Difference between revisions of "Category talk:Licenses"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Reply to Nat on the RWPCL) |
(replies) |
||
| 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) | ||
Revision as of 01:58, 14 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)
- 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... --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 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. --Voidious 23:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
