Matronics Email Lists :: View topic - Open Source software license options

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

Open Source software license options

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> AeroElectric-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

gregmchugh

Joined: 03 Apr 2012
Posts: 42

Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2012 3:03 pm Post subject: Open Source software license options

Anyone have a suggestion on which of the various open source

license options would be appropriate for the Wig-Wag project

and the possible follow-on modules. I need to put something

in the header file for the software that I will be sending out

for testing on the hardware and I could use some guidance

on what language to include with the software code...



Greg McHugh

dgolden(at)golden-consult
Guest

Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2012 3:36 pm Post subject: Open Source software license options

On 04/23/2012 06:03 PM, gregmchugh wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   



 Anyone have a suggestion on which of the various open source

 license options would be appropriate for the Wig-Wag project

 and the possible follow-on modules. I need to put something

 in the header file for the software that I will be sending out

 for testing on the hardware and I could use some guidance

 on what language to include with the software code...



 Greg McHugh


	


I would suggest that you start by reading the GPL and derivative licenses.



Dennis

-- 

Dennis Golden

Golden Consulting Services, Inc.

DwightFrye

Joined: 16 Apr 2008
Posts: 27
Location: Cary, NC

Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2012 4:54 pm Post subject: Open Source software license options

Let me respectfully submit that the answer is .... it depends. More     to the point, it depends upon your goals. I just finished three     years as a senior member of the Cisco open source support and     license compliance group and gained a real appreciation for how     different licenses have different impact and net results. GPL is     unarguably popular, but so are many others. Quite old tried-and-true     licenses such as BSD and MIT are still -heavily- used as well.     Creative commons is also gaining in popularity.

     

     If you do go GPL which flavor might you want? GPLv2? Or v3? And do     you know what different effects the two different licenses bring to     the table? (Short answer ... v3 adds the anti-Tivo install-and-run     provisions targeted at consumer-type products and also has greatly     modified language regarding the impacts on patent portfolios). Do     you want the copyleft behavior that is the hallmark of the GPL     licenses? If so, do you also want the prohibition of combining your     GPL licensed code with other bodies of code which might -not- be GPL     compatible? I'm not arguing against GPL at all ... just suggesting     that you make sure it achieves what you want to achieve.

     

     The one thing I would suggest ... no, beg ... you to do is resist     the temptation to craft your own "vanity license". I realize you     have not suggested doing that, but have seen some truly awful     licenses written by well-intentioned geeks (I'm speaking as a geek     myself) which actually prevented the very goals that the author had     in mind when he wrote the language when the license was strictly     interpreted. Don't go building your own license without -real-     advice from a -real- intellectual property lawyer! You can't believe     how often code-slingers think they can craft a legal document that     makes sense, much less actually does what they want. 

     

     I may have already crossed the point where people's eyes are glazing     over, so I'll stop. If you want more discussion of this topic     off-list I'd be happy to discuss at length the various licenses ..     their pros and cons .. and be of any assistance I can in helping you     pick something that achieves your goals.

     

       -- Dwight

     

     On 04/23/2012 08:10 PM, Ralph Finch wrote:     [quote]       I agree. The General Public License is         widely used and understood.

         

         http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html

         

         Another commonly used license is the Creative Commons license http://creativecommons.org/

         

         One of these should work fine.

         

         RF

         

         On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 4:32 PM, Dennis           Golden <dgolden(at)golden-consulting.com (dgolden(at)golden-consulting.com)>           wrote:

            	  Quote: 	
		  --> AeroElectric-List message posted             by: Dennis Golden <dgolden(at)golden-consulting.com (dgolden(at)golden-consulting.com)>                            

               

               On 04/23/2012 06:03 PM, gregmchugh wrote:

                	  Quote: 	
		                   -->  AeroElectric-List message posted by:                 "gregmchugh"<gregmchugh(at)aol.com (gregmchugh(at)aol.com)>

                 

                 Anyone have a suggestion on which of the various open                 source

                 license options would be appropriate for the Wig-Wag                 project

                 and the possible follow-on modules. I need to put                 something

                 in the header file for the software that I will be                 sending out

                 for testing on the hardware and I could use some                 guidance

                 on what language to include with the software code...

                 

                 Greg McHugh

               	
               

             

             I would suggest that you start by reading the GPL and             derivative licenses.

                 

                 Dennis

                 -- 

                 Dennis Golden

                 Golden Consulting Services, Inc. 	
         

       

       

     [b]

dgolden(at)golden-consult
Guest

Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2012 5:20 pm Post subject: Open Source software license options

On 04/23/2012 07:52 PM, Dwight Frye wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   Let me respectfully submit that the answer is .... it depends. More to

 the point, it depends upon your goals. I just finished three years as a

 senior member of the Cisco open source support and license compliance

 group and gained a real appreciation for how different licenses have

 different impact and net results. GPL is unarguably popular, but so are

 many others. Quite old tried-and-true licenses such as BSD and MIT are

 still -heavily- used as well. Creative commons is also gaining in

 popularity.

