question about releasing source

[Marcus Prewarski]

Soon I'm going to release a version of my new engine Diablo and I'm planning on including the source as well. I don't expect people to care much about the source and certainly not clone it since it is not nearly as simple as TSCP and not nearly as strong as Fruit or Glaurung. But what sort of copyright stuff do I need? Can I just copy the Gnu general public license stuff into it or should I attempt to write my own?

[Rémi Coulom]

Soon I'm going to release a version of my new engine Diablo and I'm planning on including the source as well. I don't expect people to care much about the source and certainly not clone it since it is not nearly as simple as TSCP and not nearly as strong as Fruit or Glaurung. But what sort of copyright stuff do I need? Can I just copy the Gnu general public license stuff into it or should I attempt to write my own?

Yes, you can copy the GPL. See the section "how to apply these terms to your new programs":
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html#SEC4

R?mi

[Pallav Nawani]

There are many open source licenses, which give the user various degrees of freedom. GPL is one of those. To release your code under GPL, do the following:

Get a copy of license from FSF
http://www.fsf.org

or just edit the License found with Fruit 2.0. Include this file with your source. Make a readme.txt and state in that file that your own the copyright to the code and you are releasing it under the terms of GPL version <whatever version it is>. Then add a comment on the top of each source file that the code is copyrighted by you, no warrenties whatsoever, and you are releasing it under GPL.

Ok, I did the legwork for you. See here for detailed info:
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html#GPL

Bye,
Pallav

[Dann Corbit]

Soon I'm going to release a version of my new engine Diablo and I'm planning on including the source as well. I don't expect people to care much about the source and certainly not clone it since it is not nearly as simple as TSCP and not nearly as strong as Fruit or Glaurung. But what sort of copyright stuff do I need? Can I just copy the Gnu general public license stuff into it or should I attempt to write my own?

Since it belongs to you, you can choose any licence you like.

The most lenient of all is public domain. If you make something public domain, then people can do anything that they want with it, without your permission. Probably, most people won't like that.

Then comes licences like ACE, Apache, Mozilla and BSD. These pretty much just insist that you inform everyone where the original ideas came from.

Then come licenses like LGPL, which means that you can link other programs to the library, but if you make changes to the library, these HAVE to be published as open source.

Then comes GPL, which means that nobody owns the code -- every change to the code must become public and every code base that uses GPL code also becomes public.

Then comes ordinary copyright, which means that it belongs to you and they strictly cannot use it without written permission.

You can also customize your own license.

Finally, the strongest protection is software patent, which means that you own the whole idea. For instance, if you obtained a software patent on making a chess engine, then nobody else could make one without paying you a royalty. Literally, it means you own the entire idea.

[Anonymous]

Finally, the strongest protection is software patent, which means that you own the whole idea. For instance, if you obtained a software patent on making a chess engine, then nobody else could make one without paying you a royalty. Literally, it means you own the entire idea.

he he he he...

[Marcus Prewarski]

Thanks for the replies, I had no idea there were so many options. Now I just have to pick one.

[Greg Simpson]

If you use the GPL you will still own the code, but others can modify your code and redistribute it as long as they keep it under the GPL. As the sole owner of the code, you could release it under a different license in the future, either to ease the restrictions of the GPL on the current code, or to keep the source of your future versions private.

The standard GPL has a clause that would enable the software to be distributed under any future version of the GPL, which you would have no control over. I actually think it is best to keep that provision, but you can remove it if it make you uncomfortable.

The GPL is most useful for collabarative programs, or to ensure development on a program can continue after the original author stops working on it. If you only want to let other people look at your code, just put in a standard copyright notice and (perhaps) permission to redistribute the unmodified program.

[Dann Corbit]

If you use the GPL you will still own the code, but others can modify your code and redistribute it as long as they keep it under the GPL. As the sole owner of the code, you could release it under a different license in the future, either to ease the restrictions of the GPL on the current code, or to keep the source of your future versions private.

The standard GPL has a clause that would enable the software to be distributed under any future version of the GPL, which you would have no control over. I actually think it is best to keep that provision, but you can remove it if it make you uncomfortable.

The GPL is most useful for collabarative programs, or to ensure development on a program can continue after the original author stops working on it. If you only want to let other people look at your code, just put in a standard copyright notice and (perhaps) permission to redistribute the unmodified program.

