h a l f b a k e r ySugar and spice and unfettered insensibility.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
One of the main problems with the GPL and most similar open-source licenses, is that they are absolute: your program must either be totally open, or not open at all. This is, in its own way, restrictive; to use open-source software, you must give up ownership of anything you create using it, whether
or not you want to.
A selectively open-source program license would let you pick and choose what sections of your program source you are using that are open.
Several such licenses exist for other media, and commonly require you to credit and note what other sources you have used, as well as other protections of intellectual property.
In other words, to make a long entry short: "Sure, go ahead and use my graphics routines. Those little tricks I use for compressing files? Go right ahead, I think you'll like them. But if you copy my scripting engine, I'm going to hunt you down and cut you."
BSD license
http://www.free-def...om/BSD-license.html
[krelnik, Oct 25 2004]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Destination URL.
E.g., https://www.coffee.com/
Description (displayed with the short name and URL.)
|
| |
I'm no GPL expert, but couldn't you package all your graphics and compression routines into a dll (or the linux equivalent) and distribute that under GPL, but make your product (which happens to depend on those dlls) have a different license agreement? |
|
| |
Yes, packaging things into libraries is a common technique. There are also other open source licenses besides the GPL, for instance the BSD license, that allow much more leeway. Indeed, some Microsoft products include code under the BSD license. |
|
| |
You could always you know... make your own compiler... then it would be yours... I think... |
|
| |
It is just a legal document, you can pick any terms you like, so long as you don't use other libraries that have a more restrictive liscense. |
|
| |
There is the Lesser GNU Public License, designed to allow Open Source Libraries that can be used by copyrighted programs. You can therefore construct your program from LGPL libraries except for the bits you want to keep to yourself. |
|
| |
Isn't this idea just permissive open-source licenses (as
opposed to copyleft ones like GPL), which are widely baked
(BSD, MIT, Apache, etc.)? |
|
| |
//to use open-source software, you must give up ownership of
anything you create using it// |
|
| |
Even the GPL doesn't go this far. It only restricts what you can do with
your own customised versions of a GPL-licensed program. Anything
you create purely by using (as opposed to modifying) that program is
yours to do with as you will. |
|
| |