license

[yggi]

we should decide on a license...

[elf-pavlik]

how about keeping it simple? http://unlicense.org/ :)

[elf-pavlik]

issue worth mentioning all current contributors! @chron0 @alice-wl @nilclass

[chron0]

I really don't care about attribution. If we would have to attribute all the people who spent years working on the open source stack that made it even possible for us to build upon, we would have a really long list. However, I registered a very steep rise in requests from military sites - 5 from Pentagon and 8 from Andrews AirForceBase (Washington) today alone - I really would like to have something that explicitly denies use for military purposes. Obviously, waging war is mostly about logistics and having more oversight to lessen the problems arising from the "fog of war", military planners have the same reasons to want something like DSpace as we do for ourselves. Therefore, I would really like to have something that excludes military usage in the license we grant. Sure they can rip it off, or use one of the military industrial complex players as a proxy to rip it off, but still...

[elf-pavlik]

@chron0 by mention i ment @mention here on github so people can notice this discussion and take their position.

when i comes to looking for restrictive licence -1 especially in cases you describe i don't think it would come of practical use ;) still +1 for having statement of 'our will' + digital signatures with request to use it in non harmful ways!!! still not backed by some law enforcing bureaucratic threats from our side ;D

[yggi]

I second UNLICENCE.

I assume that we all want DSpace to be free software.

I like the idea behind a 'non-commerical' clause, but if one e.g. modifies DSpace to organize a hacker camp, where every attendee gets an account, is that 'non-commercial'? Do we want to create the slightest doubt there?

I like the idea behind a 'share-alike' clause, but the various copyleft licenses have subtle incompatabilities, and we would have to figure out which ones are even compatible with what we pull upstream. javascript libs, osm data, etc.

I like the idea behind a 'by-attribution' clause, not for vanity, but as an aspect of documentation, to keep a reference to brains with knowledge about the code. But I think this is something that is solved by common sense and decency and does not have to be enforced in a license.

And for all of these clauses, we would have to be willing and able to actually enforce them if anyone violates them. I don't really see that happening. And I think military and other unethical use can not effectively be prevented with a license anyway.

My suggestions would have been CC0 or ICS-license, but I think they are functionally equivalent to UNLICENSE, and I prefer the explicit message of that one.

[alice-wl]

I would like to use gplv3+ and could take over the issue. I dont think gpl is more complicated than unlicense and it doesnt take any freedom from us or anybody else. When somebody wants to publish it with another licence he can ask us or somebody can sue him to opensource the code.

a File header could look like this:

   /**                        
    * DSpace client           
    *                         
    * @license    GPL 3 (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html)                                      
    * @author     alice@notomorrow.de
    * @author     ...
    *                         
    * usage notes ...         
    */

[nilclass]

I would suggest using AGPL instead of GPL. For the client it isn't really relevant, but for the hub it is. That way both can use the same license (and share code w/o changing the header).

[alice-wl]

Irrelevant because code can be shared between AGPL and GPL without change.
Good point though. I also think hub software should use agpl.

Technicaly the client runs over network already and could for example be embedded into a cms to show collections. While the GPL only affects shipping of that cms, the Affero licence requires the source code for the cms to be available and linked if the cms can be used in public.
As long as this usecase is not our intention i would leave the license open in that regard and use GPLv3+

For services handling remote authentification and index services I think requireing opensource is important and
would add AGPLv3. Thaugh it gives only very limited protection as there is no way to tell what the server actualy does.

[elf-pavlik]

@alice-wl AGPLv3 sounds ok for me, would you like to take care of closing this issue?
@yggi @chron0 AGPLv3 ok for you?

[alice-wl]

🎱

[elf-pavlik]

@alice-wl @nilclass I could add Unlicense myself, still if you prefer AGPLv3 could you please take care of all the related bureaucracy? @chron0 @yggi

let's also add custom notes on Intention and will of authors :)

[elf-pavlik]

@gutschi do you have any opinion on licensing?

I suggested Unlicense but we also consider AGPLv3

If you would use it for needs of: http://greendrive.at/en how would you see contributing upstream?
How about in-kind support as i suggest in http://hackers4peace.net/manifesto/#7 we will travel more to hack on it and help with arranging ride-shares would come useful until we all can go #selfUnHosted ;)

[elf-pavlik]

@alice-wl @yggi @chron0 @nilclass @ggrin let's write all together https://apollo.open-resource.org/pad/dspace-intention-and-will-of-authors

@dan-elevate please also join us as contributor :) please also read history ^
@bendiken could you please fix HTTPS version of https://unlicense.org and once we write some text in the pad i would happily hear your feedback!

i hope we can not get into #DependencyHell by using license suggesting us calling 'so called' #LawEnforcement for help 😆

[ggrin]

I don't care about the licence as long as it stays free.

I don't belive a license will stop military usage of software, and I assume that it wouldn't be very expensive, compared to weapon prices, to reengineer everything we do.