Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 81

Thread: Maximal: A New Open-Source License...

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Toronto-ish
    Posts
    7,379

    Default

    This is Canada, but that probably wasn't what you meant

    Believe it or not, terms like "open source" are *not* as clear as one would like - partly from years of abusing the term and partly because there actually *are* a bunch of corner cases, particularly when it comes to combining code which was obtained under different licenses.

  2. #22

    Default Open source.

    Even wikipedias definitions are pretty clear.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source

    In production and development, open source is a philosophy,[1][not in citation given][2][not in citation given] or pragmatic methodology[2][not in citation given] that promotes free redistribution and access to an end product's design and implementation details

    So all we need to say is, "not closed sorce in anyway". For instance Mit/Bsd allows opensource becoming closed source, so it is really not open source.

    Peace.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Vilnius, Lithuania
    Posts
    2,508

    Default

    Heh. Speaking of esoteric licenses, this one is by far the best I've seen:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTFPL

  4. #24

    Default

    I already commented on that in the other thread. Please read that please, if you want to understand the thinking behind this licence. It is really about having something that is commonly acceptable, without WTF`s and burgers/GNU/beer etc. Since I am now turned off Gplv3 I just wrote my own licence, from what I thought the GPL was about. And kindof shedding now redundancy.

    Peace.

  5. #25

    Default

    Btw, I wrote this licence for my own plugins @ https://sourceforge.net/projects/pxu/files/

    Which might be newsworthy when they get GUI`s etc. (It seems that that is what most people look at).

    They are for windows though, because developing with LADSPA in mind, became too tedious.

    Hopefully plugins and sequencers etc, develop on Linux, and people can enjoy this system, fully professionaly, as it is excellent at low latency operation, and a hackers dream in that you can learn about it all the way down to the core, and make as small or large tweaks as you want. Without depency on corporations or the often pretensious DSP-programmer idol.

    I also have this low-latency config, if anyone is interested in that. http://paradoxuncreated.com/tmp/.config39 as I have also discussed in other threads. Extremely smooth doom3 gameplay, and 0.33 ms latency in renoise (on professional soundcard).

    Praised Be God.

    Peace.
    Last edited by Paradox Uncreated; 05-02-2012 at 04:33 PM.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    24

    Default

    Heh. Speaking of esoteric licenses, this one is by far the best I've seen:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTFPL
    That one is pretty good. A lot of the times, when reading about law suites, or police cases I just wish we could write a law or a lisence agreement that says "Don't be an asshole".

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Radoboj, Croatia
    Posts
    155

    Default Minimal commercial non-free licence

    Some user, after having communicated with Richard Stallman, decided to write a new open-source license. This new open-source license is quite simple and is being called Maximal.

    Here's the license text by Uwaysi Bin Kareem:
    This program, plugin, or function is licenced under the Maximal Opensource Licence. That means that it`s source should always stay open source. And any changes must be available with the branches. And its derivatives can never in anyway be released as closed source.

    Authorship can be included, but it is not neccesary. A list of changes by author is though recommended.
    And I have written a new commercial licence. This new commercial non-free licence is quite simple and is being caller Minimal.
    Here's the licence text:
    This code is not yours! You are not allowed to see it! Please avert your eyes.

  8. #28

    Default

    I think Beavis and Butthead probably made a licence like that.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,010

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Paradox Uncreated View Post
    Even wikipedias definitions are pretty clear.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source

    In production and development, open source is a philosophy,[1][not in citation given][2][not in citation given] or pragmatic methodology[2][not in citation given] that promotes free redistribution and access to an end product's design and implementation details

    So all we need to say is, "not closed sorce in anyway". For instance Mit/Bsd allows opensource becoming closed source, so it is really not open source.

    Peace.
    So a BSD license doesn't count as open source? That's probably not what the original license writer intended.

    How about the MS license that allows for free redistribution and viewing of their source code, but no grant to modify or use it? Even a terrible lawyer would certainly argue that meets an "open source" requirement if the license doesn't go into any details about what "open source" entails.

  10. #30

    Default

    BSD licence = you work 10 years, on a project. A company comes along picks it up, lets you starve, picks up your patches, and makes money. killing it`s developer and itself. Is that what you call open source?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •