Choosing a license

[Compulinkltd]

My company is considering releasing a software library under an
open-source license, but since we are developers not lawyers we could
use some advise in selecting the most appropriate license. We would like
to choose a license with the following characteristics:

1.  We want to allow others to link closed-source or commercial software
with our open-source software library. We would like for them to give
notice or acknowledgment that the work was used in it.

2.  If someone modifies the source of the library, we want to require
them to release the modification so we could at our option legally
include the modification in future versions of the library.

3.  We would like to protect ourselves and contributors to the
open-source software library when it comes to software patents.  We like
provision 3 of the Apache 2.0 license.

Can you give us a list of software licenses that have these
characteristics? The LGPL looks close but I don't see anything like
characteristic 3.  The Apache 2.0 looks close, but I think it lacks
characteristic 2.

Are there any plans to revise the LGPL when the GPLv3 is finished to
better deal with patents?

Sincerely,

Bruce

[Smith, McCoy]

Lgpl is being revised simultaneous with gpl.  See current draft (and
other information about that draft and prior drafts) here:
http://gplv3.fsf.org/lgpl3-dd2-guide


-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Alspaugh [mailto:compulinkltd@...]
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 1:21 PM
To: license-discuss@...
Subject: Choosing a license

My company is considering releasing a software library under an
open-source license, but since we are developers not lawyers we could
use some advise in selecting the most appropriate license. We would like

to choose a license with the following characteristics:

1.  We want to allow others to link closed-source or commercial software

with our open-source software library. We would like for them to give
notice or acknowledgment that the work was used in it.

2.  If someone modifies the source of the library, we want to require
them to release the modification so we could at our option legally
include the modification in future versions of the library.

3.  We would like to protect ourselves and contributors to the
open-source software library when it comes to software patents.  We like

provision 3 of the Apache 2.0 license.

Can you give us a list of software licenses that have these
characteristics? The LGPL looks close but I don't see anything like
characteristic 3.  The Apache 2.0 looks close, but I think it lacks
characteristic 2.

Are there any plans to revise the LGPL when the GPLv3 is finished to
better deal with patents?

Sincerely,

Bruce

[Compulinkltd]

I thought about the MPL, but then I read there is a complicating factor
that MPL and GPL code cannot legally be linked together.  We need to be
able to link with LGPL code as well.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#MPL

If I exercise the provision in the MPL to allow a choice of the LGPLv2.1
I should be compatible.  Have I then allowed people to bypass the patent
provisions in the MPL?  Would the LGPLv3 alone or together with MPL fix
that?

Bruce

Mitchell Baker wrote:

> The MPL might meet your needs.  Specifically designed to do the things
> you mention.  Hasn't been updated in a while; still reasonably well
> known and used as a license.
>
> mitchell
>
> Smith, McCoy wrote:
>> Lgpl is being revised simultaneous with gpl.  See current draft (and
>> other information about that draft and prior drafts) here:
>> http://gplv3.fsf.org/lgpl3-dd2-guide
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Bruce Alspaugh [mailto:compulinkltd@...] Sent: Thursday,
>> May 10, 2007 1:21 PM
>> To: license-discuss@...
>> Subject: Choosing a license
>>
>> My company is considering releasing a software library under an
>> open-source license, but since we are developers not lawyers we could
>> use some advise in selecting the most appropriate license. We would like
>>
>> to choose a license with the following characteristics:
>>
>> 1.  We want to allow others to link closed-source or commercial software
>>
>> with our open-source software library. We would like for them to give
>> notice or acknowledgment that the work was used in it.
>>
>> 2.  If someone modifies the source of the library, we want to require
>> them to release the modification so we could at our option legally
>> include the modification in future versions of the library.
>> 3.  We would like to protect ourselves and contributors to the
>> open-source software library when it comes to software patents.  We like
>>
>> provision 3 of the Apache 2.0 license.
>>
>> Can you give us a list of software licenses that have these
>> characteristics? The LGPL looks close but I don't see anything like
>> characteristic 3.  The Apache 2.0 looks close, but I think it lacks
>> characteristic 2.
>> Are there any plans to revise the LGPL when the GPLv3 is finished to
>> better deal with patents?
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> Bruce
>>  
>
>

[Matthew Flaschen]

Bruce Alspaugh wrote:
> I thought about the MPL, but then I read there is a complicating factor
> that MPL and GPL code cannot legally be linked together.  We need to be
> able to link with LGPL code as well.

