Could anyone comment on the choice of the Mozilla Public License for the IPT? I'm curious about which property made it the best choice. I'm reviewing (for the third time) FOSS licenses for Specify 6, and am going through the usual decision tree: viral vs. non-viral GPL compatible or not and the various nuances of each license. I noticed that IPT is parked on Google Code, and then discovered this. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/25/googlecode_bans_mpl/ many thanks, Jim B. _____________________________ James H. Beach Biodiversity Institute University of Kansas 1345 Jayhawk Boulevard Lawrence, KS 66045, USA T 785 864-4645, F 785 864-5335 No engagement = No commitment.
I can't. I only have a few relevant(?) opinions: - The main downside to viral licenses is usually that they discourage corporations from wrapping the licensed code with something of theirs. For Specify, about all this is likely to mean is the kEmu can't adopt any Specify code. Is that bad? (You may want a strategy with separate services that make it easy for people to make connections to Specify servers without having to use Specify code though. This could be a small code base you isolate from Specify and license with a non-viral license, or just plain Web Services). - A software IPR attorney I heard talk once said that FOSS licensing is so tied up with U.S. IPR law, that most licenses are not very relevant or understandable overseas and present tremendous legal burdens to adoption and even acceptance by organizations that actually care what their license obligations are. She observed that the U.S. has 1000 times as many lawyers per capita as almost any other country in the world and reasoned that there are not enough anywhere outside the U.S. to advise most users of FOSS licenses. IMO, this favors simpler, better understood, widely used licenses over those that aren't all these things. - Dual licensing may obviate some of these issues in that you could fork different licenses from the unlicensed code base. This isn't ideal, because you'd have divergent code bases, whereas your development probably would take place in your most restrictive license (else why would you have it?) and so not be available in the other branches. Bob On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 4:46 PM, Beach, James H <beach@ku.edu> wrote:
Could anyone comment on the choice of the Mozilla Public License for the IPT? I'm curious about which property made it the best choice.
I'm reviewing (for the third time) FOSS licenses for Specify 6, and am going through the usual decision tree:
viral vs. non-viral
GPL compatible or not
and the various nuances of each license.
I noticed that IPT is parked on Google Code, and then discovered this.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/25/googlecode_bans_mpl/
many thanks,
Jim B.
_____________________________ James H. Beach Biodiversity Institute University of Kansas 1345 Jayhawk Boulevard Lawrence, KS 66045, USA T 785 864-4645, F 785 864-5335
No engagement = No commitment.
-- Robert A. Morris Professor of Computer Science UMASS-Boston ram@cs.umb.edu http://bdei.cs.umb.edu/ http://www.cs.umb.edu/~ram http://www.cs.umb.edu/~ram/calendar.html phone (+1)617 287 6466
This project has made a quiet nice and recent review on the different open Source Licences with pro and cons http://www.cascadoss.eu/en/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=61&Item... If it can be of any help ... Best regards Pat -----Original Message----- From: ipt-bounces@lists.gbif.org on behalf of Bob Morris Sent: Thu 22/01/2009 23:27 To: Beach, James H Cc: ipt@lists.gbif.org; ram@cs.umb.edu Subject: Re: [IPT] IPT Open source License I can't. I only have a few relevant(?) opinions: - The main downside to viral licenses is usually that they discourage corporations from wrapping the licensed code with something of theirs. For Specify, about all this is likely to mean is the kEmu can't adopt any Specify code. Is that bad? (You may want a strategy with separate services that make it easy for people to make connections to Specify servers without having to use Specify code though. This could be a small code base you isolate from Specify and license with a non-viral license, or just plain Web Services). - A software IPR attorney I heard talk once said that FOSS licensing is so tied up with U.S. IPR law, that most licenses are not very relevant or understandable overseas and present tremendous legal burdens to adoption and even acceptance by organizations that actually care what their license obligations are. She observed that the U.S. has 1000 times as many lawyers per capita as almost any other country in the world and reasoned that there are not enough anywhere outside the U.S. to advise most users of FOSS licenses. IMO, this favors simpler, better understood, widely used licenses over those that aren't all these things. - Dual licensing may obviate some of these issues in that you could fork different licenses from the unlicensed code base. This isn't ideal, because you'd have divergent code bases, whereas your development probably would take place in your most restrictive license (else why would you have it?) and so not be available in the other branches. Bob On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 4:46 PM, Beach, James H <beach@ku.edu> wrote:
Could anyone comment on the choice of the Mozilla Public License for the IPT? I'm curious about which property made it the best choice.
