creating a real blank image
Locked
12
12
 
|
Many thanks Stephan,
for clarifying the issue a bit. I hope that you are right with "sell"... Isn't a copyright always a restriction of the right to copy? To make a notice accessible, appears to be something different--no? Best regards Herbie ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: On 17.11.14 18:02, Stephan Saalfeld wrote: > Hi Herbie, > > `fundamentally different' is a very vague and bold statement and as such > prone to misinterpretation by those less familiar with the topic. I > therefore feel urged to clarify: > > The only difference between the licenses of ImageJ1 and ImageJ2 is that > you cannot claim that you wrote ImageJ2, but you can claim that you > wrote ImageJ1. > > With both licenses you can use, modify, give away, sell, wrap the > licensed code, parts of it, or binary distributions of it, in open > source as well as closed source commercial projects. No constraints. > > The exact difference between the two licenses is that ImageJ2 requires > you to retain that copyright notice and make this information accessible > for those consuming your derived work, i.e. give minimal virtual kudos > to those who developed ImageJ2. I, personally, would spare > `fundamental' for something more `fundamental'. > > Best, > Stephan > > > > On Sat, 2014-11-15 at 10:51 +0100, Herbie wrote: >> Many thanks Curtis! >> >> The <http://imagej.net/Licensing> overview is very helpful to get an >> impression. However, the footnote regarding ImagJ1 is less clear but it >> explains why... >> >> In any case, the license of ImagJ1 and that of ImagJ2 are fundamentally >> different. >> >> Thanks again and best regards >> >> Herbie >> >> ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: >> On 15.11.14 00:02, Curtis Rueden wrote: >>> Hi Herbie, >>> >>>> I need to know whether plain ImageJ2 (not Fiji with its additional >>>> plugins) is open source in exactly the same legal sense as plain >>>> ImageJ1? >>> >>> Like most of the SciJava software projects [1], ImageJ2 uses the Simplified >>> BSD License [2], one of the most popular permissive OSS licenses. It makes >>> only one stipulation: that derivative works retain the copyright notice, >>> for purposes of provenance tracking and citation. >>> >>> We have been very careful to track the origin of all source code in the >>> projects, including dependencies, to ensure that all stated licenses are >>> indeed valid. >>> >>> The following newly minted wiki page summarizes everything, including a >>> discussion of ImageJ 1.x's copyright status: >>> >>> * http://imagej.net/Licensing >>> >>> These pages may be informative as well: >>> >>> * http://choosealicense.com/ >>> * >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_status_of_work_by_the_U.S._government >>> >>> Regards, >>> Curtis >>> >>> [1] http://imagej.net/SciJava >>> [2] http://imagej.net/BSD >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 1:11 PM, Herbie <[hidden email]> wrote: >>> >>>> Dear Curtis and those who are in the know, >>>> >>>> for good reasons I need to know whether plain ImageJ2 (not Fiji with its >>>> additional plugins) is open source in exactly the same legal sense as plain >>>> ImageJ1? >>>> >>>> With "plain ImageJ2" I mean the software that provides about the same >>>> functionality as ImageJ1. >>>> >>>> Best regards >>>> >>>> Herbie >>>> ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: >>>> >>>> -- >>>> ImageJ mailing list: http://imagej.nih.gov/ij/list.html >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> ImageJ mailing list: http://imagej.nih.gov/ij/list.html >>> >> >> -- >> ImageJ mailing list: http://imagej.nih.gov/ij/list.html > > -- > ImageJ mailing list: http://imagej.nih.gov/ij/list.html > -- ImageJ mailing list: http://imagej.nih.gov/ij/list.html |
|
Hi Herbie,
> I hope that you are right with "sell"... Yes, this was one of the central reasons for choosing BSD-2 as the license for ImageJ2 etc. http://stackoverflow.com/q/4397864 For further reading, see: http://opensource.com/law/13/8/motivation-free-software-licensing Regards, Curtis On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Herbie <[hidden email]> wrote: > Many thanks Stephan, > > for clarifying the issue a bit. > > I hope that you are right with "sell"... > > Isn't a copyright always a restriction of the right to copy? > To make a notice accessible, appears to be something different--no? > > Best regards > > Herbie > > ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: > > On 17.11.14 18:02, Stephan Saalfeld wrote: > >> Hi Herbie, >> >> `fundamentally different' is a very vague and bold statement and as such >> prone to misinterpretation by those less familiar with the topic. I >> therefore feel urged to clarify: >> >> The only difference between the licenses of ImageJ1 and ImageJ2 is that >> you cannot claim that you wrote ImageJ2, but you can claim that you >> wrote ImageJ1. >> >> With both licenses you can use, modify, give away, sell, wrap the >> licensed code, parts of it, or binary distributions of it, in open >> source as well as closed source commercial projects. No constraints. >> >> The exact difference between the two licenses is that ImageJ2 requires >> you to retain that copyright notice and make this information accessible >> for those consuming your derived work, i.e. give minimal virtual kudos >> to those who developed ImageJ2. I, personally, would spare >> `fundamental' for something more `fundamental'. >> >> Best, >> Stephan >> >> >> >> On Sat, 2014-11-15 at 10:51 +0100, Herbie wrote: >> >>> Many thanks Curtis! >>> >>> The <http://imagej.net/Licensing> overview is very helpful to get an >>> impression. However, the footnote regarding ImagJ1 is less clear but it >>> explains why... >>> >>> In any case, the license of ImagJ1 and that of ImagJ2 are fundamentally >>> different. >>> >>> Thanks again and best regards >>> >>> Herbie >>> >>> ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: >>> On 15.11.14 00:02, Curtis Rueden wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Herbie, >>>> >>>> I need to know whether plain ImageJ2 (not Fiji with its additional >>>>> plugins) is open source in exactly the same legal sense as plain >>>>> ImageJ1? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Like most of the SciJava software projects [1], ImageJ2 uses the >>>> Simplified >>>> BSD License [2], one of the most popular permissive OSS licenses. It >>>> makes >>>> only one stipulation: that derivative works retain the copyright notice, >>>> for purposes of provenance tracking and citation. >>>> >>>> We have been very careful to track the origin of all source code in the >>>> projects, including dependencies, to ensure that all stated licenses are >>>> indeed valid. >>>> >>>> The following newly minted wiki page summarizes everything, including a >>>> discussion of ImageJ 1.x's copyright status: >>>> >>>> * http://imagej.net/Licensing >>>> >>>> These pages may be informative as well: >>>> >>>> * http://choosealicense.com/ >>>> * >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_status_of_work_by_ >>>> the_U.S._government >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Curtis >>>> >>>> [1] http://imagej.net/SciJava >>>> [2] http://imagej.net/BSD >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 1:11 PM, Herbie <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Dear Curtis and those who are in the know, >>>>> >>>>> for good reasons I need to know whether plain ImageJ2 (not Fiji with >>>>> its >>>>> additional plugins) is open source in exactly the same legal sense as >>>>> plain >>>>> ImageJ1? >>>>> >>>>> With "plain ImageJ2" I mean the software that provides about the same >>>>> functionality as ImageJ1. >>>>> >>>>> Best regards >>>>> >>>>> Herbie >>>>> ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> ImageJ mailing list: http://imagej.nih.gov/ij/list.html >>>>> >>>>> >>>> -- >>>> ImageJ mailing list: http://imagej.nih.gov/ij/list.html >>>> >>>> >>> -- >>> ImageJ mailing list: http://imagej.nih.gov/ij/list.html >>> >> >> -- >> ImageJ mailing list: http://imagej.nih.gov/ij/list.html >> >> > -- > ImageJ mailing list: http://imagej.nih.gov/ij/list.html > -- ImageJ mailing list: http://imagej.nih.gov/ij/list.html |
|
|
Dear Curtis and Stephan!
