O2 Licensing policy

[JRS]

Thanks Mike for your suggestions and comments on this matter. I was hoping you would chime in due to all your research and experience.

I have seen and used many Public Domain software solutions that had no source and was submitted as is as a binary offering.

[Mike Lobanovsky]

That's correct, there used to be a lot of similar free-to-use software distributed in its binary form only, especially back in the DOS times. There is still some such around although the majority of it now comes with the source code of various degrees of accessibility and usability according to its particular license terms.

I'm absolutely sure Charles has never intended to withdraw the O2 sources from public access regardless of the license he's likely to cover them with at different stages of project development. There's just that one peculiarity with re-licensing to stricter terms: such terms may not be re-applied retrospectively to the periods when the license used to be more permissive.

So from that perspective you may rest assured OxygenBasic has been and will continue to be open source in the sense of unrestricted accessibility to its source code. However the amount of freedom as to what the 3rd parties may do with it can vary depending upon the degree of "severity" or "liberality" of its current license(s).

Charles, please correct me if I've misinterpreted your intentions with regard to O2 sources, which I think I have not, at least not so dramatically as to be completely untrue.

[JRS]

Public domain indicates abandoned software free to use if you can find value with its use. Not the best status for a programming language someone would use to create new software.

I think Mike's suggestion of making the self compiled version MIT as a way to recover from this misstep makes sense.

[Charles Pegge]

It appears that under the Berne convention, 1988, Copyright is automatically applied to any creative work, including software. Formal registration and copyright notices are not required.

Under the Berne Convention, which most countries have signed, an author automatically obtains the exclusive copyright to anything they have written, and local law may similarly grant copyright, patent, or trademark rights by default. The Berne Convention also covers programs. Therefore, a program is automatically subject to a copyright, and if it is to be placed in the public domain, the author must explicitly disclaim the copyright and other rights on it in some way, e.g. by a waiver statement.[1] In some Jurisdictions, some rights (in particular moral rights) cannot be disclaimed: for instance, civil law tradition-based German law's "Urheberrecht" differs here from the Anglo-Saxon common law tradition's "copyright" concept.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention

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



This indicates to me that some kind of formal licensing document is required, both for FB-compiled and Self-compiled o2. Otherwise the default copyright terms are quite restrictive.

[Raymond Leech]

It appears that under the Berne convention, 1988, Copyright is automatically applied to any creative work, including software.

Charles, you are correct _except_ that all works specifically marked in  the Public Domain, which waive any intellectual property claims by the author. Your choice of Public Domain was very generous, not an indication of death nor abandonment.

If you felt the need for a more formal declaration of PD, I'd suggest the "CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication".  It effectively asserts your "Simple PD Declaration" using a bunch more words.

Public domain indicates abandoned software

Public Domain indicates no such thing. It is a long-established legal term, recognized by all the Berne participants, to provide free and unencumbered usage without terms.  PD is even more permissive than the MIT License which still has a requirement and restrictions, regardless of how minimal.

[Mike Lobanovsky]

That's a good point, Charles.

In fact I've seen a few such explicit disclaimers (waivers) of authorship accompanying Public Domain submissions. And I've seen quite a few submissions that didn't have such disclaimers, e.g. a number of OpenGL and GLSL tutorial courses (of the NeHe OpenGL lessons kind) I've come about just recently with awesome text, visuals and accompanying source code that were explicitly placed in the Public Domain by their respective authors without any disclaimers or waivers of authorship.

So, I think the disclaimer per se isn't a decisive factor to legitimate a Public Domain submission. And even more so when we all feel it would be improper to anonymize OxygenBasic that's in fact a creation to be proud rather than ashamed of.

[JRS]

My only point is its tough trying to build a community around a public domain open source project.

I've come about just recently with awesome text, visuals and accompanying source code that were explicitly placed in the Public Domain by their respective authors without any disclaimers or waivers of authorship.

I wonder if I could put Windows in public domain? There doesn't seem to be any breadcrumbs back to the submitter if the stuff just appears.

[Mike Lobanovsky]

... its tough trying to build a community around a public domain open source project.

That's correct. Public Domain is usually something one drags to one's hidey-hole to build one's own private project upon.

[JRS]

Be on the lookout for CO2.

[Mike Lobanovsky]

CO₂ is reserved for Charles' Oxygen compiler. Rather watch out for something like C₂H₅(OH).

I wonder if I could put Windows in public domain? There doesn't seem to be any breadcrumbs back to the submitter if the stuff just appears.

That's a dangerous illusion. You'll be surprised how fast you're going to be tracked down, cornered, put to trial, and eventually electrocuted because MS and Windows are the US national concerns. Sure you wouldn't like the Commies (like the Chinese or Nothern Koreans) or the gangsters (like the Russians) to grab the most modern technologies of today?

[Chris Boss]

I would strongly recommend holding onto all copyright to your software, but simply use a liberal software license making O2 "Freeware".

By maintaining the copyright, one can keep control of the software so it is not abused by others. I personally don't like OpenSource, because most of the licenses don't fit well for commercial software. Freeware though is better, since you get the benefit of it being free to use, but protected so not abused. The "forking" of many an OpenSource project, may seem nice, it can often create confusion for end users. Few, other than the original developer, really understands the code in a project. When third parties get a hold of an open source project and then attempt to make a new "forked" project, the quality of the software can suffer. 

I offered a few freeware DDT Visual Designers for Powerbasic and they did include a very reasonable license. But I still maintain control of the software.

It is easy for those who haven't worked hard on a project to recommend Open Source, since they didn't put all the work into it.

Some freeware projects, in early versions, could later become a commercial project in later iterations.

[Aurel]

I would strongly recommend to NOT create such a drama about o2 licence.
Most of us have o2 source code and can use FB to recompile Oxygen
( i don't have in plan to do such a thing at all even that i know assembler )
Charles stated that is public ...so it is public domain...and ..what ..
also i really doubt that someone know how to change some things in o2 code and that o2
work properly...
Then on Github there are plenty of programs with source and ForkIt ..you can
of course 80% of program presented there are just experiments and work as crap or are useless for anything.
beeep 

[JRS]

It would be sad if we never knew who created the Mona Lisa.

[Charles Pegge]

Many thanks for all your views.

I think the MIT licence is adequate, and a compiler is not an easy rip-off anyway.

Copyright <YEAR> <COPYRIGHT HOLDER>

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.

[JRS]

Thanks Charles!

I knew you would make the right decision on this critical aspect of an open source project like yours.