Category talk:Licenses - Revision history

Voidious: /* OSI Approved License */ tru dat

2009-10-15T03:03:05Z

OSI Approved License: tru dat

Nat: /* OSI Approved License */ very true

2009-10-15T01:44:03Z

OSI Approved License: very true

Zyx: /* OSI Approved License */ no robowiki == no life

2009-10-15T01:38:47Z

OSI Approved License: no robowiki == no life

Nat: /* OSI Approved License */ reply to Voidious

2009-10-14T14:59:02Z

OSI Approved License: reply to Voidious

Voidious: why not?

2009-10-14T12:47:39Z

why not?

Nat: replies

2009-10-14T10:10:59Z

replies

Rednaxela: comment

2009-10-14T00:44:58Z

comment

Voidious: replies

2009-10-13T23:58:08Z

replies

AaronR: Reply to Nat on the RWPCL

2009-10-13T21:15:24Z

Reply to Nat on the RWPCL

Nat: OSI

2009-10-13T11:17:11Z

OSI

New page

While I'm finding a good license for my next robot, I ran across [http://www.opensource.org/faq this page].
<blockquote style="border:1px solid #000;background-color:#fff; padding: 1em">
; 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.
</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)

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:03, 15 October 2009
Line 36:		Line 36:

	:::Very true =D --[[User:Nat\|<span style="color:#099;">Nat</span>]] [[User talk:Nat\|<span style="color:#0a5;">Pavasant</span>]] 01:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)		:::Very true =D --[[User:Nat\|<span style="color:#099;">Nat</span>]] [[User talk:Nat\|<span style="color:#0a5;">Pavasant</span>]] 01:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
		+
		+	::: Well said. =) --[[User:Voidious\|Voidious]] 03:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:44, 15 October 2009
Line 34:		Line 34:

	:: If robowiki goes down, whether using or not the code in bots is allowed is irrelevant, as the sadness will crush us to death :-p. --[[User:Zyx\|zyx]] 01:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)		:: If robowiki goes down, whether using or not the code in bots is allowed is irrelevant, as the sadness will crush us to death :-p. --[[User:Zyx\|zyx]] 01:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
		+
		+	:::Very true =D --[[User:Nat\|<span style="color:#099;">Nat</span>]] [[User talk:Nat\|<span style="color:#0a5;">Pavasant</span>]] 01:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:38, 15 October 2009
Line 32:		Line 32:

	: 'If the wiki ever goes offline, suddenly you can't use the code anymore' seems to be 'not "true" open source' for me. But I agree that RWPCL and RWLPCL are like simplified version and RoboWiki-ize version of GPL and LGPL. --[[User:Nat\|<span style="color:#099;">Nat</span>]] [[User talk:Nat\|<span style="color:#0a5;">Pavasant</span>]] 14:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)		: 'If the wiki ever goes offline, suddenly you can't use the code anymore' seems to be 'not "true" open source' for me. But I agree that RWPCL and RWLPCL are like simplified version and RoboWiki-ize version of GPL and LGPL. --[[User:Nat\|<span style="color:#099;">Nat</span>]] [[User talk:Nat\|<span style="color:#0a5;">Pavasant</span>]] 14:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
		+
		+	:: If robowiki goes down, whether using or not the code in bots is allowed is irrelevant, as the sadness will crush us to death :-p. --[[User:Zyx\|zyx]] 01:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:59, 14 October 2009
Line 30:		Line 30:

