7

I have some small projects under different open source licenses (I like BSD and GPLv2).

I would like to license some new projects under an OSI approved license but make sure any other OSI-approved license can use too. Assume all the code is owned by me (or I can get the consent of all the copyright owners).

Does it suffice for example to say this:

FooBar is licensed under the simplified BSD license (2-clause). 
See the LICENSE.txt file for the full description.

You can use this under any OSI approved license.

I do not want to do any public domain dedication: Public domain dedication does not have clear implications in some countries and does not prevent it from being used in project licensed under non-OSI-approved licenses.

In simple terms, the question is this:

Is there any license that I can choose which makes sure the code will remain OSI approved but does not care exactly how people use it? Something that a GPL project can simply link against, same as any project with BSD or MIT, or any other OSI-approved license? I know some of these licenses cannot be mixed with the rest, so is there any that all are happy with?

  • Hello there! I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to do here: is this a problem with attribution? You need to tell us what licenses you are using, and what you want others to do. You're subject to terms in other licenses as well: keep that in mind. If you are asking us to recommend a license, use the license-recommendation tag, and visit How do I ask for a license recommendation? – Zizouz212 Sep 9 '15 at 20:58
  • Yes it is license recommendation, want to see which license (if any) is hte common denominator, and all the rest can mix it with their project. – dashesy Sep 9 '15 at 21:58
  • I believe if you license under MIT it can be used by almost any OSI license. – user2594 Sep 9 '15 at 23:04
  • Alright. You've got a much better question now :D However, it could still use just a touch more of improvement before I will reopen. What do you mean by I do not want to do public license?. Is all the code written by you? Is there some parts of the project that aren't yours? How are they licensed? – Zizouz212 Sep 9 '15 at 23:12
  • @Zizouz212 clarified more :) assume it is new, and I am the sole copyright owner (or that I can get all the copyright owners to agree on the license). No public license because I want to still make sure only OSI approved licenses can use the code. – dashesy Sep 9 '15 at 23:30
7

The chart below displays the compatibility of some of the most popular licenses from David A. Wheeler found via Stack Overflow: Is there a chart of which OSS License is compatible with which?: A diagram of popular license compatibility.

From this, as far as I can tell you have three options (MIT, X11, 0BSD, public domain, or BSD-new) which are compatible with most downstream licenses. From my understanding BSD "simplified" (2-clause) is compatible with BSD-new, BSD (3-clause) and therefore, would also be an option compatible with some of the most popular downstream licenses.

  • This is perfect, and I am sure many will benefit from it. Did you create the chart? – dashesy Sep 10 '15 at 22:29
  • No, as I have added it was created by David A. Wheeler. – user2594 Sep 10 '15 at 22:33
  • Such a nice question/answer is closed in SO as off-topic, glad we have OpenSource now, but it is annoying to see clearly useful information is closed 4 years after it is posted (for what?)!!! Maybe they should be at least migrated here. – dashesy Sep 10 '15 at 22:46
  • @dashesy It is to old to migrate. – user2594 Sep 10 '15 at 23:26
  • For the sake of completeness, there is also a 0-clause BSD license 0BSD that can sit before MIT in that graph. It is public domain but is a license. – dashesy Sep 15 '15 at 16:24
2

It does not help for you to add a line stating your intention to be compatible with all OSI licenses. You have to choose a license, and that license is compatible (or not) with other licenses. At worst, adding that line is 'crayon-licensing' with uncertain legal consequences.

The general view is that the MIT license is an example of a 'type O' -- a universal donor. As it does not make any statements about patents, nor impose any copyleft obligations, it's hard to see how any OSI license can pose a barrier to use of content under it.

  • that is what I was afraid of, thanks. Is MIT the only one or can it be BSD (2 clause) for example or anything else? – dashesy Sep 10 '15 at 20:20
  • @dashesy BSD 2 clause is functionally equivalent to MIT so the same reasoning applies. Note that the "BSD new" in the flowchart on the other question refers to the 3-clause BSD. – congusbongus Sep 11 '15 at 0:18

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.