FOSS license

[capiscuas]

Hello, since the license type hasn't been chosen yet, the project can't be included in the F-droid repository.

https://f-droid.org/forums/topic/open-comic-reader-com-sketchpunk-ocomicreader/#post-9437

Please could you decide about it? Thanks for the program.

[sketchpunk]

I have spent a lot of time thinking about how to license the software. I've lean toward GPL v2 but its 600 lines of lawyer speak just makes my head spin. So I've decided to just write my own simple open source license. It's straight to the point and people don't need a law degree to understand it. It's in the license.txt file.

I'm ok with this app keeping its name, modified without unrar and put into the f-droid app store, just put the link back to the project in the description. As long as FDroid doesn't try to sell it to users or put ads IN the application, do what you will.

You can use this comment as confirmation for anyone part of FDroid who needs permission to add OpenComicReader to their catalog of free apps.

[sketchpunk]

As a side note, if they need help I can possible create a branch of the project that does not contain RAR functionality but since most comics are saved as cbr, I dont know how much use it will be for people. I'm actually one of the odd balls that converts any cbr to cbzs simply because zip is available out of the box with most systems. I personally like 7z since its creates smaller files but I'm having problems getting the c++ code compiled on NDK. I'm a noob when it comes to make files.

[capiscuas]

I'm not sure if just an 'approval' to f-droid is enough for their team. I personally think that choosing GPLv2 or GPLv3 doesn't force anybody to read their 600lines, normally people doesn't even read 1 line of the license, and most likely creating your own one makes it probably invalid in current legal terms.

As far as f-droid making money out of your app, they are based on donations and it's a non-profit project so if they make it a money based repository it won't be different from Gapps so what's the point.

Anyway I'll link to them this bug to see their answer though.

[sketchpunk]

I tried to read it myself to see what I'm putting myself into. But what I got out of some of the lawyer speak is that in GPL is that people can just change or include your source and make money of it. Personally, I don't like that. My biggest concerns is someone just renaming the app and selling it on any app store for profit. Since I choose not to make money on this, I request that people don't do the same.

FDroid is an app store and I understand its not cheap to run. They're are free to have the app as long as they dont charge for the app or put ads in it. They're are allowed to make money off the service of putting together a catalog of apps and having a system to browse and download the apps off their servers. I'm cool with that, and I'd actually want my app on their store. The more the merrier.

I'm not a lawyer, and I personally hate all this license/patent bs. But I know enough that as creator I do have some copyright to what I make, and how i give/sell it off to people. So even if I wrote my own license agreement, as the sole copyright owner, I should be ok in court. Honestly, I didn't put all the special lawyer speak that GPL has where it prevent people from suing me if the program messes their things up. So I open myself to crazy people, but since I never sold or guaranteed anything to anyone I shouldn't be liable for things.

Maybe one day someone can explain to me all the FOSS Licenses that exist and break things down how its applied for the average developer to understand. Then I can make a well educated decision.

[dalb8]

I would say that a custom license has legal validity but open source projects won't touch them because they are an unknown quantity. This license prevents people from making malware or money from derivatives so would not be touched by the likes of F-Droid. They would accept a Creative Commons Sharealike licence as long as it isn't non-commercial or no-derivatives.

[sketchpunk]

Looked up Creative Commons Sharealike, http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/. I like how it breaks it down but it allows people to use said project commercially which I'm trying to prevent.

If there is no open source license that exists that prevents commercializing, OR at the very least requiring permission from the creator, then what I wrote is what I'll use.

[capiscuas]

Have you though of using this then? http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/deed.es

[sketchpunk]

Luckily I was able to hack the URL to get the English version (en). I might consider this one after I read it on it.

[dalb8]

That's fair enough, the GPL is hard to digest. Non-commercial licences would probably be acceptable for artwork; just not for software.

However, if you did choose GPL, I don't think there would be a practical difference in the types of letters you'd have to write to Google and Amazon requesting removal of such apps. Since all known Android ad libraries are proprietary it would probably be illegal to distribute a derivative of a GPL app with ads.

[capiscuas]

that's a good point.

[sketchpunk]

reading about on gpl on wikipedia. you can take any gpl software and add non gpl components to it to create something new. this allows drm to be used in open source apps. so the ads lib can be added. besides, gpl allows derivatives to be sold as long as the source of what i made or changes to it is available. that specific creative commons license seems more in tune to how i want the app licensed. im pretty dead against any commercial license.

[capiscuas]

that may be lgpl which is used for some libraries and compilers.

Gplv3 allows no DRM, no patents.

[sketchpunk]

I've kinda decided to use http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ I just haven't gone through the steps of applying it to the project

On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 1:52 PM, Daniel-at-github notifications@github.comwrote:

If your priority is a simple, human readable, open source license, take a look at http://www.tldrlegal.com/license/do-wtf-you-want-to-public-license-v2-%28wtfpl-2.0%29 It may not be very "legally enforceable" (or polite) but is a choice.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/sketchpunk/opencomicreader/issues/18#issuecomment-31963705 .

[arpit]

Is the CC BY-NC 4.0 decided then? If so it would be great to see the license file updated to reflect that. The current license is too irregular for developers to know what they are getting into if they contribute or extend the code.

[sketchpunk]

Yes, CC BY-NC 4.0. I just need to find something I can copy-paste into the license file then try to find a blurb that I can throw at the beginning of all the files to make it all official. Besides, the current "license" may be irregular, but its the same thing just without all the legalese. Any developer gets the idea of what they're getting into, its a non-profit project, period.

[irtigor]

Just to let you know, neither your license or CC BY-NC 4.0 are FLOSS licenses[1][2][3].

If you really want to use the term "open source" or "free software" it would be better to license your code under a OSI approved license/fsf approved license. If you really want to avoid commercial usage, it would be better to adopt the "shared source" label instead of open/free.

[1] http://opensource.org/docs/osd [2] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#CC-BY-NC [3] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

[comradekingu]

The term open source applies, as the development is done openly, but not the term free software, as neither of the licenses grant the required software freedoms.

The later use of the term open source was employed explicitly to favour commercialization over the ethics of those freedoms.

I would imagine this type of commercialization, for the same type of software, is what the author intended to avoid.

The OSI and FSF now differ a little bit in what licenses they condone. However unvetted the custom license is, it would not qualify for OSI-open source.

Read about strong copyleft, that ensures the code remains as provided.

[brainchild0]

After reading this discussion, begun quite some time ago, and still not finding a LICENSE file in the repository main branch, I too would wish to encourage the author @sketchpunk to adopt one of the common licenses for open-source software.

While the lawyerly language in the license texts may be unappealing and intimidating, its effect is to give protection to creators of both the original and any derived works, by clarifying the rights and responsibilities of every party, and thus preventing any eventuality in which some party declines to contribute for fear of penalty, or suffers from acts taken under good faith. The technical and peculiar language is intended not to set a trap, but to contend with the overwhelming complexity of legal processes which ultimately concern everyone.

Statements prepared by the laity without legal training are unfortunately less likely to have the intended effect. Responsible organizations that promote open-source development and distribution have earned credibility in how they represent licenses to the public, and creators and contributors may benefit from the legal work that is generally outside their skill.

The difficulty of writing effective licenses is the very reason that organizations provide texts that creators of works can adopt directly into their projects, without bearing the burden of cynical sentiments.