sorry for the spam - just checking on the list operation - please delete -- -- Karim R. Lakhani MIT Sloan | The Boston Consulting Group Mobile: +1 (617) 851-1224 http://spoudaiospaizen.net http://web.mit.edu/lakhani/www | http://opensource.mit.edu
High folks,
I need some advice on how to keep a bit of software free. I am a
sociologist and have co-authored a methods book (on qualitative content
analysis). As most of these methods, it is computer-supported. Since
commercial software in this sector is expensive (and not suitable for our
purposes anyway) I have written some Macros in VisualBasic, which are
included in Word files and templates. Its all ugly programming, ugly
software etc. (a sociologist! writing in VBA! argh!), but it seems to do
the trick. My questions are:
1) Am I allowed to put the files with the macros on the book publisher's
website for free download, or can Microsoft object?
2) Do I need to / can I put some Copyleft (or whatever) on it to keep it
free, or can it stay there 'forever free' without a license?
Thanks
Jochen
sorry for the spam - just checking on the list operation - please delete -- -- Karim R. Lakhani MIT Sloan | The Boston Consulting Group Mobile: +1 (617) 851-1224 http://spoudaiospaizen.net http://web.mit.edu/lakhani/www | http://opensource.mit.edu
sorry for the spam - just checking on the list operation - please delete -- -- Karim R. Lakhani MIT Sloan | The Boston Consulting Group Mobile: +1 (617) 851-1224 http://spoudaiospaizen.net http://web.mit.edu/lakhani/www | http://opensource.mit.edu
*** I am Karim Lakhani and I APPROVE of this Message***** Hello All, Well its democracy day today in the USA. I am encouraging all my American friends to go out and vote. Meanwhile I have caught up with all the submissions to our website over the last month. First, thanks to the valiant efforts of Chris Kelty and Biella Coleman, the Anthropological Quarterly has agreed to release their Social Thought and Commentary on Culture's Open Source (Vol 77, No 3)under a Creative Commons License - and we have of course posted the contents on our website. We also received eight new working papers, one PhD thesis and one masters thesis. They are all below! Enjoy! Many thanks to all the members of our community to making this website so vibrant. We now have 192 papers list. Best Karim ******************************************** Papers from Anthropological Quarterly (Vol 77, No 3) - Social Thought and Commentary: Culture's Open Source http://opensource.mit.edu/papers/aq_cultures_opensources.pdf Editor: Christopher M. Kelty Listing of papers: Christopher M. Kelty | Culture's Open Sources: Software, Copyright, and Cultural Critique Gabriella Coleman | The Political Agnosticism of Free and Open Source Software and the Inadvertent Politics of Contrast Alex Golub | Copyright and Taboo Anita Chan | Coding Free Software, Coding Free States: Free Software Legislation and the Politics of Code in Peru Christopher M. Kelty | Punt To Culture Rosemary J. Coombe & Andrew Herman | Rhetorical Virtues: Property, Speech, and the Commons on the World-Wide Web Glenn Otis Brown | Commentary **************** *Working Papers* **************** Paper 1 Authors: Dalle, Jean-Michel & Paul A. David Title SimCode: Agent-based Simulation Modelling of Open-Source Software Development http://opensource.mit.edu/papers/dalledavid2.pdf Abstract: We present an original modeling tool, which can be used to study the mechanisms by which free/libre and open source software developers' code-writing efforts are allocated within open source projects. It is first described analytically in a discrete choice framework, and then simulated using agent-based experiments. Contributions are added sequentially to either existing modules, or to create new modules out of existing ones: as a consequence, the global emerging architecture forms a hierarchical tree. Choices among modules reflect expectations of peer-regard, i.e. developers are more attracted a) to generic modules, b) to launching new ones, and c) to contributing their work to currently active development sites in the project. In this context, we are able - particularly by allowing for the attractiveness of "hot spots"-- to replicate the high degree of concentration (measured by Gini coefficients) in the distributions of modules sizes. The laatter have been found by empiric al studies to be a characteristic typical of the code of large projects, such as the Linux kernel. Introducing further a simple social utility function for evaluating the mophology of "software trees," it turns out that the hypothesized developers' incentive structure that generates high Gini coefficients is not particularly conducive to producing self-organized software code that yields high utility to end-users who want a large and diverse range of applications. Allowing for a simple governance mechanism by the introduction of maintenance rules reveals that "early release" rules can have a positive effect on the social utility rating of the resulting software trees. =================== Paper 2 Authors: Bitzer,Jurgen, Wolfram Schrettl & Philipp J.H. Schroder Title: Intrinsic Motivation in Open Source Software Development http://opensource.mit.edu/papers/bitzerschrettlschroder.pdf Abstract: This papers sheds light on the puzzling evidence that even though open source software (OSS) is a public good, it is developed for free by highly qualified, young and motivated individuals, and evolves at a rapid pace. We show that once OSS development is understood as the private provision of a public good, these features emerge quite naturally. We adapt a dynamic private-provision-of-public-goods model to reflect key aspects of the OSS phenomenon. In particular, instead of relying on extrinsic motives for programmers (e.g. signaling) the present model is driven by intrinsic motives of OSS programmers, such as user-programmers, play value or homo ludens payoff, and gift culture benefits. Such intrinsic motives feature extensively in the wider OSS literature and contribute new insights to the economic analysis. =================== Paper 3 Authors: MacCormack,Alan, John Rusnak & Carliss Baldwin Title: Exploring the Structure of Complex Software Designs: An Empirical Study of Open Source and Proprietary Code http://opensource.mit.edu/papers/maccormackrusnakbaldwin.pdf Abstract: This paper reports data from a research project which seeks to characterize the differences in design structure between complex software products. In particular, we adopt a technique based upon Design Structure Matrices (DSMs) to map the dependencies between different elements of a design then develop metrics that allow us to compare the structures of these different DSMs. We demonstrate the power of this approach in two ways: First, we compare the design structures of two complex software products the Linux operating system and the Mozilla web browser that were developed via contrasting modes of organization: specifically, open source versus proprietary development. We find significant differences in their designs, consistent with an interpretation that Linux possesses a more modular architecture. We then track the evolution of Mozilla, paying particular attention to a major re-design effort that took place several months after its release as an open source product. We show that this effort resulted in a design structure that was significantly more modular than its predecessor,and indeed, more modular than that of a comparable version of Linux. ==================== Paper 4 Authors: Giuri, Paola, Matteo Ploner, Francesco Rullani & Salvatore Torrisi Title: Skills and Openness of OSS Projects: implications for performance http://opensource.mit.edu/papers/giuri_etal.pdf Abstract: This paper is about open source software projects, activity and the characteristics of different categories of contributors. Our empirical analysis draws on a very large sample of OSS projects registered at the Sourceforge website. For each project we have access to information about individual contributors such as skills, roles, and tasks assigned. Key variables at the project level are the number of project members or internal contributors (i.e., people who have subscribed to the project),the number of external contributors (project openness), the overall skill combination of contributors, the number of different intended audiences (e.g., developers and end users), and various measures of activity (e.g., number of file releases, bugs and patches closed over time). We conduct a multinomial logit analysis to see whether skills? level, experience and variety of project members predict their role played in the project (e.g., developer or project manager). We then carry out an econometric analysis to estimate the contribution of skills and openness to projects' survival and activity. ===================== Paper 5 Authors: Coleman, Biella & Benjamin Mako Hill Title: How Free Become Open and Everything Else Under the Sun http://opensource.mit.edu/papers/colemanhill.pdf Abstract: Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) has been adopted as a political tool by leftist activists. At the same time, it has been embraced by large corporations to extend profits and has been criticized as an integral force in late capitalism. It has been adopted by members of the growing Commons movement as a model for limiting the power of capitalism. This essay attempts to confront the variability of these relationships through a cursory analysis of each field and through an look at FOSS philosophy and practice. It argues that Free Software exists as a politically agnostic field of practice--built on and through a broadly defined philosophy. It analyzes the way that this philosophy is well suited for the spread of FOSS technologies and its translation into the terms of radically different, even oppositional, social and political movements. ====================== Paper 6 Henkel, Joachim Title: Patterns of Free Revealing – Balancing Code Sharing and Protection in Commercial Open Source Development http://opensource.mit.edu/papers/henkel2.pdf Abstract: Commercial firms increasingly contribute to the development of open source software (OSS). However, a conflict often arises between the requirements of the General Public License to make "derived work" available, and firms’ interest to protect their intellectual property embodied in the code. If there are ways to