More to the point: Let's assume that one writes an IJ2-PlugIn that calls IJ2-routines. The IJ2-PlugIn is _not_ "Open Source" and is being sold. 1. According to "[...] wrap the licensed code [IJ2-routines], parts of it, or binary distributions of it, in open source as well as closed source commercial projects." this is allowed by the "BSD-2 license of ImageJ2". 2. Is there a _single_ copyright/license notice for all core routines (as defined in my original post) of plain ImageJ2? In other words, is it sufficient to make the text at <http://choosealicense.com/licenses/bsd-2-clause/> accessible? If yes, what do we need to fill in for [year], [fullname] ? 3. Is there more than the text at <http://choosealicense.com/licenses/bsd-2-clause/> that needs to be made accessible? At least for plain ImageJ2 (as defined in my original post) we should see an access point for the required copyright and license notice, especially concerning [year], [fullname]. Evidently, the page <http://imagej.net/BSD>, as it deals with various licenses, is not quite to the point. Thanks for your steady help! Best regards Herbie ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: On 17.11.14 19:22, Curtis Rueden wrote: > Hi Herbie, > >> I hope that you are right with "sell"... > > Yes, this was one of the central reasons for choosing BSD-2 as the license > for ImageJ2 etc. > > http://stackoverflow.com/q/4397864 > > For further reading, see: > http://opensource.com/law/13/8/motivation-free-software-licensing > > Regards, > Curtis > > > On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Herbie <[hidden email]> wrote: > >> Many thanks Stephan, >> >> for clarifying the issue a bit. >> >> I hope that you are right with "sell"... >> >> Isn't a copyright always a restriction of the right to copy? >> To make a notice accessible, appears to be something different--no? >> >> Best regards >> >> Herbie >> >> ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: >> >> On 17.11.14 18:02, Stephan Saalfeld wrote: >> >>> Hi Herbie, >>> >>> `fundamentally different' is a very vague and bold statement and as such >>> prone to misinterpretation by those less familiar with the topic. I >>> therefore feel urged to clarify: >>> >>> The only difference between the licenses of ImageJ1 and ImageJ2 is that >>> you cannot claim that you wrote ImageJ2, but you can claim that you >>> wrote ImageJ1. >>> >>> With both licenses you can use, modify, give away, sell, wrap the >>> licensed code, parts of it, or binary distributions of it, in open >>> source as well as closed source commercial projects. No constraints. >>> >>> The exact difference between the two licenses is that ImageJ2 requires >>> you to retain that copyright notice and make this information accessible >>> for those consuming your derived work, i.e. give minimal virtual kudos >>> to those who developed ImageJ2. I, personally, would spare >>> `fundamental' for something more `fundamental'. >>> >>> Best, >>> Stephan >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sat, 2014-11-15 at 10:51 +0100, Herbie wrote: >>> >>>> Many thanks Curtis! >>>> >>>> The <http://imagej.net/Licensing> overview is very helpful to get an >>>> impression. However, the footnote regarding ImagJ1 is less clear but it >>>> explains why... >>>> >>>> In any case, the license of ImagJ1 and that of ImagJ2 are fundamentally >>>> different. >>>> >>>> Thanks again and best regards >>>> >>>> Herbie >>>> >>>> ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: >>>> On 15.11.14 00:02, Curtis Rueden wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Herbie, >>>>> >>>>> I need to know whether plain ImageJ2 (not Fiji with its additional >>>>>> plugins) is open source in exactly the same legal sense as plain >>>>>> ImageJ1? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Like most of the SciJava software projects [1], ImageJ2 uses the >>>>> Simplified >>>>> BSD License [2], one of the most popular permissive OSS licenses. It >>>>> makes >>>>> only one stipulation: that derivative works retain the copyright notice, >>>>> for purposes of provenance tracking and citation. >>>>> >>>>> We have been very careful to track the origin of all source code in the >>>>> projects, including dependencies, to ensure that all stated licenses are >>>>> indeed valid. >>>>> >>>>> The following newly minted wiki page summarizes everything, including a >>>>> discussion of ImageJ 1.x's copyright status: >>>>> >>>>> * http://imagej.net/Licensing >>>>> >>>>> These pages may be informative as well: >>>>> >>>>> * http://choosealicense.com/ >>>>> * >>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_status_of_work_by_ >>>>> the_U.S._government >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Curtis >>>>> >>>>> [1] http://imagej.net/SciJava >>>>> [2] http://imagej.net/BSD >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 1:11 PM, Herbie <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Dear Curtis and those who are in the know, >>>>>> >>>>>> for good reasons I need to know whether plain ImageJ2 (not Fiji with >>>>>> its >>>>>> additional plugins) is open source in exactly the same legal sense as >>>>>> plain >>>>>> ImageJ1? >>>>>> >>>>>> With "plain ImageJ2" I mean the software that provides about the same >>>>>> functionality as ImageJ1. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best regards >>>>>> >>>>>> Herbie >>>>>> ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> ImageJ mailing list: http://imagej.nih.gov/ij/list.html >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> ImageJ mailing list: http://imagej.nih.gov/ij/list.html >>>>> >>>>> >>>> -- >>>> ImageJ mailing list: http://imagej.nih.gov/ij/list.html >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> ImageJ mailing list: http://imagej.nih.gov/ij/list.html >>> >>> >> -- >> ImageJ mailing list: http://imagej.nih.gov/ij/list.html >> > > -- > ImageJ mailing list: http://imagej.nih.gov/ij/list.html > -- ImageJ mailing list: http://imagej.nih.gov/ij/list.html |
|
|
Hi Herbie,
> At least for plain ImageJ2 (as defined in my original post) we should see an access point for the required copyright and license notice, especially concerning [year], [fullname]. I added a new section <http://imagej.net/Licensing#Developers:_How_to_use_this_page> to the http://imagej.net/Licensing page, which I hope will make the whole page easier to use. I don't think it was clear that the 4th column of the table (which I renamed to "License text") links to the actual LICENSE.txt that should be distributed by projects using these libraries. I suspect you did the same thing I just did, followed the "BSD-2" link in the 3rd column, and ended up at the choosealicense site - which just has license templates and instructions for their use. Anyway, I hope that the Licensing page can now fully answer your questions. Please let us know if anything is still unclear - this feedback is very helpful to getting things properly documented on the wiki. Best, Mark On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 5:24 AM, Herbie <[hidden email]> wrote: > Dear Curtis and Stephan! > > More to the point: > > Let's assume that one writes an IJ2-PlugIn that calls IJ2-routines. > The IJ2-PlugIn is _not_ "Open Source" and is being sold. > > 1. > According to > "[...] wrap the licensed code [IJ2-routines], parts of it, or binary > distributions of it, in open source as well as closed source commercial > projects." > this is allowed by the "BSD-2 license of ImageJ2". > > 2. > Is there a _single_ copyright/license notice for all core routines (as > defined in my original post) of plain ImageJ2? > In other words, is it sufficient to make the text at > <http://choosealicense.com/licenses/bsd-2-clause/> > accessible? > If yes, what do we need to fill in for [year], [fullname] ? > > 3. > Is there more than the text at > <http://choosealicense.com/licenses/bsd-2-clause/> > that needs to be made accessible? > > At least for plain ImageJ2 (as defined in