Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
Contrary to popular belief

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

user:
pass:
register,


                 

Selectively Open-Source Programming License

 
(+3, -3)
  [vote for,
against]

One of the main problems with the GPL and most similar open-source licenses, is that they are absolute: your program must either be totally open, or not open at all. This is, in its own way, restrictive; to use open-source software, you must give up ownership of anything you create using it, whether or not you want to.

A selectively open-source program license would let you pick and choose what sections of your program source you are using that are open.

Several such licenses exist for other media, and commonly require you to credit and note what other sources you have used, as well as other protections of intellectual property.

In other words, to make a long entry short: "Sure, go ahead and use my graphics routines. Those little tricks I use for compressing files? Go right ahead, I think you'll like them. But if you copy my scripting engine, I'm going to hunt you down and cut you."

Almafeta, Oct 25 2004

BSD license http://www.free-def...om/BSD-license.html
[krelnik, Oct 25 2004]

[link]






       I'm no GPL expert, but couldn't you package all your graphics and compression routines into a dll (or the linux equivalent) and distribute that under GPL, but make your product (which happens to depend on those dlls) have a different license agreement?
scad mientist, Oct 25 2004
  

       Yes, packaging things into libraries is a common technique. There are also other open source licenses besides the GPL, for instance the BSD license, that allow much more leeway. Indeed, some Microsoft products include code under the BSD license.
krelnik, Oct 25 2004
  

       You could always you know... make your own compiler... then it would be yours... I think...
EvilPickels, Oct 25 2004
  

       It is just a legal document, you can pick any terms you like, so long as you don't use other libraries that have a more restrictive liscense.
seriousconsult, Dec 04 2004
  

       There is the Lesser GNU Public License, designed to allow Open Source Libraries that can be used by copyrighted programs. You can therefore construct your program from LGPL libraries except for the bits you want to keep to yourself.
Bad Jim, Apr 12 2008
  

       Isn't this idea just permissive open-source licenses (as opposed to copyleft ones like GPL), which are widely baked (BSD, MIT, Apache, etc.)?
notexactly, Apr 15 2018
  

       //to use open-source software, you must give up ownership of anything you create using it//   

       Even the GPL doesn't go this far. It only restricts what you can do with your own customised versions of a GPL-licensed program. Anything you create purely by using (as opposed to modifying) that program is yours to do with as you will.
Wrongfellow, Apr 16 2018
  
      
[annotate]
  


 

back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle