31 Mar
2010
31 Mar
'10
4:02 p.m.
Hi!
I would like to make explicit and homogenize the license of Moose and
its components.
For example:
- C Analyzer does not have a license (nothing is specified on
http://www.moosetechnology.org/tools/canalyzer)
- http://www.moosetechnology.org/about says Moose is available
under the MIT and BSD licenses. Why not having just one? MIT is the
choice of Pharo.
- Glamour has a MIT license, Mondrian a BSD, PetitParser a MIT,
SmallDude a BSD
I am not sentimentally attached to a particular license. I am neither
expert in licensing and maybe these question do not really make sense.
But I am wondering.
Cheers,
alexandre
--
_,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu
^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
31 Mar
31 Mar
4:27 p.m.
On 31 mars 2010, at 16:02, Alexandre Bergel wrote:
Hi!
I would like to make explicit and homogenize the license of Moose and its components.
For example:
- C Analyzer does not have a license (nothing is specified on
http://www.moosetechnology.org/tools/canalyzer)
It means it's still under normal copyright, although the notion of copyright depends
on the country where you live, so it's fuzzy.
- http://www.moosetechnology.org/about says Moose is available under the MIT and BSD
licenses. Why not having just one? MIT is the choice of Pharo.
- Glamour has a MIT license, Mondrian a BSD, PetitParser a MIT, SmallDude a BSD
Yep, I guess that the historic pieces of Moose are under BSD, while the new ones go with
MIT to follow Pharo. Nowadays MIT and BSD are saif "roughly equivalent"
especially if the "no-endorsement" clause is dropped from the BSD license
(simplified BSD license)
The only potential problem I see is relicensing: can we relicense the code?
--
Simon
5:56 p.m.
The only potential problem I see is relicensing: can
we relicense
the code?
I have no idea. But what is the danger if I change the line BSD to MIT
in the Mondrian wiki page?
Alexandre
--
_,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu
^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
5:14 p.m.
Hi,
I have been looking at this for a while.
Actually, we should make the license clear in the distributed code.
The problem is that we can only relicense a piece of code if all
copyright holders agree to it.
If the license allows it, you can license a derived piece of work with
another license that is compatible with the existing one. Now, the BSD
is slightly stronger than MIT in the sense that it has the "No
Endorsement":
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/MIT/
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/BSD/
So, maybe one idea is to clearly state that Moose, Mondrian, SmallDude
and other pieces were BSD until 2010 and MIT since then (similar to
the current situation of Pharo).
Cheers,
Doru
On 31 Mar 2010, at 17:56, Alexandre Bergel wrote:
--
www.tudorgirba.com
"There are no old things, there are only old ways of looking at them."
The only
potential problem I see is relicensing: can we relicense
the code?
I have no idea. But what is the danger if I change the line BSD to
MIT in the Mondrian wiki page?
Alexandre
--
_,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu
^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
9:42 p.m.
Ok, I added for Mondrian & CAnalyzer
!License:
-MIT (since January 1st, 2010)
-BSD (until December 31st, 2009)
Cheers,
Alexandre
On 31 Mar 2010, at 11:14, Tudor Girba wrote:
Hi,
I have been looking at this for a while.
Actually, we should make the license clear in the distributed code.
The problem is that we can only relicense a piece of code if all
copyright holders agree to it.
If the license allows it, you can license a derived piece of work
with another license that is compatible with the existing one. Now,
the BSD is slightly stronger than MIT in the sense that it has the
"No Endorsement":
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/MIT/
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/BSD/
So, maybe one idea is to clearly state that Moose, Mondrian,
SmallDude and other pieces were BSD until 2010 and MIT since then
(similar to the current situation of Pharo).
Cheers,
Doru
On 31 Mar 2010, at 17:56, Alexandre Bergel wrote:
--
www.tudorgirba.com
"There are no old things, there are only old ways of looking at them."
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
--
_,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu
^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
The only
potential problem I see is relicensing: can we relicense
the code?
I have no idea. But what is the danger if I change the line BSD to
MIT in the Mondrian wiki page?
Alexandre
--
_,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu
^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
5379
days inactive
5379
days old
4 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Alexandre Bergel -
Simon Denier -
Tudor Girba