my original post) we should see > an access point for the required copyright and license notice, especially > concerning [year], [fullname]. > Evidently, the page <http://imagej.net/BSD>, as it deals with various > licenses, is not quite to the point. > > Thanks for your steady help! > > Best regards > > Herbie > > ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: > > On 17.11.14 19:22, Curtis Rueden wrote: > >> Hi Herbie, >> >> I hope that you are right with "sell"... >>> >> >> Yes, this was one of the central reasons for choosing BSD-2 as the license >> for ImageJ2 etc. >> >> http://stackoverflow.com/q/4397864 >> >> For further reading, see: >> http://opensource.com/law/13/8/motivation-free-software-licensing >> >> Regards, >> Curtis >> >> >> On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Herbie <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> Many thanks Stephan, >>> >>> for clarifying the issue a bit. >>> >>> I hope that you are right with "sell"... >>> >>> Isn't a copyright always a restriction of the right to copy? >>> To make a notice accessible, appears to be something different--no? >>> >>> Best regards >>> >>> Herbie >>> >>> ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: >>> >>> On 17.11.14 18:02, Stephan Saalfeld wrote: >>> >>> Hi Herbie, >>>> >>>> `fundamentally different' is a very vague and bold statement and as such >>>> prone to misinterpretation by those less familiar with the topic. I >>>> therefore feel urged to clarify: >>>> >>>> The only difference between the licenses of ImageJ1 and ImageJ2 is that >>>> you cannot claim that you wrote ImageJ2, but you can claim that you >>>> wrote ImageJ1. >>>> >>>> With both licenses you can use, modify, give away, sell, wrap the >>>> licensed code, parts of it, or binary distributions of it, in open >>>> source as well as closed source commercial projects. No constraints. >>>> >>>> The exact difference between the two licenses is that ImageJ2 requires >>>> you to retain that copyright notice and make this information accessible >>>> for those consuming your derived work, i.e. give minimal virtual kudos >>>> to those who developed ImageJ2. I, personally, would spare >>>> `fundamental' for something more `fundamental'. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> Stephan >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sat, 2014-11-15 at 10:51 +0100, Herbie wrote: >>>> >>>> Many thanks Curtis! >>>>> >>>>> The <http://imagej.net/Licensing> overview is very helpful to get an >>>>> impression. However, the footnote regarding ImagJ1 is less clear but it >>>>> explains why... >>>>> >>>>> In any case, the license of ImagJ1 and that of ImagJ2 are fundamentally >>>>> different. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks again and best regards >>>>> >>>>> Herbie >>>>> >>>>> ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: >>>>> On 15.11.14 00:02, Curtis Rueden wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Herbie, >>>>>> >>>>>> I need to know whether plain ImageJ2 (not Fiji with its additional >>>>>> >>>>>>> plugins) is open source in exactly the same legal sense as plain >>>>>>> ImageJ1? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> Like most of the SciJava software projects [1], ImageJ2 uses the >>>>>> Simplified >>>>>> BSD License [2], one of the most popular permissive OSS licenses. It >>>>>> makes >>>>>> only one stipulation: that derivative works retain the copyright >>>>>> notice, >>>>>> for purposes of provenance tracking and citation. >>>>>> >>>>>> We have been very careful to track the origin of all source code in >>>>>> the >>>>>> projects, including dependencies, to ensure that all stated licenses >>>>>> are >>>>>> indeed valid. >>>>>> >>>>>> The following newly minted wiki page summarizes everything, including >>>>>> a >>>>>> discussion of ImageJ 1.x's copyright status: >>>>>> >>>>>> * http://imagej.net/Licensing >>>>>> >>>>>> These pages may be informative as well: >>>>>> >>>>>> * http://choosealicense.com/ >>>>>> * >>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_status_of_work_by_ >>>>>> the_U.S._government >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> Curtis >>>>>> >>>>>> [1] http://imagej.net/SciJava >>>>>> [2] http://imagej.net/BSD >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 1:11 PM, Herbie <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Dear Curtis and those who are in the know, >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> for good reasons I need to know whether plain ImageJ2 (not Fiji with >>>>>>> its >>>>>>> additional plugins) is open source in exactly the same legal sense as >>>>>>> plain >>>>>>> ImageJ1? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> With "plain ImageJ2" I mean the software that provides about the same >>>>>>> functionality as ImageJ1. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best regards >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Herbie >>>>>>> ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> ImageJ mailing list: http://imagej.nih.gov/ij/list.html >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>> ImageJ mailing list: http://imagej.nih.gov/ij/list.html >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>> ImageJ mailing list: http://imagej.nih.gov/ij/list.html >>>>> >>>>> >>>> -- >>>> ImageJ mailing list: http://imagej.nih.gov/ij/list.html >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>> ImageJ mailing list: http://imagej.nih.gov/ij/list.html >>> >>> >> -- >> ImageJ mailing list: http://imagej.nih.gov/ij/list.html >> >> > -- > ImageJ mailing list: http://imagej.nih.gov/ij/list.html > -- ImageJ mailing list: http://imagej.nih.gov/ij/list.html |
|
|
Sorry Mark,
but this is not what I had in mind. Please read my previous post thoroughly and you will recognize the problems and my questions 1., 2., and 3. And please note that I did _not_ consider the use of IJ2 for "Open Source" projects. Only one example: The BSD-2 link <http://imagej.net/BSD-2> does concern BSD-2 but it also deals with other BSD licenses. Hence it isn't really a BSD-2 link. etc. etc. Best regards Herbie :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: On 18.11.14 14:34, Mark Hiner wrote: > Hi Herbie, > >> At least for plain ImageJ2 (as defined in my original post) we should see > an access point for the required copyright and license notice, especially > concerning [year], [fullname]. > > I added a new section > <http://imagej.net/Licensing#Developers:_How_to_use_this_page> to the > http://imagej.net/Licensing page, which I hope will make the whole page > easier to use. I don't think it was clear that the 4th column of the table > (which I renamed to "License text") links to the actual LICENSE.txt that > should be distributed by projects using these libraries. > > I suspect you did the same thing I just did, followed the "BSD-2" link in > the 3rd column, and ended up at the choosealicense site - which just has > license templates and instructions for their use. > > Anyway, I hope that the Licensing page can now fully answer your questions. > Please let us know if anything is still unclear - this feedback is very > helpful to getting things properly documented on the wiki. > > Best, > Mark > > On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 5:24 AM, Herbie <[hidden email]> wrote: > >> Dear Curtis and Stephan! >> >> More to the point: >> >> Let's assume that one writes an IJ2-PlugIn that calls IJ2-routines. >> The IJ2-PlugIn is _not_ "Open Source" and is being sold. >> >> 1. >> According to >> "[...] wrap the licensed code [IJ2-routines], parts of it, or binary >> distributions of it, in open source as well as closed source commercial >> projects." >> this is allowed by the "BSD-2 license of ImageJ2". >> >> 2. >> Is there a _single_ copyright/license notice for all core routines (as >> defined in my original post) of plain ImageJ2? >> In other words, is it sufficient to make the text at >> <http://choosealicense.com/licenses/bsd-2-clause/> >> accessible? >> If yes, what do we need to fill in for [year], [fullname] ? >> >> 3. >> Is there more than the text at >> <http://choosealicense.com/licenses/bsd-2-clause/> >> that needs to be made accessible? >> >> At least for plain ImageJ2 (as defined in my original post) we should see >> an access point for the required copyright and license notice, especially >> concerning [year], [fullname]. >> Evidently, the page <http://imagej.net/BSD>, as it deals with various >> licenses, is not quite to the point. >> >> Thanks for your steady help! >> >> Best regards >> >> Herbie >> >> ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: >> >> On 17.11.14 19:22, Curtis Rueden wrote: >> >>> Hi Herbie, >>> >>> I hope that you are right with "sell"... >>>> >>> >>> Yes, this was one of the central reasons for choosing BSD-2 as the license >>> for ImageJ2 etc. >>> >>> http://stackoverflow.com/q/4397864 >>> >>> For further reading, see: >>> http://opensource.com/law/13/8/motivation-free-software-licensing >>> >>> Regards, >>> Curtis >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Herbie <[hidden email]> wrote: >>> >>> Many thanks Stephan, >>>> >>>> for clarifying the issue a bit. >>>> >>>> I hope that you are right with "sell"... >>>> >>>> Isn't a copyright always a restriction of the right to copy? >>>> To make a notice accessible, appears to be something different--no? >>>> >>>> Best regards >>>> >>>> Herbie >>>> >>>> ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: >>>> >>>> On 17.11.14 18:02, Stephan Saalfeld wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Herbie, >>>>> >>>>> `fundamentally different' is a very vague and bold statement and as such >>>>> prone to misinterpretation by those less familiar with the topic. I >>>>> therefore feel urged to clarify: >>>>> >>>>> The only difference between the licenses of ImageJ1 and ImageJ2 is that >>>>> you cannot claim that you wrote ImageJ2, but you can claim that you >>>>> wrote ImageJ1. >>>>> >>>>> With both licenses you can use, modify, give away, sell, wrap the >>>>> licensed code, parts of it, or binary distributions of it, in open >>>>> source as well as closed source commercial projects. No constraints. >>>>> >>>>> The exact difference between the two licenses is that ImageJ2 requires >>>>> you to retain that copyright notice and make this information accessible >>>>> for those consuming your derived work, i.e. give minimal virtual kudos >>>>> to those who developed ImageJ2. I, personally, would spare >>>>> `fundamental' for something more `fundamental'. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> Stephan >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sat, 2014-11-15 at 10:51 +0100, Herbie wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Many thanks Curtis! >>>>>> >>>>>> The <http://imagej.net/Licensing> overview is very helpful to get an >>>>>> impression. However, the footnote regarding ImagJ1 is less clear but it >>>>>> explains why... >>>>>> >>>>>> In any case, the license of ImagJ1 and that of ImagJ2 are fundamentally >>>>>> different. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks again and best regards >>>>>> >>>>>> Herbie >>>>>> >>>>>> ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: >>>>>> On 15.11.14 00:02, Curtis Rueden wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Herbie, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I need to know whether plain ImageJ2 (not Fiji with its additional >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> plugins) is open source in exactly the same legal sense as plain >>>>>>>> ImageJ1? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Like most of the SciJava software projects [1], ImageJ2 uses the >>>>>>> Simplified >>>>>>> BSD License [2], one of the most popular permissive OSS licenses. It >>>>>>> makes >>>>>>> only one stipulation: that derivative works retain the copyright >>>>>>> notice, >>>>>>> for purposes of provenance tracking and citation. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We have been very careful to track the origin of all source code in >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> projects, including dependencies, to ensure that all stated licenses >>>>>>> are >>>>>>> indeed valid. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The following newly minted wiki page summarizes everything, including >>>>>>> a >>>>>>> discussion of ImageJ 1.x's copyright status: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> * http://imagej.net/Licensing >>>>>>> >>>>>>> These pages may be informative as well: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> * http://choosealicense.com/ >>>>>>> * >>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_status_of_work_by_ >>>>>>> the_U.S._government >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>> Curtis >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [1] http://imagej.net/SciJava >>>>>>> [2] http://imagej.net/BSD >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 1:11 PM, Herbie <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear Curtis and those who are in the know, >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> for good reasons I need to know whether plain ImageJ2 (not Fiji with >>>>>>>> its >>>>>>>> additional plugins) is open source in exactly the same legal sense as >>>>>>>> plain >>>>>>>> ImageJ1? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> With "plain ImageJ2" I mean the software that provides about the same >>>>>>>> functionality as ImageJ1. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Best regards >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Herbie >>>>>>>> ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> ImageJ mailing list: http://imagej.nih.gov/ij/list.html >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> ImageJ mailing list: http://imagej.nih.gov/ij/list.html >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>> ImageJ mailing list: http://imagej.nih.gov/ij/list.html >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> ImageJ mailing list: http://imagej.nih.gov/ij/list.html >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>> ImageJ mailing list: http://imagej.nih.gov/ij/list.html >>>> >>>> >>> -- >>> ImageJ mailing list: http://imagej.nih.gov/ij/list.html >>> >>> >> -- >> ImageJ mailing list: http://imagej.nih.gov/ij/list.html >> > > -- > ImageJ mailing list: http://imagej.nih.gov/ij/list.html > -- ImageJ mailing list: http://imagej.nih.gov/ij/list.html |
|
|
Hi Herbie,
> this is not what I had in mind. > Please read my previous post thoroughly Mark's new section does answer all your questions. Please read the articles linked from that section, which provide tutorials and walkthroughs on how to abide by the terms of these sorts of OSS licenses. > I did _not_ consider the use of IJ2 for "Open Source" projects. Understood. The wiki says: "If you are writing code (open source or not) that will use one or more of these libraries..." > The BSD-2 link does concern BSD-2 but it also deals with other > BSD licenses. Hence it isn't really a BSD-2 link. The wiki is community editable. Feel free to improve the documentation if you still feel it is unclear. All of this software (except ImageJ1) uses standard OSS licenses. Thus, your questions are not specific to ImageJ. Furthermore, none of the people on this thread are lawyers [1]—you may want to consult legal counsel to get a more specific recommendation regarding your situation. Regards, Curtis [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IANAL On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 8:38 AM, Herbie <[hidden email]> wrote: > Sorry Mark, > > but this is not what I had in mind. > > Please read my previous post thoroughly and you will recognize the > problems and my questions 1., 2., and 3. > And please note that I did _not_ consider the use of IJ2 for "Open Source" > projects. > > Only one example: > The BSD-2 