PixInsight Class Library / JavaScript Runtime License Version 1.0

[Juan Conejero]

Hi All,

So far the PixInsight Class Library (PCL), the standard open-source modules and the PixInsight JavaScript Runtime (PJSR) have been published under either no specific license or the GPL v3 license.

The current 'vague licensing' state of PCL is obviously an anomaly that must be fixed as soon as possible. It is dangerous for our interests and can lead to confusion and misuse by some third parties. In addition, my intention is publishing the entire PCL as an open-source product at some point, and when that happens we must have a strong license backing us.

The GPL is definitely too restrictive to my taste. I really don't like the FSF/GNU licenses for a number of reasons (largely beyond the topic of this post), and don't want to see our own software subject to them. PixInsight Core itself depends on the Qt framework, which is released under LGPL, and Mozilla's JavaScript engine, released under the MPL. Fortunately, however, the modular architecture of PixInsight prevents 'contamination' of PCL, PJSR and all derived works of these frameworks. PCL and PJSR are original works and exclusively the property of Pleiades Astrophoto S.L.

As a result of the above considerations, I've been thinking on creating an open-source license specific to PCL and PJSR. This is the PixInsight Class Library version 1.0, which I'd like to propose here as an important topic for discussion.

=========================================================

The PixInsight Class Library / PixInsight JavaScript Runtime License (PCL/PJSR License)

Version 1.0

PixInsight Class Library / PixInsight JavaScript Runtime
Copyright (c) 2003-2010, Pleiades Astrophoto S.L.
All Rights Reserved

Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:

1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.

2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.

3. Neither the name of Pleiades Astrophoto nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission from Pleiades Astrophoto. For written permission, please contact info@pixinsight.com.

4. Redistribution Distributions of products derived from this software in any form whatsoever must retain the following acknowledgment:

"This product is based on software from the PixInsight project and developed by Pleiades Astrophoto and contributors. The PixInsight project is available at <http://pixinsight.com/>."

THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY PLEIADES ASTROPHOTO AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL PLEIADES ASTROPHOTO OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

=========================================================

Those of you with experience on software licenses will recognize the 'sources' this license comes from. It is derived from the BSD License 'modern edition' and the PHP License version 3.

The idea behind this license is that we want to allow free use of PCL and PJSR code, but we definitely want to ensure that all derived works will have to recognize PixInsight as the original source. This is enforced by condition number 4. Other than this condition, the PCL/PJSR License is basically the BSD License with a few minor tweaks, so it may be considered a 'permissive' open-source license.

Please note that PCL-based modules and PJSR-based scripts can be released under any license at the author's option, including GPL and LGPL, provided the PCL/PJSR License terms are met. Note that the PCL/PJSR License terms are compatible with GPL/LGPL because they don't impose any restrictions on the use and distribution of PCL and PJSR code and their derivatives (note that restriction != condition).

That said, I hope most PCL/PJSR developers publishing open-source products will adhere to the PCL/PJSR License, but this is optional, naturally.  

I really would like to know your opinions about this license. This is an important topic and I want to reach a general agreement here.

[Niall Saunders]

Hi Juan,

At first glance, I would say that this seems to be a well-considered and well-balanced set of requirements. That said, I need to re-read a couple of times, just to get my head round eveything.

Cheers,

[Juan Conejero]

Thanks Niall. I've fixed a small typo (Distributions instead of Redistributions) in condition 4. Do you see any syntactic or grammatical error?

[sigurd]

I think the advertising clause (4.) is (and has been) pretty controversial in the open source community, and is not considered as fully open source by the OSI. I understand the rationale behind it, but having people use the library is (I think) more important than their acknowledgment that they did.

I'm not sure why you are hesitant about using a GPL license... I understand the tainting issue. But I'm pretty sure as to your other point that as the author you are free to license it as you see fit; meaning you could freely distribute a Commercial as well as a GPL version of your code. But instead of that route, why not use the LGPL? That seems to me to provide best what you are looking for without the taint issue.

That being said, I'm perfectly fine with your BSD style license (though the advertising clause does grate ). Bottom line, is it's your software. I think you should release it under a license you feel comfortable with.

-esy

[Niall Saunders]

Juan, from a 'grammatical' point of view (and my grammar - although pretty good, is not perfect )

=========================================================

The PixInsight Class Library / PixInsight JavaScript Runtime License (PCL/PJSR License)

Version 1.0

PixInsight Class Library / PixInsight JavaScript Runtime
Copyright (c) 2003-2010, Pleiades Astrophoto S.L.
All Rights Reserved

Redistribution and use, in both source and binary forms, with or without modification, are is permitted provided that the following conditions are met:

1. All R redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.

2. All R redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.

3. Neither the name of Pleiades Astrophoto, nor the names of its contributors, may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission from Pleiades Astrophoto. For written permission, please contact info@pixinsight.com.

4. Redistribution Distributions of products derived from this software, in any form whatsoever, must retain the following acknowledgment:

"This product is based on software from the PixInsight project, and developed by Pleiades Astrophoto and its contributors. The PixInsight project is available at <http://pixinsight.com/>."

THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY PLEIADES ASTROPHOTO AND ITS CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL PLEIADES ASTROPHOTO OR ITS CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, BUSINESS INTERRUPTION; PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; AND LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

=========================================================

Of course, it goes without saying that you can use any, all or none of my suggestions and recommendations, providing that you acknowledge that these suggestions are provides by Niall Saunders "as is" and any express or implied warranties, including, but not limited to, the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose are disclaimed. In no event shall Niall Saunders be liable for any direct, indirect, incidental, special, exemplary or consequential damages (including, but not limited to, business interruption; procurement of substitute suggestions and recommendations; and loss of use, data or profits) however caused and on any theory of liability, whether in contract, strict liability, or tort (including negligence or otherwise) arising in any way out of the use of these suggestions or recommendations, even if advised of the possibility of such damage.

[Juan Conejero]

Hi Esy,

Thank you for responding and for your consideration on this topic. As I understand it, our fourth condition is not like the advertising clause of the original BSD license.

The advertising clause of the original BSD license is as follows:

3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software
   must display the following acknowledgement:
   This product includes software developed by the <organization>.

Our fourth condition is completely different:

4. Distributions of products derived from this software in any form whatsoever must retain the following acknowledgment:

"This product is based on software from the PixInsight project and developed by Pleiades Astrophoto and contributors. The PixInsight project is available at <http://pixinsight.com/>."

In fact, I've been careful to avoid a clause similar to the advertising clause. Our fourth clause is not an advertising clause because it only requires acknowledgment of the original source, but it does not force the authors of derived products to include it in all of their advertising materials. Our fourth clause is similar to the sixth clause of the PHP license:

6. Redistributions of any form whatsoever must retain the following
     acknowledgment:
     "This product includes PHP, freely available from
     <http://www.php.net/>".

So if the OSI has approved the PHP license, I don't see a reason for not approving our PCL/PJSR license.

Regarding the FSF licenses (both GPL and LGPL), I'll try to explain why I don't like them. I think that if one really wants to release free software, understanding free as freedom of use, one should not impose restrictions on the way the software can be used. Sounds logical, doesn't it? Forcing the authors of derived works to publish their source code and to release it under the same license, is one of such restrictions. For me, that restriction is bad for the same reason as patenting an algorithm and asking for royalties is bad --both practices are against freedom for me, and much worse, both of them are limiting development and evolution (as social concepts) because both are lacking generosity. The LGPL has been created just for strategic reasons, basically to fight against or replace closed-source libraries in contexts where open-source software is in disadvantage, not because the FSF believes in the LGPL concept, and putting open-source libraries in value more for the fact that they are gratis, instead of free. In my opinion, the GPL and LGPL are not generous at all, and I strongly believe in generosity as one of the most important values in life.

The BSD licensing concept is much more generous. The BSD license just asks for acknowledgment on who has created the original work, includes a disclaimer to prevent legal liability, and ensures that all derived works will have to include the same acknowledgment and disclaimer. Other than that, the BSD license generously confers the user freedom to use the software.

This is just my personal point of view. I don't claim to be right and fully respect the opinions of others about these topics.

[Juan Conejero]

Thanks Niall for your corrections. So unless somebody wants to argue something this is the full license text that should appear on all source files pertaining to the standard open-source modules:

   ****************************************************************************
   This file is part of the standard <MODULE_NAME> PixInsight module.

   Copyright (c) 2003-2010, Pleiades Astrophoto S.L. All Rights Reserved.

   Redistribution and use in both source and binary forms, with or without
   modification, is permitted provided that the following conditions are met:

   1. All redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
      notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.

   2. All redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
      notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
      documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.

   3. Neither the name of Pleiades Astrophoto, nor the names of its
      contributors, may be used to endorse or promote products derived from
      this software without specific prior written permission from Pleiades
      Astrophoto. For written permission, please contact info@pixinsight.com.

   4. All products derived from this software, in any form whatsoever, must
      retain the following acknowledgment:

   "This product is based on software from the PixInsight project, developed by
   Pleiades Astrophoto and contributors. The PixInsight project is available at
   <http://pixinsight.com/>."

   THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY PLEIADES ASTROPHOTO AND ITS CONTRIBUTORS
   "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED
   TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
   PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL PLEIADES ASTROPHOTO OR ITS
   CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL,
   EXEMPLARY OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, BUSINESS
   INTERRUPTION; PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; AND LOSS OF USE,
   DATA OR PROFITS) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN
   CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE)
   ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE
   POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
   ****************************************************************************

The open-source modules are (so far): BMP, FITS, JPEG, JPEG2000, TIFF, Geometry, Global, GREYCstoration, Image, ImageCalibration, IntensityTransformations, Sandbox and StarGenerator. The Sandbox module will be put in the public domain.

All PCL and PJSR header files will include the same disclaimer and the corresponding copyright notices. Applying the full license to PCL and PJSR doesn't make sense because they are (still) closed-source products.

[David Raphael]

FWIW - You have my vote.  I am not crazy about the GPL for the same reasons you mentioned.  Anything I write for PixInsight will use whatever final form of this license you choose.

Cheers,
Dave

[Niall Saunders]

My only outstanding concern is how you tackle the fact that the (c) date has an implied 'end' date (2010) in the example you show.

Is there not a way of implying that there is NO 'end date' to the copyright period?

[sigurd]

:-), it's Erik, by the way, sorry about that.

Actually I prefer a BSD or MIT license myself for commercial use, though it does impede distribution of source as there's no requirement to do so. It is my own personal belief that source "wants to be free". I think we all benefit, especially the astronomy community, if we try to get more source out there. It was quite a relief to me when ASCOM became more open-source oriented (too critical a component of amateur software stacks to be closed up).

My main point about clause 4. is that it is a little unclear, if you must mention PixInsight/Pleiades in binary-only distributions, I presume that must be the intent as BSD style licenses don't require source distribution (or even visibility, for that matter).

You may want to clarify the language to more explicitly show the intent in that clause.

-esy