	: What about them isn't "true" open source? I didn't think AaronR or Rednaxela said that about them. The RWPCL seems very similar to a stripped down GPL to me. --[[User:Voidious\|Voidious]] 12:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)		: What about them isn't "true" open source? I didn't think AaronR or Rednaxela said that about them. The RWPCL seems very similar to a stripped down GPL to me. --[[User:Voidious\|Voidious]] 12:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
		+
		+	: 'If the wiki ever goes offline, suddenly you can't use the code anymore' seems to be 'not "true" open source' for me. But I agree that RWPCL and RWLPCL are like simplified version and RoboWiki-ize version of GPL and LGPL. --[[User:Nat\|<span style="color:#099;">Nat</span>]] [[User talk:Nat\|<span style="color:#0a5;">Pavasant</span>]] 14:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 == OSI Approved License ==
 While I'm finding a good license for my next robot, I ran across [http://www.opensource.org/faq this page].
@@ Line 29: / Line 28: @@
 I forgot the smiley, the "we should send [[RWPCL]] and [[RWLPCL]] for OSI to approve" is actually joking. I have read the definition of Open Source license on http://opensource.org/ (OSI) and, as Rednaxela and AaronR stated, the RW(L)?PCL license isn't true opensource. But as Voidious states, this is a small community. However I still feel that our RW licenses are not opensource licenses. Maybe it is just me being perfectionist... --[[User:Nat|<span style="color:#099;">Nat</span>]] [[User talk:Nat|<span style="color:#0a5;">Pavasant</span>]] 10:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 While I'm finding a good license for my next robot, I ran across [http://www.opensource.org/faq this page].
 <blockquote style="border:1px solid #000;background-color:#fff; padding: 1em">
@@ Line 9: / Line 11: @@
 :: I also dislike the "credit on the wiki" clause in the RWLPCL. For the RWPCL case, though, IANAL, but it seems to me that if you ''did'' publish it on the wiki, that would have been enough to fulfill the obligation. Not sure why anyone wouldn't package it with the bot, though... --[[User:Voidious|Voidious]] 23:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 : You can submit them if you want, but personally, I don't feel I need approval to use the term "open source". I believe those two licenses already comply with their [[wikipedia:Open Source Definition|definition]] of an open source license, and I've never heard of anyone being confused by our use of the term for our bots/licenses. --[[User:Voidious|Voidious]] 23:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
-: My view is that the RWLPCL/RWPCL is that it's kind of silly for the same reasons as AaronR states. I see no reason to worry about the OSI either really. For a small in-community liscence it doesn't matter, besides, I don't think the PWLPCL/RWPCL are of high enough quality for them to approve even if it does comply. --[[User:Rednaxela|Rednaxela]] 00:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
+: My view is that the RWLPCL/RWPCL is that it's kind of silly for the same reasons as AaronR states. I see no reason to worry about the OSI either really. For a small in-community liscence it doesn't matter, besides, I don't think the RWLPCL/RWPCL are of high enough quality for them to approve even if it does comply. --[[User:Rednaxela|Rednaxela]] 00:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:44, 14 October 2009
Line 11:		Line 11:

	: You can submit them if you want, but personally, I don't feel I need approval to use the term "open source". I believe those two licenses already comply with their [[wikipedia:Open Source Definition\|definition]] of an open source license, and I've never heard of anyone being confused by our use of the term for our bots/licenses. --[[User:Voidious\|Voidious]] 23:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)		: You can submit them if you want, but personally, I don't feel I need approval to use the term "open source". I believe those two licenses already comply with their [[wikipedia:Open Source Definition\|definition]] of an open source license, and I've never heard of anyone being confused by our use of the term for our bots/licenses. --[[User:Voidious\|Voidious]] 23:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
		+
		+	: My view is that the RWLPCL/RWPCL is that it's kind of silly for the same reasons as AaronR states. I see no reason to worry about the OSI either really. For a small in-community liscence it doesn't matter, besides, I don't think the PWLPCL/RWPCL are of high enough quality for them to approve even if it does comply. --[[User:Rednaxela\|Rednaxela]] 00:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:58, 13 October 2009
Line 7:		Line 7:

	: 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)		: 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)
		+
		+	:: I also dislike the "credit on the wiki" clause in the RWLPCL. For the RWPCL case, though, IANAL, but it seems to me that if you ''did'' publish it on the wiki, that would have been enough to fulfill the obligation. Not sure why anyone wouldn't package it with the bot, though... --[[User:Voidious\|Voidious]] 23:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
		+
		+	: You can submit them if you want, but personally, I don't feel I need approval to use the term "open source". I believe those two licenses already comply with their [[wikipedia:Open Source Definition\|definition]] of an open source license, and I've never heard of anyone being confused by our use of the term for our bots/licenses. --[[User:Voidious\|Voidious]] 23:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:15, 13 October 2009
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)