License to [long, complicated details that would take a team of lawyers to misunderstand correctly]
Aren't legal things confusing? I've spent the last couple of days trying to decide which open source license to release my parser framework library under.
Back in 1998, I bought Microsoft Windows 98. When I got it home, I opened up the box, and found an installation boot disk inside. It was inside it's own, little envelope, with stuff printed on it. That stuff claimed, quite ridiculously, that by opening that envelope, I would be agreeing to Microsoft's EULA.
Supposedly, the way these sorts of things work is that one can only copy copyright software with the permission of the copyright holders, no matter what form that copying takes. That copying can be things as simple as just running the software, 'cause it gets copied into the computer's memory. Installation is another form of copying, so that, too, supposedly requires the permission of the copyright holders.
The copyright holders have the right to decide who can and cannot copy their copyright material. That means that they get to decide under what conditions they'll give that permission, and what kinds of copying they will permit. That means they can attach all sorts of conditions, such as having to become Bill Gates' personal toilet cleaner (there was a Dilbert cartoon (I think) with something like that in it). And, as it's their right to decide on such things, they don't need any prior agreement from you, or anything like that. (They can't impose things on you, as you can always decide not to do any copying.) And so, the licenses accompanying copyright material can be entirely unilateral. When it comes to copying, anyway.
But there's always the reasonable use thing, and the issue of making private copies for one's own, personal, private use. Copyright has limits.
Buy a piece of software, and you expect to be able to actually use it. Any copying that occurs as a result of just using it, and just installing it, of course, must surely come under reasonable use. It must surely be copying that is implicitly permitted, the permission to do so being implied by the copyright holders' decision to actually sell it to you (directly or indirectly) in the first place!
So, on those reasonable, surely legitimate grounds, I do not accept things such as end user license agreements for purchased software as legitimate, as permission to use, and therefore copy for the purposes of normal use, has already implicitly been given. (But such licenses are, of course, legitimate when it comes to copying that would not be in the normal course of use, copying for which permission has not implicitly been given.)
The EULA which came with Microsoft Windows 98, then, did not automatically apply, and at least one of the claims made on that little envelope with the installation disk in it was incorrect. It was just an attempt, my Microsoft, to automatically retract permission postpurchase, and surely just does not stand up.
Furthermore - and this is where it was really ridiculous - just opening that envelope - the act they claimed would constitute agreement to their EULA - did not actually constitute nor require an act of copying anyway! It was just really silly of them.
Such licensing strategies are really not very wise, anyway. Overdo it, and you (if you're a copyright holder and licensor) run the risk of having your licensing claims overruled by the courts - which is potentially costly! You can end up with a self-tarnished reputation, inspiring the distrust of your own customers, and may possibly even end up having to refund all those people who turn around and say, 'This isn't fair! We want our money back!' And, of course, it just promotes the alternatives - such as open source!
Anyway, I've decided to release my parser framework library as open source because, well:-
copyright is becoming even less enforceable as copying technology, and various kinds of copying, become increasingly more common, normal and routine (not that infringing copyright should necessarily be considered 'normal');
I need to do something to rescue and resucitate my chronically 'real work, real jobs' anaemic CV;
I like open source, and would like others to freely use my software!
But there's a problem: licensing.
Open source licences, such as the GNU General Public License (GPL), can be long and complicated, and include political stuff which doesn't necessarily speak for eveyone (and doesn't really speak for me). They can even have clauses which appear to forbid people from using any software licensed under such licenses if they do something such as seek legal action for alleged patent infringement in just one such licensed piece of software, as appears to be the case with The Open Software License (clause 10).
Open source licenses which require your agreement with those kinds of political beliefs don't really seem entirely consistent with the principles of freedom and openness which open source software is supposedly founded upon. It just seems a bit self-contradictory to me. Some of the conditions that sometimes appear in such licenses seem just as excessive - if not more so - than the sorts of objectionable claims that can be made in or with closed source licenses. I just won't license my software under such licenses.
What I want is a license that's clear, simple, not excessively long or complicated, doesn't make requirements of the user's political beliefs, is reasonable, and which actually works. That's not an easy set of requirements to satisfy!
In copyright law, there's all this stuff about derivative works, aggregate works, translations and transformations, modifications to work, and so on. This is where it can get really quite tricky with things like libraries, as compiled software which uses such libraries could be considered to be derivative works, for example. Use, derivation, modification and copying all sort of overlap, and the edges are difficult to identify (and can depend on exactly how the libraries are used in the source code, and exactly what the compilers actually do, and so on).
So, what I've decided to do is to go for the zlib/libpng License, which seems to sum up what I want very nicely! It's short, concise, appropriate, and, if common sense prevails (which I hope it will), clear and easy to correctly understand.
Agh, software licensing can be such a minefield.