FabHax

Could you please elaborate this point? How does GPL license gives more rights? Do you mean it protects the codes from getting incorporated into a closed source software and it allows only the author to sell his program and nobody else?

Actually, I wanted to put that notice in the footer of the site from where visitors can download my free/open source software. But, I don't want to give them any rights on the text/images/contents of the site.

So, Can't I put "All Rights Reserved" in the footer of the site but when they download the software they get a License file along with it which gives them more rights on the software to distribute, etc.?

I would be very grateful if the members here could clarify the questions in this post and the post just above this.

Thanks, in advance!

Arevos

The BSD License allows others to integrate the code in closed source projects. The GPL forbids this. Thus, the GPL could be seen as a license that allows the author to retain more rights.

However, the GPL nor the BSD License will prevent others from selling your software.
You could put "This page and all images copyright (C) 2006..." on your page.

_James_

That is exactly what I meant.

I personally dont want my work integrated into a closed source project. I dont mind if someone sells my software but they still have to provide the source. The university I attend has lots a java libraries that they have written and they are all released under the GPL. Obviously if I use one of those libraries in my program it does not have to be released under the GPL, but if I copy some of the code from the GPLed libraries into my program then it would have be be released under the GPL.

Ooble

From what I understand, you want to provide the source code for your programs, but only for learning purposes, right? I remember reading about certain licences that allowed for this - I think they were created by either Microsoft or Sun.

__________________
Me :: You :: Them

smith.norton

As far as I understand, the author can sell his software. Like the author can give some people the program with the GNU license and someone else with his own commerical license.

This is also what MySQL AB does. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Eoin

Sounds to me like you don't actually need an opensource license at all, just release the code with full copyright and all rights reserved, that way noone can redistribute it.

Actually it does have to be released under GPL, perhaps you are thinking about the LGPL, or Lesser GPL which functions the way you suggest.

__________________
Visit my website BinaryNotions.

Arevos

Sorry, typo. I missed out a "neither". It should have read:

_James_

Thanks Eoin. I had a blond moment last night.

The libraries I talked about are released under the LGPL. So I can use then in a program that is closed source. If they were released under the GPL then my code would have to be GPLed too. This is one of the drawbacks of the GPL. If you write a library and release it under the GPL no commercial software company will touch it with a 10 foot barge pole if they want to keep their software closed source. I think the GNU C Library is released under the LGPL for exacltly that reason.

I even think that the L in LGPL used to stand for library, but now stands for lesser. I think Richard Stallman does not like the LGPL but sees it as a necessary evil. You could argue that by releasing a lib under the GPL you will spread the open source message by possibly making more software(that uses your lib) open source.

Game_Ender

GPL is a good license to use if you want to make an open source tool. It isn't really "viral" like the GPL is for libraries because no body links against you tool, it just prevents other from releasing a closed source version of it.

mooN_man

if a program is open source, does that mean that programmers can take its code, copy it, modify it, and call it their own. Sorry if that was a rediculous question.











:banana: :banana: :banana:

__________________
Use Mozilla Firefox

I am a n00b