To create new wiki account, please join us on #znc at freenode and ask admins to create a wiki account for you. You can say thanks to spambots for this inconvenience.

Difference between revisions of "Developer:License"

From ZNC
Jump to: navigation, search
(Comments)
(The list)
Line 17: Line 17:
 
=== [http://opensource.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html GPL 3] ===
 
=== [http://opensource.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html GPL 3] ===
 
Pros:
 
Pros:
*
+
* Requires distributed changes to ZNC to be released under the GPL3.
 
Cons:
 
Cons:
 
* Incompatible with GPLv2 and thus conflicts with "What we want": [http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#v2v3Compatibility]
 
* Incompatible with GPLv2 and thus conflicts with "What we want": [http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#v2v3Compatibility]
 +
* "Stigma" of being a "viral" license, prevents some people or businesses from using or contributing back.
  
 
=== [http://opensource.org/licenses/lgpl-3.0.html LGPL 3] ===
 
=== [http://opensource.org/licenses/lgpl-3.0.html LGPL 3] ===
 
Pros:
 
Pros:
*  
+
* Requires distributed changes to ZNC to be released under the LGPL3.
 
Cons:
 
Cons:
 
* ZNC is not a library (Don't need to be a library to use the "Lesser" GPL license. [[User:Jreese|Jreese]] ([[User talk:Jreese|talk]]) 17:19, 20 December 2012 (UTC))
 
* ZNC is not a library (Don't need to be a library to use the "Lesser" GPL license. [[User:Jreese|Jreese]] ([[User talk:Jreese|talk]]) 17:19, 20 December 2012 (UTC))
 +
* "Stigma" of being a "viral" license, prevents some people or businesses from using or contributing back.
  
 
=== [http://opensource.org/licenses/Apache-2.0 Apache 2.0] ===
 
=== [http://opensource.org/licenses/Apache-2.0 Apache 2.0] ===
Line 31: Line 33:
 
* Most liberal license that still protects any project trademarks.
 
* Most liberal license that still protects any project trademarks.
 
Cons:
 
Cons:
*
+
* Allows distributed changes to ZNC to be re-licensed under different terms, or even stay closed-source.
  
 
=== BSD ([http://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-2-Clause 2-clause] or [http://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause 3-clause]?) ===
 
=== BSD ([http://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-2-Clause 2-clause] or [http://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause 3-clause]?) ===
 
Pros:
 
Pros:
 
* Extremely liberal license.
 
* Extremely liberal license.
* 3-clause license restricts usage of  
+
* 3-clause license restricts usage of project or contributor names for endorsing derived projects.
 
Cons:
 
Cons:
*  
+
* Allows distributed changes to ZNC to be re-licensed under different terms, or even stay closed-source.
  
 
=== [http://opensource.org/licenses/MIT MIT] ===
 
=== [http://opensource.org/licenses/MIT MIT] ===
Line 45: Line 47:
 
Cons:
 
Cons:
 
* Basically identical to 2-clause BSD license.
 
* Basically identical to 2-clause BSD license.
 +
* Allows distributed changes to ZNC to be re-licensed under different terms, or even stay closed-source.
  
 
=== Anything else? ===
 
=== Anything else? ===

Revision as of 17:47, 20 December 2012

Switch ZNC from GPL 2 to another license

See https://github.com/znc/znc/issues/218

What we want?

  • Ability to use stuff licensed under Apache license in ZNC
  • Ability to use stuff licensed under GPL 2 license in ZNC
    • Iris or qwebirc
      • But iris is loaded as separate process, and ZNC communicates with it via socket, so it's not an issue, according to this and this
  • Anything else?

The list

GPL 3

Pros:

  • Requires distributed changes to ZNC to be released under the GPL3.

Cons:

  • Incompatible with GPLv2 and thus conflicts with "What we want": [1]
  • "Stigma" of being a "viral" license, prevents some people or businesses from using or contributing back.

LGPL 3

Pros:

  • Requires distributed changes to ZNC to be released under the LGPL3.

Cons:

  • ZNC is not a library (Don't need to be a library to use the "Lesser" GPL license. Jreese (talk) 17:19, 20 December 2012 (UTC))
  • "Stigma" of being a "viral" license, prevents some people or businesses from using or contributing back.

Apache 2.0

Pros:

  • Most liberal license that still protects any project trademarks.

Cons:

  • Allows distributed changes to ZNC to be re-licensed under different terms, or even stay closed-source.

BSD (2-clause or 3-clause?)

Pros:

  • Extremely liberal license.
  • 3-clause license restricts usage of project or contributor names for endorsing derived projects.

Cons:

  • Allows distributed changes to ZNC to be re-licensed under different terms, or even stay closed-source.

MIT

Pros:

  • Extremely liberal license.

Cons:

  • Basically identical to 2-clause BSD license.
  • Allows distributed changes to ZNC to be re-licensed under different terms, or even stay closed-source.

Anything else?

Comments

  • The goal of being able to use both Apache-licensed and GPL2-licensed code in ZNC is not going to be possible. Apache license is not compatible with GPL2-only projects, and GPL2-only is not compatible with GPL3 projects. Jreese (talk) 17:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I would suggest using one of the more liberal licenses, so that modules can officially be licensed under any terms the author wants to use. LGPL or Apache license probably make the most sense in this regard. Jreese (talk) 17:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Useful links