Licensmodeller

Open Source Licenser

I udgangspunkttet er det mest hensigtsmæssige blot at bidrage under den licens, som projektet som helhed er udgivet under, hvis man i en kommune eller region gerne vil bidrage til et open source projekt.

Imidlertid kan det give anledning til mange juridiske problemer som diskuteret i Hvidovre Kommune i 2009:

De juridiske barrierer

Rent juridisk har projektet også givet anledning til en række licensmæssige og kontraktuelle spørgsmål i kommunen. Her er man nervøs for, at der kan opstå sager om erstatningspligt, hvis der opstår fejl i sagsbehandlingen hos andre kommuner, som benytter sig af det system, Hvidovre har udviklet og stillet til rådighed. Samtidig har de gængse kontrakter til brug for it-anskaffelser vist sig at være mangelfulde, når det gælder anskaffelser af open source løsninger. ”Vi er som myndighed ikke alene om disse udfordringer, og der er på begge områder behov for klar viden og en fælles praksis. Her er der afgjort en stor rolle at spille for en central aktør som for eksempel IT- og Telestyrelsens Videnscenter”, siger Jørgen Eriksen.[1]

Nedenfor er der en liste over mange af de licenser som er open source. Så her er en kort beskrivelse af hvad de forskellige licenser omfatter. Listen kan også benyttes hvis man går i gang med et helt nyt projekt.

1 Overvejelser

[2]

1.1 Decision 1: Do you want to relinquish any control over how your code is used and distributed?

1.2 Decision 2: Do you want to allow people to use your code in non open-source programs?

1.3 Decision 3: If somebody uses your code in their program and sells their program for money, do you want some of that money?

1.4 Decision 4: If somebody uses [and distributes -22jun/ebb] your code and improves it (fixes bugs or adds features) do you want to make them give you the improvements back so you can use them too?

2 What is licensing

[3]

2.1 A lot of confusion is out there about what exactly licensing means. When you license your work, you’re not giving away any of your rights. You still hold the original copyright (or patent if you have one) on that work. What a license does is grant specific permissions for others to use that work.

2.2 Licensing is a great alternative to just releasing your work into the public domain or granting permissions on a case-by-case basis. By releasing into the public domain, you relinquish any copyright, and no one is obligated to list you as the original author or contributor. In the latter case, you may end up spending more time dealing with individual permissions than designing or developing.

2.3 Open-source licenses make it easy for others to contribute to a project without having to seek special permission. It also protects you as the original creator, making sure you at least get some credit for your contributions. It also helps to prevent others from claiming your work as their own.

3 opensource.org > Licenses > Category

[4]

3.1 Apache License, 2.0 (Apache-2.0)

The Apache License, Version 2.0, grants a number of rights to users. These rights can be applied to both copyrights and patents. Because some licenses can be applied only to copyrights and not patents, this flexibility would be an obvious factor in a patent developer’s choice of license

3.2 BSD 3-Clause "New" or "Revised" license (BSD-3-Clause)

The New BSD License (“3-clause license”) allows unlimited redistribution for any purpose as long as its copyright notices and the license’s disclaimers of warranty are maintained. The license also contains a clause restricting use of the names of contributors for endorsement of a derived work without specific permission.

3.3 BSD 2-Clause "Simplified" or "FreeBSD" license (BSD-2-Clause)

BSD licenses represent a family of permissive free software licenses that have fewer restrictions on distribution compared to other free software licenses such as the GNU General Public License.

3.4 GNU General Public License (GPL)

Basically, it allows users to legally copy, distribute and modify software. One aspect of GPL is that it is viral, that is that if you distribute changes, you need to distribute the changes also as GPL.

3.5 GNU Library or "Lesser" General Public License (LGPL)

LGPL is appropriate for libraries that want to allow linking from non-GPL and non-open-source software. Because the GPL requires that other software with parts of licensed code to also be licensed under the GPL, developers cannot use GPL-licensed code for paid and proprietary software.

3.6 MIT license (MIT)

The MIT License is the least restrictive license out there. It basically says that anyone can do whatever they want with the licensed material, as long as it’s accompanied by the license.

3.7 Mozilla Public License 2.0 (MPL-2.0)

It is characterized as a hybridization of the modified BSD license and GNU General Public License (GPL) that seeks to balance the concerns of proprietary and open source developers.[6]

The MPL is the license for the Mozilla Firefox, Mozilla Thunderbird, and most other Mozilla software,[9] but it has been used by others, such as Adobe to license their Flex product line,[10] and LibreOffice 4.0 (also on LGPL 3+)

3.8 Common Development and Distribution License (CDDL-1.0)

Common Development and Distribution License (CDDL) is a free software license, produced by Sun Microsystems, based on the Mozilla Public License (MPL), version 1.1.

3.9 Eclipse Public License (EPL-1.0)

The Eclipse Public License is designed to be a business-friendly free software license and features weaker copyleft provisions than contemporary licenses such as the GNU General Public License (GPL). The receiver of EPL-licensed programs can use, modify, copy and distribute the work and modified versions, in some cases being obligated to release their own changes.[5]

3.10 Creative Commons

Creative Commons (CC) licenses aren’t quite open-source licenses, but they are commonly used for design projects. A wide variety of CC licenses is available, each granting certain rights.

3.10.1 Public Domain

Det ene yderpunkt

3.11 Copyright

Det andet yderpunkt