 If you do go GPL which flavor might you want? GPLv2? Or v3? And do you

 know what different effects the two different licenses bring to the

 table? (Short answer ... v3 adds the anti-Tivo install-and-run

 provisions targeted at consumer-type products and also has greatly

 modified language regarding the impacts on patent portfolios). Do you

 want the copyleft behavior that is the hallmark of the GPL licenses? If

 so, do you also want the prohibition of combining your GPL licensed code

 with other bodies of code which might -not- be GPL compatible? I'm not

 arguing against GPL at all ... just suggesting that you make sure it

 achieves what you want to achieve.

 The one thing I would suggest ... no, beg ... you to do is resist the

 temptation to craft your own "vanity license". I realize you have not

 suggested doing that, but have seen some truly awful licenses written by

 well-intentioned geeks (I'm speaking as a geek myself) which actually

 prevented the very goals that the author had in mind when he wrote the

 language when the license was strictly interpreted. Don't go building

 your own license without -real- advice from a -real- intellectual

 property lawyer! You can't believe how often code-slingers think they

 can craft a legal document that makes sense, much less actually does

 what they want.

 I may have already crossed the point where people's eyes are glazing

 over, so I'll stop. If you want more discussion of this topic off-list

 I'd be happy to discuss at length the various licenses .. their pros and

 cons .. and be of any assistance I can in helping you pick something

 that achieves your goals.

 -- Dwight

 On 04/23/2012 08:10 PM, Ralph Finch wrote:

> I agree. The General Public License is widely used and understood.

>

> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html

>

> Another commonly used license is the Creative Commons license

> http://creativecommons.org/

>

> One of these should work fine.

>

> RF

>

> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 4:32 PM, Dennis Golden

> <dgolden(at)golden-consulting.com <mailto:dgolden(at)golden-consulting.com>>

> wrote:

>

>     

>     <dgolden(at)golden-consulting.com

>     <mailto:dgolden(at)golden-consulting.com>>

>     On 04/23/2012 06:03 PM, gregmchugh wrote:

>

>         

>         "gregmchugh"<gregmchugh(at)aol.com <mailto:gregmchugh(at)aol.com>>

>

>         Anyone have a suggestion on which of the various open source

>         license options would be appropriate for the Wig-Wag project

>         and the possible follow-on modules. I need to put something

>         in the header file for the software that I will be sending out

>         for testing on the hardware and I could use some guidance

>         on what language to include with the software code...

>

>         Greg McHugh

>

And it might be that you just want it in the public domain where no 

license is needed/wanted. If you don't care, why bother with the 

legalities of the various licenses.

Dennis

-- 

Dennis Golden

Golden Consulting Services, Inc.

DwightFrye

Joined: 16 Apr 2008
Posts: 27
Location: Cary, NC

Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2012 5:49 pm Post subject: Open Source software license options

On 04/23/2012 09:19 PM, Dennis Golden wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   And it might be that you just want it in the public domain where no 

 license is needed/wanted. If you don't care, why bother with the 

 legalities of the various licenses.


	


Absolutely true! Public domain is a completely valid choice. But .. 

again .. the question is whether that meets your goals or not. I will 

say that if you do want it in the public domain please be explicit in 

your language for the sake of clarity (i.e. say straight out "this is in 

the public domain"). Anything else is subject to interpretation.



However, if you want to at least retain some sort of acknowledgement 

that this thing was your creation then one of the liberal licenses (BSD, 

MIT, etc.) can achieve that goal without encumbering the receiver much 

at all. Mostly those licenses demand what some of us have come to call 

"good open source hygiene" in that they request the receiver not remove 

headers with copyrights and license language from the source files (plus 

a few other similar obligations).



It once again comes back to ... what are your goals? If you want the 

lowest bar to adoption, don't care if acknowledgment that you produced 

the work is maintained, and are happy for folks to incorporate your work 

into some commercial product, then public domain is perfect. If you want 

something else, well then .. by golly .. pick what achieves -those- goals.



   -- Dwight

nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect
Guest

Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2012 6:13 pm Post subject: Open Source software license options

 	  Quote: 	
		  And it might be that you just want it in the public domain where no 

license is needed/wanted. If you don't care, why bother with the 

legalities of the various licenses.


	


   I would suggest we keep it simple.  Making such things

   work well seems sufficiently challenging without adding

   bragging rights.  We could craft a AEC Public Domain

   page explaining what's offered and why we did it. Any

   improvements or expansions on the ideas are welcome and

   will be added to the page . . . but if somebody feels

   inclined to snatch and run . . . do we really care?



