* * * * *
                                        
                              A License to License
                                        
> Guess what? That's bunk. They haven't infected me. I'm merely using a
> library function in the way that library functions are meant to be used:
> they're an API, (Application Programming Interface) and you link to them.
> It is of no consequence whether it's statically linked at link/load-time,
> dynamically linked at start-up, or accessed at run-time during execution
> via any one of myriad forms of RPC. (Remote Procedure Call) It's API only,
> not material inclusion. APIs aren't viral.
> 

“–Tom Christiansen”, from an Ask Slashdot [1] forum.

Another big old discussion [2] on Slashdot about Open Source Licenses. [3]

I'm not sure how I come down on this issue. The basic one seems to be that
some people feel the GNU GPL [4] is too viral, too restrictive of an Open
Source license. Others feel that the Artistic License [5] is too liberal,
allowing one to appropriate code and resell it in a proprietary product. And
who knows how these things interact.

I had a similar problem when I released my first Open Source package,
mod_litbook, [6] which is an Apache module, with its own license. [7] I wrote
to the FSF (Free Software Foundation) asking about this, but never did hear
back from them, because I did want to release it under the GPL, but didn't
know how it would work with the Apache License. I went ahead anyway.

Basically, I would like for a license to read (my own comments [appear as
such]):

> I, Sean Conner, own the copyright to this program  [assuming I wrote the
> program of course] but you are free to fold, spindle [8] or mutilate this
> program for your own use.
> 
> You are free to redistribute your changes as long as your changes also fall
> under this license. [I don't want to restrict anyone from using the code,
> improving upon it, and giving back. Or even using for their own uses]
> 
> If you wish to incorporate this program or parts thereof into a commercial
> software package, let's talk. I want a piece of the action. [but let's face
> it—if you are going to make money off my code, I want my fair share. I
> gotta eat too you know]
> 

I suppose you could say I want my cake and eat it too, but at heart, the idea
that someone can come along, use what I created to make obscene amounts of
money of which I don't get anything, does make me pause. 

And the restri ctions, advertising and linking issues [9] of all the
libraries are enough to make your head swim. And it's not like you can't make
money with the GPL. [10]

Since I seem to be quoting quite a bit from the Slashdot discussion, just
read it.

[1] http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=99/12/08/1919252&cid=282
[2] http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=99/12/08/1919252
[3] http://www.opensource.org/licenses/
[4] http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
[5] http://www.opensource.org/licenses/artistic-
[6] https://github.com/spc476/mod_litbook
[7] http://www.apache.org/LICENSE.txt
[8] gopher://gopher.conman.org/0Phlog:1999/12/10.5
[9] http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=99/12/08/1919252&cid=84
[10] http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=99/12/08/1919252&cid=102

Email author at sean@conman.org

.