several simultaneous licencing options

[otitov]

could you consider to add possibility to offer 2 licencing options for projects published here?

i would like to offer code under GPL (or another) and my custom licence (for example, see how "gloox" from camaya.net manages this).

thanks!

[russf]

Just jumping on this topic, while it's raised....

Does XMOS have a preferred license to be used for XCORE? I think it would be useful to provide some guidance to project owners when choosing a licence. For instance, there may be a tendency to blindly choose the GPL, but that is problematic for many commercial uses. For my projects, I will try to use the 2 or 3 paragraph BSD license, because that is explicitly friendly for use in commercial projects.

In some cases, choosing a GPL license will make the project unusable for exactly the kind of people (I think) you want to attract to this site. (Why? Because using the component would force them to open a lot of code that they may not want to publish.)

The choice always is in the hands of the project owner, but it's a compromise. The GPL is very fair and open, but if choosing it means that the project will attract less collaboration, it may actually be better for the community to choose the more commercially-friendly BSD, which allows contribution and use of the project as a component in a project, without forcing the rest of the project to be opened.

I'm sure there will be other perspectives on this important topic, and I'm interested to hear them.

--r.

[Folknology]

I think license choice is very important, as is understanding any obligations that means up stream.

Folks could also have issues with BSD expecting to get the copyleft benefits, or even not having commercial usage without supporting an upstream opensource model. Some could in fact feel exploited by such unexpected (and potentially unrewarded) commercial usage.

As asked by russf - how can code published here and be added to XMOS code libraries, what licenses are compatible are there any guidelines etc..

I like GPL very much, I like the unity and common purpose it brings, I'm less interested in commercializing code. I prefer to see code very much as a commons, that is often where the greatest combined value resides.

But this all needs much more discussion as everybody is effected..

[The_RB]

Hi, I'm new here so please forgive me if this is not exactly on the licensing topic.

But I think open-source code is very important in the early days of a new architecture microcontroller. Simple routines and procedures as open source "building blocks" will help new users quickly get to grips with a complex new micro and I think that would benefit everybody if it produces a rapidly expanding user base.

[Heater]

Yes, open source is very important, especially for a device like an XMOS where there are no hardware peripherals on board. You are supposed to make them in software after all.

Normally I'd be keen on seeing lots of code for the XMOS available under the GPL or LGPL.

However looking at it from the point of view of XMOS something like the MIT license makes more sense. In order to encourage sales of chips all those software UARTs, SPI, I2C, SD card, SRAM, VGA etc etc interfaces need to be available easily for commercial customers. Most of those won't want to release their application code as required by the GPL.

So for anyone out there who wants XMOS to thrive and prosper you should consider an MIT type licence for all your contributed widgets.

That is an altruism born out of self interest. If you invest time into creating some XMOS widget and want to open source it you may also want to help ensure the longevity of the XMOS architecture and XC by allowing commercial operators to leech it here and there.

[Heater]

By the way. I feel that we should resist the temptation to create our own custom licenses for software posted to forums and organizations like this, There is enough license confusion in the world already.
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical

[TonyD]

I found these wise words whilst reading a similar thread on another products forum:

Build a community of users around your product. Give away all kinds of information. Provide free software and free designs .... Makes every one feel good and accelerates take up of your product by making it easier for people.

Looking through the various projects I'm involved with I find MIT and Creative Commons Share Alike are the licences I use most.

[Folknology]

Its looking more and more like BSD is the way to go, particularly with the following interests in mind :

1) Commercial benefit use of the code, GPL could alienate some supplies as mentioned
2) Integrating back into the XMOS libraries etc.. which would also nee a BSD licence
3) Fulfilling an opensource ethos and attracting OS developers to XCore/XMOS as well as contributing back to the opensource community itself.

Thus unless anyone else can think of a better way, we should aim to get agreement on BSD as standard opensource licence here at XCore

It would also need to explain clearly under license choice (via a popup maybe) that there are likely to be commercial use of the code upstream and by choosing this license you are happy for that to occur, as well as opensource and non-commercial usage.

Thoughts?

[Omer]

Beerware is the way forward folks, it's nice and simple :D

On a more serious note, I agree with Al. As much as I like GPL, BSD seems to be a better choice for the software libraries as commercial use is less restricted...

[AtomSoft]

heh now that's a license i can agree with :D