1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. LINUX.DEBIAN.DEVEL.MENTOR

  • Choosing the license - CC0 BSD or Dual [ seeking advise ]

    From lorenzo@21:1/5 to All on Mon Jun 28 15:50:02 2021
    Dear mentors,

    I'm going to add ~20 service runscripts from my collection to a Debian
    package that I want to reintroduce in Debian, and I have to chose the
    license.
    For this project I mainly care about two things:

    1. allow fast circulation (even if it's at cost of less protection)

    2. make it easy for an upstream project to incorporate a runscript

    The original Debian package is under BSD-3Clause, which I think it's
    fine for 1., but not sure for 2.
    Am I correct that, if I choose CC0/Public Domain, an upstream project
    can incorporate the runscript "as is" and change the license without
    asking for my permission?
    What about dual license -- something like "BSD-3Clause OR
    Service Upstream license" ?

    Lorenzo

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Joerg Jaspert@21:1/5 to lorenzo on Mon Jun 28 21:40:01 2021
    On 16178 March 1977, lorenzo wrote:

    I'm going to add ~20 service runscripts from my collection to a Debian package that I want to reintroduce in Debian, and I have to chose the license.
    For this project I mainly care about two things:
    1. allow fast circulation (even if it's at cost of less protection)
    2. make it easy for an upstream project to incorporate a runscript

    The original Debian package is under BSD-3Clause, which I think it's
    fine for 1., but not sure for 2.
    Am I correct that, if I choose CC0/Public Domain, an upstream project
    can incorporate the runscript "as is" and change the license without
    asking for my permission?
    What about dual license -- something like "BSD-3Clause OR
    Service Upstream license" ?

    Assuming fast == wide spread, then you want something with the smallest
    amount of requirement/restrictions for those taking it.

    If you truly do not care who takes it and whyt they do with it, nor want
    to be mentioned anywhere, something like CC0 is your way.

    If you, at least theoretically, want to have your name appear somewhere,
    but don't care much anything else, "MIT" (expat) or BSD 3 clause would
    be the thing.

    If you do want to ensure it stays free software, other licenses apply.


    Now, point 2: None of those 3 licenses do make it any trouble whatsoever
    to use your code. (CC0 *IMO* the worst one, just from its size :) ).

    --
    bye, Joerg

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From lorenzo@21:1/5 to Joerg Jaspert on Tue Jun 29 23:40:02 2021
    On Mon, 28 Jun 2021 21:38:21 +0200
    Joerg Jaspert <joerg@debian.org> wrote:

    Assuming fast == wide spread, then you want something with the
    smallest amount of requirement/restrictions for those taking it.

    If you truly do not care who takes it and whyt they do with it, nor
    want to be mentioned anywhere, something like CC0 is your way.

    If you, at least theoretically, want to have your name appear
    somewhere, but don't care much anything else, "MIT" (expat) or BSD 3
    clause would be the thing.

    If you do want to ensure it stays free software, other licenses apply.


    Now, point 2: None of those 3 licenses do make it any trouble
    whatsoever to use your code. (CC0 *IMO* the worst one, just from its
    size :) ).

    I was thinking about the case of a project that prefer to merge
    contribution under its license, that may be different from BSD..anyway
    it's probably a minor problem.

    Thanks for your help

    Lorenzo

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)