[CityGen] Core vs Module

thomthom

@chris fullmer said:

But the one I chose guarantees that if anyone uses portions of the code, they must also license their product with the same license. So anyone who uses actual chunks of the source code will also be making an open source project. But I'm open to changin if there is a better one listed. It might just need its own thread if we want to look at the major and minor differences between the offered licenses.

I'm just concerned if it would be possible for people to take our work, repackage it just change the branding and sell it. Even though their project is made open source it wouldn't not benefit us unless they added something themselves.

Chris Fullmer

There is also a difference between copyright and licensing. I'm not sure which is which and how copyright plays into the GNU license. So for some light reading, here is a list of all licenses offered on the google code site:

Apache License 2.0
Artistic License/GPL <---PERL invented this license and used it
Eclipse Public License 1.0
GNU GPL 2.0
GNU GPL 3.0 <---This is the current project license
GNU Lesser GPL
MIT License
Mozilla Public License 1.1
New BSD License

So there's some light reading. From what I could tell, they all permit resale of the code. But, its just not really commong I don't think. I just looked at Ruby's license, its interesting:

404: Not Found | Ruby

The requested page does not exist.You might try and start from the [home page](/).

Ruby Programming Language (www.ruby-lang.org)

I like the way #2 is written. It keeps alterations forced to stay within a company for private use, and anything made public has to be put online publicly and the author has permission to include it in ruby if he wants to. But any of the GPL's listed on the code site also do the same essentially.

Anyhow, lets look at the licenses closer. The main difference I could see in these listed on the google code site is that some allow people to change your code and then choose whatever license they wish - which we do not want, because then they could change the code and add their own proprietary license so they would not be required to share their changes.

Licenses.....bleh!

Chris

thomthom

@chris fullmer said:

Licenses.....bleh!

Ditto-bleh!

remus

I like the sound of GNU GPL 3.0

I think we need to make it very clear that the core and any modules written are all part of the same program, though. Otherwise the situation you described chris (writing modules under a different license and selling them) would be all too easy.

Chris Fullmer

@remus said:

I think we need to make it very clear that the core and any modules written are all part of the same program, though. Otherwise the situation you described chris (writing modules under a different license and selling them) would be all too easy.

Would that be a bad thing though? I kind of like the idea of people being able to develop their modules under whatever license they want. I don't like the idea of them being able to take the core and re-distribute it under a different license, but modules seem like anyone should be able to make them under whatever license they want.

That is what the GNU GPL would allow (I think?). Users would not be able to ever change the license on the core, or any tweaks on the core, or additions to the core itself. That all must always remain opensource. But I think that it would allow modules to be developed under whatever license they want, which I see as a good thing. People could add moules directly to our open source project, like we will be doing, and that would guarantee that the module is open source forever. OR they could develop and distribute on their own and sell it if they like. But they would still be using our open source core.

OR I'm sure we could make it so that ALL modules people make have to be open source too. This would keep everything open. My concern is that it might deter people who would like to make a few bucks from writing modules. And I'm thinking that "pay-for" modules are better than no modules being developed.

To me it is like the "SketchUp" model. They've made a platform (core) that anyone can write their own plugins (modules) for and sell them. The idea being that these plugins help draw more people to use SketchUp. People can alsow write free ones, and they can write not free ones, but the more that get written the better for SketchUp.

I see parallel there for us. The more modules that get written to work with our core, the better for us (mor publicity, more general interest). Even if they are pay-for modules.

But maybe I'm over thinking this.

And maybe (definitely) I'm biased, because I would like to be able to write pay-for modules after the core is solid. So I should put that out there too.... Am I the only one?

Chris

thomthom

I'm fine with people writing commercial modules. But I just don't want to see anyone taking a free module and selling it with only minor tweaks.

remus

Youve convinced me chris

Thom, if free modules are distributed with the GNU GPL license and someone decided they wanted to make a commercial version of it they would have to make the source code available, which effectively eliminates easy, legal methods for selling on already written modules licensed with GNU GPL.

thomthom

Ok. I'm happy.

Back to coding?

Jim

I'm not sure these licenses even hold up in court - have they ever been tested? Besides, it would cost a small fortune to find out. If someone does violate your license, what are you going to do about it?

This is how it would work in the US, anyway.

thomthom

@jim said:

what are you going to do about it?

Model a little voodoo doll of them and run Chris' greeble plugin...?

remus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#The_GPL_in_court Seems there has been moderte sucess in defending GPL licenses in court.

Not that we'd ever have the cash to take anyone to court more than anything i think its good to have this sort of thing in place so we can wave the piece of paper (or .txt file) at anyone who does rip off a developers work; an empty threat if you will.