Bookstore

Recent

Author Topic: BSD License [SOLVED]  (Read 802 times)

TheLastCayen

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 74
BSD License [SOLVED]
« on: February 23, 2020, 05:04:13 am »
Hi,

I did a small auto clicker for Linux using the components:
 - codebotctrls
 - LazMouseAndKeyInput
 - SQLite

I now want to distribute my software freely, without providing the source code and I wonder what License can I use. I was reading the BSD 3 and it seems like I don't need to provide the source with that license, but I prefer to make sure before I publish.

So my question is, can I use BSD 3 this way or should I use another license?
If BSD is not for this purpose, Can someone recommend any other license that would suit my software better?

Thank you


« Last Edit: February 24, 2020, 08:58:54 pm by TheLastCayen »

HeavyUser

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 308
Re: BSD License
« Reply #1 on: February 23, 2020, 05:20:10 am »
You seem a bit confused. Why are you looking in to source code sharing licenses for a freeware application? The main question is do the licenses of the used components allow you to share your executable in any form you like? If yes then ask your self do you care how or from where your executable is shared? if not, a simple freeware license should be enough if yes then make a freeware with the requirement of a written approval for sharing. Avoid BSD, MIT, MPlL, (L)GPL or any source code centric license.

TheLastCayen

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 74
Re: BSD License
« Reply #2 on: February 23, 2020, 05:51:14 am »
Thx HeavyUser

yes, I am confused.   I never did a freeware before and I don't really know how to deal with the licenses. This is why I am asking, can I use BSD and if not what else should I use. I know nothing about legal stuff :( The more I read the more confused I am:(

HeavyUser

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 308
Re: BSD License
« Reply #3 on: February 23, 2020, 06:51:08 am »
here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons_license#Seven_regularly_used_licenses

Pick the features you want and you have a license. I would rather not confuse the issue any more with my own preconseptions and likes. If you can't choose a license then please provide a complete feature list for you license and people will try to propose their preffered license. just select the one with least extra feature to mad the waters for you.

To start the process here is my license for my free software.

This application is free to use and share as you see fit.
The author of the application does not claim fitness for any purpose and can not be held responsible for any damage occurred from the use of this software. If you can not agree with the above conditions you are asked not to use the application.

If the application does not function as expected the author requests to be informed on the details of failure but can not promise if or when the problem will be fixed.

lucamar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2588
Re: BSD License
« Reply #4 on: February 23, 2020, 11:55:00 am »
Avoid BSD, MIT, MPlL, (L)GPL or any source code centric license.

You're wrong there. Almost all FOSS licenses can be safely used for both source and binary distribution, although it's true that some refer more to the possibility of sharing the source along with the binary.

The point to select one (or none) of them is to think carefully about what you want your users to be allowed to do and what not, and to what you're pledging yourself. For a freeware, binary program without distribution restrictions almost any license will do except those allowing the user to request the source form you (GPL and friends). The MIT or BSD licenses are perfectly acceptable (after all, they're used for whole OSs and lots of independent programs); if you prefer something with more "teeth", then use one of the more "serious" licenses, like the Mozilla Public License or the European Union Public License.

Whatever you do, and unless you count with expert (read: "paid") legal advisors, don't just invent one or remix from others: a license is a legal instrument and there are lots of pitfalls waiting for the incautious to fall into and end down a judicial rabbit-hole.

ETA: By the the way, with the possible exception of the CC0, the Creative Commons licenses are not (and don't pretend to be) adecuate for software. In fact, CC seriously discourages their use for that.
« Last Edit: February 23, 2020, 11:58:09 am by lucamar »
Turbo Pascal 3 CP/M - Amstrad PCW 8256 (512 KB !!!) :P
Lazarus 2.0.6/FPC 3.0.4 - 32/64 bits on:
(K|L|X)Ubuntu 12..18, Windows XP, 7, 10 and various DOSes.

