GPL'ing CP article code
-
As I read GPL, you are giving up the rights to your code; as the author, you should be able to control its usage. If someone wants to relase a project under GPL, before using another's code, they should ensure that the author agrees with GPL licensing. Otherwise, as stated, it may be "thoroughly disappointing". This situation reminds me of a housing development under way not too far from me; the developer cleared the land, installed decoractive fencing, painted it, started building signage for the subdivision, then approached the county about permits. He stated, "Oh, I didn't know I needed these permits..." Do the homework BEFORE starting the project. Tim
Tim Carmichael wrote:
"Oh, I didn't know I needed these permits..."
Or he could have been asking after-the-fact intentionally.
"A good athlete is the result of a good and worthy opponent." - David Crow
"To have a respect for ourselves guides our morals; to have deference for others governs our manners." - Laurence Sterne
-
So, I got this email a little bit ago: Hi Marc, Just curious as to what your current arrangements are regarding the source code you've provided together with some of your articles on CodeProject, and how they've been licensed. I'm currently using parts of your TcpLib code in my application, which I was planning to license under the GPL. Now, of course, I'm not going to license your code under the same license without first asking how you plan to license your own code - I don't particurly mind what you choose, provided it's compatible with the GPL; if it isn't, that would be thoroughly disappointing for me. What's your opinion? If he modifies the code, can/should he GPL it? What does "modify" mean? Replacing a tab with 5 spaces? And what does "compatible with GPL mean"? There isn't much that's compatible with GPL, IMO, except maybe LGPL. Since the TcpLib stuff is a "lib", maybe I should tell him to use LGPL for that part? Marc
-
Tim Carmichael wrote:
"Oh, I didn't know I needed these permits..."
Or he could have been asking after-the-fact intentionally.
"A good athlete is the result of a good and worthy opponent." - David Crow
"To have a respect for ourselves guides our morals; to have deference for others governs our manners." - Laurence Sterne
-
In most countries copyright will automatically applied to what you right and you are the owner. In that case anyone needs specific permission to use your work. If you put a specific license on your work then that will normally cover who is allowed to use your work and in what situations. Personally I like the Public Domain license as it means anyone can use your work however they want, as long as they don't try to put thier own license on it.
-
So, I got this email a little bit ago: Hi Marc, Just curious as to what your current arrangements are regarding the source code you've provided together with some of your articles on CodeProject, and how they've been licensed. I'm currently using parts of your TcpLib code in my application, which I was planning to license under the GPL. Now, of course, I'm not going to license your code under the same license without first asking how you plan to license your own code - I don't particurly mind what you choose, provided it's compatible with the GPL; if it isn't, that would be thoroughly disappointing for me. What's your opinion? If he modifies the code, can/should he GPL it? What does "modify" mean? Replacing a tab with 5 spaces? And what does "compatible with GPL mean"? There isn't much that's compatible with GPL, IMO, except maybe LGPL. Since the TcpLib stuff is a "lib", maybe I should tell him to use LGPL for that part? Marc
Well, first, he cannot "GPL" your code if you did not put it under the GPL. You, as the author, define the code's license. So, either you put it under the GPL or maybe LGPL (and all is fine), or you follow the Trolltech-approach (saying, basically, "GPLed for non-commercial applications only"). If you don't want to give up your control over the code, you cannot GPL/LGPL it - and he is bound to be disappointed. And, whatever you do, choose GPLv2 over GPLv3....
Cheers, Sebastian -- "If it was two men, the non-driver would have challenged the driver to simply crash through the gates. The macho image thing, you know." - Marc Clifton
-
Hmm - I'm not sure he did. Reading the comment, I think he's saying "I want to license the code under the GPL, but if you one day change your license to one that is not GPL compatible, I'm in trouble". I don't think he's asking Marc to change the license, I think he's asking Marc to commit to not changing the license to one that would cause his downstream code to violate the GPL. If that makes any sense at all.
Hmm.. the article he refers to doesn't even state a license, so the guy might just have asked about the license as such.
