newbie question about licenses (GPL,LGPL, MIT, CC, etc)

[Alex]

I've recently been spending time developing some jQuery plugins and PHP classes for personal projects that I'd like to share with the world and pretty much every single other plugin or class that I download seems to have at least one and often multiple licenses such as the ones mentioned in the thread's title.

I've looked up the specific sites for each license and it seems like there's a lot of paper-work and time involved.
I admit that when I saw the apparently excessively bureaucratic nature of the entire process I got disencouraged but I'd really like to license some of the stuff I'm producing under the GPL at least.

Can anyone with experience in this particular area please shed some light on the matter for me please?

Thanks!

-Alex

 

[Drakkon]

http://developer.kde.org/docum.../licenses_summary.html - heres a good chart showing some of the major differences between the major licenses. What it comes down to is whether or not you want your work to be allowed for use in proprietary applications and if you want any revisions to the code to be released as free as well.

 

[Alex]

thx for the link... but what about all the apparent bureaucracy involved in getting one? say i come up with a great PHP Class today, I'd have to wait until it gets reviewed and licensed and the entire process before releasing it... that kinda puts a hurdle in one's way, no?

 

[mundane]

My understanding is that *you* decide which license to release it under, and anyone wishing to use your code must adhere to the terms. There aren't any review or verification processes for the open source licenses I'm familiar with.

 

[Alex]

Originally posted by: mundane
My understanding is that *you* decide which license to release it under, and anyone wishing to use your code must adhere to the terms. There aren't any review or verification processes for the open source licenses I'm familiar with.

wow if so thats awesome...

i looked the licenses up a while ago and there was like all this stuff about submitting code for approval and reviews and whatnot and it kinda turned me off...

so you mean i can just write a class or plugin or something original and decide what license i want to release it under and copy and paste the text "licensed under...blabla" and its done????

 

[mundane]

That's my understanding. The standard licenses are there to provide you some commonly understood terms for usage.

 

[Alex]

sweet
gonna start licensing everything now ;

 

[sourceninja]

yep, you just post the license with your code and you are done. Even further then that, YOU do not have to respect your license (in respect to your code). This means I can write a script, release it via GPL, then sell/license it later to a company to use non-gpl. What I can't do is take back the first license. So I can't un=GPL code I've released gpl. Also, I can't change the license on anyone elses code that gets submitted to me (unless I get them to assign copywrite to me)

So here are some use cases

I write a script and release it GPL:

You can download and use my script privately without posting source - yes
You can download and use my script publicly without posting source -yes
You can distribute my script without posting the source -no
You can modify and distribute my script without posting the source - no
You can pay me to not be bound by the GPL and thus do the two things above - yes

I can decide at any time that future versions of my script are no longer GPL - yes
I can decide that previous releases of my script are no longer GPL - no
I can decide to dual license my script under GPL and some other license - yes
I can decide to change the license of my script when it includes contributions from other people made under the GPL - no (unless they filled out forms to assign copywrite to me, then yes)

 

[Alex]

Originally posted by: sourceninja
yep, you just post the license with your code and you are done. Even further then that, YOU do not have to respect your license (in respect to your code). This means I can write a script, release it via GPL, then sell/license it later to a company to use non-gpl. What I can't do is take back the first license. So I can't un=GPL code I've released gpl. Also, I can't change the license on anyone elses code that gets submitted to me (unless I get them to assign copywrite to me)

So here are some use cases

I write a script and release it GPL:

You can download and use my script privately without posting source - yes
You can download and use my script publicly without posting source -yes
You can distribute my script without posting the source -no
You can modify and distribute my script without posting the source - no
You can pay me to not be bound by the GPL and thus do the two things above - yes

I can decide at any time that future versions of my script are no longer GPL - yes
I can decide that previous releases of my script are no longer GPL - no
I can decide to dual license my script under GPL and some other license - yes
I can decide to change the license of my script when it includes contributions from other people made under the GPL - no (unless they filled out forms to assign copywrite to me, then yes)

thanks a lot dude!

a combination of your answer and this link made it 100% clear to me!

 

[b4u]

* I'm in for reference *

This post as some good info about it.

But what about versions? I believe that there are several versions of the GPL license, so maybe there are some bug-fixes and extra-protection added/corrected ...

The best way would be to read everything carefully. But it takes time, and there is another bigger problem (in my opinion): sometimes it's hard to get info about the license of some "plugins" I use in my applications, and that gets to be a bit frustrating ... gathering around for every license, and check it's compatibility with the license we intend to publish our final work on.

 

[Alex]

good stuff, duly noted!

 

[sourceninja]

There is not too much difference between gpl 2 and 3 (although you should read them both to make sure you are happy). Linux for example is going to stay gpl 2 due to the difficulty of switching to 3 (every contributor would have to sign off) and philosophical issues.

The main difference is that gpl 3 forbids you from doing what tivo did. That is use open source software, but use hardware to prevent you from compiling and installing your own changes on their hardware.

Basically tivo used linux and released the source like they should. But they added a check in their hardware that would not run unsigned software, so you could not do anything useful with their source code on the tivo you bought.

Beyond that it also forbids you (if I recal properly) from releasing open source software then suing people who use it for violating your patent on the process. Basically you can't patent something, then inject your code into someone else project and sue they for violating your patent.

AKA, microsoft patenting a special office process, then injecting that code into open office and suing them. Basically saying if you contribute open source code, you are also 'open sourcing' the patent.