Emerald Editor Discussion
March 28, 2017, 04:55:02 pm *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Poll
Question: Which license should Emerald Editor operate with?
GNU General Public License - 8 (72.7%)
GNU Lesser General Public License - 1 (9.1%)
BSD-style license - 2 (18.2%)
Crimson Editor license - 0 (0%)
Other (please reply) - 0 (0%)
Total Voters: 11

Pages: 1 [2] 3
  Print  
Author Topic: License  (Read 30427 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
daemon
Developers
Gem Cutter
***
Posts: 107


WWW
« Reply #15 on: June 06, 2006, 01:42:32 am »

All updated. You can run "svn up" now Smiley.
Logged
Arantor
Site Administrator
Administrator
Master Jeweller
*****
Posts: 618



« Reply #16 on: June 06, 2006, 07:02:56 pm »

Done. Although for now I did it as an svn co into a temporary directory and did it that way; even then I ended up with ~/testdir/website/* when I only wanted it to result in ~/testdir/*

I'm sure I'll streamline it once I get the hang of using svn properly Wink
Logged

"Cleverly disguised as a responsible adult!"
Arantor
Site Administrator
Administrator
Master Jeweller
*****
Posts: 618



« Reply #17 on: June 09, 2006, 12:29:06 pm »

I'm closing this thread again, since we're now on the GPL, and I don't see we can particularly rescind our rights - not that I believe we'd want to anyhow. Although I was a bit unsure about using the GPL, I think I'm happy with the final decision.

I have also merged the poll with the original License thread, just to tidy it up a bit.
« Last Edit: June 09, 2006, 12:32:29 pm by Arantor » Logged

"Cleverly disguised as a responsible adult!"
Szandor
Senior Miner
***
Posts: 92



« Reply #18 on: January 09, 2007, 04:57:43 pm »

Re-opening!

I like the Creative Commons licence, but I'm not too familiar with GNU GPL. Personally I think we could benifit more from CC since it is more widely known than GNU. It would help boost media attention more than GNU would I think. CC also has a way nicer logo than GNU...

Edited by Arantor: Link fixed.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2007, 08:41:47 pm by Arantor » Logged

"Cleverly disguised as an original signature..."
Phil
Administrator
Master Jeweller
*****
Posts: 427


« Reply #19 on: January 09, 2007, 08:37:56 pm »

I thought CC license was for documents, not software. Maybe I am wrong. And GPL is a very common license. Linux is one example of software under the GPL. Besides, once you license code under the GPL, there is no way to change that unless you rewrite the code.

Phil
Logged
Arantor
Site Administrator
Administrator
Master Jeweller
*****
Posts: 618



« Reply #20 on: January 09, 2007, 08:45:48 pm »

CE is still licensed under its own license, and any code we have already is GPL-licensed. If totally rewritten, which I think is the plan anyway, it could in theory be relicensed, however GNU GPL is what most people seem to want.

CC licenses can in theory be applied to software (I haven't read the legalese of it, but the principle still holds). That said, a CC style license applied to software could in some ways end up looking much like a BSD license.

I personally think GNU GPL is the way forward, since it protects the rights of everyone involved and means should EE ever take up its CE heritage and not be developed for two years (not that I think for one moment that would ever properly happen), someone would be able to take up the code and carry it on without worrying too much, as this is a specific scenario GPL caters for.
Logged

"Cleverly disguised as a responsible adult!"
Feldon
Gem Cutter
****
Posts: 106


« Reply #21 on: January 09, 2007, 10:08:35 pm »

One quick question.  I use a program called FileZilla which is licensed under the GPL.  THey have run into a problem where a company has repackaged their source, made the source code available and then distributed as another free ftp program.  The only problem is, this new program contains adware.  Is that legit?  And if so, is there anything our choice of license can do to avoid that situation?
Logged
Arantor
Site Administrator
Administrator
Master Jeweller
*****
Posts: 618



« Reply #22 on: January 09, 2007, 10:23:05 pm »

Well, the GPL allows taking the code, modifying it and provided that the modified source is redistributed - and the changes are made nice and clear - it is actually legit, though somewhat dubious.

GPL 2 certainly permits this, but the age-old "cite your source" argument comes back (c.f. Wikipedia). If the rebadged FileZilla were too open about their source, no-one would use their product. That said, if anyone rebadged EE with adware, I think enough people would be smart enough to visit the site to get the true version.

We could in theory do something like the Mozilla license (which is if I remember rightly like the BSD license but with restrictions on reuse) but I'm tempted to stick with raw GPL. Let's face it, if someone does do something like this, there is enough of a community here to send a 'few' nice friendly messages on the subject.