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
My first real C# project | Linkify!|FoldWithUs! | sighist -
So, I got this email a little bit ago: Hi Marc, Just curious as to what your current arrangements are regarding the source code you've provided together with some of your articles on CodeProject, and how they've been licensed. I'm currently using parts of your TcpLib code in my application, which I was planning to license under the GPL. Now, of course, I'm not going to license your code under the same license without first asking how you plan to license your own code - I don't particurly mind what you choose, provided it's compatible with the GPL; if it isn't, that would be thoroughly disappointing for me. What's your opinion? If he modifies the code, can/should he GPL it? What does "modify" mean? Replacing a tab with 5 spaces? And what does "compatible with GPL mean"? There isn't much that's compatible with GPL, IMO, except maybe LGPL. Since the TcpLib stuff is a "lib", maybe I should tell him to use LGPL for that part? Marc
I hate to play devil's advocate but does your authorizing the use of your code library constitute an endorsement of the product? :confused: If so, does that leave you open to be named in litigation should this product do financial harm to a user of the software? :confused: I would think twice about putting my name, as a contributer, on a commercial product, or code that can be freely used in a commercial product, that I had no control over. :doh: Compounded by the fact that you will receive no compensation for your efforts it would be putting yourself in harms way without any reward. X| At the very least include something like the disclaimer listed below copied from a header file written by Dr Brian Gladman. I personally would strengthen the disclaimer to include wording something like the following. "The software is provided "as is" without warranty or condition of any kind, either expressed or implied, including, without limitation, the implied warranties of merchantability, correctness, fitness for a particular purpose, or non-infringement. The entire risk arising out of use or performance of the software remains with you." As with any commercial business venture, and you are part of a business venture if you authorize the use of your software in a commercial product, it would be prudent to consult a lawyer specializing in contract law. :~ Run it by your new business partners if they would be willing to, at the very least, compensate you for your legal fees. :rolleyes: Good luck if you choose to proceed with this new business venture. :omg: ========================================================================== Copyright (c) 2002, Dr Brian Gladman, Worcester, UK. All rights reserved. LICENSE TERMS The free distribution and use of this software in both source and binary form is allowed (with or without changes) provided that: 1. distributions of this source code include the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer; 2. distributions in binary form include the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other associated materials; 3. the copyright holder's name is not used to endorse products built using this software without specific written permission. ALTERNATIVELY, provided that this notice is retained in full, this product may be distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License (GPL), in which ca
-
So, I got this email a little bit ago: Hi Marc, Just curious as to what your current arrangements are regarding the source code you've provided together with some of your articles on CodeProject, and how they've been licensed. I'm currently using parts of your TcpLib code in my application, which I was planning to license under the GPL. Now, of course, I'm not going to license your code under the same license without first asking how you plan to license your own code - I don't particurly mind what you choose, provided it's compatible with the GPL; if it isn't, that would be thoroughly disappointing for me. What's your opinion? If he modifies the code, can/should he GPL it? What does "modify" mean? Replacing a tab with 5 spaces? And what does "compatible with GPL mean"? There isn't much that's compatible with GPL, IMO, except maybe LGPL. Since the TcpLib stuff is a "lib", maybe I should tell him to use LGPL for that part? Marc
I think it's very decent of him to email and ask so first and foremost you should thank him for being a stand up guy. Secondly I would tell him (if it was me personally) that I put the code up for people to do with as they choose, recognition would be nice but I don't post code on a public source code site with any expectation of reward or control over how it's used. Thirdly I'd *feel* like telling him he's a dork for the "thoroughly dissapointing" bit. :)
"110%" - it's the new 70%
-
That's the spirit, not the law. CodeProject allows each author to tack on his own license. So you will find various licenses, even very restrictive ones. When you want to use code from one of the articles, it is your job to verify you are allowed to for your particular use.