I disagree with the notion that you own the code if released as GPL.

You most certainly are not immune to the GPL license yourself.

Any changes you make to the code must also become public.

Otherwise YOU are in violation of the license that you chose.

Others may interpret this differently, but the language of the license is very clear in this regard.

[Alessandro Scotti]

This is actually a FAQ question (see http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DeveloperViolate):

Is the developer of a GPL-covered program bound by the GPL? Could the developer's actions ever be a violation of the GPL?

Strictly speaking, the GPL is a license from the developer for others to use, distribute and change the program. The developer itself is not bound by it, so no matter what the developer does, this is not a "violation" of the GPL.

However, if the developer does something that would violate the GPL if done by someone else, the developer will surely lose moral standing in the community.

[Dann Corbit]

This is actually a FAQ question (see http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DeveloperViolate):

Is the developer of a GPL-covered program bound by the GPL? Could the developer's actions ever be a violation of the GPL?

Strictly speaking, the GPL is a license from the developer for others to use, distribute and change the program. The developer itself is not bound by it, so no matter what the developer does, this is not a "violation" of the GPL.

However, if the developer does something that would violate the GPL if done by someone else, the developer will surely lose moral standing in the community.

Then the developer can take all the work contributed by everyone else, and steal it with impunity.

Great design.

[Reinhard Scharnagl]

Hi all,

remember that the world is not only speaking English.

If you make your source available in a country where English would NOT be an official language, it would impossible to commit the benefitery to obay any encountered licence.

Thus for me it is still a huge problem, that GPL and similar licence concepts still have not been translated e.g. into German language officially, which is taking away there any legality relevance from those texts.

So finally using such concepts may simulate a concept which could not be pushed through by individual programmers.

Thus giving away sources will make sense only by negotiating with INDIVIDUAL receivers of the code. There is neither a need nor a working licencing concept to spread one's sources all over the world.

Reinhard.

[Dann Corbit]

I doubt if there is any difference in legal force whether the contract is in English, German or some other languages.

Certainly, German copyrights are valid in the US. Is the converse not true? That would really be strange.

[Volker Pittlik]

Hi all,

remember that the world is not only speaking English.

If you make your source available in a country where English would NOT be an official language, it would impossible to commit the benefitery to obay any encountered licence.

You mean if I use a software which is available only in English (the beta version of the new Microsoft compiler for example) the licence agreement is not valid for me? I severely doubt that.

Thus for me it is still a huge problem, that GPL and similar licence concepts still have not been translated e.g. into German language officially, which is taking away there any legality relevance from those texts.

...

Do you have any reliable sources for that statement?

Volker

[Reinhard Scharnagl]

If you make your source available in a country where English would NOT be an official language, it would impossible to commit the benefitery to obay any encountered licence.

You mean if I use a software which is available only in English (the beta version of the new Microsoft compiler for example) the licence agreement is not valid for me? I severely doubt that.

I am not talking on software but on bundled licencing conditions. You will have noticed that Microsoft will use several languages at one side and exclude special regions from licencing at the other side.

Thus for me it is still a huge problem, that GPL and similar licence concepts still have not been translated e.g. into German language officially, which is taking away there any legality relevance from those texts.
...

Do you have any reliable sources for that statement?

I am not a lawyer, but because from nobody could been awaited that he have to accept contracts that he is not able to understand fully, it is clear that such texts must have used an official local language, or the partners have to sign individual contracts where the ability to understand the contents is made clear.

Have you ever read the documents coming e.g. with Suse Linux? I am interested in Linux for years. But all my attempts to get official german translations of the licensing conditions have been in vain. I regard this licencing problem to be one of the main obstacles to give Linux a higher acceptance.

Reinhard.

[Reinhard Scharnagl]

I doubt if there is any difference in legal force whether the contract is in English, German or some other languages.

Certainly, German copyrights are valid in the US. Is the converse not true? That would really be strange.

I am not talking on copyrights. As far as I know in Germany a copyright establishes already by the act of publishing.

The problem is the USING of sources, not the PUBLISHING of (changed) foreign sources.

Reinhard

[Alessandro Scotti]

Then the developer can take all the work contributed by everyone else, and steal it with impunity.

