Quote: Original post by BBB
Are you guys interested in making your own Window Manager?

I am.

I got an idea! Making the contributors surrender their copyright sounds a bit nazi and I really want to avoid that, but on the other side something might come up in the future that justifies a change of license. So how about I say: "You will keep your copyright, as long as you license it using the license I want to use. So if I, in the future, change the license then your work will fall under that license". Does that sounds as a good idea?

Or perhaps a dual-copyright? We both get the copyright that is. However I'm not entirely sure on how this works?

Quote: Original post by Ravuya

Quote: Original post by BBB
Are you guys interested in making your own Window Manager?

I am.

Thats all I needed to hear [smile].

Edit:
Typo.

[Edited by - BBB on June 21, 2006 11:57:11 PM]

After googling for Dual-Copyright I found this and find it very disturbing.

For anything greater than a few lines of patch, I would refuse to surrender copyright or even dual-copyright to an individual. To a group (something like a standards body) I'd be more trustful. I have declared public domain at least one large patch (somewhat like the latter option), but that was mainly not to step on any corporate toes when I submitted it (it modified dozens of source files and I didn't want the maintainers to have any questions about license when they merged my patch; the merging process was quick and painless, possibly as a result).

Most projects just have a policy of "at least as big-F Free as our license". So, one could submit a zlib or new-BSD licensed patch to a GPL licensed project without problems (as long as it's done properly, those licenses allow their source to be relicensed under the GPL and still remain the property of their copyright owner since they're even less restrictive than the GPL). You could not change a GPL-with-later-versions to a GPL-2.0-only or vice versa though.

So, you could require that the source is submitted to you in "an at least as Free" manner and then add it to your code under said license or then relicense (still under the rightful owner's copyright) and the add it to your code.

Personally, for tutorial code, I'd probably use a zlib or new-BSD license. It's going to be copied-and-pasted anyway, no? Not that the GPL disallows copying-and-pasting the code, but it complicates distribution, not that that should interfere with the learning process in any real way. But you do say you want this to become bigger than a tutorial, so you might want to consider the LGPL. LGPL keeps any redistribution from legally hiding away your contribution to the code and still keeps it as free as possible; the GPL doesn't seem necessary to keeping your code free and attributed though.

It's your work and it's your right to decide its license in the end.

Quote: Original post by BBB
After googling for Dual-Copyright I found this and find it very disturbing.

Check the date on that. It's from 2001. In IT that's half a century. If that really applied the way it reads (and would still do today), don't you think RMS and the FSF would have plastered the internet full with warnings about this? The lack of replies to that e-mail says enough. Also, the Passport.net terms have long since changed. If anything, it's a good reason not to use MSN or Hotmail.

Quote: Original post by Null and Void
So, one could submit a zlib or new-BSD licensed patch to a GPL licensed project without problems (as long as it's done properly, those licenses allow their source to be relicensed under the GPL and still remain the property of their copyright owner since they're even less restrictive than the GPL). You could not change a GPL-with-later-versions to a GPL-2.0-only or vice versa though.

Actually, you can license a GPL v2+ patch to GPL v2 only. The reverse is not true. The patch itself would remain GPL v2+, but if the rest of the file would chnage from GPL v2+ to GPL v2 only then the only license that allows distributing the combined work (original + patch) would be the GPL v2 and not any later versions.

The thing about relicensing this way is that you can never apply it to already released versions (technically you can, but already distributed versions keep the old license so relicensing old versions makes no sense). Short example: your software version 1.0 is GPL v2+. People contribute patches under GPL v2+, under BSD, ZLib, etcetera. Then you release version 1.1 of your software under GPL v2+. You change some more stuff and release version 1.2 under GPL v2 only. This is perfectly legal. Version 1.2 cannot be used under GPL v3, but version 1.0 and 1.1 can.

You can even cherry pick licenses. Suppose BBB likes GPL v3. He could release version 1.0 under GPL v2+. Then he starts writing version 2.0. In the mean time, RMS starts writing GPL v4 and BBB thinks it sucks. BBB then releases version 2.0 of his software under "GPL v2 or GPL v3" because GPL v4 sucks. That's no problem at all. Note that his old version 1.0 could be used under GPL v4 though, but not his new version.

To recap, you can license a piece of code (A) under any combination of licenses you want (say, license X and Y), and cherry pick from that set of licenses. You can combine that work with other software (B) licensed under a different set of licenses (say, Y and Z). But, you can only distribute the combined work (AB) under a license that satisfies both A's and B's license (in this case, only Y). It all comes down to basic set theory :-)

Quote: From Terms of Use
6. Materials You Post or Provide.

You may be able to submit materials for use in connection with the Passport Network. We do not claim ownership of the materials you post or otherwise provide to us (including feedback) related to the Passport Network (called a "submission"). However, by posting or otherwise providing your submission, you are granting to the public permission to use, copy, distribute, display, and modify your submission, each in connection with the Passport Network, and to publish your name in connection with your submission. You also give the public permission to grant this permission to other persons. This section only applies for legal content, and to the extent that use and publishing of such legal content does not breach the law. We will not pay you for your submission. For each submission, you must have all rights necessary for you to grant the permissions in this section.

What do they mean by "submission"? Do they mean feedback you send to them or anything you upload to hotmail?

Reading Microsoft's EULAs can be very amusing. I remember, when I was a Win98-user looong ago, reading the EULA for Win98. It said that the software shouldn't be used in places where it could risk peoples lives, for example an airliner. Why? Because it contained "Java-technology", I'm not kidding! I read it ages ago but have a strong memory of it since it was so hilarious.

Anyways, even if Microsoft have changed their licenses its still a threat since other companies might do that. How should I combat this? Should I make them send their stuff over an encrypted channel?

That's stuff like feedback, MSN profiles, etcetera. Information you provide to passport, not through passport. Also, I think the passport EULA only applies to the passport.net domain, not hotmail et. al. Read the EULA for hotmail. I doubt that it'll say the same thing (and if it does, it'll exclude your e-mail and all that - so long as the US government doesn't come asking for it).

I got a little lost reading this thread when the topic somehow changed to "the user agreement of hotmail and passport". Anyways, if there is something wrong with the agreement, the simple solution is to not use the service.

Quote: Original post by BBB
Reading Microsoft's EULAs can be very amusing. I remember, when I was a Win98-user looong ago, reading the EULA for Win98. It said that the software shouldn't be used in places where it could risk peoples lives, for example an airliner. Why? Because it contained "Java-technology", I'm not kidding! I read it ages ago but have a strong memory of it since it was so hilarious.

The Java license actually has that in it; it also disallows use for missile guidance systems, nuclear power control and generation as well as airliners. I believe Apple added it shortly afterward for their rollout of MRJ.

Quote: Original post by Ravuya

Quote: Original post by BBB
Reading Microsoft's EULAs can be very amusing. I remember, when I was a Win98-user looong ago, reading the EULA for Win98. It said that the software shouldn't be used in places where it could risk peoples lives, for example an airliner. Why? Because it contained "Java-technology", I'm not kidding! I read it ages ago but have a strong memory of it since it was so hilarious.

The Java license actually has that in it; it also disallows use for missile guidance systems, nuclear power control and generation as well as airliners. I believe Apple added it shortly afterward for their rollout of MRJ.

Ah, that explains it. However I don't understand why they added it, the disclaimer should be enough.