TheLastCayen

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 74
Re: BSD License
« Reply #5 on: February 23, 2020, 10:17:53 pm »
Thx for the information. The part I read about the CC0 didn't feel right for a software:/  I don't really need something really aggressive... I only want people to freely use my tool without bugging me;)  A lot of friends also recommend writing my own, even if it's only to cover the" I am not responsible if the software breaks your computer..." kind of thing... But since I know nothing about law, I prefer using one already written that way...  I will read about the MIT license.

Thank's again:)

TheLastCayen

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 74
Re: BSD License
« Reply #6 on: February 24, 2020, 05:51:26 am »
I read a lot about licensing and those are my conclusion. Please, let me know if I am wrong.

 -  BSD V3 license doesn't seem to be an issue to be used in a  freeware.
  - BSD V3 doesn't grant a patent.
 - MIT implies that anyone can sell your work. For my work, I prefer to avoid this license.
 - Apache License V2 seem compatible with other opensource licenses except GPL 1 an 2.
 - Apache License V2 grants you a patent but I still need to confirm that part of the information. Not sure if it really grants or if it allows getting one...   
 - Apache License V2 doesn't seem to be an issue to be used in a  freeware.


Now I am really thinking of using Apache License V2. I also checked the license for the component I am using.
 - Sqlite is public domain, 
 - codebotctrls I can't find any license for it ... I check https://github.com/sysrpl/Cross.Codebot and the source code...
 - LazMouseAndKeyInput use GPL License... Since there is no number, I will assume the first version of the license.

So now my question is, can I publish my software under Apache License V2 if one component use an incompatible version of GPL license?

Thank you



guest65278

  • Guest
Re: BSD License
« Reply #7 on: February 24, 2020, 06:28:10 am »
I'm have a bit of knowledge about this problem and I want to share.

You want to release your software as closed source freeware, don't you?

You can't do that from the beginning. Because you have used one GPL component. It's not very wrong for Steve Ballmer to said GPL is a cancer, because indeed it does spread. If you keep using that component, and you want to distribute it you have to release your source code with GPL, too. If you just use it yourself and don't distribute you are safe as the GPL only care when you distribute your software.

Check if the component is GPL or LGPL because it really matter. The Free Pascal compiler itself is GPL but the RTL is LGPL so it's perfectly legal to link the RTL statically into your binary without worrying about having to release the final product as GPL. The Free Pascal and Lazarus are brilliant when chosen that scheme, they can keep their works as GPL and enjoy the protection GPL give them (no one could steal their works without release the source code as GPL too and they could easily merge the improvements back to the original version which is them), but still allow user to develop closed source product using their tool.

GPL is, I don't want to insult anyone, but I considered it as a robber's license. Here I give you the truth about GPL compatibility:

It's a oneway relationship. If license A was declared by the FSF as GPL compatible, GPL licensed software could use component from license A but A licensed software can't not use GPL license component without changing the license to GPL, too. That's a perfectly legal way to steal other's works. That's the reason I hate GPL. And the "compatible" here is pretty much, arbitrary. I the FSF deemed it fit then they declare that's GPL compatible. You could steal permissive licensed code (BSD, MIT...) easily but they can't use even a single line of code from you.

Do you know the ZFS file system? It's CDDL. CDDL is a copyleft license like GPL, too. But it's incompatible with GPL. Guest why? Because it stated CDDL licensed software have to stay CDDL licensed so the GPL guy can't not plagiarize it. GPL, is cancerous, but CDDL, isn't. CDDL is copyleft but it doesn't spread. You use a CDDL licensed component, any modication to this component still have to stay CDDL licensed but your software that use this CDDL component can be whatever license you want, including proprietary. CDDL doesn't force you to release your software as CDDL like GPL does.

Conclusion:

If your software is not critical why don't just release it as GPL? This way you don't have to care about anything else.