I'm reviewing (for the third time) FOSS licenses for Specify 6, and am going through the usual decision tree:
viral vs. non-viral
GPL compatible or not
and the various nuances of each license.
I noticed that IPT is parked on Google Code, and then discovered this.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/25/googlecode_bans_mpl/
many thanks,
Jim B.
_____________________________ James H. Beach Biodiversity Institute University of Kansas 1345 Jayhawk Boulevard Lawrence, KS 66045, USA T 785 864-4645, F 785 864-5335
No engagement = No commitment.
-- Robert A. Morris Professor of Computer Science UMASS-Boston ram@cs.umb.edu http://bdei.cs.umb.edu/ http://www.cs.umb.edu/~ram http://www.cs.umb.edu/~ram/calendar.html phone (+1)617 287 6466 _______________________________________________ IPT mailing list IPT@lists.gbif.org http://lists.gbif.org/mailman/listinfo/ipt ########################################### This message has been scanned by ICT - Africa Museum ________________________________________ 12/2/2009 - Filtered through antispam by ICT
Many thanks Pat, I am going to dig right into this. Happy Darwin's Birthday! Jim B. _____________________________ James H. Beach Biodiversity Institute University of Kansas 1345 Jayhawk Boulevard Lawrence, KS 66045, USA T 785 864-4645, F 785 864-5335 No engagement = No commitment. -----Original Message----- From: Mergen Patricia [mailto:patricia.mergen@africamuseum.be] Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 3:49 PM To: Bob Morris; Beach, James H Cc: ipt@lists.gbif.org; ram@cs.umb.edu Subject: RE: [IPT] IPT Open source License This project has made a quiet nice and recent review on the different open Source Licences with pro and cons http://www.cascadoss.eu/en/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=61& Itemid=68 If it can be of any help ... Best regards Pat -----Original Message----- From: ipt-bounces@lists.gbif.org on behalf of Bob Morris Sent: Thu 22/01/2009 23:27 To: Beach, James H Cc: ipt@lists.gbif.org; ram@cs.umb.edu Subject: Re: [IPT] IPT Open source License I can't. I only have a few relevant(?) opinions: - The main downside to viral licenses is usually that they discourage corporations from wrapping the licensed code with something of theirs. For Specify, about all this is likely to mean is the kEmu can't adopt any Specify code. Is that bad? (You may want a strategy with separate services that make it easy for people to make connections to Specify servers without having to use Specify code though. This could be a small code base you isolate from Specify and license with a non-viral license, or just plain Web Services). - A software IPR attorney I heard talk once said that FOSS licensing is so tied up with U.S. IPR law, that most licenses are not very relevant or understandable overseas and present tremendous legal burdens to adoption and even acceptance by organizations that actually care what their license obligations are. She observed that the U.S. has 1000 times as many lawyers per capita as almost any other country in the world and reasoned that there are not enough anywhere outside the U.S. to advise most users of FOSS licenses. IMO, this favors simpler, better understood, widely used licenses over those that aren't all these things. - Dual licensing may obviate some of these issues in that you could fork different licenses from the unlicensed code base. This isn't ideal, because you'd have divergent code bases, whereas your development probably would take place in your most restrictive license (else why would you have it?) and so not be available in the other branches. Bob On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 4:46 PM, Beach, James H <beach@ku.edu> wrote:
Could anyone comment on the choice of the Mozilla Public License for the IPT? I'm curious about which property made it the best choice.
I'm reviewing (for the third time) FOSS licenses for Specify 6, and am
going through the usual decision tree:
viral vs. non-viral
GPL compatible or not
and the various nuances of each license.
I noticed that IPT is parked on Google Code, and then discovered this.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/25/googlecode_bans_mpl/
many thanks,
Jim B.
_____________________________ James H. Beach Biodiversity Institute University of Kansas 1345 Jayhawk Boulevard Lawrence, KS 66045, USA T 785 864-4645, F 785 864-5335
No engagement = No commitment.