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
My first real C# project | Linkify!|FoldWithUs! | sighist -
So, I got this email a little bit ago: Hi Marc, Just curious as to what your current arrangements are regarding the source code you've provided together with some of your articles on CodeProject, and how they've been licensed. I'm currently using parts of your TcpLib code in my application, which I was planning to license under the GPL. Now, of course, I'm not going to license your code under the same license without first asking how you plan to license your own code - I don't particurly mind what you choose, provided it's compatible with the GPL; if it isn't, that would be thoroughly disappointing for me. What's your opinion? If he modifies the code, can/should he GPL it? What does "modify" mean? Replacing a tab with 5 spaces? And what does "compatible with GPL mean"? There isn't much that's compatible with GPL, IMO, except maybe LGPL. Since the TcpLib stuff is a "lib", maybe I should tell him to use LGPL for that part? Marc
If your objective is to maintain rights to your own code, why not grant him a non-exclusive license to use the code, but retain your copyright? Require him to keep your code separate from the GPL and note your copyright in the EULA.
"A Journey of a Thousand Rest Stops Begins with a Single Movement"
-
I hate to play devil's advocate but does your authorizing the use of your code library constitute an endorsement of the product? :confused: If so, does that leave you open to be named in litigation should this product do financial harm to a user of the software? :confused: I would think twice about putting my name, as a contributer, on a commercial product, or code that can be freely used in a commercial product, that I had no control over. :doh: Compounded by the fact that you will receive no compensation for your efforts it would be putting yourself in harms way without any reward. X| At the very least include something like the disclaimer listed below copied from a header file written by Dr Brian Gladman. I personally would strengthen the disclaimer to include wording something like the following. "The software is provided "as is" without warranty or condition of any kind, either expressed or implied, including, without limitation, the implied warranties of merchantability, correctness, fitness for a particular purpose, or non-infringement. The entire risk arising out of use or performance of the software remains with you." As with any commercial business venture, and you are part of a business venture if you authorize the use of your software in a commercial product, it would be prudent to consult a lawyer specializing in contract law. :~ Run it by your new business partners if they would be willing to, at the very least, compensate you for your legal fees. :rolleyes: Good luck if you choose to proceed with this new business venture. :omg: ========================================================================== Copyright (c) 2002, Dr Brian Gladman, Worcester, UK. All rights reserved. LICENSE TERMS The free distribution and use of this software in both source and binary form is allowed (with or without changes) provided that: 1. distributions of this source code include the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer; 2. distributions in binary form include the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other associated materials; 3. the copyright holder's name is not used to endorse products built using this software without specific written permission. ALTERNATIVELY, provided that this notice is retained in full, this product may be distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License (GPL), in which ca
JimmyRopes wrote:
I hate to play devil's advocate but does your authorizing the use of your code library constitute an endorsement of the product? If so, does that leave you open to be named in litigation should this product do financial harm to a user of the software? I would think twice about putting my name, as a contributer, on a commercial product, or code that can be freely used in a commercial product, that I had no control over. Compounded by the fact that you will receive no compensation for your efforts it would be putting yourself in harms way without any reward.
Those are very good points, but the code is in the public domain anyways.
JimmyRopes wrote:
At the very least include something like the disclaimer listed below copied from a header file written by Dr Brian Gladman. I personally would strengthen the disclaimer to include wording something like the following.
Thanks! Very useful. I'll start using that. Marc
-
JimmyRopes wrote:
I hate to play devil's advocate but does your authorizing the use of your code library constitute an endorsement of the product? If so, does that leave you open to be named in litigation should this product do financial harm to a user of the software? I would think twice about putting my name, as a contributer, on a commercial product, or code that can be freely used in a commercial product, that I had no control over. Compounded by the fact that you will receive no compensation for your efforts it would be putting yourself in harms way without any reward.
Those are very good points, but the code is in the public domain anyways.
JimmyRopes wrote:
At the very least include something like the disclaimer listed below copied from a header file written by Dr Brian Gladman. I personally would strengthen the disclaimer to include wording something like the following.
