Timeline for Which open-source license is right for my project?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 8, 2011 at 0:48 | comment | added | Lea Hayes | @Mark I think that a combination of GPL section 7 + open-source wiki + large proprietary online learning resource that is non-copyable (except for personal offline use and use by schools/unis) would suffice. Thanks again Mark, you have been really helpful, I appreciate it. | |
| Jun 7, 2011 at 23:51 | comment | added | Mark H | @Lea - yeah, the GPL section 7 allows you to add additional clauses for branding, to force that anyone who forks the project does so under an alternative brand. | |
| Jun 7, 2011 at 22:09 | comment | added | Lea Hayes | @Mark @Jeff is it possible to release a project under GPL but put heavy restrictions on the branding of the project. It is possible to fork, but not possible to fork with the same branding? I just need a way to secure my release of the project so that people consider my company the official project home. Is there a particular strategy that I could adopt along with GPL to secure my investment? BTW, the OSI confirmed that the above is not compatible with open-source. | |
| Jun 7, 2011 at 18:31 | comment | added | Lea Hayes | @Jeff I think that I am definitely missing something. So there are "free licenses" and "open source licenses"? Thanks I will try the IRC channel. | |
| Jun 7, 2011 at 14:57 | comment | added | Jeff Welling | @Lea: From what you've said, I think you may not be clear in the differences between Free Software and Open Source software, they are not one and the same and the OSI does not decide which software is 'Free Software', they administer Open Source licenses. You may be interested in contacting the Free Software Foundation instead -- they have an IRC channel you can ask in, FYI. | |
| Jun 7, 2011 at 14:54 | comment | added | Jeff Welling | @Lea: "but they cannot publicly fork because I see that as highly damaging" << I think you need to re-evaluate your position. Forking is considered a feature in Open Source and Free Software. | |
| Jun 7, 2011 at 11:17 | vote | accept | Lea Hayes | ||
| Jun 7, 2011 at 11:17 | comment | added | Lea Hayes | @Mark I think that you have pretty much summed it all up. I will seriously consider using GPL. I have sent the OSI an e-mail requesting whether my terms would constitute as "Free Software". If it does then I will have a custom open-source license written and submit it for review by the OSI. If not then I will have to use GPL or consider a proprietary license which is as open as possible. Thanks a lot for the discussion, it has been great! | |
| Jun 7, 2011 at 1:04 | comment | added | Mark H | Typically, the only time projects get forked is when there are issues with the management that prevent modifications being added into the main branch. If you want a real world example, take OpenOffice.org - now a dead community because it has been forked into LibreOffice. | |
| Jun 7, 2011 at 1:03 | comment | added | Mark H | If you look at existing GPL based projects - they very rarely get forked. This is because nobody gains anything by forking it - they can't suddenly close the code, or accept contributions under a different license. A fork is effectively a different development branch, and you can take any of that code back into the main branch. | |
| Jun 7, 2011 at 0:59 | comment | added | Lea Hayes | @Mark I would definitely want to attribute contributions with their rightful copyright. And the contributor is welcome to use their derived works, but they cannot publicly fork because I see that as highly damaging. I can see how this requirement makes the whole thing a lot more complicated. I don't see why someone should be able to take my project and steal my audience, but I welcome sharing and development. | |
| Jun 7, 2011 at 0:28 | history | undeleted | Mark H | ||
| Jun 7, 2011 at 0:27 | history | deleted | Mark H | ||
| Jun 7, 2011 at 0:27 | history | answered | Mark H | CC BY-SA 3.0 |