If you still want to be closed source, remove the GPL component and seek for a permissive licensed alternative immediately.

p/s: about the component you can't find it license. I would say stay away from it, too. You could try asking the developer to clarify what is their software's license and then decide if you want to continue to use it or not.

guest65278

  • Guest
Re: BSD License
« Reply #8 on: February 24, 2020, 06:43:14 am »
You can check about AGPL, which is GPL on steroids, too, to see how insane it could be.

HeavyUser

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 308
Re: BSD License
« Reply #9 on: February 24, 2020, 07:36:13 am »
I read a lot about licensing and those are my conclusion. Please, let me know if I am wrong.

 -  BSD V3 license doesn't seem to be an issue to be used in a  freeware.
  - BSD V3 doesn't grant a patent.
 - MIT implies that anyone can sell your work. For my work, I prefer to avoid this license.
 - Apache License V2 seem compatible with other opensource licenses except GPL 1 an 2.
 - Apache License V2 grants you a patent but I still need to confirm that part of the information. Not sure if it really grants or if it allows getting one...   
 - Apache License V2 doesn't seem to be an issue to be used in a  freeware.


Now I am really thinking of using Apache License V2. I also checked the license for the component I am using.
 - Sqlite is public domain, 
 - codebotctrls I can't find any license for it ... I check https://github.com/sysrpl/Cross.Codebot and the source code...
 - LazMouseAndKeyInput use GPL License... Since there is no number, I will assume the first version of the license.

So now my question is, can I publish my software under Apache License V2 if one component use an incompatible version of GPL license?

Thank you
bold is mine, GPL means you have to share the source code of your application, regardless of the license you choose. Unless there is an exception to the license from the author you can not share your application with out opening the source. That makes this thread an exercise in frustration. I guess you can share your application privately but as far as I understand the license, even that is a license infringement.

guest65278

  • Guest
Re: BSD License
« Reply #10 on: February 24, 2020, 10:20:52 am »
GPL: I can rob your code but no one could rob my code, hey permissive license losers  >:D

It's all depends on your purpose to choose the appropriate license.

If you need the protection from GPL to prevent people from robbing your code, use GPL.

In GPL world, people do not rob. They just publicly fork your code and they fork has to remain open source under GPL, too. If you fork a permissive licensed project, you could closed the source and sell it as proprietary software, just remember to retain the copyright of the original project developers.

Keep in mind that you could lose to the forks if you can't keep pace with them, and your original version will become legacy and no one will care about it anymore. People will remember the most popular fork as the mainstream, it's no longer you, you are out of business now!

If you want to profit from your GPL licensed software, the only way is to sell support and training certificate. Like Redhat does with their Enterprise Linux. So open source software tends to be bloated. You can't sell your software, because anyone from anywhere could come and create their own fork, competing with you. Or you could use dual license like Qt does, free for open source software and paid for commercial software, but it's mostly works for frameworks and libraries, but you could try, I see no reason it couldn't work for normal software, though. It's worse with the permissive license. But it's how open source works.

If you don't mind your code could be used by others to develop commercial and closed source software, why don't release it as permissive licensed software?

It's a bit unfair, isn't it? But supporting permissive licensed software really helps the small and medium software development company. GPL is used to fight the big evil, like Microsoft, Apple... not the small and medium ones.

Yes, Apple does profited from permissive licensed software. But unlike GPL provocaters said they just take and never give anything back to the poor permissive licensed projects, they indeed one of the main driven force funded and developed LLVM Clang. This is just to show they does give back, but not to prove that they are good. They develop LLVM Clang to counter the GPL licensed GCC. But the side effect of this is we now have both high quality toolchain  ;)

Hope it helps  :)

HeavyUser

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 308
Re: BSD License
« Reply #11 on: February 24, 2020, 10:31:29 am »
GPL: I can rob your code but no one could rob my code, hey permissive license losers  >:D

It's all depends on your purpose to choose the appropriate license.

If you need the protection from GPL to prevent people from robbing your code, use GPL.

In GPL world, people do not rob. They just publicly fork your code and they fork has to remain open source under GPL, too. If you fork a permissive licensed project, you could closed the source and sell it as proprietary software, just remember to retain the copyright of the original project developers.

