Important

I think it's important to point out that the discussion here is about researching possible alternatives, not really voting on them (as is somewhat suggested by the Votes slots below.) Specifically, the intellectual property in FlexWiki is owned by the people who write it. Any move to a new license would be 99% a decision by those people, not the community as a whole. The possibility of moving the FlexWiki sources to SourceForge is about more robust source control (and some secondary features). The whole question of changing licenses only arises because it's a bunch of work to get them to support some "open" they haven't previously approved. We must not allow the desire for better source control to drag us into a discussion about licesing philosophies. -- DavidOrnstein

Goal

Software licenses generally specify four things:

1. Things you may do with the software
2. Things you may not do with the software
3. Things you must do with the software
4. Other stuff

I believe our search for a suitable open source license (from the list here , which are the licenses that SourceForge accepts) is the search for a license that is as close in these aspects to the FlexWikiLicense as possible. To whit, here are some comparisons of the various options. Commentary is both welcome and greatly desired.

This list is not meant to be exhaustive. The page was seeded with the five most common open source licenses (MIT, BSD, GPL, LGPL, and Mozilla) but there are literally dozens of others. Feel free to contribute information about your favorite one.

Disclaimer

This page was authored by a group of software developers, not a group of authors. The analysis is correct to the extent that we are able to make it so.

FlexWiki

The FlexWikiLicense specifies the following things:

• You may use the software for commercial or noncommercial use
• You may create derivative works and distribute them
• You must redistribute a copy of the license when redistributing the software
• You must preserve the copyright notice in the software

Additionally, the FlexWikiLicense has some language that:

• Limits the liability of any contributor
• Specifies that there is no warranty whatsoever
• Says some things about patent and export rights that I don't understand (help anyone?)

The FlexWikiLicense does not say anything about your ability to charge others for distribution or use of the software.

The IBM License

The IBM license (available here ) is also a pretty good candidate. It is good, in my mind, because it effectively blends the things needed to enable non-commercial and commercial work on software:

• It's clear about patents.
• It's got a clear binding of contributors to a sensible set of obligations.
• It clarifies an approach to copyright notices for many people
• It's clear about representations and warranties as well as indemnifiction

Thoughts:

• Obviously the name "IBM would have to change, but that's a simple search and replace. I'm quite tempted by that one. What do other folks who have contributed to FlexWiki think? -- DavidOrnstein

Contributor Comments

• I have no problem with the IBM license - it looks pretty open. I have to admit I don't understand the patent issues - can you explain further what the IBM license says that you like? -- CraigAndera
• Does a simple "search and replace" on the name make it a new license in the eyes of places like Sourceforge? Of course, this is a matter for the primary developers, but choosing a well-known license (eg BSD) could be a PR-gain. -- JamesBerry
• I specifically asked the SourceForge staff this question, and they responded that if all we change is the names, the license is equivalent in their eyes. -- CraigAndera
• Even though I'm not a contributor yet, here are my suggestions. Did you have a look at Open Software License v. 2.0 and Common Public License Version 1.0 ? -- EricChartre

The MIT License

The MIT license (available here ) is one of the simplest licenses. It specifies the following things:

• You must preserve the copyright notice in the software
• You must redistribute a copy of the license when redistributing the software
• You may do just about anything else with the software

Additionally, the MIT license specifies that there is no warranty whatsoever.

The Short Version

"Do what you will, but don't blame me."

Comparison to the FlexWikiLicense

• The MIT license doesn't talk about patent or export rights

Contributor Comments

I prefer this one - it's the simplest. -- CraigAndera

The BSD License

The BSD License (available here ) is a derivative of the MIT license. It is basically identical to the MIT license with the following additional constraint:

• You may not use the name of the produce (FlexWiki) or the names of the contributors to endorse or promote derivative works.

The Short Version

"Do what you will, but don't blame me. Also, do not try to use our name to make your crappy knock-off look legitimate."

Comparison to the FlexWikiLicense

• Pretty much the same as for the MIT license

Contributor Comments

• It seems to me that if there was a choice between the MIT & BSD license, the BSD one would be preferable: the "don't use our name to make your crappy knock-off look legitimate" clause seems worthwhile, protecting the contributors from immitators. Although I haven't contributed yet, I plan to - so just for the record the MIT & BSD licenses look nicest to me. -- JamesBerry
• BSD would be completely acceptable to me, too. -- CraigAndera

GNU General Public License (GPL)

The GPL (available here ) is a rather more complicated license aimed at making sure that the software cannot be made non-free, using free in the sense of "free speech" not "free beer". It specifies the following things:

• You may run the software without restriction - the license only applies to copying, distribution and modification.
• If you modify the files, you must do the following:
• Include a prominent notice in the files that you have done so
• Distribute the modified work under the GPL
• If you distribute the program in executable form you must also distribute the source code, or make it available directly from you
• You must allow those to whom you distribute the program to further distribute it - you may not limit their rights

Additionally, the GPL says the following things:

• There is some allowance for export restrictions
• Using parts of the program in another free program which is not itself GPL is permissable with the copyright holder's written permission
• The definition of "derivative work" is fairly broad, and could include, for example, a program written to use the FwSync synchronization library, if FwSync was re-written as a DLL.

The Short Version

"Everyone who distributes or modifies this software must pass along all the rights that they have."

Comparison to the FlexWikiLicense

The GPL is pretty different from the FlexWikiLicense. Specifically, it would be difficult for someone to use GPL software as part of a commercial endeavor, as it would require them to open-source all of their modifications to the FlexWiki code. I think this probably eliminates it from the running.

Contributor Comments

• I don't like the GPL because
• It scares people away from contributing
• It makes it very hard to use pieces of the work in commercial efforts, something that has frustrated me with other projects I've worked on
• -- CraigAndera

Lesser GPL

The LGPL (available here ) is intended to apply to libraries - code that is intended to plug into other code. It specifically addresses the problem that the GPL has of "expanding" to include code that just calls GPL-licensed libraries, since the GPL's definition of "derivative work" includes code that simply links with GPL code. As FlexWiki is not really a library, I don't think the LGPL is really a candidate. It is included here for completeness.

LGPL is not limited to libraries. It is similar to the Mozilla license in encouraging users to contribute to the project while still being suitable for use in closed source commercial software.

Contributor Comments

• I don't think this one makes any sense for FlexWiki. -- CraigAndera

Mozilla Public License

The MPL (available here ), like the GPL, is a more intricate license than MIT or BSD. It specifies the following things:

• You may distribute, modify, use, or sublicense the work
• You must include a copy of the license when distributing the work
• You must make source code available if you make a modified binary version available
• You must include a statment in any modified files that you modified them, and how
• You must indicate where source code is available if you distribute the work in binary form
• You may combine the work with other code as long as the part you took continues to be covered by the MPL

Additionally, the MPL:

• Makes some statements related to patents that I don't understand
• Specifies that the code comes with absolutely no warranty
• Limits the liability of contributors
• Makes some statements about governemnt use that I don't understand

The Short Version

I'm not sure I know how to sum this one up easily.

Comparison to the FlexWikiLicense

• The MPL seems to allow inclusion in commercial products
• The MPL seems to specify additional restrictions around requiring modifiers to make modifications available when compiled forms of that modification are distributed.
• The MPL doesn't seem to say anything about export restrictions

Contributor Comments

(Enter your comments here)