Software License Advice

[SkyHog]

So as Pilot FreeStuff continues to be developed (and I am starting to kick ass a little bit, I'm happy), I am looking for software licenses to release the software under.

I've looked at GNU GPL, but its an awful lot like a virus in that it spreads, and I don't like that. Plus, it is open source, and I do not want to release the code with this.

I've also looked at the BSD license, which is much better, but still requires open source.

I've thought about writing my own license, but I'm not too good with legalese. Here's what I am looking for in a license:

Software remains closed source.
Software remains free of cost forever, as does any addons for it
Software must be distributed from only trusted sources, cannot be freely distributed.

I also want to add something about not being liable for damages caused by the software to either the hardware or the software currently installed. Also - any loss of data should be covered as well.

I think that's everything.

 

[jesse]

Plus, it is open source, and I do not want to release the code with this.

Why? I think people fear open source for the wrong reasons. Most developers that feel they want to help with the project will come straight to you. They'll go through you. It'll all be pretty.

If you decide to be an asshat they might fork off (XFree86 vs. X.org) for example. The only time this ever really happens and over rides the main project is when the lead dude turns into an asshat.

Don't be an asshat. Problem solved

 

[ScottM]

Keep in mind that most software licenses are extremelly difficult to enforce. It does not matter what you have it will likely be violated and you will have little recourse to prosecute for damages.

 

[SkyHog]

Why? I think people fear open source for the wrong reasons. Most developers that feel they want to help with the project will come straight to you. They'll go through you. It'll all be pretty.

If you decide to be an asshat they might fork off (XFree86 vs. X.org) for example. The only time this ever really happens and over rides the main project is when the lead dude turns into an asshat.

Don't be an asshat. Problem solved

I am fully aware of the excellent benefits open source provides. My concern comes from malicious code. Someone takes the code, modifies it to do something bad. My name is now on the code.

Its not likely, but honestly, I don't see a reason to chance it. The benefits of open source for projects like this just aren't worth it. The idea is that when this is done, many not very computer saavy people will be using it. I don't want someone to get confused and get a malicious update from an "asshat" who just wants to do others harm.

Open source is great for big projects that need multiple people working towards solutions. This is not the project for open source.

 

[jesse]

I am fully aware of the excellent benefits open source provides. My concern comes from malicious code. Someone takes the code, modifies it to do something bad. My name is now on the code.

Its not likely, but honestly, I don't see a reason to chance it. The benefits of open source for projects like this just aren't worth it. The idea is that when this is done, many not very computer saavy people will be using it. I don't want someone to get confused and get a malicious update from an "asshat" who just wants to do others harm.

Open source is great for big projects that need multiple people working towards solutions. This is not the project for open source.

That's why you have a website
http://www.pilotfreestuff.com and they download it from you. If they want to go download it from some other source open or closed source you are screwed. Not too hard to make a program with the same looking interface that does something malicious. The beauty of open source is that any person can do their own security audit. I'm thinking more people would rather put their time into making a crappy FireFox to ruin the Firefox name. As long as the trademark is the name if you had the legal resources it wouldn't be a problem. FireFox is a trademark by Mozilla you can't use that name without their permission. People that have tried to modify their code and distribute it under the FireFox name without Mozilla's permission have had lawyers knocking on their door.

Most users of a program that is open source are not qualified nor do they even care about changing it. But there are a few that always do. That's how it changes from being a little nothing project to something massive and cool that one single guy could have never finished.

What happens if you crash and get killed (this sounds teribble but you know me) now here we all are sitting with our logbooks and other information in this cool program that could break at any moment without any way to fix it...

 

[SkyHog]

Very astute Jesse.

And as such, maybe a limited release open Source would work. I've never seen it before, but something where I can control the number of people with access to the source code....

I'll have to think about it.

**I should add, there's always the fear that one will be ripped on too. I see it everywhere. "You suck at this, why didn't you do it this way?" Good stuff. Gotta learn to let it bounce off I guess.

 

[TMetzinger]

See what sun is doing with Solaris.... they publish the source code - the open source world is free to improve it and check it back into the open source repository. Sun also publishes their enhancements there. Periodically Sun takes the open source repository and "imports" the improvements back into their closed version, after reviewing the code.

The end user has two choices.

• Get the "closed" version of Solaris, which Sun licenses, restricts, and stands behind in terms of support and liability.
• Download the "open" version, under a license like GPL (not sure which version) which may have all sorts of nifty new stuff in it, but Sun does not stand behind it.

Users are free to chose whichever one fits their purpose. And Sun gets a bunch of good development work and alpha/beta testing done for free.