[Drawkit] DrawKit license

[Brad Larson]

Sorry to come back to this again, but we're planning on releasing our  
drawing client based on DrawKit as an open source project and we're  
just checking on the last licensing details.  We would like to release  
our client under the BSD license, because we would like to allow for  
its potential use in closed-source applications by others.  The  
Creative Commons ShareAlike license would seem to prohibit that, so I  
wanted to see if you've had any additional thoughts on the matter.   
Again, my vote would be for the LGPL, because I think you'd be able to  
get the widest distribution with something like that (see Sparkle,  
which uses the even more open MIT license, or Omni's frameworks, which  
seem to have very few restrictions).  LGPL covers attribution (you  
retain copyright), contribution of fixes back to the community, and  
liability waivers.  Commercial use is allowed, and source does not  
need to be released for linked applications.

I'm not sure how a provision for a fee-based commercial license would  
work in any of these licenses.  You could go the Qt license route and  
allow open source applications to use it for free, but require a  
license for closed-source applications.  Small indie developers might  
be turned away from something that had any fee attached to it, no  
matter how small (witness the grumbling over the $100 iPhone developer  
fee).  I'd love to see DrawKit incorporated into all sorts of  
interesting Mac applications, free or otherwise.

Also, I came across this in the FAQ for the Creative Commons licenses  
( http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ ):

"Creative Commons licenses are not intended to apply to software. They  
should not be used for software. We strongly encourage you to use one  
of the very good software licenses available today. The licenses made  
available by the Free Software Foundation or listed at the Open Source  
Initiative should be considered by you if you are licensing software  
or software documentation. Unlike our licenses -- which do not make  
mention of source or object code -- these existing licenses were  
designed specifically for use with software.
Creative Commons has “wrapped” some free software/open source licenses  
with its Commons Deed and metadata if you wish to use these licenses  
and still take advantage of the Creative Commons human-readable code  
and Creative Commons customized search engine technology."

Sorry to keep bringing this up, but we wanted to make sure everything  
was clean before we released the code to our client.

On May 12, 2008, at 8:44 PM, Graham Cox wrote:

> The CC 2.5 license is probably the wrong choice for this. I realised  
> that after I went with it but haven't so far changed the headers to  
> something different.
>
> The intention isn't to have a "viral" type license like the GPL (I  
> didn't think CC 2.5 was like that, but anyway, it's not really ideal  
> for software). The fundamental intention, ultimately, is this:
>
> • Credit to the author (i.e. me) if you use my code in whole or in  
> part**
> • Changes/fixes directly made to DrawKit itself contributed back
> • No liability on my part if you use DrawKit and something goes  
> wrong or it doesn't live up to your expectations (i.e. no warranty).
>
> And the license should permit:
>
> • Commercial use (though I reserve the right to offer DrawKit under  
> alternative non-free licenses for commercial use on request).
> • No obligation on you to release any code that makes use of DrawKit  
> into the public domain.
>
> And specifically DrawKit's license does not cover:
>
> • Use of linked third party code such as GPC and potrace, which must  
> be licensed separately.
>
> If the LGPL covers all of these, then I expect we can change to use  
> the LGPL.
> I would appreciate any input on this, because licensing isn't  
> something I've really thought much about to any great depth.
>
> **the credit given should be in your "about box" credits if you have  
> them, and in your product's documentation. Exact wording to be  
> determined.
>
> cheers, Graham
>
>
>
> On 13 May 2008, at 4:21 am, Brad Larson wrote:
>
>> In examining the license for DrawKit, I see that it is using the  
>> Creative Commons 2.5 Share Alike - Attribution license.  It is my  
>> understanding that this operates in a GPL-like manner, where  
>> derivative works, including applications that link to the library  
>> or framework, must have their source released under the same  
>> licensing terms.  This presents a problem for us, as we would like  
>> to use the DrawKit view classes in a preview window for our main  
>> control software for one of our pieces of equipment, but cannot  
>> afford to open-source the entire control program.
>>
>> I know that I might stir up a flame war, but would an LGPL license  
>> for the DrawKit framework be possible?  That might help with  
>> adoption, especially with some of the indie software folks who may  
>> wish to incorporate the framework in applications for sale.  The  
>> framework and direct modifications would remain open-source, but  
>> the specific apps need not be.
>>
>> Sorry for the multiple posts, I thought that this deserved its own  
>> topic.
>>
>> ______________________
>> Brad Larson
>> SonoPlot, Inc.
>> 3030 Laura Lane, Suite 120
>> Middleton, WI 53562
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Drawkit mailing list
>> Drawkit at lists.apptree.net
>> http://lists.apptree.net/listinfo.cgi/drawkit-apptree.net
>
> _______________________________________________
> Drawkit mailing list
> Drawkit at lists.apptree.net
> http://lists.apptree.net/listinfo.cgi/drawkit-apptree.net

______________________
Brad Larson
SonoPlot, Inc.
3030 Laura Lane, Suite 120
Middleton, WI 53562