-- Robert A. Morris Professor of Computer Science UMASS-Boston ram@cs.umb.edu http://bdei.cs.umb.edu/ http://www.cs.umb.edu/~ram http://www.cs.umb.edu/~ram/calendar.html phone (+1)617 287 6466 _______________________________________________ IPT mailing list IPT@lists.gbif.org http://lists.gbif.org/mailman/listinfo/ipt ########################################### This message has been scanned by ICT - Africa Museum ________________________________________ 12/2/2009 - Filtered through antispam by ICT
Thanks Pat, the MPL was a quick "legacy choice" and we are currently investigating different options. Best bet so far seems the Apache 2.0 or MIT license, both widely used, GPL compliant and allowing commercial use. Markus On Feb 12, 2009, at 22:57, Beach, James H wrote:
Many thanks Pat,
I am going to dig right into this.
Happy Darwin's Birthday!
Jim B.
_____________________________ James H. Beach Biodiversity Institute University of Kansas 1345 Jayhawk Boulevard Lawrence, KS 66045, USA T 785 864-4645, F 785 864-5335
No engagement = No commitment.
-----Original Message----- From: Mergen Patricia [mailto:patricia.mergen@africamuseum.be] Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 3:49 PM To: Bob Morris; Beach, James H Cc: ipt@lists.gbif.org; ram@cs.umb.edu Subject: RE: [IPT] IPT Open source License
This project has made a quiet nice and recent review on the different open Source Licences with pro and cons http://www.cascadoss.eu/en/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=61& Itemid=68 If it can be of any help ...
Best regards
Pat
-----Original Message----- From: ipt-bounces@lists.gbif.org on behalf of Bob Morris Sent: Thu 22/01/2009 23:27 To: Beach, James H Cc: ipt@lists.gbif.org; ram@cs.umb.edu Subject: Re: [IPT] IPT Open source License
I can't.
I only have a few relevant(?) opinions:
- The main downside to viral licenses is usually that they discourage corporations from wrapping the licensed code with something of theirs. For Specify, about all this is likely to mean is the kEmu can't adopt any Specify code. Is that bad? (You may want a strategy with separate services that make it easy for people to make connections to Specify servers without having to use Specify code though. This could be a small code base you isolate from Specify and license with a non-viral license, or just plain Web Services).
- A software IPR attorney I heard talk once said that FOSS licensing is so tied up with U.S. IPR law, that most licenses are not very relevant or understandable overseas and present tremendous legal burdens to adoption and even acceptance by organizations that actually care what their license obligations are. She observed that the U.S. has 1000 times as many lawyers per capita as almost any other country in the world and reasoned that there are not enough anywhere outside the U.S. to advise most users of FOSS licenses. IMO, this favors simpler, better understood, widely used licenses over those that aren't all these things.
- Dual licensing may obviate some of these issues in that you could fork different licenses from the unlicensed code base. This isn't ideal, because you'd have divergent code bases, whereas your development probably would take place in your most restrictive license (else why would you have it?) and so not be available in the other branches.
Bob
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 4:46 PM, Beach, James H <beach@ku.edu> wrote:
Could anyone comment on the choice of the Mozilla Public License for the IPT? I'm curious about which property made it the best choice.
I'm reviewing (for the third time) FOSS licenses for Specify 6, and am
going through the usual decision tree:
viral vs. non-viral
GPL compatible or not
and the various nuances of each license.
I noticed that IPT is parked on Google Code, and then discovered this.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/25/googlecode_bans_mpl/
many thanks,
Jim B.
_____________________________ James H. Beach Biodiversity Institute University of Kansas 1345 Jayhawk Boulevard Lawrence, KS 66045, USA T 785 864-4645, F 785 864-5335
No engagement = No commitment.
--
Robert A. Morris Professor of Computer Science UMASS-Boston ram@cs.umb.edu http://bdei.cs.umb.edu/ http://www.cs.umb.edu/~ram http://www.cs.umb.edu/~ram/calendar.html phone (+1)617 287 6466 _______________________________________________ IPT mailing list IPT@lists.gbif.org http://lists.gbif.org/mailman/listinfo/ipt
###########################################
This message has been scanned by ICT - Africa Museum
________________________________________ 12/2/2009 - Filtered through antispam by ICT
_______________________________________________ IPT mailing list IPT@lists.gbif.org http://lists.gbif.org/mailman/listinfo/ipt
participants (4)
-
"Markus Döring (GBIF)" -
Beach, James H -
Bob Morris -
Mergen Patricia