Re: [ANN] DbTalk 0.7

>>>>> "Hal" == Hal E Fulton <[e-mail]> writes:

    Hal> OK, this is offtopic. Not meant to be flame or troll.

    Hal> I wish that there were some centralized location where
    Hal> I could learn about all these licenses and why they are
    Hal> loved/hated by various people in various situations.

    Hal> I hear endless debate about it all, but I have no clear
    Hal> understanding of it.

    Hal> For simplicity, anything I release in Ruby will be under
    Hal> the same license as Ruby.

    Hal> As for "unrestrictive as possible..." Here is the world's
    Hal> most unrestrictive license: "This software is completely
    Hal> free. Take it and pretend you wrote it. Sell it at a
    Hal> huge profit."

I tend to use the following license on most stuff that I write ...

    # Copyright 2002 by Jim Weirich ([e-mail]).
    # All rights reserved.

    # Permission is granted for use, copying, modification, distribution,
    # and distribution of modified versions of this work as long as the
    # above copyright notice is included.

I like this for several reasons.  First, it is short.  I can put this
at the top of my source files without feeling I've become a lawyer.

Second, it is very explicit about what it allows.  FSF says there are
3 freedoms that should be associated with free software, and the
license explicitly grants permission to use it, to modify it, and to
share it.

Finally, it keeps my name with the software.  Even if I'm not paid for
the software, I get a little ego-boost from the fact my name stays
with the code.  That's the only restriction, that the copyright notice
remain.

At one point in time, I received an email from the FSF saying that
they were doing a survey of licenses and that mine was possibly the
shortest GPL compatible[1] free software license that they had come
across.  They suggested that I add the phrase permitting "distribution
of modified sources".  At first, I first I thought they were being a
little paranoid, but then I read an article on SlashDot about a
license dispute dealing with just that particular issue.  So now the
license is three lines instead of two.

I noticed that Matz said that Rite will be under a license very
similar to the one above.   I've always wondered if he saw my version
of it.

The FSF has several pages discribing the licensing issues.  Their
descriptions are good.  Their recommendations are flavored by their
own point of view (of course).  Read and decide for yourself.

    http://www.fsf.org/licenses/license-list.html
    -- Notes about lots of different licenses.

    http://www.fsf.org/licenses/licenses.html
    -- Details about the FSF licenses ... GPL, LGPL, and GFDL.

-- 
-- Jim Weirich     [e-mail]    http://w3.one.net/~jweirich
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, 
not tried it." -- Donald Knuth (in a memo to Peter van Emde Boas)

[1] "GPL Compatible" means that it is free software that may be
    combined with GPLed software without conflict.  Some licenses
    (like the Mozilla Public License) cannot be combined with GPL
    software).  However, being compatible with the GPL does NOT 
    imply that the license is similar to the GPL (which it definitely 
    is not).