I am not a lawyer, but I believe MPL can link with LGPL, but not GPL.

> If I exercise the provision in the MPL to allow a choice of the LGPLv2.1
> I should be compatible.  Have I then allowed people to bypass the patent
> provisions in the MPL?

Yes.  People would be able to make modified versions available under
only the LGPL.  You wouldn't be able to use their changes then either.
But this isn't an issue if you're dealing only with existing LGPL code.

>  Would the LGPLv3 alone or together with MPL fix
> that?

LGPLv3 will be GPLv3 plus an extra set of conditional permissions.  See
http://gplv3.fsf.org/lgpl3-dd2.html for the latest draft.  This means
the GPL's Section 11 should require contributors (but not distributors)
to grant a full patent license.


Matt Flaschen

[Compulinkltd]

Matthew Flaschen wrote:
> Bruce Alspaugh wrote:
>  
>> I thought about the MPL, but then I read there is a complicating factor
>> that MPL and GPL code cannot legally be linked together.  We need to be
>> able to link with LGPL code as well.
>>    
>
> I am not a lawyer, but I believe MPL can link with LGPL, but not GPL.
>  
So what this all means is that if an MPL project attempts to link to a
GPL library, the GPL will apply to the entire combined work due to the
"viral" nature of the GPL.  However, the terms and conditions the GPL
imposes on the MPL code are incompatible with the terms and conditions
of the MPL license.  Thus, the combined work can never be released
without an alternative GPL-compatible license being offered.

On the other hand, if LGPL code links to GPL code or is copied into GPL
code, the terms and conditions of the GPL would apply to the entire
combined work, but the license terms and conditions are otherwise
compatible.  However, we could not combine the enhancements back into
the LGPL library.

So theoretically the Mozilla Foundation and the FSF could work together
to make their respective licenses compatible. Sort of like the
negotiations underway to allow Apache code to be linked or copied into a
GPLv3 codebase.

Bruce

[Matthew Flaschen]

Bruce Alspaugh wrote:
> So what this all means is that if an MPL project attempts to link to a
> GPL library, the GPL will apply to the entire combined work due to the
> "viral" nature of the GPL.

Yes, the whole would probably (possibly depending on the nature of the
library) have to be licensed under the GPL.

> However, the terms and conditions the GPL imposes on the MPL code
> are incompatible with the terms and conditions of the MPL license.  
> Thus, the combined work can never be released without an alternative
> GPL-compatible license being offered.

Yes, every part of the combined work must be under a GPL compatible license.

> On the other hand, if LGPL code links to GPL code or is copied into GPL
> code, the terms and conditions of the GPL would apply to the entire
> combined work, but the license terms and conditions are otherwise
> compatible.  However, we could not combine the enhancements back into
> the LGPL library.

I think that's correct.  LGPL code can be used in GPL code, but not
vice-versa.

> So theoretically the Mozilla Foundation and the FSF could work together
> to make their respective licenses compatible.

Theoretically.  But I don't really understand the "complex restrictions
that make it incompatible"

Best,

Matthew Flaschen

[Mark Wielaard]

On Fri, 2007-05-11 at 14:36 -0400, Matthew Flaschen wrote:
> > So theoretically the Mozilla Foundation and the FSF could work together
> > to make their respective licenses compatible.
>
> Theoretically.  But I don't really understand the "complex restrictions
> that make it incompatible"

Some, but not all, are described at
http://www.tomhull.com/ocston/docs/mozgpl.html

Cheers,

Mark