Jump to content
  • Advertisement
Sign in to follow this  
Zahlman

My licensing terms - C&C?

This topic is 4347 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

If you intended to correct an error in the post then please contact us.

Recommended Posts

I figure this is the right forum for posting this. I wanted something less restrictive than the LGPL, to cover relatively short code fragments. The primary intent is to be completely sure that everyone knows who the original author is and exactly what was contributed by that original author, without making more of an imposition on others than necessary. So, I humbly present the EDCL as it currently stands, and await your feedback:
// <descriptive list of code items covered by the license>, 
// copyright (c) <year> <author> (<optional alias>).
//
// This source code ("Original Work") is provided under the Exact Due Credit
// License (EDCL) and may be copied, distributed, modified, ported, translated
// to other programming languages etc., subject to these provisions:
//
// 1) Credit where credit is due: This copyright/license notice must be
// retained verbatim in source code comments along with the original or 
// modified source (formatting notwithstanding).
//
// 2) No credit where blame may reside: If the source translated to another
// language or in any other way modified for use in another program, notice
// must be provided clearly detailing the modifications, or indicating what
// parts of the source are original and what are added/modified, as 
// appropriate.
// This may be done in a number of ways, including but not limited to:
//   a) Providing the original source upon request, and providing notice of
//   your intent to do so;
//   b) Including the original source verbatim in source code comments;
//   c) Including a URL in a source code comment whence the original source
//   may be directly obtained.
//
// 3) The Original Work is provided with NO WARRANTY, EVEN OF MERCHANDISABILITY
// OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, including but not limited to the
// alleged intended purpose of the Original Work.
// 
// 4) It is expressly permitted to charge for distribution of the Original 
// Work, a modified version thereof, or any work ultimately derived from the 
// Original Work in any manner, even though the author personally expects no 
// payment beyond "credit where credit is due".
//
// 5) Transitivity: No attempt shall be made (except by the author) to licence
// the Original Work, or any derived work, under any other terms of licensing. 
// Works which include the Original Work as a component, such that the Original
// Work does not represent a substantial fraction of the overall
// work, are exempt; however, the Original Work may not be included in a
// "mere aggregation" (such as a source code library) whose licensing terms are
// incompatible with the EDCL.
//
// 6) Meta-license: The terms themselves of this license are in the public
// domain and may be freely used, in whole or in part, in license terms for any
// product not ultimately derived from the Original Work. This section shall
// not be construed as implying any exception to the previous section.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Advertisement
Quote:
Original post by Zahlman
I wanted something less restrictive than the LGPL, to cover relatively short code fragments. The primary intent is to be completely sure that everyone knows who the original author is and exactly what was contributed by that original author, without making more of an imposition on others than necessary.

There are several Creative Commons licenses that might fit you well.

One that does what you describe is the attribution license, it says you must preserve the attribution statements but can otherwise do whatever you want with it. You might also be interested in the Attribution, non commercial or the attribution, share alike license. Or perhaps one of the several other licenses they offer will fit you better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wonder whether that 'attribution, share alike' license actually works for software, as it appears to say that you may use the licensed material for commercial uses, but also that any derivative work must be under the same license. I don't know the legal definition of derivative work as applied to a software library, but I am have a feeling that static (and possibly even dynamic) linking would be considered 'derivative'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by swiftcoder
I wonder whether that 'attribution, share alike' license actually works for software, as it appears to say that you may use the licensed material for commercial uses, but also that any derivative work must be under the same license. I don't know the legal definition of derivative work as applied to a software library, but I am have a feeling that static (and possibly even dynamic) linking would be considered 'derivative'.


That's fine, but I don't really care, as I'm looking for a license for things that are specifically intended to be not just statically linked but actually copied and pasted into an existing source file ;)

I will check out the links provided. Thanks everyone :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by swiftcoder
I don't know the legal definition of derivative work as applied to a software library, but I am have a feeling that static (and possibly even dynamic) linking would be considered 'derivative'.


The gpl and lgpl suffer from this definition as well.

Dynamically linking to a library is fine. You aren't including any of the source in your own code, and anybody is free to make a replacement library as long as it implements the same function hooks. You have to make changes you made to the library publically available.

Releasing a prooduct that statically links a library but does not release your own code is not fine under the GPL or under the share alike licenses. If you link statically, the end users cannot excercise the so-called 'freedom to tinker' if you don't give the source as well.

The Lesser GPL and other licenses allow static linking. These are generally chosen because the functionality is so commonplace that nobody would need to tinker with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zahlman, I am not a lawyer, but I see at least two potential problems with your EDCL.

1) I see no provision that prevents me from taking snipplets under EDCL, compiling them along with my program, and claiming the resulting binary to be my own work (which it is, mostly) without giving you credit for your contribution (and subsequently charging for it). Is this meant to be that way?

2) Provision 6 seems like a good candidate to confuse people, especially if the terms are slightly modified but the name of the license is unchanged. Not sure if this would be legal under your license, but I bet someone will do it ^_^; You don't want incompatible versions of your license claiming to be your license, floating around the net. If people want their own license (as if we didn't have enough already), they can write their own, so what's the intention behind this provision?

The only sensible advice I can give you though is that if you are serious about this license, you need to run it by an IP lawyer or two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by frob
Dynamically linking to a library is fine. You aren't including any of the source in your own code, and anybody is free to make a replacement library as long as it implements the same function hooks. You have to make changes you made to the library publically available.

Releasing a prooduct that statically links a library but does not release your own code is not fine under the GPL or under the share alike licenses. If you link statically, the end users cannot excercise the so-called 'freedom to tinker' if you don't give the source as well.

The Lesser GPL and other licenses allow static linking. These are generally chosen because the functionality is so commonplace that nobody would need to tinker with it.


Methinks you are confused: My understanding is that the GPL does not allow any usage without releasing your source-code, and that the LGPL allows only dynamic linking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Advertisement
×

Important Information

By using GameDev.net, you agree to our community Guidelines, Terms of Use, and Privacy Policy.

Participate in the game development conversation and more when you create an account on GameDev.net!

Sign me up!