   Bob . . .

gregmchugh

Joined: 03 Apr 2012
Posts: 42

Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2012 5:33 am Post subject: Re: Open Source software license options

I agree with the use of a public domain approach. Taking a quick look

at the options for text to be included in software code I found this

FAQ from Creative Commons describing the use of the CC0 option

as a recommended approach for putting new works into the

public domain.



http://wiki.creativecommons.org/CC0_FAQ



It would appear that the CC0 approach could be used for all of the

materials associated with this project. Until there is a standard

approach for the project I plan to use the info above for any software

I send out.



Greg McHugh

nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect
Guest

Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2012 6:39 am Post subject: Open Source software license options

 	  Quote: 	
		  http://wiki.creativecommons.org/CC0_FAQ



It would appear that the CC0 approach could be used for all of the

materials associated with this project. Until there is a standard

approach for the project I plan to use the info above for any software

I send out.


	


   Let us take care that we don't make this more

   complex than it needs to be. No matter what

   process, intent or forum we use to share these

   efforts, the ONLY reason to put a fortress around

   all or any part of it is if one intends to defend

   the fort.  Somebody once suggested during an

   Electro-Mech engineering coordination meeting that we seek a

   patent on some new gizmo we were working on.



   The boss said he didn't have time for that. He

   opined that having a patent not only took time to

   acquire it, it's was not really useful unless you

   were committed to defend it too. He preferred to

   get there first, market it best and obsolete it

   ourselves with the next generation.



   Being good at what you do trumps the efforts

   of the lazy who would dishonorably exploit the

   creativity of others.



   While browsing through the various links to processes

   and procedures banners under which we might

   march, I was reminded of the Great ISO9000

   certification task we took on at Beech. Sweat,

   blood and tears were shed to produce a wall of

   P&P manuals that we were all supposed to be familiar

   with and use for guidance on how to do our work.

   They cost our company $millions$ but gave us the

   'privilege' of putting that little "ISO9000" sticker

   on the sign out front.



   I looked through a couple of articles that purported

   to be helpful to me in my work, closed the book, put

   it back on the shelf and never looked at it again. When

   it was known that the ISO Inquisitors were going to visit,

   I had things to do over in the EMC lab that day.



   Actually, it was pretty easy for the engineers. The

   Inquisitor would ask, "What are you doing?" One

   would answer, "Just what that guy in the corner

   office told me to do."



   "What policies and procedures are you bound by?"



   "Not a one."



   "Say what?"



   "Yeah, there is no policy and procedure up on that

   wall for organizing the creative thought process."



   That usually stopped the inquisition  . . . I just

   preferred not to deal with them.



   I recall some time-study guys sitting on stools

   with clip-boards and stop-watches at Cessna back in

   '68. They were there for a couple of days and then

   left. Hear later that they were unable to tell what

   we were doing while staring out the window, "Thinking

   about how to solve a problem, or deciding what beer

   to pick up on the way home."



   The point being that if we do some good things, publish

   the works on aerolectric.com and then choose not to defend

   or complain about how any of that work is exploited,

   then the process by which we choose to publish is moot.



   Just as ISO didn't help any of us be better engineers,

   the policies and procedures by which we publish our

   own versions of 'open source' won't make us better

   teachers. Maybe we need to coin our own phrase to

   describe the process that doesn't cause folks to run

   to the policies and procedures archives to see what

   motes and gates have been constructed around what we

   do.



   There used to be a rather larger "free university"

   project in Wichita. Staffed by individuals that ran

   the gamut from Phd to skilled practitioner. Their

   goals were simple, "I've got something to share. Come

   sit for awhile and let's talk."



   I think it sufficient to make these projects a simple

   extension of what has been done here on this List for

   over a decade. Help folks understand and broaden their

   horizons.

   Bob . . .

gregmchugh

Joined: 03 Apr 2012
Posts: 42

Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2012 8:04 am Post subject: Re: Open Source software license options

Bob,



I agree completely with what you are saying but I do need to have

some text in the source code I am sending out to indicate that it is

being put into the public domain. I don't know what that text should say

and the most clear guidance I find is that provided in the

Creative Commons CC0 FAQ...



If another version of text is provided for the project I will readily

make the switch...



Anyway, I finished the initial spin on the code and will do some testing on

a breadboard setup before sending it along. Still targeting later this week

to send it out.



Greg McHugh

nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect
Guest

Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2012 10:37 am Post subject: Open Source software license options

 	  Quote: 	
		  

Anyway, I finished the initial spin on the code and will do some testing on

a breadboard setup before sending it along. Still targeting later this week

to send it out.


