Which license can I best declare applicable? lazarus / 21-General ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hansvb · 2023-07-08 14:19 Hi, Not a specific Lazarus quenstion I made a small JsonViewer (with Lazarus) and I want to put it on github as open source. Which license can I best declare applicable? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Leledumbo · 2023-07-08 15:51 "As open source" is not enough. How you want others to use your code must be further specified. GPL would allow others to modify but must provide the modifications as GPL as well. MIT will free others to do anything they want, period. The only requirement is to retain the license itself. There's no "best", only "fit", and that's subjective to your decision. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Curt Carpenter · 2023-07-08 17:17 Quote from: Leledumbo on July 08, 2023, 05:51:43 pm"As open source" is not enough. How you want others to use your code must be further specified. GPL would allow others to modify but must provide the modifications as GPL as well. MIT will free others to do anything they want, period. The only requirement is to retain the license itself. There's no "best", only "fit", and that's subjective to your decision. Do you by any chance know what the implications are if you simply don't specify any license at all?  I've never done it with my rare submissions (which have all been very specialized and probably not of anything like general interest).  Is that a mistake? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Leledumbo · 2023-07-13 19:31 Quote from: Curt Carpenter on July 08, 2023, 07:17:48 pmDo you by any chance know what the implications are if you simply don't specify any license at all?  I've never done it with my rare submissions (which have all been very specialized and probably not of anything like general interest).  Is that a mistake? Yes, it defaults to private domain, i.e.: yours only. Nobody else but you is permitted to use or modify it in any way. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- kupferstecher · 2023-07-14 10:25 Quote from: Leledumbo on July 13, 2023, 09:31:25 pmQuote from: Curt Carpenter on July 08, 2023, 07:17:48 pmDo you by any chance know what the implications are if you simply don't specify any license at all?  I've never done it with my rare submissions (which have all been very specialized and probably not of anything like general interest).  Is that a mistake? Yes, it defaults to private domain, i.e.: yours only. Nobody else but you is permitted to use or modify it in any way. Generally yes, but depending on the platform you do the submissions you grant some rights. On github e.g. by submitting to a public repository you allow anyone to fork your code and you won't be able to put down such forks even if you delete your own repository (granted the right for copying and storing). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Warfley · 2023-07-15 11:42 Basically there are 3 major OpenSource licenses: 1. MIT License: basically anyone can use it however they please, you do not care 2. BSD License: Anyone can use it however they please but they must name where they got the code from (also in binary releases) 3. GPL License: This is a so called Copy Left license, which means any derivate of this product must be released under the same license With different versions of the different licenses. For example, when you are located in the EU you may want to use the EUPL instead of GPL, as this is a modified GPL to be in line with EU law (as it is not clear if the GPL is actually legally binding in all EU states, as it was written for the US legal system, but the EUPL solves this problem). Another notable mention is the AGPL, which adds a clause to the GPL to make provision as part of a service also distribution, because before, if an online service like AWS would provide your application as a service, they would not be bound by GPL terms, because they don't distribute the executable. I usually use GPL for standalone applications, AGPL if those applications may be useful to be hosted (e.g. Websites, server or DB tools or something similar) and for libraries I usually use BSD. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- jamie · 2023-07-15 16:05 and what kind of license covers the fact that I don't want to publish my own source code and maybe even sell my own work ? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- eljo · 2023-07-15 16:41 Quote from: jamie on July 15, 2023, 06:05:40 pmand what kind of license covers the fact that I don't want to publish my own source code and maybe even sell my own work ? Depends, are you talking your work based on an existing licensed work? Then BSD is your choice of license. Are you talking publishing original work with the choice to go private later if you so desire? Then any license will allow you that but none will allow you to stop the published source code from keep on propagating after you go private for that you need an other license. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Warfley · 2023-07-17 15:16 Quote from: jamie on July 15, 2023, 06:05:40 pmand what kind of license covers the fact that I don't want to publish my own source code and maybe even sell my own work ? I think I don't really understand what you mean? Do you want a license for your program that forbids you the creator to publish the source code and sell your work? I think this is legally not enforcable, as the owner you can at any point simply change the license, so you can't force yourself to do anything legally. Or do you mean that someone else publishes your source code and sells your work? This is specifically permitted by FOSS licenses. The FSF says a FOSS license must provide the 4 freedoms: Quote    The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).     The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.     The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others (freedom 2).     The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this. Being able to redistribute copies of a piece of code is essential to be FOSS, even if that means reselling the software. Thats why RedHat can put their Linux Distro behind a paywall, even though it consists mostly of GPL software. If you don't want others to "steal" your software, you shouldn't put it under a FOSS license