mitigate or solve this conflict, the conditions under which OSS will be an appealing solution to firms become much more general. This paper is the first to provide a quantitative empirical study of this conflict and the ways firms deal with it. I present a study of embedded Linux, based on an online-survey that yielded 268 valid responses. It turns out that firms routinely use various means to protect their developments, while keeping the GPL. Still, they do reveal a considerable share of their code— on average, 49%. Heterogeneity between firms is analyzed using multivariate analysis. I show how the relative importance of various benefits and downsides of revealing determines a firm’s pattern of revealing. An analysis of reported reasons for revealing and of the type of code that is revealed provides further insights into these patterns. Putting the different dimensions of revealing behavior together, I find that consistent patterns of revealing can be identified for different types of firms. ====================== Paper 7 Authors: O'Mahony,Siobhan & Fabrizio Ferraro Title: Hacking Alone? The Effects of Online and Offline Participation on Open Source Community Leadership http://opensource.mit.edu/papers/omahonyferraro2.pdf Abstract: Research on computer mediated communication has examined how a lack of social presence affects participation, communication and leadership in online groups, but until recently, has not examined offline relations or emergent social structures. The few studies examining these issues have not been integrated with research on open source communities. Online communities producing open source software face even greater problems of governance than affinity or interest based online communities, as leadership responsibilities extend beyond mailing list management to managing release dates, public relations, and collaborations with firms. With data from one open source community's online and offline networks over three consecutive years, we assess factors affecting voting participation and leadership. We find that the more developers one has met face to face, the more likely one was to vote in a leadership election. Controlling for contributions of code, developers are more likely to hold a top leadership position when they participate more in online discussions. However, online participation in technical discussions did not affect leadership as much as occupying a structurally advantaged position in the community's social network. We conclude with theoretical implications that consider the dynamics of online and offline networks for governing distributed online communities. ======================= Paper 8 Author: Francesca Antonacci Title: Free software development communities as a pedagogic model Link to full paper in italian (PDF): http://www.tttt.it/francesca/dottorato/ Abstract in english: http://opensource.mit.edu/papers/antonacci.pdf Abstract The pedagogic interest arising from the emergence of free software development communities is twofold. Firstly, in their production practices these communities set out formative processes as well as educational ones. These practices characterise these communities and are not accessory, to the point that without them the communities could not survive. Secondly, these communities are interesting as they make up a particularly rich epistemological model for the understanding of formative, educational and didactical themes. Having embraced the hacker culture, these communities promote and create an incentive to the free circulation of knowledge without protectionist barriers. However, freedom of knowledge alone is not enough, both in the educational and productive fields, unless it is introduced in an organisational model promoting the participation and engagement of the individuals. The communities of free software development are a particularly interesting organisational model because their structure, based on co-operation and solidarity and opposing centralisation, promote the participation of programmers and users all over the world. Thanks to this kind of organisation, which owes much to a model of delegating leadership, authoritative but not authoritarian, charismatic but not idealised these communities are putting together a very large number of work groups. These are geographically, methodologically and culturally non-homogeneous groups, which despite all predictions create highly competitive products of high quality. ======================= PhD Thesis Author Lin, Yuwei Title: Hacking Practices and Software Development: A Social Worlds Analysis of ICT Innovation and the Role of Free/Libre Open Source Software http://opensource.mit.edu/papers/lin2.pdf Abstract: Through use of social worlds theory and qualitative research methods, this thesis explores hackers’ practices and their relationships with the computing world and the wider society from a socio-technical perspective. Through engaging with a constellation of open source practices (OSPs), actors and actants communicate, negotiate, and shape each other’s identities, practices and understandings of the innovation structure and system in various aspects. In examining the diverse articulations and performances in