RE: Re: Collaborative project and list fragmentation

["Primoz Gabrijelcic" <gabr@xxxxxxx>]

> The very first sentence in the very first definition of what makes an
open
> source project states
> "The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving
away the
> software as a component of an aggregate software distribution
containing
> programs from several different sources"

That is true, but one still has to be careful. There are many types of open
source licenses in use and they can limit your deployment options.

Open source means that you'll release source together with the application.
This doesn't prevent you from selling the application (as Stuart correctly
stated). The trouble lies in components/building blocks. If you use some
open-sourced library/component/whatever in your project, its license limits
your options. If you, for example, use GPL-ed (GNU General Public License)
library, your application *must* be released under GPL license. That's why
it is commonly stated that "the GPL is a virus." If you use
MPL-ed (Mozilla
Public License) library, your options are not limited that much - you may
or
you may not release the full source for your app, as you wish.

Of course, if part (or all) of the product are libraries that you will
release as open source, then it becomes important for other users if you
release them as GPL, MPL or something third.

Some more important licenses are:

- GNU General Public License,
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/gpl-license.html
- GNU Library or 'Lesser' Public License,
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/lgpl-license.html
- BSD License, http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.html
- MIT License, http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.html
- Artistic License, http://www.opensource.org/licenses/artistic-license.html
- Mozilla Public License 1.0 (MPL), http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/MPL-1.0.html
- Q Public License (QPL), http://www.troll.no/qpl
- IBM Public License 1.0,
http://www.research.ibm.com/jikes/license/license3.htm
- MITRE Collaborative Virtual Workspace License (CVW License),
http://cvw.mitre.org/cvw/licenses/source/license.html
- Ricoh Source Code Public License 1.0,
http://www.risource.org/RPL/RPL-1.0A.shtml
- Python License, http://www.python.org/doc/Copyright.html
- zlib/libpng License, http://www.opensource.org/licenses/zlib-license.html
- Apache Software License, http://www.opensource.org/licenses/apachepl.html
- Vovida Software License v. 1.0,
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/vovidapl.html
- Sun Internet Standards Source License (SISSL),
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/sisslpl.html
- Intel Open Source License,
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/intel-open-source-license.html
- Mozilla Public License 1.1 (MPL 1.1),
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mozilla1.1.html
- Jabber Open Source License,
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/jabberpl.html
- Public Domain, http://www.sourceforge.net/register/publicdomain.txt

I'd recommend a GPL for the application and MPL for the components.
Luckily,
source can be dual-licensed; it is completly feasible to release a library
under dual GPL/MPL license - library users can then decide which licensing
model better suits them.

I hope I didn't make too much mess of this...

Best regards,
Primoz




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/