Transfer ezRPG 2.0 source-code to BSD 3-clause license

[ferdis]

Proposed license:

Copyright (c) 2013, ezRPG Project
All rights reserved.

Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
    * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
      notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
    * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
      notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
      documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
    * Neither the name of the ezRPG Project nor the
      names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products
      derived from this software without specific prior written permission.

THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS" AND
ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE
DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL EZRPG PROJECT BE LIABLE FOR ANY
DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES
(INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES;
LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND
ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT
(INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS
SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

[ferdis]

+1 from me, just to be formal.

[JakeBooher]

+1

[devohn]

So what's the difference?

[ferdis]

The specifics are more than I can reach through a simple comment, but in summary: The code-base currently holds no license, meaning that copyright on the code is granted on a per-author basis. This can be bad for everyone, and even worse for developers wanting to expand upon the engine as they'll need to get permission from every developer who has even worked on the code-base to use, extend or modify it.

The reason for BSD 3-clause coming into play is much more about who we(I) think our intended audience is going to be - developers. The BSD license overall is trusted and well-known, but one more specific reason I aim for this license is people/companies using ezRPG 2.0 in a commercial environment. It's one of the less restrictive licenses out there.

Furthermore, to come to a conclusion I'll summarize the main points highlighted within the 3-clause license:

1. All redistributions, whether modified or not, needs to indicate our license.
2. The above applies to binary/compiled distributions as well. This may or may not apply to us, depending on the user. If someone were to compile our code into C++ using something like Hippo(Facebook's translator) and compile it, the license has to be noted.
3. Neither our names, or the organization's name(ezRPG Project) may be used to endorse or promote anybody's own application's thereof without prior - and explicit - written

[devohn]

I disagree. We already have another license on the 1.x. project. It would be inconsistent having two different licenses on the same project but on a different version level.

-1.

[ferdis]

I'm going to be hard-headed about this, since it's a very important matter for the continuation and eventually public release of ezRPG 2.0, as well as third-party developers.

As I've stated before, I dislike the GPL - it does not conform to my moral ethics.

uaktags will be the last voter, and his vote will go towards the constitution of the license. Since this a relicensing of IP, it's to mralex's own discretion whether he wants to transfer the ownership of things he contributed towards ezRPG 2.0.

[uaktags]

I'm afraid I'm going to have to go with +1 as well. Though I do take mralex point into account I just don't feel like this argument is a strong enough counter.

[ferdis]

Voting closed with +3 / -1. Passed, ezRPG 2.0 will ship with a BSD 3-clause license.

mralex, I need to stress that this is an entirely different project, not a version/feature update.