If you don't mind your code could be used by others to develop commercial and closed source software, why don't release it as permissive licensed software?

It's a bit unfair, isn't it? But supporting permissive licensed software really helps the small and medium software development company. GPL is used to fight the big evil, like Microsoft, Apple... not the small and medium ones.

Yes, Apple does profited from permissive licensed software. But unlike GPL provocaters said they just take and never give anything back to the poor permissive licensed projects, they indeed one of the main driven force funded and developed LLVM Clang. This is just to show they does give back, but not to prove that they are good. They develop LLVM Clang to counter the GPL licensed GCC. But the side effect of this is we now have both high quality toolchain  ;)
you are troll, a poorly informed troll at that but this has no real value in this thread your post and mine are reported as flame baits and I'm expecting them to be deleted soon.

guest65278

  • Guest
Re: BSD License
« Reply #12 on: February 24, 2020, 10:41:24 am »
GPL: I can rob your code but no one could rob my code, hey permissive license losers  >:D

It's all depends on your purpose to choose the appropriate license.

If you need the protection from GPL to prevent people from robbing your code, use GPL.

In GPL world, people do not rob. They just publicly fork your code and they fork has to remain open source under GPL, too. If you fork a permissive licensed project, you could closed the source and sell it as proprietary software, just remember to retain the copyright of the original project developers.

If you don't mind your code could be used by others to develop commercial and closed source software, why don't release it as permissive licensed software?

It's a bit unfair, isn't it? But supporting permissive licensed software really helps the small and medium software development company. GPL is used to fight the big evil, like Microsoft, Apple... not the small and medium ones.

Yes, Apple does profited from permissive licensed software. But unlike GPL provocaters said they just take and never give anything back to the poor permissive licensed projects, they indeed one of the main driven force funded and developed LLVM Clang. This is just to show they does give back, but not to prove that they are good. They develop LLVM Clang to counter the GPL licensed GCC. But the side effect of this is we now have both high quality toolchain  ;)
you are troll, a poorly informed troll at that but this has no real value in this thread your post and mine are reported as flame baits and I'm expecting them to be deleted soon.

OK, let the mods decide. This time I truly tell from my heart. I didn't troll. I'm not a low quality troll like that. I swore. Too underestimate me!

As I see you are not the OP and since I think my post can help the OP, your opinion is nothing for me.

My post above is everything I want to share with the OP. Let's see if I could log in the next time or being banned.

If this time I'm banned, I will never back. This time I swore.

JuhaManninen

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3738
  • I like bugs.
Re: BSD License
« Reply #13 on: February 24, 2020, 01:44:31 pm »
Do you know the ZFS file system? It's CDDL. CDDL is a copyleft license like GPL, too. But it's incompatible with GPL. Guest why? Because it stated CDDL licensed software have to stay CDDL licensed so the GPL guy can't not plagiarize it. GPL, is cancerous, but CDDL, isn't. CDDL is copyleft but it doesn't spread. You use a CDDL licensed component, any modication to this component still have to stay CDDL licensed but your software that use this CDDL component can be whatever license you want, including proprietary. CDDL doesn't force you to release your software as CDDL like GPL does.
I didn't know about CDDL but it sounds like "LGPL with Static Linking Exception" which allows you to link a lib into your closed source code by any technical means.

Licenses are a complex issue, sure. Giants like Google have proven that business using free and open source SW can be very profitable.
Yet their other strategies for users' privacy and gaining market share are questionable. Moral questions about right and wrong come to mind inevitably.

PascalDragon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1109
  • Compiler Developer
Re: BSD License
« Reply #14 on: February 24, 2020, 01:52:16 pm »
you are troll, a poorly informed troll at that but this has no real value in this thread your post and mine are reported as flame baits and I'm expecting them to be deleted soon.

Why do you consider nov97 a troll? They aren't that wrong about the topic...