I think the developer retains ownership only of the parts he contributed. Even then, if he decides to change the license terms the code that he has already published under the GPL is still available to be used by others, etc.

[Dann Corbit]

Then the developer can take all the work contributed by everyone else, and steal it with impunity.

I think the developer retains ownership only of the parts he contributed. Even then, if he decides to change the license terms the code that he has already published under the GPL is still available to be used by others, etc.

It seems that the developer has special, magical rights that the others do not have. After a few months, who is the developer anyway? Perhaps the other contributors have written ten times as much code as the original author.

It seems like someone tried to have his cake and eat it too, when they wrote that mess.

[Pallav Nawani]

Then the developer can take all the work contributed by everyone else, and steal it with impunity.

I think the developer retains ownership only of the parts he contributed. Even then, if he decides to change the license terms the code that he has already published under the GPL is still available to be used by others, etc.

It seems that the developer has special, magical rights that the others do not have. After a few months, who is the developer anyway? Perhaps the other contributors have written ten times as much code as the original author.
.

Suppose a Developer A starts a chess engine, released under GPL. Then a developer B comes and contributes code to the chess engine. If now Dev A wants to change the license of the chess engine, he has to either:
(a) Take the consent of Dev b, or,
(b) Remove all the Dev B's code.

GPL is a _License_ under which the developer wishes to release the code to others. Once _that_ code is released, people can take it, modify it, and release the new version ad infinitum, all under GPL.

The developer always has the option to no longer offer the code under GPL. But this will have no effect on the _copy_ that has already been released under the GPL. He may write new code and not release that, but what has already been released, and taken by somebody else under the GPL will continue to be under that license.

By releasing the code under GPL ( or, for that matter any other license except public domain) the developer does not give up the copyright. This applies to everybody who has contributed code, not just the original developer.

Pallav

[Volker Pittlik]

...
I am not a lawyer, but because from nobody could been awaited that he have to accept contracts that he is not able to understand fully, it is clear that such texts must have used an official local language, or the partners have to sign individual contracts where the ability to understand the contents is made clear.

Have you ever read the documents coming e.g. with Suse Linux? I am interested in Linux for years. But all my attempts to get official german translations of the licensing conditions have been in vain. I regard this licencing problem to be one of the main obstacles to give Linux a higher acceptance.

Reinhard.

IANAL too, but I found an interesting article on the web. As far as I understood the GPL is completly valid in Germany in whatever language it is written in.

Problems may occur due to some particularities of German law. One point is that copyright is not so easy transferrable, the other point is the liability of the author. GPL says that the software comes with no warranty whatsoever. A statement like that contradicts general laws in Germany.

OTOH judges assume that GPL-ed software is usually a present (downloadable for free). In this case the liability of the author is limited to cases if he intentionally spreads malicious source code.

But if everything is going normal I don't see any problems.

http://www.informatik.uni-oldenburg.de/~iug04/ospr/thema/recht/deutschesRecht.html

That was just the first Google hit. I guess there is a lot more.

Volker

[Reinhard Scharnagl]

...
I am not a lawyer, but because from nobody could been awaited that he have to accept contracts that he is not able to understand fully, it is clear that such texts must have used an official local language, or the partners have to sign individual contracts where the ability to understand the contents is made clear.

Have you ever read the documents coming e.g. with Suse Linux? I am interested in Linux for years. But all my attempts to get official german translations of the licensing conditions have been in vain. I regard this licencing problem to be one of the main obstacles to give Linux a higher acceptance.

Reinhard.

IANAL too, but I found an interesting article on the web. As far as I understood the GPL is completly valid in Germany in whatever language it is written in.

Problems may occur due to some particularities of German law. One point is that copyright is not so easy transferrable, the other point is the liability of the author. GPL says that the software comes with no warranty whatsoever. A statement like that contradicts general laws in Germany.

OTOH judges assume that GPL-ed software is usually a present (downloadable for free). In this case the liability of the author is limited to cases if he intentionally spreads malicious source code.

But if everything is going normal I don't see any problems.

http://www.informatik.uni-oldenburg.de/~iug04/ospr/thema/recht/deutschesRecht.html

That was just the first Google hit. I guess there is a lot more.

Volker

Volker,

the cited user of a GPL related source obviously has been a "Vollkaufmann" thus it is not easy to conclude from this for general people.

Reinhard.