This is great stuff. The Museum of Intellectual Property includes numerous examples and case studies (with pictures!) to explain the significance of intellectual property concepts, laws, and legal disputes. It is an effort by Eric E. Johnson, an Assistant Professor of Law at the University of North Dakota.
Another project by Eric E. Johnson is the Konomark intellectual property signal. Its a polite way of saying something like “I reserve my copyright privileges, but I’m willing to share them if you are interested if you ask for permission.”
So far this is my favorite license for “human content”. I probably wouldn’t use it for software, as in my opinion its important for software to be more open, period.
Here’s a link from a Debian blogger about choosing a license:
Choosing the right license for your new Free Software/Open Source project
The gist of the article is that if you are putting effort into an open source project, you should spend some time thinking about the license for it too.
MJR doesn’t think that the Affero GPL v3 is a free software license. That surprised me, so I have to ask if others feel the same way.
To me, the Affero GPL seems like a logical step in the right direction. Then, when the OSI approved it, I felt more comfortable using it. While some developers are using it, other organizations shun it, like Google Code, for instance. I’m eagerly waiting to find out if it will comply with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. MJR’s opinion might be representative of other Debian folks, I’m not sure. What do you think?
This looks like a cool application, and its now licensed under the Affero GPL!
http://www.freeside.biz/freeside/
I’ve scanned some of the Freeside source, and it looks like it mainly written in Perl, and can work well with Request Tracker.
I found this post at Greg Sherwood’s blog:
PHP_CodeSniffer code taken and rebadged as Zend Framework code
I’ve often wondered if it would be alright to copy a file, remove the license notice, create a new one, and simply include the original file as well. I don’t think its allowed though, as here in this restriction:
Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
the source code must retain, not “accompany”.
Remember, I’m not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.
Rumor has it that Canonical is considering releasing their Launchpad software under the Affero GPL. That would be awesome. I seem to recall them pressing the issue of consolidating bug reports, and it would be great if the process could remain decentralized, but aggregated through rss and pingbacks.
I know I personally prefer to host and manage all my own content.
This is a good read:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/gobuntu-devel/2008-April/000698.html
Latest Comments
RSS