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

[Aahz]

In article <ma************ *************** ************@py thon.org>,
Robert Kern <ro*********@gm ail.com> wrote:

Aahz wrote:

In article <ma************ *************** ************@py thon.org>,
Robert Kern <ro*********@gm ail.com> wrote:

Don't listen to schmucks on USENET when making legal decisions. Hire
yourself a competent schmuck.

Mind if I .sig this? How would you like to be attributed?

Please do. "USENET schmuck" is a sufficient attribution if you like,
though "Robert Kern" will work, too.

Great!
--
Aahz (aa**@pythoncra ft.com) <*> http://www.pythoncraft.com/

"Don't listen to schmucks on USENET when making legal decisions. Hire
yourself a competent schmuck." --USENET schmuck (aka Robert Kern)

[Paul Rubin]

Robert Kern <ro*********@gm ail.com> writes:

Is that why the CC Public Domain Dedication has the subtitle
"Copyright-Only Dedication (based on United States law) or Public Domain
Certification"?

Lessig isn't sure. E.g. http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/001066.shtml

Hmm, interesting, thanks.

When I wrote Mr. Rosen asking about it, he didn't answer.

He's a lawyer. Getting a legal opinion from him costs money.

A legal opinion means something specific. I didn't ask him for one.

[Paul Rubin]

Paul Rubin <http://ph****@NOSPAM.i nvalid> writes:

Lessig isn't sure. E.g. http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/001066.shtml

Hmm, interesting, thanks.

Bah, the CC link from there leads to a Zope crash (at least right now):

http://creativecommons.org/license/publicdomain-direct

KeyError
Sorry, a site error occurred.

Traceback (innermost last):

* Module ZPublisher.Publ ish, line 175, in publish_module_ standard
* Module Products.Placel essTranslationS ervice.PatchStr ingIO, line 51, in new_publish
* Module ZPublisher.Publ ish, line 132, in publish
* Module Zope.App.startu p, line 204, in zpublisher_exce ption_hook
...

[Mike Meyer]

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

"Mike Meyer" <mw*@mired.or g> wrote in message
news:86******** ****@bhuda.mire d.org...

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

If there's a contract -- i.e., a written agreement, then why does it matter?

The default applies if the contract doesn't say who owns the
work. This was a move by the recording companies so they could get
ownership of works simply by not saying who owned it.

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

[Robert Kern]

Paul Rubin wrote:

Paul Rubin <http://ph****@NOSPAM.i nvalid> writes:

Lessig isn't sure. E.g. http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/001066.shtml

Hmm, interesting, thanks.

Bah, the CC link from there leads to a Zope crash (at least right now):

http://creativecommons.org/license/publicdomain-direct

This is the current URL:

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/

--
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

[Paul Rubin]

Robert Kern <ro*********@gm ail.com> writes:

This is the current URL:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/

Thanks, yeah, I remember seeing that, which is what made me say that
CC recognized PD dedications (at least in the US--it's unreasonable to
expect to account for every weird law some country on earth might come
up with). So now I'm perplexed about Lessig's blog post. I'll see if
I can ask him about it sometime. I just emailed him the cr.yp.to url
that I linked earlier.

[Paul Rubin]

Steven D'Aprano <st***@REMOVETH IScyber.com.au> writes:

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.
I've done that too, but some other post mentions that the Python
license is written specifically for Python and can't be used as a
"subroutine ". The original GNU Emacs license (forerunner of the GPL)
was the same way: it said stuff like "you may distribute copies of
Emacs if..." instead of "you may distribute copies of this program
if...". The GPL was the result of abstracting the Emacs license so it
could be applied to other programs, but doing the abstraction took
considerable thought. It wasn't just a matter of patching up stuff
like the above.
I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice, but I suggest that your
*only* defence will be to get your employer to sign a legal agreement
acknowledging that you own the code. If you like, offer them a perpetual
royalty-free non-exclusive licence to use the code, and explain how using
your own code will make you more productive in their time.
They may want to use it in a closed source product (GPL-incompatible)
which means in the case of GPL code, they want an exception to the
GPL. In the case of GPL code written by me, I'm generally unwilling
to grant such exceptions, since part of my purpose of using the GPL is
to attract other contributors. The company then has to decide,
either: a) accept the GPL; b) don't use the code, and do something
else instead, which may end up costing more.
If they refuse, then you must absolutely keep a cast-iron barrier between
what you develop in your own time and what you develop in theirs.
In some jurisdictions even such a cast-iron barrier might not be enough.
Unless you explicitly sign them away (and even that is legally dubious)
you still retain the "moral rights" to the code,
The US doesn't recognize "moral rights".
Please note that merely putting the code under a GPL or other OSS licence
is NOT sufficient -- they must agree to let you DISTRIBUTE the code.
If it's under the GPL, they're not allowed to prevent you from
distributing it, if you have a copy.
It need not be a complicated agreement:

Certainly, the best policy is to discuss things beforehand and write
out an agreement, instead of relying on faulty memory, or springing
surprises.

[Paul Rubin]

Mike Meyer <mw*@mired.or g> writes:

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

The default applies if the contract doesn't say who owns the
work. This was a move by the recording companies so they could get
ownership of works simply by not saying who owned it.

The trick was even worse than that. The way I've seen it explained,
work for hire is supposed to apply only to certain kinds of works done
under an employer's specific direction. For example, a company might
employ someone to write data sheets for transistors. They are told
what to write about, when to write, what template the data sheets
should follow, etc. That can be a work for hire. The copyright
belongs entirely to the company and the author retains zero interest.
But something like an all-original novel cannot be a work for hire
even if the publisher employed someone to write it and paid him a
salary for doing so. The author can sign over certain of the rights,
but retains certain other rights regardless of what any contract he's
signed might say. In particular the author can reclaim the copyright
after 35 years. This was an escape hatch made as copyrights got
longer and longer (they originally maxed out after 28 years).

An original music album, like a novel, couldn't be a work for hire
until they snuck in that change, as described in the Courtney Love
article. That meant record companies could keep the records forever.
But I heard that the change has since been reversed.

[Paul Boddie]

Paul Rubin wrote:

That is the guy who claims it is impossible to release anything into
the public domain, other than by dying and then waiting 70 years.

Is that an indirect reference to the following article?

http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6225

Paul

[Robert Kern]

Paul Boddie wrote:

Paul Rubin wrote:

That is the guy who claims it is impossible to release anything into
the public domain, other than by dying and then waiting 70 years.

Is that an indirect reference to the following article?

http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6225

Among other places where Rosen has said it, like his book.

--
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