Editing Licensing
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision | Your text | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{WIP}} | {{WIP}} | ||
− | [[Source code]] is copyrightable, which means a programmer owns the code they write. How they aim to publish it is up to them, and many licenses assist in this process.<!-- | + | [[Source code]] is copyrightable, which means a programmer owns the code they write. How they aim to publish it is up to them, and many licenses assist in this process.<!-- |
− | + | A copyright license is a legal document that tells people how the software can be used and what limitations come with using it.--> | |
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
==Intellectual property law== | ==Intellectual property law== | ||
Line 104: | Line 95: | ||
The third clause (about advertising) ended up being controversial and was left out of newer licenses, resulting in the familiar three-clause BSD license. FreeBSD and NetBSD removed the fourth clause as basically no one violated that clause, and OpenBSD used a version of the license that details the first two clauses in one paragraph instead of listing them in asterisked bullets. The fact that the licenses are so permissive allowed Sony and Nintendo to use FreeBSD in the PS3, the PS4, and the Switch without having to share the source code. | The third clause (about advertising) ended up being controversial and was left out of newer licenses, resulting in the familiar three-clause BSD license. FreeBSD and NetBSD removed the fourth clause as basically no one violated that clause, and OpenBSD used a version of the license that details the first two clauses in one paragraph instead of listing them in asterisked bullets. The fact that the licenses are so permissive allowed Sony and Nintendo to use FreeBSD in the PS3, the PS4, and the Switch without having to share the source code. | ||
− | The conditions in the BSD license are easy to modify, which makes it an attractive target for those wanting to include the prohibition of commercial use (see [[#Non-commercial | + | The conditions in the BSD license are easy to modify, which makes it an attractive target for those wanting to include the prohibition of commercial use (see [[#Non-commercial licenses]] below). [https://github.com/mamedev/historic-mame/blob/master/docs/license.txt The old MAME license] (and by extension [https://github.com/barry65536/FBAlpha/blob/master/src/license.txt FinalBurn Alpha] and [https://github.com/finalburnneo/FBNeo/blob/master/src/license.txt FinalBurn Neo]) is based off of (or was heavily influenced by) this license, which ended up causing a ton of problems in recent times, notably when a libretro port of MAME tried to backport GPL code into old-licensed code, and when the Capcom Home Arcade [[Emulation Boxes|emulation box]] was said to use FinalBurn Alpha ahead of its release (despite its creators not getting permission from all of FBA's developers). |
===Apache=== | ===Apache=== | ||
Line 113: | Line 104: | ||
==Source-available software== | ==Source-available software== | ||
− | + | This is a term typically used to refer to software which doesn't strictly count as FLOSS, even though the source code is readily available to the public. Two of the most common subcategories are: | |
===Non-commercial software=== | ===Non-commercial software=== | ||
Line 127: | Line 118: | ||
</blockquote> | </blockquote> | ||
− | + | Non-commercial licenses have long been a desirable or even essential option for emulator developers, either to specifically pre-empt others from bundling their code into a payware package (even though this would also be a flagrant violation of the GPL3) or using it in a pre-built [[Emulation Boxes|emulation box]] without their explicit permission, or because they simply haven't considered the possibility of any more legitimate commercial use cases for their projects. Or sometimes they do it out of caution that the original hardware manufacturers could take them to court. This is despite the fact that [[#Legality of emulation|their only grounds to stand on is whether the underlying technology behind a console is patented]]. | |
− | Whatever reason the dev gives for a non-commercial clause in the software license, it | + | Whatever reason the dev gives for a non-commercial clause in the software license, it ''should'' be of no consequence to the average end user who's just running a free emulator on their PC for their own use. Some specific circumstances, such as a developer who's making a brand new commercial game for an old system and using an emulator to test it in lieu of real hardware, ''might'' be exceptions to this, but that's where it gets pretty murky from a legal standpoint. |
− | |||
− | |||
===Open-core software=== | ===Open-core software=== | ||
− | Sometimes developers choose not to release the entire source code for their projects, and instead only allow the source code | + | Sometimes developers choose not to release the entire source code for their projects, and instead only allow public access to ''some'' of the source code while keeping ''other'' parts closed-source. Usually, the core functionality of the program is what becomes source-available while certain bells and whistles remain proprietary, hence the term "open core". One notable example of this model is seen with [https://about.gitlab.com/ the GitLab project], where the GitLab developers offer a paid Enterprise Edition with a few extra features compared to the freely available core code in the Community Edition. |
− | + | While there's some debate as to whether the stripped-down, fully source-available versions of these programs could count as FLOSS, the model as a whole is undoubtedly not fully in keeping with the ideals of the open-source movement, and it's generally considered a compromise between wanting to sell the software and wanting to allow outside contribution and/or code reuse. | |
==CLA (Contributor License Agreement)== | ==CLA (Contributor License Agreement)== | ||
Line 150: | Line 139: | ||
todo: answer questions like "can a license be revoked after it has been put in place?" and "is it possible to sell open-source software?" | todo: answer questions like "can a license be revoked after it has been put in place?" and "is it possible to sell open-source software?" | ||
--> | --> | ||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
[[Category:FAQs]] | [[Category:FAQs]] |