[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software

Confronta i prezzi di migliaia di prodotti.
Asp Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

comp.lang.ruby

Licensing Question

Zach Dennis

5/26/2005 9:17:00 PM

I wrote a suite of tools, webstar-tools,
(http://rubyforge.org/projects/webs...) in ruby in my own spare
time. I gave my code an MIT-style license.

I then had an employee write the same functionality in another language.

What would suggestions be to license the code? I want the code to be
available open source to the community, but if it is used I would like
it to be noted that the code retains author/ownership of the company I
work for. The new code is written in java. If the code is used
commercially I would like them to get written permissions/consent (or to
pay license for commercial use), but if the code is not resold by
itself or in another product I would like it to be used freely by everyone.

Thanks,

Zach



7 Answers

Austin Ziegler

5/26/2005 9:28:00 PM

0

On 5/26/05, Zach Dennis <zdennis@mktec.com> wrote:
> What would suggestions be to license the code? I want the code to be
> available open source to the community, but if it is used I would like
> it to be noted that the code retains author/ownership of the company I
> work for. The new code is written in java. If the code is used
> commercially I would like them to get written permissions/consent (or to
> pay license for commercial use), but if the code is not resold by
> itself or in another product I would like it to be used freely by everyone.

You will probably need a custom licence for this; the GNU GPL or
possibly the MozillaPL (I prefer the MozillaPL) would be acceptable
choices, too, excepting the "resold by itself" part, to some degree.

-austin
--
Austin Ziegler * halostatue@gmail.com
* Alternate: austin@halostatue.ca


Aria Stewart

5/26/2005 9:29:00 PM

0

On Fri, 2005-05-27 at 06:16 +0900, Zach Dennis wrote:
> I wrote a suite of tools, webstar-tools,
> (http://rubyforge.org/projects/webs...) in ruby in my own spare
> time. I gave my code an MIT-style license.
>
> I then had an employee write the same functionality in another language.
>
> What would suggestions be to license the code? I want the code to be
> available open source to the community, but if it is used I would like
> it to be noted that the code retains author/ownership of the company I
> work for. The new code is written in java. If the code is used
> commercially I would like them to get written permissions/consent (or to
> pay license for commercial use), but if the code is not resold by
> itself or in another product I would like it to be used freely by everyone.

That itself doesn't seem like an open license.

The closest is probably the GPL, which makes it inconvenient to re-sell,
though not impossible.

Anything that restricts commercial use directly is not open source.



Zach Dennis

5/27/2005 1:12:00 AM

0

What would I look for if all we wanted to do was to force people to pass
around the copyright author/ownership with the code, but they use the
code for whatever purposes?

Thanks again,

Zach


ES

5/27/2005 1:21:00 AM

0


Le 27/5/2005, "Zach Dennis" <zdennis@mktec.com> a écrit:
>What would I look for if all we wanted to do was to force people to pass
>around the copyright author/ownership with the code, but they use the
>code for whatever purposes?

Old-school BSD licence. This is my variant:

== Authors
<name> <<email>>


== Copyright
Copyright (c) <year> <name>, all rights reserved.


== Licence
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
are met:

- Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions, the following disclaimer and
attribution to the original authors.

- Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions, the following disclaimer and
attribution to the original authors in the documentation and/or
other materials provided with the distribution.

- The names of the authors may not be used to endorse or promote
products derived from this software without specific prior
written permission.


== Disclaimer
This software is provided "as is" and without any express or
implied warranties, including, without limitation, the implied
warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose.
Authors are not responsible for any damages, direct or indirect.

>Thanks again,
>
>Zach

E

--
template<typename duck>
void quack(duck& d) { d.quack(); }


Aria Stewart

5/27/2005 4:49:00 AM

0

On Fri, 2005-05-27 at 10:11 +0900, Zach Dennis wrote:
> What would I look for if all we wanted to do was to force people to pass
> around the copyright author/ownership with the code, but they use the
> code for whatever purposes?

BSD. The version with the advertising clause isn't GPL compatible,
though. The two-clause should work.



Jeremy Tregunna

5/27/2005 9:26:00 AM

0


On 26-May-05, at 9:11 PM, Zach Dennis wrote:

> What would I look for if all we wanted to do was to force people to
> pass around the copyright author/ownership with the code, but they use
> the code for whatever purposes?

Three clause BSD license comes to mind. However, it's vague in some
areas, I would suggest you look at the AFL for a more modern BSD/MIT
license.

Just a thought.

> Zach

--
Jeremy Tregunna
jtregunna@blurgle.ca




Tim Hunter

5/27/2005 10:59:00 AM

0

Zach Dennis wrote:
> What would I look for if all we wanted to do was to force people to pass
> around the copyright author/ownership with the code, but they use the
> code for whatever purposes?
>
> Thanks again,
>
> Zach
>
>

The MIT License. http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-l...