link <http://imagej.net/BSD-2> does concern BSD-2 but it also > deals with other BSD licenses. Hence it isn't really a BSD-2 link. > > etc. > > etc. > > Best regards > > Herbie > > :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: > > On 18.11.14 14:34, Mark Hiner wrote: > >> Hi Herbie, >> >> At least for plain ImageJ2 (as defined in my original post) we should see >>> >> an access point for the required copyright and license notice, especially >> concerning [year], [fullname]. >> >> I added a new section >> <http://imagej.net/Licensing#Developers:_How_to_use_this_page> to the >> http://imagej.net/Licensing page, which I hope will make the whole page >> easier to use. I don't think it was clear that the 4th column of the table >> (which I renamed to "License text") links to the actual LICENSE.txt that >> should be distributed by projects using these libraries. >> >> I suspect you did the same thing I just did, followed the "BSD-2" link in >> the 3rd column, and ended up at the choosealicense site - which just has >> license templates and instructions for their use. >> >> Anyway, I hope that the Licensing page can now fully answer your >> questions. >> Please let us know if anything is still unclear - this feedback is very >> helpful to getting things properly documented on the wiki. >> >> Best, >> Mark >> >> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 5:24 AM, Herbie <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> Dear Curtis and Stephan! >>> >>> More to the point: >>> >>> Let's assume that one writes an IJ2-PlugIn that calls IJ2-routines. >>> The IJ2-PlugIn is _not_ "Open Source" and is being sold. >>> >>> 1. >>> According to >>> "[...] wrap the licensed code [IJ2-routines], parts of it, or binary >>> distributions of it, in open source as well as closed source commercial >>> projects." >>> this is allowed by the "BSD-2 license of ImageJ2". >>> >>> 2. >>> Is there a _single_ copyright/license notice for all core routines (as >>> defined in my original post) of plain ImageJ2? >>> In other words, is it sufficient to make the text at >>> <http://choosealicense.com/licenses/bsd-2-clause/> >>> accessible? >>> If yes, what do we need to fill in for [year], [fullname] ? >>> >>> 3. >>> Is there more than the text at >>> <http://choosealicense.com/licenses/bsd-2-clause/> >>> that needs to be made accessible? >>> >>> At least for plain ImageJ2 (as defined in my original post) we should see >>> an access point for the required copyright and license notice, especially >>> concerning [year], [fullname]. >>> Evidently, the page <http://imagej.net/BSD>, as it deals with various >>> licenses, is not quite to the point. >>> >>> Thanks for your steady help! >>> >>> Best regards >>> >>> Herbie >>> >>> ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: >>> >>> On 17.11.14 19:22, Curtis Rueden wrote: >>> >>> Hi Herbie, >>>> >>>> I hope that you are right with "sell"... >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Yes, this was one of the central reasons for choosing BSD-2 as the >>>> license >>>> for ImageJ2 etc. >>>> >>>> http://stackoverflow.com/q/4397864 >>>> >>>> For further reading, see: >>>> http://opensource.com/law/13/8/motivation-free-software-licensing >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Curtis >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Herbie <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Many thanks Stephan, >>>> >>>>> >>>>> for clarifying the issue a bit. >>>>> >>>>> I hope that you are right with "sell"... >>>>> >>>>> Isn't a copyright always a restriction of the right to copy? >>>>> To make a notice accessible, appears to be something different--no? >>>>> >>>>> Best regards >>>>> >>>>> Herbie >>>>> >>>>> ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: >>>>> >>>>> On 17.11.14 18:02, Stephan Saalfeld wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Herbie, >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> `fundamentally different' is a very vague and bold statement and as >>>>>> such >>>>>> prone to misinterpretation by those less familiar with the topic. I >>>>>> therefore feel urged to clarify: >>>>>> >>>>>> The only difference between the licenses of ImageJ1 and ImageJ2 is >>>>>> that >>>>>> you cannot claim that you wrote ImageJ2, but you can claim that you >>>>>> wrote ImageJ1. >>>>>> >>>>>> With both licenses you can use, modify, give away, sell, wrap the >>>>>> licensed code, parts of it, or binary distributions of it, in open >>>>>> source as well as closed source commercial projects. No constraints. >>>>>> >>>>>> The exact difference between the two licenses is that ImageJ2 requires >>>>>> you to retain that copyright notice and make this information >>>>>> accessible >>>>>> for those consuming your derived work, i.e. give minimal virtual kudos >>>>>> to those who developed ImageJ2. I, personally, would spare >>>>>> `fundamental' for something more `fundamental'. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> Stephan >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, 2014-11-15 at 10:51 +0100, Herbie wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Many thanks Curtis! >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The <http://imagej.net/Licensing> overview is very helpful to get an >>>>>>> impression. However, the footnote regarding ImagJ1 is less clear but >>>>>>> it >>>>>>> explains why... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In any case, the license of ImagJ1 and that of ImagJ2 are >>>>>>> fundamentally >>>>>>> different. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks again and best regards >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Herbie >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: >>>>>>> On 15.11.14 00:02, Curtis Rueden wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Herbie, >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I need to know whether plain ImageJ2 (not Fiji with its >>>>>>>> additional >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> plugins) is open source in exactly the same legal sense as plain >>>>>>>>> ImageJ1? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Like most of the SciJava software projects [1], ImageJ2 uses the >>>>>>>> Simplified >>>>>>>> BSD License [2], one of the most popular permissive OSS licenses. It >>>>>>>> makes >>>>>>>> only one stipulation: that derivative works retain the copyright >>>>>>>> notice, >>>>>>>> for purposes of provenance tracking and citation. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We have been very careful to track the origin of all source code in >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> projects, including dependencies, to ensure that all stated licenses >>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>> indeed valid. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The following newly minted wiki page summarizes everything, >>>>>>>> including >>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>> discussion of ImageJ 1.x's copyright status: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> * http://imagej.net/Licensing >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> These pages may be informative as well: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> * http://choosealicense.com/ >>>>>>>> * >>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_status_of_work_by_ >>>>>>>> the_U.S._government >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>> Curtis >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [1] http://imagej.net/SciJava >>>>>>>> [2] http://imagej.net/BSD >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 1:11 PM, Herbie <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Dear Curtis and those who are in the know, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> for good reasons I need to know whether plain ImageJ2 (not Fiji >>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>> its >>>>>>>>> additional plugins) is open source in exactly the same legal sense >>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>> plain >>>>>>>>> ImageJ1? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> With "plain ImageJ2" I mean the software that provides about the >>>>>>>>> same >>>>>>>>> functionality as ImageJ1. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Best regards >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Herbie >>>>>>>>> ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> ImageJ mailing list: http://imagej.nih.gov/ij/list.html >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ImageJ mailing list: http://imagej.nih.gov/ij/list.html >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> ImageJ mailing list: http://imagej.nih.gov/ij/list.html >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>> ImageJ mailing list: http://imagej.nih.gov/ij/list.html >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>> ImageJ mailing list: http://imagej.nih.gov/ij/list.html >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>> ImageJ mailing list: http://imagej.nih.gov/ij/list.html >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>> ImageJ mailing list: http://imagej.nih.gov/ij/list.html >>> >>> >> -- >> ImageJ mailing list: http://imagej.nih.gov/ij/list.html >> >> > -- > ImageJ mailing list: http://imagej.nih.gov/ij/list.html > -- ImageJ mailing list: http://imagej.nih.gov/ij/list.html |
|
|
Dear Curtis,
the wikis linked from <http://imagej.net/Licensing> by Mark are not ImageJ2-specific. Please point me at least to answers of: I. Is this <http://choosealicense.com/licenses/bsd-2-clause/> copyright license/notice sufficient for _all_ core routines of plain ImageJ2 ? II. What do we need to fill in for [year], [fullname] ? These are questions that can't be answered by lawyers but must be answered by people who know the details of ImageJ2. (I can't find ImageJ2-specific answers on the provided/linked pages.) Thank you Herbie ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: On 18.11.14 16:03, Curtis Rueden wrote: > Hi Herbie, > >> this is not what I had in mind. >> Please read my previous post thoroughly > > Mark's new section does answer all your questions. Please read the articles > linked from that section, which provide tutorials and walkthroughs on how > to abide by the terms of these sorts of OSS licenses. > >> I did _not_ consider the use of IJ2 for "Open Source" projects. > > Understood. The wiki says: "If you are writing code (open source or not) > that will use one or more of these libraries..." > >> The BSD-2 link does concern BSD-2 but it also deals with other >> BSD licenses. Hence it isn't really a BSD-2 link. > > The wiki is community editable. Feel free to improve the documentation if > you still feel it is unclear. > > All of this software (except ImageJ1) uses standard OSS licenses. Thus, > your questions are not specific to ImageJ. Furthermore, none of the people > on this thread are lawyers [1]—you may want to consult legal counsel to get > a more specific recommendation regarding your situation. > > Regards, > Curtis > > [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IANAL > > On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 8:38 AM, Herbie <[hidden email]> wrote: > >> Sorry Mark, >> >> but this is not what I had in mind. >> >> Please read my previous post thoroughly and you will recognize the >> problems and my questions 1., 2., and 3. >> And please note that I did _not_ consider the use of IJ2 for "Open Source" >> projects. >> >> Only one example: >> The BSD-2 link <http://imagej.net/BSD-2> does concern BSD-2 but it also >> deals with other BSD licenses. Hence it isn't really a BSD-2 link. >> >> etc. >> >> etc. >> >> Best regards >> >> Herbie >> >> :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: >> >> On 18.11.14 14:34, Mark Hiner wrote: >> >>> Hi Herbie, >>> >>> At least for plain ImageJ2 (as defined in my original post) we should see >>>> >>> an access point for the required copyright and license notice, especially >>> concerning [year], [fullname]. >>> >>> I added a new section >>> <http://imagej.net/Licensing#Developers:_How_to_use_this_page> to the >>> http://imagej.net/Licensing page, which I hope will make the whole page >>> easier to use. I don't think it was clear that the 4th column of the table >>> (which I renamed to "License text") links to the actual LICENSE.txt that >>> should be distributed by projects using these libraries. >>> >>> I suspect you did the same thing I just did, followed the "BSD-2" link in >>> the 3rd column, and ended up at the choosealicense site - which just has >>> license templates and instructions for their use. >>> >>> Anyway, I hope that the Licensing page can now fully answer your >>> questions. >>> Please let us know if anything is still unclear - this feedback is very >>> helpful to getting things properly documented on the wiki. >>> >>> Best, >>> Mark >>> >>> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 5:24 AM, Herbie <[hidden email]> wrote: >>> >>> Dear Curtis and Stephan! >>>> >>>> More to the point: >>>> >>>> Let's assume that one writes an IJ2-PlugIn that calls IJ2-routines. >>>> The IJ2-PlugIn is _not_ "Open Source" and is being sold. >>>> >>>> 1. >>>> According to >>>> "[...] wrap the licensed code [IJ2-routines], parts of it, or binary >>>> distributions of it, in open source as well as closed source commercial >>>> projects." >>>> this is allowed by the "BSD-2 license of ImageJ2". >>>> >>>> 2. >>>> Is there a _single_ copyright/license notice for all core routines (as >>>> defined in my original post) of plain ImageJ2? >>>> In other words, is it sufficient to make the text at >>>> <http://choosealicense.com/licenses/bsd-2-clause/> >>>> accessible? >>>> If yes, what do we need to fill in for [year], [fullname] ? >>>> >>>> 3. >>>> Is there more than the text at >>>> <http://choosealicense.com/licenses/bsd-2-clause/> >>>> that needs to be made accessible? >>>> >>>> At least for plain ImageJ2 (as defined in my original post) we should see >>>> an access point for the required copyright and license notice, especially >>>> concerning [year], [fullname]. >>>> Evidently, the page <http://imagej.net/BSD>, as it deals with various >>>> licenses, is not quite to the point. >>>> >>>> Thanks for your steady help! >>>> >>>> Best regards >>>> >>>> Herbie >>>> >>>> ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: >>>> >>>> On 17.11.14 19:22, Curtis Rueden wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Herbie, >>>>> >>>>> I hope that you are right with "sell"... >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Yes, this was one of the central reasons for choosing BSD-2 as the >>>>> license >>>>> for ImageJ2 etc. >>>>> >>>>> http://stackoverflow.com/q/4397864 >>>>> >>>>> For further reading, see: >>>>> http://opensource.com/law/13/8/motivation-free-software-licensing >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Curtis >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Herbie <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Many thanks Stephan, >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> for clarifying the issue a bit. >>>>>> >>>>>> I hope that you are right with "sell"... >>>>>> >>>>>> Isn't a copyright always a restriction of the right to copy? >>>>>> To make a notice accessible, appears to be something different--no? >>>>>> >>>>>> Best regards >>>>>> >>>>>> Herbie >>>>>> >>>>>> ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: >>>>>> >>>>>> On 17.11.14 18:02, Stephan Saalfeld wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Herbie, >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> `fundamentally different' is a very vague and bold statement and as >>>>>>> such >>>>>>> prone to misinterpretation by those less familiar with the topic. I >>>>>>> therefore feel urged to clarify: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The only difference between the licenses of ImageJ1 and ImageJ2 is >>>>>>> that >>>>>>> you cannot claim that you wrote ImageJ2, but you can claim that you >>>>>>> wrote ImageJ1. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> With both licenses you can use, modify, give away, sell, wrap the >>>>>>> licensed code, parts of it, or binary distributions of it, in open >>>>>>> source as well as closed source commercial projects. No constraints. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The exact difference between the two licenses is that ImageJ2 requires >>>>>>> you to retain that copyright notice and make this information >>>>>>> accessible >>>>>>> for those consuming your derived work, i.e. give minimal virtual kudos >>>>>>> to those who developed ImageJ2. I, personally, would spare >>>>>>> `fundamental' for something more `fundamental'. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>> Stephan >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sat, 2014-11-15 at 10:51 +0100, Herbie wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Many thanks Curtis! >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The <http://imagej.net/Licensing> overview is very helpful to get an >>>>>>>> impression. However, the footnote regarding ImagJ1 is less clear but >>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>> explains why... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In any case, the license of ImagJ1 and that of ImagJ2 are >>>>>>>> fundamentally >>>>>>>> different. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks again and best regards >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Herbie >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: >>>>>>>> On 15.11.14 00:02, Curtis Rueden wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Herbie, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I need to know whether plain ImageJ2 (not Fiji with its >>>>>>>>> additional >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> plugins) is open source in exactly the same legal sense as plain >>>>>>>>>> ImageJ1? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Like most of the SciJava software projects [1], ImageJ2 uses the >>>>>>>>> Simplified >>>>>>>>> BSD License [2], one of the most popular permissive OSS licenses. It >>>>>>>>> makes >>>>>>>>> only one stipulation: that derivative works retain the copyright >>>>>>>>> notice, >>>>>>>>> for purposes of provenance tracking and citation. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> We have been very careful to track the origin of all source code in >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> projects, including dependencies, to ensure that all stated licenses >>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>> indeed valid. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The following newly minted wiki page summarizes everything, >>>>>>>>> including >>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>> discussion of ImageJ 1.x's copyright status: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> * http://imagej.net/Licensing >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> These pages may be informative as well: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> * http://choosealicense.com/ >>>>>>>>> * >>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_status_of_work_by_ >>>>>>>>> the_U.S._government >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>> Curtis >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [1] http://imagej.net/SciJava >>>>>>>>> [2] http://imagej.net/BSD >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 1:11 PM, Herbie <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Dear Curtis and those who are in the know, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> for good reasons I need to know whether plain ImageJ2 (not Fiji >>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>> its >>>>>>>>>> additional plugins) is open source in exactly the same legal sense >>>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>> plain >>>>>>>>>> ImageJ1? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> With "plain ImageJ2" I mean the software that provides about the >>>>>>>>>> same >>>>>>>>>> functionality as ImageJ1. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Best regards >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Herbie >>>>>>>>>> ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> ImageJ mailing list: http://imagej.nih.gov/ij/list.html >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ImageJ mailing list: http://imagej.nih.gov/ij/list.html >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ImageJ mailing list: http://imagej.nih.gov/ij/list.html >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> ImageJ mailing list: http://imagej.nih.gov/ij/list.html >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> >>>>>> ImageJ mailing list: http://imagej.nih.gov/ij/list.html >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>> ImageJ mailing list: http://imagej.nih.gov/ij/list.html >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>> ImageJ mailing list: http://imagej.nih.gov/ij/list.html >>>> >>>> >>> -- >>> ImageJ mailing list: http://imagej.nih.gov/ij/list.html >>> >>> >> -- >> ImageJ mailing list: http://imagej.nih.gov/ij/list.html >> > > -- > ImageJ mailing list: http://imagej.nih.gov/ij/list.html > -- ImageJ mailing list: http://imagej.nih.gov/ij/list.html |
|
|
Hi Herbie,
> the wikis linked from <http://imagej.net/Licensing> by Mark are not ImageJ2-specific. To clarify, the section I added is intended to aid in the use of the Project Summary table <http://imagej.net/Licensing#Project_summary> - which includes ImageJ2. >Is this copyright license/notice sufficient for _all_ core routines of plain ImageJ2 ? The "License Text" entry for ImageJ2 in the project summary table links to: https://github.com/imagej/imagej/blob/master/LICENSE.txt and that is the copyright notice that you would distribute when linking against the core ImageJ2 library. >What do we need to fill in for [year], [fullname] ? The author of open source software fills these fields in for the copy of the license they distribute with their software. Consumers of open source software do not have to fill these fields in because they will be redistributing a license that has already been filled out. You will only need to fill in a year and name if you are creating your own open source software. Best, Mark -- ImageJ mailing list: http://imagej.nih.gov/ij/list.html |
|
|
Hi Herbie and everyone,
In case it helps, here are a couple of examples of citing upstream software. ImageJ2 currently does it like this: https://github.com/imagej/imagej/blob/imagej-2.0.0-rc-17/NOTICE.txt Fiji currently does it like this: https://github.com/fiji/fiji/blob/69aa539f842250103efa3a85e04dae437635f575/LICENSES SCIFIO currently does it like this: https://github.com/scifio/scifio/blob/scifio-0.17.1/NOTICE.txt The SCIFIO way is the most correct from a legal perspective, because it reproduces the entire license text. Again, IANAL, so YMMV, caveat emptor, etc. Regards, Curtis On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 11:47 AM, Mark Hiner <[hidden email]> wrote: > Hi Herbie, > > > the wikis linked from <http://imagej.net/Licensing> by Mark are not > ImageJ2-specific. > > To clarify, the section I added is intended to aid in the use of the > Project > Summary table <http://imagej.net/Licensing#Project_summary> - which > includes ImageJ2. > > >Is this copyright license/notice sufficient for _all_ core routines of > plain ImageJ2 ? > > The "License Text" entry for ImageJ2 in the project summary table links to: > https://github.com/imagej/imagej/blob/master/LICENSE.txt and that is the > copyright notice that you would distribute when linking against the core > ImageJ2 library. > > >What do we need to fill in for [year], [fullname] ? > > The author of open source software fills these fields in for the copy of > the license they distribute with their software. Consumers of open source > software do not have to fill these fields in because they will be > redistributing a license that has already been filled out. You will only > need to fill in a year and name if you are creating your own open source > software. > > Best, > Mark > > -- > ImageJ mailing list: http://imagej.nih.gov/ij/list.html > -- ImageJ mailing list: http://imagej.nih.gov/ij/list.html |
