Comparison of FOSS licenses?
- Thread starter Kevin
- Start date
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_free_and_open-source_software_licenses
Me personally prefer creative commons licenses, though not strictly FOSS, they are readable for humans, not just lawyers....
Me personally prefer creative commons licenses, though not strictly FOSS, they are readable for humans, not just lawyers....
Kevin
Well-known member
Thanks
In hindsight, I should've guessed Wikipedia would have had something. What are the the highlights of the CCL terms versus others (aka: what particular do you like it about it versus others)?
Kevin
Well-known member
For others interested in the topic, I've also come across this tonight...
http://creativecommons.org/choose/
A bit of a license chooser wizard.
http://creativecommons.org/choose/
A bit of a license chooser wizard.
What I like is the presentation. It is not four pages of legalese, there are two or three simple statements saying what you can and can't do. Mostly the legal text is hidden for the end user, thus making it very easy to understand. I think that is why I like the beerware as well.Thanks
What are the the highlights of the CCL terms versus others (aka: what particular do you like it about it versus others)?
Though most of the FOSS licenses I have actually bothered to read, isn't so hard to comprehend, they are still using a language that is uncommon for most people. However, the big ones like GPL, BSD, Apache, MIT, etc, are all fairly well known, but most people tend to think they equal free reign and no responsibility, which is very far from the truth, especially in terms of GPL, version 3 is by far the worst iteration of that license IMO.
Mike54
Active member
I think the mere fact there are licenses involved is the best indication that what we perceive to be 'free' (as in 'freedom') and 'open source' is never actually going to be free. That there are four, distinctly different Creative Commons Licenses is evidence of that.
When it comes down to outright simplicity of understanding, WTFPL is likely leading the pack. But I do think Richard Stallman offers the best definition of what free software needs to be. Freedoms 0 - 3 should be all that is required. Anything else starts looking like restrictions, which means freedom is no longer on the table.
When it comes down to outright simplicity of understanding, WTFPL is likely leading the pack. But I do think Richard Stallman offers the best definition of what free software needs to be. Freedoms 0 - 3 should be all that is required. Anything else starts looking like restrictions, which means freedom is no longer on the table.
Luke F
Well-known member
Stallman has become borderline fanatic, if he hasn't always been like that. His stance is that proprietary software is evil and immoral . FSF also recommends that you give away your copyright to them when licensing your software under GPL. I don't disagree with the idea of GPL, but I feel that GPL 3 took a step in the wrong direction. You should check out some of Linus Torvalds comments on GPLv3 and FSF, they make an interesting read. Especially why he doesn't want to license the kernel under v3.
http://www.informationweek.com/the-torvalds-transcript-why-i-absolutely/198002077
I believe that approach to open source is much more practical, rather than the preaching and moralizing from FSF and Stallman.
Mike54
Active member
I'll not argue that point. I've always felt there is a very fuzzy and very gray line between incredible intelligence and utter lunacy. And I think Stallman is a pretty good example of that.