	


   Got boards ordered today. Do you have some real PicChips or

   are you running a simulation?



   I'll plan on sending you a stuffed board with a socket for

   the PIC. Also some PicChips. Do you have a handy source for

   12VDC power?

   Bob . . .

gregmchugh

Joined: 03 Apr 2012
Posts: 42

Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2012 2:57 pm Post subject: Re: Open Source software license options

Bob,



I have  some PIC12F683 chips and a bench power supply so all

I need is a stuffed board with the chip socket. Do you have the

capability to flash the micro or should I send along some chips

with the code installed?



Greg McHugh

4201 N Willoway Estates Ct.

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302

nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect
Guest

Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2012 9:08 pm Post subject: Open Source software license options

At 05:57 PM 4/24/2012, you wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  



Bob,



I have  some PIC12F683 chips and a bench power supply so all

I need is a stuffed board with the chip socket. Do you have the

capability to flash the micro or should I send along some chips

with the code installed?


	


   My programmer is in Wichita. I can wait until

   you're satisfied with the program then you can

   send me a couple of chips. The mini-board order

   yields 6 proof of concept boards. I'll stuff

   an couple of extra wig-wag boards.



   As soon as we're both happy with the performance,

   I'll set up a DIY page that will include the projects

   already on the website along with our latest efforts.



   Then we can see how many List members want to

   bake their own cake . . . or would like to have

   one baked for them.

   Bob . . .

dlj04(at)josephson.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 11:16 am Post subject: Open Source software license options

There is an interesting discussion of why not "public domain" (which 

apparently doesn't even really exist -- anything you publish is 

automatically copyright no matter what, in most countries.) See 

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/219742/open-source-why-not-release-into-public-domain



You might want to consider the Creative Commons zero (CC0) license which 

gives good notice of your intentions: 

http://creativecommons.org/choose/zero/



You can't keep the lawyers out, but you can give notice that their 

services are not needed.

FisherPaulA(at)johndeere.
Guest

Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 2:39 pm Post subject: Open Source software license options

Sorry, I've been distracted for the past few weeks and didn't see this thread.  I'm very interested in the "baking my own cake" version.  I'd like to go as far as to take Greg's source code and tweak it just to see if I can make other interesting things happen.  So I'm hoping the DIY page includes exactly what all of the "ingredients" are for the cake.



I have no immediate need for a wig-wag, but this looks like a great way to get some education at a relatively low cost. I haven't seen anyone else jump on the "me too" bandwagon, but I wanted show support for what you guys are doing.



Paul A. Fisher

Q-200 N17PF

RV-7A N18PF

--

nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect
Guest

Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 7:44 am Post subject: Open Source software license options

At 05:31 PM 4/26/2012, you wrote:


<FisherPaulA(at)johndeere.com>



Sorry, I've been distracted for the past few weeks and didn't see 

this thread.  I'm very interested in the "baking my own cake" 

version.  I'd like to go as far as to take Greg's source code and 

tweak it just to see if I can make other interesting things 

happen.  So I'm hoping the DIY page includes exactly what all of the 

"ingredients" are for the cake.



   That's the mission . . . at least as we understand it today.

   The latest iteration of hardware has been published at:



http://tinyurl.com/6w9vndk



   By re-configuring position of resistors marked Flag-1

   on the board, two inputs to the uC can be either voltmeter

   inputs at about 22 volts full scale or discrete active

   pull-down inputs. The fets can be populated with any

   size SO-8 device. The absolute max current rating to

   be determined during thermal experiments the proof of

   concept boards which are on order.



I have no immediate need for a wig-wag, but this looks like a great 

way to get some education at a relatively low cost. I haven't seen 

anyone else jump on the "me too" bandwagon, but I wanted show support 

for what you guys are doing.



   Perhaps that group will grow. I have several ideas

   for utilization of the hardware package being explored.

   Those will wait until first fruits for the wig-wag

   project can be harvested.



   Anything you care to add to the mix is encouraged and

   welcome.

   Bob . . .

gregmchugh

Joined: 03 Apr 2012
Posts: 42

Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 9:03 am Post subject: Re: Open Source software license options

Paul,



Good to see people getting interested in development for this

project. I will be posting the initial C source code for the

wig-wag version of the module today. This is the version that

I will be using to do the hardware integration test when I get

a board from Bob. It has all of the functionality needed

for the wig-wag module but has only had minimal testing

on a breadboard setup to verify the code. I will be doing

some more testing on the breadboard and then on the

initial board from Bob before I would declare it ready

for prime time. Not expecting any major issues but it is

my first time using the PIC micro so there might be

something I missed in my several passes through the

datasheet document.



Greg McHugh

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> AeroElectric-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum