JasonLewis Posted June 24, 2010 Share Posted June 24, 2010 I've been trawling through many pages about software licensing and it's a real brain-beater. Legal stuff just isn't interesting, although I do know that I must release my code under a license, otherwise I'd just end up with problems later on down the road. So I've just finished a rich web-based media manager, and I'm getting around to releasing it. It uses jQuery (including a JSON plugin, and SWFUpload). All code is my own, apart from the JSON plugin and SWFUpload (both released under MIT License, which I believe allows me to use them, I hope). My code will be open-source. There are a few things that are worrying me. [*]If I release it as open-source, do I lose my rights as the original copyright owner? [*]Really, which license should I be using if I want people to be able to use it for free, change it how they want, redistribute the ORIGINAL work (not the changed work). Really, I just think I'm being over protective of it. All I want to do is release it to the public, but still retain my ownership over it, since I created it. Any pointers as to where I should go? I've been looking at the GNU GPL, but not entirely sure. Regards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philip Posted June 24, 2010 Share Posted June 24, 2010 I'm no expert but a quick search: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonLewis Posted June 24, 2010 Author Share Posted June 24, 2010 Yeah I suppose, it says people are not free to change it how they want, which is what I want. But then it says it can be approved by the copyright holder, it seems alright. I've just always seen the GNU GPL and well, yeah. Not entirely sure. I'll take a bit more of a look at that one though, thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philip Posted June 24, 2010 Share Posted June 24, 2010 Yeah I suppose, it says people are not free to change it how they want, which is what I want. But then it says it can be approved by the copyright holder, it seems alright. I've just always seen the GNU GPL and well, yeah. Not entirely sure. I'll take a bit more of a look at that one though, thanks. Yeah, the GPL route would probably be better. The one I linked isn't really made for software I guess, but it has the same principles behind what you are looking for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonLewis Posted June 24, 2010 Author Share Posted June 24, 2010 Yeah, Creative Commons is more based towards Wiki's isn't it? At the moment I'm considering licensing it under the GPL, I still don't know if this is the best one for what I'm doing though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trq Posted June 24, 2010 Share Posted June 24, 2010 I want people to be able to use it for free, change it how they want, redistribute the ORIGINAL work (not the changed work) I'm not sure there are open-source licenses like that around. Generally, your free to modify and then redistribute the modified code as long as the original author is still credited and the original license remains n place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonLewis Posted June 24, 2010 Author Share Posted June 24, 2010 I want people to be able to use it for free, change it how they want, redistribute the ORIGINAL work (not the changed work) I'm not sure there are open-source licenses like that around. Generally, your free to modify and then redistribute the modified code as long as the original author is still credited. Even under the GPL? I wasn't too sure about that. I mean, I wouldn't mind if people modified it and then distributed it, as long as I was still credited. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonLewis Posted June 24, 2010 Author Share Posted June 24, 2010 Okay, sorry for the double post but I'm now decided between the BSD License and the MIT License. From what I've read, both are very similar. They allow the end-user complete freedom with the code, however the copyright notice and license must remain. I think I'm leaning more towards the BSD License. Anyone have anything to say about those two licenses? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel0 Posted June 24, 2010 Share Posted June 24, 2010 If I release it as open-source, do I lose my rights as the original copyright owner? No. That will only happen if you release it to the public domain. Yeah I suppose, it says people are not free to change it how they want, which is what I want. But then it says it can be approved by the copyright holder, it seems alright. CC by-nd only prohibits redistribution of derivative works. It doesn't prohibit people from modifying it as long as they don't redistribute it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonLewis Posted June 24, 2010 Author Share Posted June 24, 2010 Yeah, I should have realised about the Public Domain, by bad there. Yeah I suppose, it says people are not free to change it how they want, which is what I want. But then it says it can be approved by the copyright holder, it seems alright. CC by-nd only prohibits redistribution of derivative works. It doesn't prohibit people from modifying it as long as they don't redistribute it. Sorry, but what is CC by-nd? Creative Commons? I think I'm going to steer clear of the GPL, and opt for either the MIT or BSD. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel0 Posted June 24, 2010 Share Posted June 24, 2010 It's the one KingPhilip linked to, the one that "it" is referring to in the post from you that I quoted. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonLewis Posted June 24, 2010 Author Share Posted June 24, 2010 Sorry, getting too muddled with all these damned licenses. Everyone should just release under the WTFPL (link may offend). I think that [CC by-nd] license is to restrictive now that I've been reading a lot more into it. I'm leaning more towards the MIT License now, mainly after reading this article. It provides a pretty good comparison. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trq Posted June 24, 2010 Share Posted June 24, 2010 I'm leaning more towards the MIT License now, mainly after reading this article. It provides a pretty good comparison. GPL2 also sounds similar to what your after. 3 is more restrictive. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonLewis Posted June 24, 2010 Author Share Posted June 24, 2010 So according to that, if a user makes any changes and redistributes it must be under the GPL, and are they required to retain the copyright notices? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tazerenix Posted June 27, 2010 Share Posted June 27, 2010 I suggest using the Berkeley Copyright or a variation (eg. BSD, Apache). I suggest looking into Apache's method though. It is pretty much the same as BSD's except that people who modify the source must make sure that if they release a modified version of your software it has a different name. http://www.openbsd.org/policy.html Have a look at that for some ideas Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonLewis Posted June 27, 2010 Author Share Posted June 27, 2010 I have settled on the BSD license, although the MIT would've proven fine. BSD wins. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.