which hacker culture and hacker identity are both reflected and constructed, the thesis tries to contextualise and deconstruct the ICT architecture we take for granted, as well as the innovations made possible by this architecture. ======================== MS Thesis Author: Bosco, Gianluca Title: Implicit theories of "good leadership" in the open-source community http://opensource.mit.edu/papers/bosco.pdf The goal of this paper is to uncover the implicit theories (a.k.a. personal believes) of open-source developers concerning the characteristics and behaviors of a "good project leader". Three main behavioral factors are discovered to describe such implicit theories: competence, task orientation and person consideration. The conclusions of this study have been drawn from an analysis conducted on data gathered through 138 respondents. -- -- Karim R. Lakhani MIT Sloan | The Boston Consulting Group Mobile: +1 (617) 851-1224 http://spoudaiospaizen.net http://web.mit.edu/lakhani/www | http://opensource.mit.edu
*** I am Karim Lakhani and I APPROVE of this Message***** Hello All, Well its democracy day today in the USA. I am encouraging all my American friends to go out and vote. Meanwhile I have caught up with all the submissions to our website over the last month. First, thanks to the valiant efforts of Chris Kelty and Biella Coleman, the Anthropological Quarterly has agreed to release their Social Thought and Commentary on Culture's Open Source (Vol 77, No 3)under a Creative Commons License - and we have of course posted the contents on our website. We also received eight new working papers, one PhD thesis and one masters thesis. They are all below! Enjoy! Many thanks to all the members of our community to making this website so vibrant. We now have 192 papers on our website. Best Karim ******************************************** Papers from Anthropological Quarterly (Vol 77, No 3) - Social Thought and Commentary: Culture's Open Source http://opensource.mit.edu/papers/aq_cultures_opensources.pdf Editor: Christopher M. Kelty Listing of papers: Christopher M. Kelty | Culture's Open Sources: Software, Copyright, and Cultural Critique Gabriella Coleman | The Political Agnosticism of Free and Open Source Software and the Inadvertent Politics of Contrast Alex Golub | Copyright and Taboo Anita Chan | Coding Free Software, Coding Free States: Free Software Legislation and the Politics of Code in Peru Christopher M. Kelty | Punt To Culture Rosemary J. Coombe & Andrew Herman | Rhetorical Virtues: Property, Speech, and the Commons on the World-Wide Web Glenn Otis Brown | Commentary **************** *Working Papers* **************** Paper 1 Authors: Dalle, Jean-Michel & Paul A. David Title SimCode: Agent-based Simulation Modelling of Open-Source Software Development http://opensource.mit.edu/papers/dalledavid2.pdf Abstract: We present an original modeling tool, which can be used to study the mechanisms by which free/libre and open source software developers' code-writing efforts are allocated within open source projects. It is first described analytically in a discrete choice framework, and then simulated using agent-based experiments. Contributions are added sequentially to either existing modules, or to create new modules out of existing ones: as a consequence, the global emerging architecture forms a hierarchical tree. Choices among modules reflect expectations of peer-regard, i.e. developers are more attracted a) to generic modules, b) to launching new ones, and c) to contributing their work to currently active development sites in the project. In this context, we are able - particularly by allowing for the attractiveness of "hot spots"-- to replicate the high degree of concentration (measured by Gini coefficients) in the distributions of modules sizes. The laatter have been found by empiric al studies to be a characteristic typical of the code of large projects, such as the Linux kernel. Introducing further a simple social utility function for evaluating the mophology of "software trees," it turns out that the hypothesized developers' incentive structure that generates high Gini coefficients is not particularly conducive to producing self-organized software code that yields high utility to end-users who want a large and diverse range of applications. Allowing for a simple governance mechanism by the introduction of maintenance rules reveals that "early release" rules can have a positive effect on the social utility rating of the resulting software trees. =================== Paper 2 Authors: Bitzer,Jurgen, Wolfram Schrettl & Philipp J.H. Schroder Title: Intrinsic Motivation in Open Source Software Development http://opensource.mit.edu/papers/bitzerschrettlschroder.pdf Abstract: This papers sheds light on the puzzling evidence that even though open source software (OSS) is a public good, it is developed for free by highly qualified, young and motivated individuals, and evolves at a rapid pace. We show that once OSS development is understood as the private provision of a public good, these features emerge quite naturally. We adapt a dynamic private-provision-of-public-goods model to reflect key aspects of the OSS phenomenon. In particular, instead