Choosing a License for Open Source Project
 

I have a project idea. I want to release the project in a website.

I want to release the product as open source. Which license would be best to release it as open source?

Can I use Copyright (C) 2006 Smith. All Rights Reserved even though the products and codes available on the site is open source?

I would probably look into GPL and the BSD license's Those are 2 good ones. I would just do some searching but you might want to read through the licenses before you decide and figure out which one will cover what you want it to.

i agree with big_k, in fact i tend to lean more towards the BSD license.

I know you can say Copyright (c) 2006 Smith with the GNU GPL, check into the Creative Commons license, or the BSD license. I can't remember if the CC licence is an open-source license or not though.

I really depends on how you view your work. If you just want to put something out there which is free for people to use how they see fit then the BSD or similar licenses are the way to go. If however you prefer the FSF ideologies about making and keeping software free for everybody the GPL is the way to go.

[personal_rant]Just so I'm open and honest I'm anti-gpl but I do see why its an excellent choice for many people and it will stop other benefiting from your work without giving anything back. But I feel the restrictions it puts in place to ensure this continued freedom go too far and can prevent genuine people for availing of your work. I hope this doesn't turn into a pro/anti gpl flame war, at the end of the day you need to decide what you want from your work.[/personal_rant]

Whatever one you go for (GPL,LGPL,BSD,MIT etc) make sure you read it and understand your and your users rights. Go for the one you agree with. They all take a slightly different perspective. To me it does not make much difference which license you use(closed or open) as long as the user does not violate it.

I always just say this with any software, "This program is open source software. You can redistribute it under the terms of GNU General Public License version 2 or later as published by the Free Software Foundation". Its simple and I think the GPL license gives more rights to the author than the BSD license.

Edit- I agree with Eoin on the fact that this could easily turn into a flame war. Read all the ones suggested and make your own choice. I have no idea what your views are on open source so its hard to tell you exatly which license to release it under.

IANAL, but as I understand it...

The phrase "Copyright (C) 2006 Smith." means that this work was created in 2006 and is copyrighted by "Smith". Copyright is automatically granted to any new work, so this phrase is legally redundant. However, I guess it ensures that readers don't accidentally mistake your work for being in the public domain.

The phrase "All rights reserved" means that all rights granted by copyright are retained by the author. This essentially means that your work is closed source, as you're saying that people cannot take your code and use it for themselves. In a way, this is also legally redundant, as this is the default state of copyright law.

You could say, "Copyright (C) 2006 Smith. Licensed under the GPL" or "Copyright (C) 2006 Smith. Licensed under the BSD license", but it's probably best to visit the corresponding sites and look through the FAQs first. You should also look into Creative Commons.

There are a number of open-source licences. Some, such as the GNU GPL, BSD, MIT and Creative Commons licences have already been mentioned. Mozilla and Apache have their own licences. You can also combine them to make your own, and add and remove bits as necessary, though I would suggest you don't do this without a good understanding of copyright law.

It's also worth noting that there are a number of Creative Commons open-source licences, that range from the "give us credit" BSD-style Attribution licence to the "everything should be OSS!" GPL-style Share Alike licence. There's quite a choice.

Which one gives me the right to point no. 3?
 

Thank you all for your generous opinion. Now I have some more questions.

I am not a lawyer and I find it difficult to understand some of the terms of the licenses.

What I want is this:-

1. The software should be open source and the license should be one of the OSI Certified Open Source License.
2. Wherever the program goes, my name with the copyright notice like "Copyright (C) 2006 Smith" must be there.
3. If possible, I want to prevent others from making a derivative work from my program and distribute. That is, if the modify my program, they can't distribute it further. (I don't generously allow it my program to fork into many distributions like Linux now has so many distros.)
4. The recepient of the program must distribute the program under the same license.

I am having a difficulty with point no. 3. I am unable to understand which one of the Open Source License would give me that right.

I think you are going to have a really hard time finding something that will work with your number 3. Mostly because alot of people think the point of open source is that you can make changes to a program and distribute it that way. But you can put something in the header atleast asking that any modifications be sent to you so you can think about incorperating them in the original. But I don't know if there is a current license out there that lets you prevent users from distributing there own versions of your software.