Which License Should I Use?

[mojosam]

I've been watching the flame war about licenses with some interest.
There are many motivations for those who participate in this sector, so
disagreements over licenses reflect those agendas.

I don't have an agenda, at least not right now. I do plan on writing a
few programs.

These will be tools I need for firmware testing. They will be
relatively simple things like tools for breaking down data by its
structure for easy viewing, sending commands/macros over serial ports,
etc. Similar things exist, but they don't do everything I need. These
will also be excellent learning opportunities for me, since I'm still
pretty shaky on Python.

How do I decide on a license? Are there any web sites that summarize
the pros and cons? I guess I don't care too much about how other
people use it. These things won't be comprehensive enough or have
broad enough appeal that somebody will slap a new coat of paint on them
and try to sell them. I guess I don't care if somebody incorporates
them into something bigger. If somebody were to add features to them,
it would be nice to get the code and keep the derivative work as open
source, but I don't think that matters all that much to me. If
somebody can add value and find a way of making money at it, I don't
think I'd be too upset.

I will be doing the bulk of the coding on my own time, because I need
to be able to take these tools with me when I change employers.
However, I'm sure that in the course of using these tools, I will need
to spend time on the job debugging or tweaking them. I do not want my
current employer to have any claim on my code in any way. Usually if
you program on company time, that makes what you do a "work for hire".
I can't contaminate my code like that. Does that mean the GPL is the
strongest defense in this situation?

I'm open to suggestions as to which licenses to consider. However,
please try to keep the conversation to the decision process or what
sounds like it is best for this purpose. Let's keep the broader issue
of which license will bring about the fall of Western Civilization on
the other thread.

Ron Britton

(The gibberish on the next line really is my email address.)
nk67v8o02
at
sneakemail.com

[Andrew Koenig]

""Björn Lindström"" <bk**@stp.lingf il.uu.se> wrote in message
news:87******** *******@lucien. dreaming...

Mike Meyer <mw*@mired.or g> writes: If they have the rights to the code, they can sell it, under the GPL or
any license of their choosing. In addition, if you GPL it, your employer
will be able to sell it, just like anyone else.

If they have the rights to the code, you don't get to decide on the terms
under which it will be distributed (if at all) -- they do.

[Andrew Koenig]

"mojosam" <nk*******@snea kemail.com> wrote in message
news:11******** **************@ g43g2000cwa.goo glegroups.com.. .

I would have to talk to a lawyer to be sure, but right now, I think I
can argue that anything I do on my own time belongs to me. I'm
technically a consultant right now (even though I'm spending 40
hours/week with the one "client"). I can take on other clients, as
long as they don't directly compete. This means they're hiring my
expertise. If I bring my own tools, that's part of my expertise. I do
recall there was a clause in the contract that anything I did on their
time belonged to them. For my next client, I should definitely include
a clause about rereleasing open source changes.

Yup. If you're not an employee (that is, if you get a 1099 form rather than
a W-2 form from your client), then any work you do belongs to you *except*
for what you agree in writing belongs to them. So if you write code that's
not part of any deliverable, it's yours.

Of course, they might object to your using their facilities, or working on
their time, on stuff that isn't part of a deliverable. But that's a
separate problem entirely.

[Andrew Koenig]

"Robert Kern" <ro*********@gm ail.com> wrote in message
news:ma******** *************** *************** *@python.org...

You're in something of a gray area, but one that has seen a lot of
litigation. Although you are "technicall y" a consultant, you are
probably considered an employee with regards to the "work made for hire"
doctrine. You should probably have a chat with a lawyer soon (I am not
one! TINLA!).

I'm pretty sure that there was a change to the copyright laws a few years
ago (perhaps as part of the DMCA), that made it clear that you own
everything you produce, unless you're a W-2 employee or there is a written
agreement to the contrary.

[Robert Kern]

Andrew Koenig wrote:

"Robert Kern" <ro*********@gm ail.com> wrote in message
news:ma******** *************** *************** *@python.org...

You're in something of a gray area, but one that has seen a lot of
litigation. Although you are "technicall y" a consultant, you are
probably considered an employee with regards to the "work made for hire"
doctrine. You should probably have a chat with a lawyer soon (I am not
one! TINLA!).

I'm pretty sure that there was a change to the copyright laws a few years
ago (perhaps as part of the DMCA), that made it clear that you own
everything you produce, unless you're a W-2 employee or there is a written
agreement to the contrary.

The US Copyright Office does not agree with you.

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ09.pdf

But you can read the text of the DMCA itself.

http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/hr2281_dm...pl105-304.html

--
Robert Kern
ro*********@gma il.com

"In the fields of hell where the grass grows high
Are the graves of dreams allowed to die."
-- Richard Harter

[Robert Kern]

Andrew Koenig wrote:

Yup. If you're not an employee (that is, if you get a 1099 form rather than
a W-2 form from your client), then any work you do belongs to you *except*
for what you agree in writing belongs to them. So if you write code that's
not part of any deliverable, it's yours.

Please stop saying things that are demonstrably untrue and could get
people into legal trouble if they believed you.

--
Robert Kern
ro*********@gma il.com

"In the fields of hell where the grass grows high
Are the graves of dreams allowed to die."
-- Richard Harter

[Mike Meyer]

"Andrew Koenig" <ar*@acm.org> writes:

I'm pretty sure that there was a change to the copyright laws a few years
ago (perhaps as part of the DMCA), that made it clear that you own
everything you produce, unless you're a W-2 employee or there is a written
agreement to the contrary.

Definitely not. The most recent change to the copyright laws made
works of music recorded to fullfill a contract "work for hire" by
default.

<mike
--
Mike Meyer <mw*@mired.or g> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/
Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information.

[Rocco Moretti]

Steven D'Aprano wrote:

On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 11:30:46 -0800, mojosam wrote:

I guess I don't care too much about how other people use it.

Then probably the best licence to use is just to follow the lead of
Python. For that sort of small program of limited value, I put something
like this in the code:

Copyright (c) 2005 Steven D'Aprano.
Released under the same license as used by Python 2.3.2 itself.
See http://www.python.org/psf/license.html for details, and
http://www.python.org/2.3.2/license.html for the full text of the license.

Gaak! No! The Python license you point to contains horrible amounts of
cruft due to the ownership ping-pong game. (And just using the hyperlink
like you did leaves it vauge as to who is doing the liscensing - Steven
D'Aprano? the PSF? BeOpen? CNRI? Stichting Mathematisch Centrum?) As I
understand it, the PSF's official position is that the Python license
(even just the top most one) is not appropriate for any program besides
Python itself.

http://wiki.python.org/moin/PythonSo...tionLicenseFaq

Note that the Python license is not even appropriate for third party
code that's intended to be contributed to the Python standard library or
core!

If you want a "like Python" license, try the MIT or "new-BSD" license
instead:
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php

[Steve Holden]

Steven D'Aprano wrote:

On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 11:30:46 -0800, mojosam wrote:

I guess I don't care too much about how other people use it.

Then probably the best licence to use is just to follow the lead of
Python. For that sort of small program of limited value, I put something
like this in the code:

Copyright (c) 2005 Steven D'Aprano.
Released under the same license as used by Python 2.3.2 itself.
See http://www.python.org/psf/license.html for details, and
http://www.python.org/2.3.2/license.html for the full text of the license.

I use that as a no-brainer licence: it is weaker than but compatible with
the GPL, and requires less documentation.

Not only is this inappropriate, it doesn't even license users to use
your software, it licenses them to use Python! The official advice of
the PSF is that the unmodified Python license should *not* (and, really,
can not) be used to license any other software.

regards
Steve
--
Steve Holden [phone] [phone]
Holden Web LLC www.holdenweb.com
PyCon TX 2006 www.python.org/pycon/

[Rocco Moretti]

mojosam wrote:

I've been watching the flame war about licenses with some interest.
There are many motivations for those who participate in this sector, so
disagreements over licenses reflect those agendas.

One point that frequently gets ignored in licensing debates:

The value of a license is directly proportional to the amount of time,
effort, and money you are willing to spend enforcing it.

It doesn't matter how fancy the legal wording is - it is up to you, as
the copyright holder, to bring legal action against infringers (or at
least send a cease-and-desist letter). If you're not going to bother,
any and all clauses in the license, no matter how artfully crafted,
won't do you any (legal) good. People using your program are left acting
on the honor system. Which may be just fine - but you don't need a
fancy, legalistic license to accomplish that.

[Ben Finney]

Rocco Moretti <ro**********@h otpop.com> wrote:

One point that frequently gets ignored in licensing debates:

The value of a license is directly proportional to the amount of
time, effort, and money you are willing to spend enforcing it.
That's a very important factor, yes.
It doesn't matter how fancy the legal wording is - it is up to you,
as the copyright holder, to bring legal action

This is true as far as it goes. What is sought, though, is not "fancy
legal wording", but clarity of intent.

The wording is *extremely* important, since it must express, as
clearly and unambiguously as possible, the intent of the license
granter. Legal action and judicial interpretation will play their
part, but the clearer you can make the license text, the less
guesswork is needed on both sides to determine what is and is not
permitted in the license terms.

The GNU GPL, and the Expat license (née X11, MIT, 2-clause BSD, etc.),
are popular in part because the intent of their terms is expressed
very clearly.

--
\ "He who wonders discovers that this in itself is wonder." -- |
`\ Maurits Cornelis Escher |
_o__) |
Ben Finney