Alternatively, a slightly more dubious solution presents itself with the plugin system. We could make it so plugins do a form of version check against EE (a version check of some kind is really required, I think, to ensure features required by the plugin are available in the program), which checks that it hasn't been viciously tampered with, however I'd really rather not get into the debate... I remember Peter Molyneux (you know, the guy who wrote Black and White, after Theme Park and Syndicate) who infamously said in an interview that they hadn't bothered with copy protection on the floppy version of Syndicate since it would only be cracked within days anyway.

Anyway. I think enough people would use EE for what it is and I don't think we have too much to worry about in terms of being rebadged and 'sold on', so to speak.
Logged

"Cleverly disguised as a responsible adult!"
Phil
Administrator
Master Jeweller
*****
Posts: 427


« Reply #23 on: May 17, 2007, 08:41:25 pm »

Once again reopenning discussion.

This was decided before I came here, so I hope you don't mind if I put in my opinion. We have the oportunity to change the license if we want because we will probably rewrite EE.

I think that we should strongly consider using a file-based license instead of a whole program-based license like the GPL. I recommend that we change the license to the CDDL (Common Development and Distribution License) that OpenSolaris uses. It is similar to the MPL, only it was generalized for projects that have nothing to do with Mozilla.

Basically, if you modify something under the CDDL and redistribute it, you have to distribute the source files that were originally CDDL licensed, but not any of the sources for any files that were not originally CDDL licensed.

I think this might make more sence because I am afraid that Emerald Editor's plug-ins might have to be GPLed if EE is GPLed. I might be wrong there. I haven't researched it.

Here is a link to a blog entry that compares the GPL, CDDL, and BSD license. http://blogs.sun.com/chandan/entry/copyrights_licenses_and_cddl_illustrated

I actually would prefer a liberal license like zlib or BSD, but I think the CDDL would be a descent compromise.

Phil
Logged
Feldon
Gem Cutter
****
Posts: 106


« Reply #24 on: May 17, 2007, 10:42:59 pm »

Perhaps we have been approaching this backwards.

What are our goals?  What do we want our chosen license to accomplish?  How does the license support our project?

a) The obvious one is that it needs to protect freely distributed open-source software.  I think most of the proposed licenses do that.

b) I also think we don't want someone to take Emerald Editor, make a couple modifications, and then start selling it.  The license should protect that (at least in theory, we won't worry about enforcement issues).

c) That being said, we probably do want to allow people to sell plugins.  Our license needs to allow for proprietary plugins to be used in conjunction with the freely distributed, open-source EE core.

d) The license needs to make clear that its alright to use EE to make other works.  That is, that the magazine article you wrote using EE or the computer program you coded using EE can both be sold.

What else?
Logged
rageboy
Jeweller
*****
Posts: 305

Ankit Singla


« Reply #25 on: May 18, 2007, 02:48:28 am »

I guess I was assuming all plugins for an open source project would be open source too. I feel weird about proprietary plugins...
Logged
Crul
Prospector
*
Posts: 4


« Reply #26 on: May 18, 2007, 03:17:02 am »

Personally, I dislike proprietary plugins. This deviates from the open source philosophy. As a user when I see proprietary plugins it makes me cringe.
Logged
Phil
Administrator
Master Jeweller
*****
Posts: 427


« Reply #27 on: May 18, 2007, 04:27:53 am »

I guess my opinion is that open source software is for freedom to do what you want with it, and if people can get money from it, good for them. I personally would have no problem with propriatary plugins.

Phil
Logged
Arantor
Site Administrator
Administrator
Master Jeweller
*****
Posts: 618



« Reply #28 on: May 18, 2007, 08:52:33 pm »

I also agree that proprietary plugins are also not an issue. It is really a question of how strongly you believe in open source.

For example, I have an nVidia card. Although I am in myself quite a strong believer in open source, I accept that for some purposes I have to use proprietary software, such as nVidia's closed drivers.
Logged

"Cleverly disguised as a responsible adult!"
rageboy
Jeweller
*****
Posts: 305

Ankit Singla


« Reply #29 on: May 18, 2007, 09:02:48 pm »

True. I've just never seen proprietary plugins for an open source project. Anyway, I don't think GPL specifically has any issues with that. For instance, if you said your plugin was licensed and works with program x, but happened to work with GPL licensed program y, I don't think the plugin would have to be re-released under GPL. I just feel like patches and expansions on the actual code base need to be GPL licensed. A plugin is sort of a separate entity that happens to add functionality to some program.

NOTE (disclaimer): I am not a lawyer. I haven't even actually read through all of the GPL.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.144 seconds with 20 queries.