I'm almost finished with my Window Manager and tutorial on how to make your own WM. I haven't uploaded the code yet though since i haven't decided what license to use. GPL is probably the best choice but there is one thing that worries me:

Quote: This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.

Can I change it and say that only version 2 is allowed? The reason for this is that Stallman and Co can add anything in newer versions of the license and that worries me. For example I don't agree with him on the on proprietary drivers-issue. Secondly: I would like my site to be a center for WM-development where others can upload their tutorials on the subject. Shall I let the author keep the copyright for his tutorial? I think that forcing the author to give the copyright to me is a bit to Nazi. The best would be a license that gave me the right to post the tutorial but that the author keeps the right to remove his work. And what if I later on start selling CDs (similar to NeHe's CD) to fund the site? I can't recall all the CDs just because one author decides to remove his turial! Anyone got a license to recommend for this? What are your thoughts?

Quote: Original post by BBB
Can I change it and say that only version 2 is allowed?

Yes - the bit of text you posted is not actually part of the license, so you are free to change/remove it. Note that the Linux kernel does exactly this - at the top of their "COPYING" file, above the text of the GPLv2, it states:

Quote: ...Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel
is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not
v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated.

Really, I should think that you can put whatever licensing conditions you'd like, it is your product.

On a somewhat humorous note, a guy I used to know once created a piece of software with what he called the 'Adam Public License (APL)', in which he stated that the software could only be distributed by the concent by our mutual friend, Adam. If he didn't like you, then too bad, no license. (No, this wasn't a serious thing and the software was never distributed ;)

Wouldn't the LGPL be more suitable for this?

Quote: Original post by Sander
Wouldn't the LGPL be more suitable for this?

Not really. SimpleWM is designed to be a standalone program, trying to put it into a library would be just wierd.

But thx bakery2k1 for the clarification. I'll use GPL v2.

However I still don't know what license to use for everyone that sends in a tutorial. How about this?

The GPL does not cover tutorials made about the software, nor does it cover work authored with the software (IE: just because you use GIMP to make an Image doesnt mean the Image is GPL), so any tutorials made by your users remain their own work, and you would in fact require their permision to post them in your site.

So if you're going to have some sort of upload mechanism, be sure to include a notice that reads something like "by uploading your tutorial you agree to give permision to have it posted on www.whatever.com, and/or used for commercial gain by the owner of the site", or you could ask for a separate permision when you decide to sell the CDs.

Yes I know but I was thinking that It's probably better to use some well-known license (like for example Creative Commons) then my own since I don't have the knowledge to deal with all legal issues.

BBB, you're right to want to use a standard license to help avoid confusion for the end user. As for the license for tutorials, one of the Creative Commons licenses should be fine. There is also the Gnu Free Documentation License, although CC is a lot more popular and well-known, I think.

Quote:
Can I change it and say that only version 2 is allowed? The reason for this is that Stallman and Co can add anything in newer versions of the license and that worries me. For example I don't agree with him on the on proprietary drivers-issue.

You mean you think proprietary driver development is a good thing for everyone? It's pretty obvious to me it's only good for chipset manufacturers. How do we benefit from them having closed drivers?

Anyway, you also have a misunderstanding of the "at your option" note. Just because it says that does not mean that automatically when version 3 comes out you will be under that license. The license that your application is under is still whatever you choose. "your" option referenced in the file is yours, not that of the person downloading the source code. Whatever license you distribute with the application source code will be the license it falls under.

Quote: Original post by Xanas
"your" option referenced in the file is yours, not that of the person downloading the source code. Whatever license you distribute with the application source code will be the license it falls under.

Yes it is. When GPL v3 comes out then I can download a GPL v2 or later application, make some changes, and redistribute the result as GPL v3 or later.