Difference between revisions of "Category talk:Licenses"

From Robowiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(OSI)
 
(Reply to Nat on the RWPCL)
Line 5: Line 5:
 
</blockquote>
 
</blockquote>
 
And as far as I know, only robot that use OSI-Approved license is [[Glacier]]. (zlib/libpng license is OSI-Approved license) Hmm... maybe we should send [[RWPCL]] and [[RWLPCL]] for OSI to approve. --[[User:Nat|<span style="color:#099;">Nat</span>]] [[User talk:Nat|<span style="color:#0a5;">Pavasant</span>]] 11:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 
And as far as I know, only robot that use OSI-Approved license is [[Glacier]]. (zlib/libpng license is OSI-Approved license) Hmm... maybe we should send [[RWPCL]] and [[RWLPCL]] for OSI to approve. --[[User:Nat|<span style="color:#099;">Nat</span>]] [[User talk:Nat|<span style="color:#0a5;">Pavasant</span>]] 11:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 +
 +
: The RWLPCL always seemed kind of silly to me, to be honest. If the wiki ever goes offline, suddenly you can't use the code anymore! (Depending on your interpretation, that might mean that no one can use code from bots that were published under the RWLPCL on the old wiki.) It's possible to contrive similar issues with the RWPCL--e.g. someone publishes their bot without source but posts the code on the wiki, the wiki goes offline, suddenly distributing the bot is copyright infringement. The only reason I don't specify that my bots are under the MIT/X11 license is that I don't feel like pasting a big license block at the top of every one of my source files. « [[User:AaronR|AaronR]] « [[User talk:AaronR|Talk]] « 21:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:15, 13 October 2009

While I'm finding a good license for my next robot, I ran across this page.

Can I call my program "Open Source" even if I don't use an approved license?
You can call you program "Bob" if you want, but if you call it "Open Source" without using an approved license, you will be confusing people. Please don't. Companies that confuse partners and potential customers tend to drive them away.

And as far as I know, only robot that use OSI-Approved license is Glacier. (zlib/libpng license is OSI-Approved license) Hmm... maybe we should send RWPCL and RWLPCL for OSI to approve. --Nat Pavasant 11:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The RWLPCL always seemed kind of silly to me, to be honest. If the wiki ever goes offline, suddenly you can't use the code anymore! (Depending on your interpretation, that might mean that no one can use code from bots that were published under the RWLPCL on the old wiki.) It's possible to contrive similar issues with the RWPCL--e.g. someone publishes their bot without source but posts the code on the wiki, the wiki goes offline, suddenly distributing the bot is copyright infringement. The only reason I don't specify that my bots are under the MIT/X11 license is that I don't feel like pasting a big license block at the top of every one of my source files. « AaronR « Talk « 21:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)