license recommendation

[Mr SZ]

Hello everyone,

My friend is planning to release a set of free activeX controls .He wants to know if there exists a license which :
If the end user is a developer,then he can ask for the source code and if the developer makes changes/improvements,he is required to submit the changes  back to him.

Now he wants to know if any such open source license/shared license exist which will fit his criteria. 

PS:If I buy the source code of a program,does it mean I own the code or do I just have the right to own it and modify it to some extent or something else?

Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com

[David Woolley (E.L)]

Mr SZ wrote:
> If the end user is a developer,then he can ask for the source code and
> if the developer makes changes/improvements,he is required to submit the
> changes  back to him.

Such licenses are generally discouraged because they are unenforceable
and because it is unclear what to do when the original licensor
disappears.  Most developers will avoid them, if there is any alternative.

You will get strong resistance against anything that requires the
copyright in the changes to be assigned to you unless your free software
credentials are impeccable (e.g. you are the FSF) or you have a very
strong position (Mozilla?).  This is especially true if there is any
reason to believe that you will commercially exploit the contributed
changes.

> PS:If I buy the source code of a program,does it mean I own the code or
> do I just have the right to own it and modify it to some extent or

You need to ask the vendor what they are actually selling, as they
won't be selling the source code and only the source code.  They will
be either selling it on some medium or selling a licence to download it.

For Open Source, they would also have to be selling the right to copy
and redistribute it without further payment to them, and without
restrictions on the recipient.

You will generally only get the copyright, and therefore unrestricted
use if the software was developed specifically for you.

PS this is off charter. The list is really for discussing licence
document proposals.

[Matthew Flaschen]

David Woolley wrote:
> Mr SZ wrote:
>> If the end user is a developer,then he can ask for the source code and
>> if the developer makes changes/improvements,he is required to submit
>> the changes  back to him.
>
> Such licenses are generally discouraged because they are unenforceable
> and because it is unclear what to do when the original licensor
> disappears.  Most developers will avoid them, if there is any alternative.

This is true, and I believe an ordinary copyleft license (such as the
GNU General Public License) will serve him well.  In the interests of
full disclosure, the Reciprocal Public License requires developers of
modified versions to "Notify the Licensor of the availability of Source
Code to Your Extensions in a timely fashion and include in such notice a
brief description of the Extensions, the distinctive title used, and
instructions on how to acquire the Source Code and future updates."  I
would strongly recommend against using this license, as it is
burdensome, over-complex, and as a result very unpopular.

> PS this is off charter. The list is really for discussing licence
> document proposals.

Right.  It's probably worthwhile to push this kind of discussion onto
another list (license-advice ?).

Matt Flaschen

[John Cowan]

Mr SZ scripsit:

> PS:If I buy the source code of a program,does it mean I own the code
> or do I just have the right to own it and modify it to some extent or
> something else?

If you just buy a copy, you have the right to do anything with the
copy except make more copies, make modified versions, distribute
either verbatim or modified copies, or publicly display the copy,
except as permitted by whatever license you have bought.

If you buy the *copyright* from the owner, you are in the same
position as the owner was.

--
John Cowan   cowan@...    http://ccil.org/~cowan
The known is finite, the unknown infinite; intellectually we stand
on an islet in the midst of an illimitable ocean of inexplicability.
Our business in every generation is to reclaim a little more land,
to add something to the extent and the solidity of our possessions.
        --Thomas Henry Huxley

[David Woolley (E.L)]

John Cowan wrote:

> If you just buy a copy, you have the right to do anything with the
> copy except make more copies, make modified versions, distribute

Compiling it is normally considered making a modified (derivative)
version, and in some countries, copying into computer memory in order
to execute it, etc., is considered copying for copyright purposes (I
believe this is the case in the UK, but not the USA).

IANAL

[John Cowan]

David Woolley scripsit:

> Compiling it is normally considered making a modified (derivative)
> version,

AFAIK compiling is considered copying: object code *is* source code
in the eyes of the law, just as a microfilmed copy of a book *is* the
book.

> and in some countries, copying into computer memory in order
> to execute it, etc., is considered copying for copyright purposes (I
> believe this is the case in the UK, but not the USA).

It's copying in the U.S. too, but it's allowed by a special exception
in the copyright law.

> IANAL

Me either.

--
Do I contradict myself?                         John Cowan
Very well then, I contradict myself.            cowan@...
I am large, I contain multitudes.               http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
        --Walt Whitman, Leaves of Grass