Author [EN] [ZH] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] [EN] [ZH] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] [EN] [ZH] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] Topic: License Help  (Read 401 times)

Offline bytemaster

License Help
« on: May 25, 2015, 03:41:35 PM »

I am looking for an standard open source license that prohibits distribution of modifications to the code except as separate "patch files" that must be applied by the user *after* they have received the code. 

Ideally it would also prohibit distributing binaries of modified code.
For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline Thom

Re: License Help
« Reply #1 on: May 25, 2015, 03:48:15 PM »
If you have trouble finding this I would recommend drafting your own, basically starting from the qualifications you need and saying those qualifications supercede the included open source license you prefer (MIT, Creative Commons etc).

I've been involved with the software industry for a very long time (since late 70s). I have also had significant exposure to the dark underbelly of the legal system where legal research is no stranger to me. I have patented software, so that too is familiar ground.

Yet, things change all the time so your question does require current research to arrive at a reasonable conclusion to your question. How deep into this rabbit hole you want to go is a fair question to ask.

With a quick google search and reading of this: http://opensource.org/faq, I don't believe placing restrictions on binaries will fall under any of the standard open source licenses commonly used. Anything non-standard would have to be evaluated, which again gets back to how deep into the legal rabbit hole you want to go.

IMO, informed by much life experience in such matters, writing your own document in plain English to establish your clear intent is at least the starting point. Having that text reviewed by an attorney or paralegal is another level of due-diligence you may wish to take, but then again relying on the legal system to decide if a violation has occurred and what options you have to claim damages and pursue recovery is a crap shoot at best.

Your best course of action is to write your intention and perhaps the reasons for the restrictions in your own words in your own custom license text.

« Last Edit: May 25, 2015, 06:51:34 PM by Thom »

Offline pc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 996
    • View Profile
    • Bitcoin - Perspektive oder Risiko?
  • BTS: cyrano
  • Witness: cyrano
  • Payrate: 100%
Re: License Help
« Reply #2 on: June 05, 2015, 08:21:09 AM »
I am looking for an standard open source license that prohibits distribution of modifications to the code except as separate "patch files" that must be applied by the user *after* they have received the code. 

Ideally it would also prohibit distributing binaries of modified code.

http://opensource.org/licenses/QPL-1.0 should meet your first requirement.

Restricting binary distribution is in conflict with the open source definition AFAICS.
Please vote for my BitShares witness "cyrano" and for my STEEM witness "cyrano.witness"!
Bitcoin - Perspektive oder Risiko? ISBN 978-3-8442-6568-2 http://bitcoin.quisquis.de

Offline pc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 996
    • View Profile
    • Bitcoin - Perspektive oder Risiko?
  • BTS: cyrano
  • Witness: cyrano
  • Payrate: 100%
Re: License Help
« Reply #3 on: June 11, 2015, 01:07:18 PM »
Also keep in mind that the fc library includes code licensed under the AGPL, among other things:

src/crypto/romix.cpp
include/fc/crypto/romix.hpp

Furthermore, fc links (optionally) with the readline library, which is licensed under the GPL. The GPL considers usage of a library a "derived work".

Using this code under a non-copyleft license would be asking for trouble.


IIRC some other 3rd-party code requires mentioning its authors in the product documentation. That should checked before publishing binaries.


Also see this thread: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,8571.0.html
Please vote for my BitShares witness "cyrano" and for my STEEM witness "cyrano.witness"!
Bitcoin - Perspektive oder Risiko? ISBN 978-3-8442-6568-2 http://bitcoin.quisquis.de

Offline bytemaster

Re: License Help
« Reply #4 on: June 11, 2015, 01:12:41 PM »
Also keep in mind that the fc library includes code licensed under the AGPL, among other things:

src/crypto/romix.cpp
include/fc/crypto/romix.hpp

Furthermore, fc links (optionally) with the readline library, which is licensed under the GPL. The GPL considers usage of a library a "derived work".

Using this code under a non-copyleft license would be asking for trouble.


IIRC some other 3rd-party code requires mentioning its authors in the product documentation. That should checked before publishing binaries.


Also see this thread: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,8571.0.html

I didn't realize that there was AGPL code in FC.  I have removed it.
For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

 

Google+