GPL-Style License w/ A Twist? 22
txsable asks: "I'm trying to find out if there is a GPL-style Open-source license available with a special twist: that any modifications made, while being allowed to be released as per the terms of the 'normal' GPL, must also be submitted back to the original author for possible inclusion in the main project. I know it seems ridiculous to require by license what should be a common-sense procedure for open-source developers, but I've seen enough projects which were greatly modified from the original project, with features the original project either was working on or had also developed, and it led to confusion and/or unnecessary duplication of effort. Anyone have any suggestions for me (other than writing my own license...I don't speak enough lawyer to make something that reads as bad as a legal document)?"
Easy (Score:1)
But isn't that just more handcuffs?
Dancin Santa
Re:Easy (Score:1)
It is.. (Score:2)
Bad Idea. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Bad Idea. (Score:3, Insightful)
Hmm. Let's try rewriting that as,
If America was truely free, you'd be able to do what you wanted and not have to do a damn thing in return. This SHOULD include being able to do what ever you want with your life, including selling children into preschool prostitution rings if you want to.
Freedom does not mean ``you can do whatever the hell you want''. That's called anarchy, and while some people would call anarchy perfect freedom, I don't--I call it a damn dangerous place to live. Freedom carries with it responsibilities, the foremost of which is not to infringe upon other people's equal freedoms. My freedom of speech carries with it the responsibility not to use my speech to limit your freedom of speech.
Free Software, in the FSF's view, needs to carry with it the responsibility that it not be used to deny other people software freedoms.
Don't like it? Hey, that's fine--not as if you needed anyone's permission to not like it. But please don't call it unreasonable simply because inherent in the GPL is the notion that you must not deny these freedoms to anybody else.
Re:Bad Idea. (Score:1)
Re:Bad Idea. (Score:2)
Re:Bad Idea. (Score:2)
If anarchy merely meant ``acceptable behavior is determined by those around you'', then democratic governments would be anarchy, since the people around you are the ones who determine the laws, which are the people's method of establishing the boundaries of acceptable and unacceptable behavior.
Anarchy means there is no law. There is no government. Anarchy means rule by the mob, and if you happen to get steamrollered by the mob, too bad--you have no recourse and the mob has no repercussions.
If you want to see what your anarchic government looks like in practice, I would suggest looking at Somalia--Mogadishu in particular.
You hare wrong. (Score:1)
The FSF [fsf.org] considers for example the 3-bullet BSD license free software [fsf.org]. But it is not copyleft [gnu.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Re:You are wrong. (Score:1)
You wrote "If software were truely free, you'd be able to do what you wanted and not have to do a damn thing in return." My point was just to point out that some software which is Free FSF-style is also Free by your definition. You are not completly opposed.
Clarification (Score:2, Insightful)
"If you modify this code, you must submit changes back to the original author"
or:
"If you modify this code and release the modified code for public use, you must release the modified source to the public and submit changes directly to the original author"
Basically, does someone have to send you changes they made if they are not releasing the modified code in general? I am not clear from the wording you used.
Re:Clarification (Score:1)
Giving it to a friend is private or public?
Giving your girlfriend access on your computer with the modifed application, private/public?
A teacher giving it to his pubils. private/public?
There is nowhere yet any difference between priavte and public use.
And honestly the basic idea behind all this send to the original author does not work. You'll have to try to read actually what copyright laws say. If you're maintaining a OpenSource project under the GPL, and somebody submits you a patch, then -HE- is the actuall author of the patch, and still -HE- "owns" all the stuff he made, he only enables you (the "original" author) to use his patches under the terms of the GPL, or else he would not have been allowed to at it at all, a give and take.
Now if your license had an addon that required people to send the defs to the 'original' author, it would actually also per-se mean he would have to sent it to -all- authors.
I know in the case of FSF projects facts are a little different, since the FSF takes over copyright-transfer agreements, but actually today this is the exception not the rule.
I think one of unwritten basic GPL principles is that the project starter (the one you think of the "original" author) does not have any special rights than any other 2nd level project maintainer or any hobby code contributer.
Re:Clarification (Score:1)
Private: for my own personal use.
Public: anyone else.
Just like with music. I can legally copy a CD onto a tape to use in my car. I cannot legally copy a cd onto a tape to give to a friend.
Just modifying the code does not require you to release modified source. Modifying the code and releasing modified binaries does. The only change with this new license is that it requires you to send the modified source to the original author too. I don't see the problem.
Don't like the license? Don't modify and rerelease modified binaries.
Re:Clarification (Score:1)
APSL (Score:3, Informative)
It is pretty close to what you want, although it is not GPL compatable [gnu.org].
If you are writing your own, it might be a useful starting point.
There is a nice list of other licenses here [gnu.org] - always a good spot to start exploring.
I don't think you need this (Score:2)
I think in general anybody adding a feature for their own use wants to see their code in the main version. They don't want to have to keep patching it with their modifications every time you make a new version. They also worry that you will provide that feature in a different way and get credit for your idea. Also they worry you will change the code such that their modifications can't work or have to be rewritten.
I also think anybody who does not want to contribute back to the original code is not going to be stopped just because of a clause in the license.
So I would ignore this. Make sure it is easy for people to contact you and respond to any patches sent (even if you don't put them in).
Mozilla triple-license (Score:1)
Confusion over ownership. (Score:2)
If I start a project to build Gnu-App-X.. and release it, and someone submits some changes to me... and I incorporate those changes into the product.. those changes are not the 'property' of the submitter.. they were given to me, for inclusion in my project. I would guess that I now 'own' the resulting work. I can still re-license if I want. The GPL has nothing to do with this situation, though many probably think it does.
THE GPL only comes into play when someone other than me wants to distribute the software.