Open Source Licensing
by Lawrence Rosen · first published 2004
8mentions
3recommended by
8HN commenters
2010–2024first – last mentioned
38% recommend63% neutral
Affiliate links. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
…there's plenty of discussion of these points for you to read over and consider. See: https://www.google.com/search?q=open+source+business+models One thing I would suggest, if you haven't yet, is to read Open Source Licensing: Software Freedom and Intellectual Property Law by Lawrence Rosen. https://www.rosenlaw.com/oslbook.htm
on “Ask HN: How to Profit from a FOSS Project?” ↗By far the best work on this subject has been written by Lawrence Rosen in his book "Open Source Licensing": http://www.rosenlaw.com/oslbook.htm Free to read online - or buy a hardcopy. Unlike less useful works, Rosen actually provides a model for thinking about open source models. Even if you only care…
on “Ask HN: what's the best guide to code licenses you've come across?” ↗…modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software [...] Note that MIT includes "sublicense". ISC does not. This is a big difference. See page 87 in chapter 5 of Rosen's "Open Source Licensing" book [1] for a discussion of the importance of this. [1] https://www.rosenlaw.com/oslbook.htm
on “Choosing a License for GoatCounter” ↗…the law. Even the basic "email-grade" legal problems are actually very complicated, and it is no good trying to simplify them down to a lay level. I'll defer to Lawrence Rosen on this, from his book Open Source Licensing: Software Freedom and Intellectual Property Law: > The same programmers who cringe when a lawyer attempts to write high-quality software feel no qualms about writing their own open source licenses. Their…
on “CryEngine out on GitHub” ↗IANAL. I'm just a random person who studied the book, "Open Source Licensing: Software Freedom and Intellectual Property Law," by Lawrence Rosen. The OP doesn't mention D.4 much. The first paragraph of D.4 seems fine to me. But I worry the "clarification" (2nd paragraph) in…
on “New GitHub Terms of Service require removing many open-source works” ↗…cede less control, and provide more footholds for enforcement. Remember that GPL has (sometimes) worked as intended in adversarial commericial settings [2,3]. [1] https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/open-source-licensing/0... [2] https://www.tp-link.com/us/support/gpl-code/ [3] https://www.zdnet.com/article/software-freedom-conservancy-w...
on “Releasing my tools under the MIT License was probably a mistake (2023)” ↗…costs of not using a GPL software is always less than a legal fight. Also, you do have rather established legal definitions of 'collective' and 'derivative works'. See, for example, Laurence Rosen: "Open Source Licensing". Then, why does the GPL3 not use them? Instead, is uses 'work based on' IIRC. So, why's that? In my opinion, the resulting (legal) uncertainty is intentional. Another reason: If the interpretation…
on “Beyond Thesis: Does the GPL go to far? What constitutes a derivative work?” ↗…the Federal Circuit, is an interesting case in the patent context. You might find a summary online, if you haven't time to trawl through the court's written opinion. To quote Larry Rosen, from his book Open Source Licensing: > Be careful about implied licenses. An implied license is necessarily vague and incomplete. The terms and conditions of an implied license may not be clear to either the licensor or the licensee. Reliance…
on “ChakraCore GitHub repository is now open” ↗