O2 Licensing policy

[José Roca]

Open source?

[JRS]

One day I hope to be able to hand over for open-source management.

I don't understand your question.

[José Roca]

Quote from Charles Pegge:

"OxygenBasic is certainly in the public domain, as you have defined it here."
https://www.oxygenbasic.org/forum/index.php?topic=1035.msg8647#msg8647

I don't understand your obstination.

[JRS]

The Script BASIC open source project uses the MIT (public domain) license as I assume Charles has done with O2. He has not released his ownership or copyright to his work.

I don't care what SB uses or not. If you bother to read Charles post...

"OxygenBasic is certainly in the public domain, as you have defined it here. I would only add that providing references and web-links, is encouraged to indicate provenance and to facilitate further development. But this project is not ego-powered "

And in Mike's post above it:

"1. Public domain - do whatever your like, no credit required or even expected, no responsibility assumed."

Therefore your assumption is wrong and your statement untrue.

[JRS]

Talk to Charles about the license status of O2. I don't have the time or interest educating you about open source.

[José Roca]

You don't need to educate me about anything.

[JRS]

The world is overwhelmed by those that know everything.

[Charles Pegge]

One of my long-term aims is to get o2 source code into a more accessible format. It is complex, and recursive at several levels. Not easy to get into, but it would be nice to make it a shareable project.

PS:

How complicated it is to be in the public domain

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public-domain_software

[JRS]

How complicated it is to be in the public domain?

That question normally is never asked. Software put in public domain is because the author died. Why not a MIT license which retains ownership and copyright but allows the software to be used without restrictions?

If you go public domain, you might as well call O2 skunkware.

[Arnold]

How complicated it is to be in the public domain

Searching for some more information I came across three words which were new to me: Gemeinfreiheit, Daseinsfürsorge, Daseinsvorsorge. I am excited. German is still a living language.

Software put in public domain is because the author died

Perhaps this is not so simple e.g. in Germany there is the "Urheberrecht" (kind of copyright). If I understand this correctly then currently, it is established that this copyright goes beyond the death of the creator - usually up to 70 years. Exceptions are photographs. These have a protection period of 50 years.

I do not know the regulations in other countries. And I hope that I do not violate the rights of others. I just want to develop a few small apps in Oxygenbasic to learn about programming. But this only works if I can build on the tools and knowledge of other authors, which of course I would mark.

[JRS]

I facilitate open source projects and help build a community behind it. If O2 isn't going the open source route with a license to state its status, I no longer have interest in the gift.

With the implosion of BASIC and variation authors abandoning their projects, someone should create a BASIC theme park and call it ZaleLand.

[Charles Pegge]

If some form of license is required, the MIT licence is fairly close. Though I would question the notion of copyright being applied to this kind of software. A compiler is not a static work of art. It is more like an algorithm. And mathematical concepts cannot be patented or copyrighted. Nor can languages for that matter

[JRS]

I highly recommend the MIT direction. A two paragraph license stating use and liability terms.

[Mike Lobanovsky]

And in Mike's post above it:

"1. Public domain - do whatever your like, no credit required or even expected, no responsibility assumed."

IANAL but I stand firm by my words: Public Domain means "Do whatever you like with the binaries and sources that henceforth go open for everybody and for any purpose, public or private, free or commercial, legal or illegal. Attribution to the original author is not required (but will be appreciated if given)."

I used to do quite a bit of my own research regarding permissive licenses, and from my perspective, based on the former Public Domain status of O2, Charles (or any other person, for that matter) is in their indispensable right to change the license of their copy of O2 sources to any other license -- permissive (BSD, MIT, or similar), restrictive (GPL, LGPL, or commercial) -- or even close it (the copy) with its modifications, fixes, etc., if any, completely at any time starting from a certain date. Other people's copies and/or mods based on the sources earlier than that date still remain in the Public Domain (if those people so wish).

It means that stricter license terms (and MIT is clearly stricter than Public Domain because it requires attribution) may not be imposed in retrospective. Which means Charles may not take back his words spoken in the thread cited by Jose.

OTOH if I were in Charles' shoes, I'd probably leave the FB-based O2 sources in the Public Domain altogether for historical reasons but I'd put the self-compiling Oxygen's sources under the terms of MIT license. Just because a self compiling compiler of such quality, versatility and completeness is a no-nonsense achievement, and the name of its creator should not go into oblivion by all means.

If O2 isn't going the open source route with a license to state its status, I no longer have interest in the gift.

John, "open source" is just what it literally says: "source open to all" -- subject to certain conditions, if any. Do not try to force us to see things that aren't there. You know, Occam's razor and stuff...

Public Domain presupposes that everyone who cares has always been, still is, and will continue to be, granted free and unrestricted access to O2's source code at least in its FreeBASIC notation. So it is open source regardless of your earlier, current, or future interest in the project.