PG: Arc Likely To Be Open-Sourced This Winter

Re:PG: Arc Likely To Be Open-Sourced This Winter by pg on Tuesday January 15, 2008 @01:41AM (#98586)

If someone publishes a bug fix, or finds a cleaner way of doing something, I'd like to be able to incorporate it without being accused of having stolen their IP. That's the main thing.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:PG: Arc Likely To Be Open-Sourced This Winter by soundsop on Tuesday January 15, 2008 @02:46AM (#98602)

BSD license allows you to re-use fixes of others (assuming they also release their fix under BSD), but it does not compel them them to reveal their fix if they distribute only a binary.

GPLv2 requires modified public distributions to also be under GPLv2, so you could both see the fix/change and use it (in the sense that you won't be infringing on copyright).

GPLv3 adds patent protection, so someone adding a fix/change that they have also patented explicitly grants a license for that patent.

I think GPLv3 is the most comprehensive way to keep fixes/changes of others available for reuse.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:PG: Arc Likely To Be Open-Sourced This Winter by dag on Tuesday January 15, 2008 @06:22AM (#98642)

If you use the GPL you will want to add a lisp-specific preamble such as is found in the LLGPL (http://opensource.franz.com/preamble.html).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:PG: Arc Likely To Be Open-Sourced This Winter by anewaccountname on Thursday January 17, 2008 @08:04PM (#100080)

Don't forget that if you use the GPLv3 you won't be able to distribute your software with the OLPC, since it has anti-theft measures which put signed code at an advantage to unsigned.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:PG: Arc Likely To Be Open-Sourced This Winter by davidw on Tuesday January 15, 2008 @03:20AM (#98610)

If I recall correctly, the Apache license has some kind of clause to the effect that all contributors automatically grant you all the same rights available under the license, meaning that by contributing, they acknowledge the license and give you permission to make use of their contribution. There is also some anti-patent stuff.

http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0

OTOH, it's a big, long license, and perhaps the BSD license would be simpler, which is always an advantage.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:PG: Arc Likely To Be Open-Sourced This Winter by Neoryder on Tuesday January 15, 2008 @08:14PM (#98989)

I'm for a BSD type of license.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:PG: Arc Likely To Be Open-Sourced This Winter by coffeeaddicted on Monday January 14, 2008 @11:55PM (#98558)

Public domain is not enforcable in some countries. You can't give up your copyright as author for example in germany. So a license defining the rights of the users will work better.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:PG: Arc Likely To Be Open-Sourced This Winter by kirubakaran on Monday January 14, 2008 @11:04PM (#98527)

Someone IANALed in Reddit that 'Do Whatever Fuck You Want With It' license is not legally enforcable or something. So I'll take 'Public Domain'.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:PG: Arc Likely To Be Open-Sourced This Winter by sbraford on Monday January 14, 2008 @11:40PM (#98550)

curious: is there any difference between public domain and MIT?

they seem like ostensibly the same thing.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:PG: Arc Likely To Be Open-Sourced This Winter by viergroupie on Tuesday January 15, 2008 @02:51PM (#98792)

There is no such thing as public domain for software. If you simply give your software away, it's still your copyrighted work...just without a license for other people to use it.

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

[ Parent | on HN ]