I'd like to Open Source my app -- advice?

Rails
1

Hey folks,

I’ve written a couple of Rails apps which I’d like to open source under
something like the GPL. Unfortunately, GPLv2 has a known “ASP hole”
which would allow someone to make changes to my apps and then run them
as a service for others, and not release the code because they’re not
“distributing” it. So, I’d like this community’s advice on licensing
options. GPLv3’s most recent draft still has this ‘hole’. Do any of
you have experience working with the Affero General Public License?

On a more practical note, I’d love feedback on working with RubyForge or
SourceForge (or other options?) as a home for an open source project.
What other tools do you recommend?

Thanks,
Asa

2

modify the GPL 2/2 licenses to say what you want…there is no reason
you
can’t do this…

or write you own GPL

  1. share code
  2. if you host this app as a service, you MUST share code,
3

modify the GPL 2/2 licenses to say what you want…there is no reason you
can’t do this…

You cannot do this (the GPL explicitly forbids it), and you should not
do this (a + to standard licenses).

Use the Affero GPL, this license requires one to make the code available
to the people that can use it through a network…

The LogiLogi project also uses this license.

(and yes I too do regret that GPLv3 is not going to be the copyleft-
license of the web…)

greetings,

Wybo

–

::student:

  • History, Informatiekunde (computer linguistics, IR, webtech) and
    Philosophy
  • Member of the Center for Metahistory Groningen
    (http://www.rug.nl/let/cmg)

::Free Software and Open Source Developer:

  • http://www.LogiLogi.org, Cumulative, shared commenting, publication
    and
    idea sharing: Where insight comes together…
  • ComLinToo, a computational linguistics toolset written in Perl
  • Lake (LogiLogi.org Make), a make-replacement using makefiles in pure
    C++

::Being:

4

Oh and here is a reference for Wybo’s claim that you can’t modify the
GPL.

http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html

  1. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the
    Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the
    original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to
    these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further
    restrictions on the recipients’ exercise of the rights granted herein.
    You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to
    this License.

So to reiterate, if you inherited the license, you can’t impose any
further restrictions. If you created it, you can make whatever license
you want. If you are the original creator, surely you can plant
whatever licensing seed you like.

Nathaniel.

On 4/2/07, Nathaniel B. [email protected] wrote:

what you got. If you want to make customizations, you must first
of support, assurance of continued development and enhancements, etc.
It’s a mixed bag, but find out what your goals are. Ruby on Rails has

Use the Affero GPL, this license requires one to make the code available

  • Lake (LogiLogi.org Make), a make-replacement using makefiles in pure C++

Toll Free: 1-877-446-4647
Vancouver: 604-724-6624

–
Nathaniel Steven Henry Brown

Toll Free: 1-877-446-4647
Vancouver: 604-724-6624

5

So to reiterate, if you inherited the license, you can’t impose any
further restrictions. If you created it, you can make whatever license
you want. If you are the original creator, surely you can plant
whatever licensing seed you like.

At the top of the GPL:

Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301, USA

Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.

So to reiterate; you are not allowed to change the GPL, and
thus you cannot add any extra requirements, not even to your own
GPL-ed code :slight_smile:

This is copyright at the level of licenses…

Dual licensing is an entirely different matter, though you
are always free to choose the license you like and cut away
the other(s)… (therefore I slightly dislike most cases in
which this happens, as most dual licensing sites are misleading
commercial parties into thinking that they need to buy licenses,
while they only can if they want/feel good about it/need the
support and extra services that come with it)

Wybo

–

::student:

::Free Software and Open Source Developer:

  • http://www.LogiLogi.org, Cumulative, shared commenting, publication
    and
    idea sharing: Where insight comes together…
  • ComLinToo, a computational linguistics toolset written in Perl
  • Lake (LogiLogi.org Make), a make-replacement using makefiles in pure
    C++

::Being:

6

If you are the creator of the original work, you can and are
completely within your right as a creator to do whatever you want with
your creation.

That being said, if you want to use the GPL as a foundation, and add
customized limitations to it for particular use (non-asp) or
commercial license caveats, etc. You are entirely authorized.

The only time you are unable to modify the GPL is if you inherited it
from another creator/author. When this happens, you are stuck with
what you got. If you want to make customizations, you must first
extract yours to be independent of the original work, then you can
license that individually. There are more caveats to this, but that
doesn’t sound even close to what you intent is anyways.

Some of the nicer licenses I have seen are the dual sorts. Something
of a MySQL style offering, where you do both a commercial license and
a open source license.

This allows you to help the non-profits and non-commercial entities
out there as well as pleasing those who want the commercial elements
of support, assurance of continued development and enhancements, etc.

I am bipolar when it comes to this licensing. Some days I completely
agree with it, other days when I rehash the concept my gut goes into
knots.

This is likely due to my heart wanting to go pure open source and
trust in man kind to donate and give back, but my mind knowing that it
simply wont pay the bills and people just aren’t as giving as I hope
so as to sustain myself with food and shelter.

It’s a mixed bag, but find out what your goals are. Ruby on Rails has
licened theirs as open as it gets under the MIT and has brought major
business INDIRECTLY to their products. While MySQL has the dual
license and directly pays their bills while still offering a free
alternative to the world.

Ideals are nice, but reality needs to be included in your choice.

But overall, open source is a VERY good thing no matter how you slice
it. Just how much open source you decide to slice off is a question
that only a bit of personal reflection will answer for you.

Nathaniel.

On 4/2/07, Wybo W. [email protected] wrote:

The LogiLogi project also uses this license.
::student:

–
Nathaniel Steven Henry Brown

Toll Free: 1-877-446-4647
Vancouver: 604-724-6624

7

Wybo W. wrote:

Copyright © 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301, USA

Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.

It just sounds funny :slight_smile:

It’s fine to do what you like my code but get your hands off my license

  • sounds a bit ironic :stuck_out_tongue: but I see the point :slight_smile:

Cheers
Mohit.

8

Here is a more detailed response of the FSF to the: can I change the
license question:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCModifyGPL

In short: you can as long as you don’t call it anything GPL-like and
if you don’t mention GNU etc. But it is strongly discouraged…

Wybo