of relying on extrinsic motives for programmers (e.g. signaling) the present model is driven by intrinsic motives of OSS programmers, such as user-programmers, play value or homo ludens payoff, and gift culture benefits. Such intrinsic motives feature extensively in the wider OSS literature and contribute new insights to the economic analysis. =================== Paper 3 Authors: MacCormack,Alan, John Rusnak & Carliss Baldwin Title: Exploring the Structure of Complex Software Designs: An Empirical Study of Open Source and Proprietary Code http://opensource.mit.edu/papers/maccormackrusnakbaldwin.pdf Abstract: This paper reports data from a research project which seeks to characterize the differences in design structure between complex software products. In particular, we adopt a technique based upon Design Structure Matrices (DSMs) to map the dependencies between different elements of a design then develop metrics that allow us to compare the structures of these different DSMs. We demonstrate the power of this approach in two ways: First, we compare the design structures of two complex software products the Linux operating system and the Mozilla web browser that were developed via contrasting modes of organization: specifically, open source versus proprietary development. We find significant differences in their designs, consistent with an interpretation that Linux possesses a more modular architecture. We then track the evolution of Mozilla, paying particular attention to a major re-design effort that took place several months after its release as an open source product. We show that this effort resulted in a design structure that was significantly more modular than its predecessor,and indeed, more modular than that of a comparable version of Linux. ==================== Paper 4 Authors: Giuri, Paola, Matteo Ploner, Francesco Rullani & Salvatore Torrisi Title: Skills and Openness of OSS Projects: implications for performance http://opensource.mit.edu/papers/giuri_etal.pdf Abstract: This paper is about open source software projects, activity and the characteristics of different categories of contributors. Our empirical analysis draws on a very large sample of OSS projects registered at the Sourceforge website. For each project we have access to information about individual contributors such as skills, roles, and tasks assigned. Key variables at the project level are the number of project members or internal contributors (i.e., people who have subscribed to the project),the number of external contributors (project openness), the overall skill combination of contributors, the number of different intended audiences (e.g., developers and end users), and various measures of activity (e.g., number of file releases, bugs and patches closed over time). We conduct a multinomial logit analysis to see whether skills? level, experience and variety of project members predict their role played in the project (e.g., developer or project manager). We then carry out an econometric analysis to estimate the contribution of skills and openness to projects' survival and activity. ===================== Paper 5 Authors: Coleman, Biella & Benjamin Mako Hill Title: How Free Become Open and Everything Else Under the Sun http://opensource.mit.edu/papers/colemanhill.pdf Abstract: Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) has been adopted as a political tool by leftist activists. At the same time, it has been embraced by large corporations to extend profits and has been criticized as an integral force in late capitalism. It has been adopted by members of the growing Commons movement as a model for limiting the power of capitalism. This essay attempts to confront the variability of these relationships through a cursory analysis of each field and through an look at FOSS philosophy and practice. It argues that Free Software exists as a politically agnostic field of practice--built on and through a broadly defined philosophy. It analyzes the way that this philosophy is well suited for the spread of FOSS technologies and its translation into the terms of radically different, even oppositional, social and political movements. ====================== Paper 6 Henkel, Joachim Title: Patterns of Free Revealing – Balancing Code Sharing and Protection in Commercial Open Source Development http://opensource.mit.edu/papers/henkel2.pdf Abstract: Commercial firms increasingly contribute to the development of open source software (OSS). However, a conflict often arises between the requirements of the General Public License to make "derived work" available, and firms’ interest to protect their intellectual property embodied in the code. If there are ways to mitigate or solve this conflict, the conditions under which OSS will be an appealing solution to firms become much more general. This paper is the first to provide a quantitative empirical study of this conflict and the ways firms deal with it. I present a study of embedded Linux, based on an online-survey that yielded 268 valid responses. It turns out that firms routinely use various means to protect their developments, while keeping the GPL. Still, they do reveal a considerable share of their code— on average, 