Thanks! Very useful. I'll start using that. Marc
Marc Clifton wrote:
the code is in the public domain anyways
Having the code in the public domain with a disclaimer similar to the one I recommended is one thing, specifically granting permission, in writing, for him to use it in a particular product can be interpreted as something entirely different. Beware of the implications of your reply, if you choose to give one. If I were faced with something like this I would post the disclaimer on CP and not reply unless I had legal advise as to how to word a response. :sigh: You could be getting yourself into trouble if you say anything that can be interpreted as an endorsement of his product should it eventually end up in a commercial product that is brought before a court for a ruling on liability. X| Better to have him be "disappointed" than open a legal can of worms. :sigh: To paraphrase an old adage; the road to civil court is paved with good intentions.
Simply Elegant Designs JimmyRopes Designs
Think inside the box! ProActive Secure Systems
I'm on-line therefore I am. JimmyRopes -
So, I got this email a little bit ago: Hi Marc, Just curious as to what your current arrangements are regarding the source code you've provided together with some of your articles on CodeProject, and how they've been licensed. I'm currently using parts of your TcpLib code in my application, which I was planning to license under the GPL. Now, of course, I'm not going to license your code under the same license without first asking how you plan to license your own code - I don't particurly mind what you choose, provided it's compatible with the GPL; if it isn't, that would be thoroughly disappointing for me. What's your opinion? If he modifies the code, can/should he GPL it? What does "modify" mean? Replacing a tab with 5 spaces? And what does "compatible with GPL mean"? There isn't much that's compatible with GPL, IMO, except maybe LGPL. Since the TcpLib stuff is a "lib", maybe I should tell him to use LGPL for that part? Marc
You can license your own code under any license you want to, and even dual or multi-license the code too. If the original code is "freeware" or "public domain", then it should actually be okay to incoroporate that into a GPL project, since the GPL's terms are not in conflict with those sort of licenses. Actually, your license terms in the source code is very close to the spirit of the LGPL v2 licenses, although with an additional "attribution" restriction. "Compatible with GPL" means that if the code is included in a GPL distribution, then the original licesnse's terms aren't violated, or vice-versa. It tends to be easier to be compatible in the first direction (incoproration into GPL) than vice-versa. Oh - if he does any modifications, he can only claim copyright on the modifications, not the rest of the code. My suggestion is to just issue an LGPL license to the TCPLIB. He would have to provide source to the lib on demand including any changes to anyone who gets a copy of a binary containing the lib, but not "propogate" into any proprietary or other "calling" code. I use LGPL for all my "lib" stuff so that others can use it if I just want to contribute to "community" projects. My goal tends to be to give a starting point, but my "license fee" for the code is the LGPL requirement to publish source to derivitaves and "play nice". The last thing I want is my code to show up in someone else's product without compensation of some sort, even if it's just publishing changes and helping in my development of the "lib". Going "straight GPL" is a bit to Draconian in my mind, since it requires the entire "calling" project be GPL as well, so no use in any proprietary development is allowed, and I don't like to go quite that far. Hope this philosophy dump helps out!!!
-
So, I got this email a little bit ago: Hi Marc, Just curious as to what your current arrangements are regarding the source code you've provided together with some of your articles on CodeProject, and how they've been licensed. I'm currently using parts of your TcpLib code in my application, which I was planning to license under the GPL. Now, of course, I'm not going to license your code under the same license without first asking how you plan to license your own code - I don't particurly mind what you choose, provided it's compatible with the GPL; if it isn't, that would be thoroughly disappointing for me. What's your opinion? If he modifies the code, can/should he GPL it? What does "modify" mean? Replacing a tab with 5 spaces? And what does "compatible with GPL mean"? There isn't much that's compatible with GPL, IMO, except maybe LGPL. Since the TcpLib stuff is a "lib", maybe I should tell him to use LGPL for that part? Marc
I think Boost kind of license is better than GPL. GPL too have many restrictions! Anyway Im not an expert in licensing. Boost is free to use in both commercial and non-commercial products. That approach is really great.
-Sarath_._ "Great hopes make everything great possible" - Benjamin Franklin
My blog - Sharing My Thoughts, An Article - Understanding Statepattern