that changes based on arbitrary percentages of code utilized seems rather complicated and open to abuse.
Then what is the solution?
A bit like what I said, each contributor chooses their own license for each contribution they make, that or dual-licensing.
I was actually asking in response to calcplays comment.
Basically, I am trying to find to find the best possible license choice that is not as restrictive as the GPL, but can still prevent a repeat of the Nspire Emu vs KarmTI incident (no hard feelings against the author of the fork. But I would probably have chosen a different license for Nspire Emu).
AGPLv2