49%. Heterogeneity between firms is analyzed using multivariate analysis. I show how the relative importance of various benefits and downsides of revealing determines a firm’s pattern of revealing. An analysis of reported reasons for revealing and of the type of code that is revealed provides further insights into these patterns. Putting the different dimensions of revealing behavior together, I find that consistent patterns of revealing can be identified for different types of firms. ====================== Paper 7 Authors: O'Mahony,Siobhan & Fabrizio Ferraro Title: Hacking Alone? The Effects of Online and Offline Participation on Open Source Community Leadership http://opensource.mit.edu/papers/omahonyferraro2.pdf Abstract: Research on computer mediated communication has examined how a lack of social presence affects participation, communication and leadership in online groups, but until recently, has not examined offline relations or emergent social structures. The few studies examining these issues have not been integrated with research on open source communities. Online communities producing open source software face even greater problems of governance than affinity or interest based online communities, as leadership responsibilities extend beyond mailing list management to managing release dates, public relations, and collaborations with firms. With data from one open source community's online and offline networks over three consecutive years, we assess factors affecting voting participation and leadership. We find that the more developers one has met face to face, the more likely one was to vote in a leadership election. Controlling for contributions of code, developers are more likely to hold a top leadership position when they participate more in online discussions. However, online participation in technical discussions did not affect leadership as much as occupying a structurally advantaged position in the community's social network. We conclude with theoretical implications that consider the dynamics of online and offline networks for governing distributed online communities. ======================= Paper 8 Author: Francesca Antonacci Title: Free software development communities as a pedagogic model Link to full paper in italian (PDF): http://www.tttt.it/francesca/dottorato/ Abstract in english: http://opensource.mit.edu/papers/antonacci.pdf Abstract The pedagogic interest arising from the emergence of free software development communities is twofold. Firstly, in their production practices these communities set out formative processes as well as educational ones. These practices characterise these communities and are not accessory, to the point that without them the communities could not survive. Secondly, these communities are interesting as they make up a particularly rich epistemological model for the understanding of formative, educational and didactical themes. Having embraced the hacker culture, these communities promote and create an incentive to the free circulation of knowledge without protectionist barriers. However, freedom of knowledge alone is not enough, both in the educational and productive fields, unless it is introduced in an organisational model promoting the participation and engagement of the individuals. The communities of free software development are a particularly interesting organisational model because their structure, based on co-operation and solidarity and opposing centralisation, promote the participation of programmers and users all over the world. Thanks to this kind of organisation, which owes much to a model of delegating leadership, authoritative but not authoritarian, charismatic but not idealised these communities are putting together a very large number of work groups. These are geographically, methodologically and culturally non-homogeneous groups, which despite all predictions create highly competitive products of high quality. ======================= PhD Thesis Author Lin, Yuwei Title: Hacking Practices and Software Development: A Social Worlds Analysis of ICT Innovation and the Role of Free/Libre Open Source Software http://opensource.mit.edu/papers/lin2.pdf Abstract: Through use of social worlds theory and qualitative research methods, this thesis explores hackers’ practices and their relationships with the computing world and the wider society from a socio-technical perspective. Through engaging with a constellation of open source practices (OSPs), actors and actants communicate, negotiate, and shape each other’s identities, practices and understandings of the innovation structure and system in various aspects. In examining the diverse articulations and performances in which hacker culture and hacker identity are both reflected and constructed, the thesis tries to contextualise and deconstruct the ICT architecture we take for granted, as well as the innovations made possible by this architecture. ======================== MS Thesis Author: Bosco, Gianluca Title: Implicit theories of "good leadership" in the open-source community http://opensource.mit.edu/papers/bosco.pdf The goal of this paper is to uncover the implicit theories (a.k.a. personal believes) of open-source developers concerning the characteristics and behaviors of a "good project leader". Three main behavioral factors are discovered to describe such implicit theories: competence, task orientation and person consideration. The conclusions of this study have been drawn from an analysis conducted on data gathered through 138 respondents. -- Karim R. Lakhani MIT Sloan | The Boston Consulting Group Mobile: +1 (617) 851-1224 http://spoudaiospaizen.net http://web.mit.edu/lakhani/www | http://opensource.mit.edu -- -- Karim R. Lakhani MIT Sloan | The Boston Consulting Group Mobile: +1 (617) 851-1224 http://spoudaiospaizen.net http://web.mit.edu/lakhani/www | http://opensource.mit.edu
On Tue, 2 Nov 2004, Jochen Gläser wrote: > 1) Am I allowed to put the files with the macros on the book publisher's > website for free download, or can Microsoft object? Microsoft cannot object at all, unless you used some code or library copyrighted by them (or others). I would say that a more compelling problem is the status of the code as related to the book, as in some cases it may be considered "part of" the book, and thus release rights are usually with the publisher. If the publisher is happy with that, nothing else can stop you making the code public on the web site (and usually, this proves to be a successful move in terms of dissemination, especially in vertical and complex areas like statistics - look at the successes of R for an example of that). > 2) Do I need to / can I put some Copyleft (or whatever) on it to keep it > free, or can it stay there 'forever free' without a license? You have to explicitly describe the status of the code, and which restrictions (if any) you want to add. For example, you may want to use the GPL license, or a Creative Commons one, depending on the desired target audience. best regards Carlo Daffara
Carlo Daffara wrote: > On Tue, 2 Nov 2004, Jochen Gläser wrote: > le of that). > >> 2) Do I need to / can I put some Copyleft (or whatever) on it to keep it >> free, or can it stay there 'forever free' without a license? > > You have to explicitly describe the status of the code, and which > restrictions (if any) you want to add. For example, you may want to use > the GPL license, or a Creative Commons one, depending on the desired > target audience. > best regards > You can also leave it in the public domain with no licenses what so ever - but if you care about credit then one of the numerous open source or cc licenses might make sense. Karim R. Lakhani MIT Sloan | The Boston Consulting Group Mobile: +1 (617) 851-1224 http://spoudaiospaizen.net http://web.mit.edu/lakhani/www | http://opensource.mit.edu
Hi Folks, I just wanted to apologize for some of the spam generated by our list. It looks like mailman got hung up on a few processes and it was causing a major back up on our system. We have it fixed and shortly we will be upgrading to the newest version of mailman. Many thanks to Ray Faith at MIT Sloan for fixing the problem. Talk to you soon. Karim -- -- Karim R. Lakhani MIT Sloan | The Boston Consulting Group Mobile: +1 (617) 851-1224 http://spoudaiospaizen.net http://web.mit.edu/lakhani/www | http://opensource.mit.edu
On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 06:55:17PM +1100, Jochen Gläser wrote: First thing, thank you Jochen for contributing to Free Software! I'll try to help you out as good as I can. > 1) Am I allowed to put the files with the macros on the book publisher's > website for free download, or can Microsoft object? Microsoft can make no intellectual property claim on the code you write, even if you write it using their tools, so you can definitely distribute those files as you please, Free Software included. > 2) Do I need to / can I put some Copyleft (or whatever) on it to keep it > free, or can it stay there 'forever free' without a license? You should put a comment on the beginning of every source file stating the license. Please find below an example of such comment using the GPL license. Even if you want to release that code under the public domain, you have to make it explicit. Unfortunately, code with no explicit license is the less free it can possibly get, because it could be anything, and you'd risk it being something you can't use at all. Here is such a license header for the GPL: <one line to give the program's name and a brief idea of what it does.> Copyright (C) <year> <name of author> This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License for more details. You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307 USA This is a standard template you can find in the GPL license itself (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html). Ciao, Enrico -- GPG key: 1024D/797EBFAB 2000-12-05 Enrico Zini <enrico@...>
RSS Feed3 | |
|---|---|
1 | |
2 | |
4 | |
1 | |
2 | |
2 | |
2 | |
6 | |
5 | |
5 | |
1 | |
2 | |
4 | |
6 | |
2 | |
2 | |
2 | |
3 | |
4 | |
6 | |
1 | |
4 | |
2 | |
3 | |
1 | |
3 | |
3 | |
2 | |
3 | |
4 | |
9 | |
8 | |
20 | |
2 | |
6 | |
3 | |
1 | |
2 | |
3 | |
6 | |
9 | |
9 | |
4 | |
8 | |
4 | |
14 | |
11 | |
9 | |
9 | |
8 | |
2 | |
9 | |
3 | |
10 | |
13 | |
2 | |
4 | |
1 | |
5 | |
6 | |
3 | |
1 | |
9 | |
10 | |
11 | |
18 | |
3 | |
3 | |
3 | |
8 | |
15 | |
4 | |
2 | |
1 |