|
|
In reply to this post by Mark Hiner
Thank you Mark,
<https://github.com/imagej/imagej/blob/master/LICENSE.txt> is exactly what I was looking for. I suspect this text is what most of the IJ2-coders really need... I didn't realize that there is a link behind the lock-symbol at <http://imagej.net/Licensing#Project_summary>! Perhaps the link/symbol can be made a bit more prominent. Often it's the details that lead to confusion... I think the issue is settle for me now. Thank you and Curtis for your patience Herbie :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: On 18.11.14 18:47, Mark Hiner wrote: > Hi Herbie, > >> the wikis linked from <http://imagej.net/Licensing> by Mark are not > ImageJ2-specific. > > To clarify, the section I added is intended to aid in the use of the Project > Summary table <http://imagej.net/Licensing#Project_summary> - which > includes ImageJ2. > >> Is this copyright license/notice sufficient for _all_ core routines of > plain ImageJ2 ? > > The "License Text" entry for ImageJ2 in the project summary table links to: > https://github.com/imagej/imagej/blob/master/LICENSE.txt and that is the > copyright notice that you would distribute when linking against the core > ImageJ2 library. > >> What do we need to fill in for [year], [fullname] ? > > The author of open source software fills these fields in for the copy of > the license they distribute with their software. Consumers of open source > software do not have to fill these fields in because they will be > redistributing a license that has already been filled out. You will only > need to fill in a year and name if you are creating your own open source > software. > > Best, > Mark > > -- > ImageJ mailing list: http://imagej.nih.gov/ij/list.html > -- ImageJ mailing list: http://imagej.nih.gov/ij/list.html |
Re: A formal question re ImageJ2
|
|
In reply to this post by Herbie-4
Hi Herbie,
Mark updated the link as he explained in detail in his kind response: > I. > Is this > <http://choosealicense.com/licenses/bsd-2-clause/> > copyright license/notice sufficient for _all_ core routines of plain > ImageJ2 ? > Yes (it is BSD-2) and no (year and author were generic templates), the link was updated by Mark to this complete license text for ImageJ2 https://github.com/imagej/imagej/blob/master/LICENSE.txt > II. > What do we need to fill in for [year], [fullname] ? > See above. Best, Stephan > ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: > On 18.11.14 16:03, Curtis Rueden wrote: > > Hi Herbie, > > > >> this is not what I had in mind. > >> Please read my previous post thoroughly > > > > Mark's new section does answer all your questions. Please read the articles > > linked from that section, which provide tutorials and walkthroughs on how > > to abide by the terms of these sorts of OSS licenses. > > > >> I did _not_ consider the use of IJ2 for "Open Source" projects. > > > > Understood. The wiki says: "If you are writing code (open source or not) > > that will use one or more of these libraries..." > > > >> The BSD-2 link does concern BSD-2 but it also deals with other > >> BSD licenses. Hence it isn't really a BSD-2 link. > > > > The wiki is community editable. Feel free to improve the documentation if > > you still feel it is unclear. > > > > All of this software (except ImageJ1) uses standard OSS licenses. Thus, > > your questions are not specific to ImageJ. Furthermore, none of the people > > on this thread are lawyers [1]—you may want to consult legal counsel to get > > a more specific recommendation regarding your situation. > > > > Regards, > > Curtis > > > > [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IANAL > > > > On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 8:38 AM, Herbie <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > >> Sorry Mark, > >> > >> but this is not what I had in mind. > >> > >> Please read my previous post thoroughly and you will recognize the > >> problems and my questions 1., 2., and 3. > >> And please note that I did _not_ consider the use of IJ2 for "Open Source" > >> projects. > >> > >> Only one example: > >> The BSD-2 link <http://imagej.net/BSD-2> does concern BSD-2 but it also > >> deals with other BSD licenses. Hence it isn't really a BSD-2 link. > >> > >> etc. > >> > >> etc. > >> > >> Best regards > >> > >> Herbie > >> > >> :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: > >> > >> On 18.11.14 14:34, Mark Hiner wrote: > >> > >>> Hi Herbie, > >>> > >>> At least for plain ImageJ2 (as defined in my original post) we should see > >>>> > >>> an access point for the required copyright and license notice, especially > >>> concerning [year], [fullname]. > >>> > >>> I added a new section > >>> <http://imagej.net/Licensing#Developers:_How_to_use_this_page> to the > >>> http://imagej.net/Licensing page, which I hope will make the whole page > >>> easier to use. I don't think it was clear that the 4th column of the table > >>> (which I renamed to "License text") links to the actual LICENSE.txt that > >>> should be distributed by projects using these libraries. > >>> > >>> I suspect you did the same thing I just did, followed the "BSD-2" link in > >>> the 3rd column, and ended up at the choosealicense site - which just has > >>> license templates and instructions for their use. > >>> > >>> Anyway, I hope that the Licensing page can now fully answer your > >>> questions. > >>> Please let us know if anything is still unclear - this feedback is very > >>> helpful to getting things properly documented on the wiki. > >>> > >>> Best, > >>> Mark > >>> > >>> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 5:24 AM, Herbie <[hidden email]> wrote: > >>> > >>> Dear Curtis and Stephan! > >>>> > >>>> More to the point: > >>>> > >>>> Let's assume that one writes an IJ2-PlugIn that calls IJ2-routines. > >>>> The IJ2-PlugIn is _not_ "Open Source" and is being sold. > >>>> > >>>> 1. > >>>> According to > >>>> "[...] wrap the licensed code [IJ2-routines], parts of it, or binary > >>>> distributions of it, in open source as well as closed source commercial > >>>> projects." > >>>> this is allowed by the "BSD-2 license of ImageJ2". > >>>> > >>>> 2. > >>>> Is there a _single_ copyright/license notice for all core routines (as > >>>> defined in my original post) of plain ImageJ2? > >>>> In other words, is it sufficient to make the text at > >>>> <http://choosealicense.com/licenses/bsd-2-clause/> > >>>> accessible? > >>>> If yes, what do we need to fill in for [year], [fullname] ? > >>>> > >>>> 3. > >>>> Is there more than the text at > >>>> <http://choosealicense.com/licenses/bsd-2-clause/> > >>>> that needs to be made accessible? > >>>> > >>>> At least for plain ImageJ2 (as defined in my original post) we should see > >>>> an access point for the required copyright and license notice, especially > >>>> concerning [year], [fullname]. > >>>> Evidently, the page <http://imagej.net/BSD>, as it deals with various > >>>> licenses, is not quite to the point. > >>>> > >>>> Thanks for your steady help! > >>>> > >>>> Best regards > >>>> > >>>> Herbie > >>>> > >>>> ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: > >>>> > >>>> On 17.11.14 19:22, Curtis Rueden wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Hi Herbie, > >>>>> > >>>>> I hope that you are right with "sell"... > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> Yes, this was one of the central reasons for choosing BSD-2 as the > >>>>> license > >>>>> for ImageJ2 etc. > >>>>> > >>>>> http://stackoverflow.com/q/4397864 > >>>>> > >>>>> For further reading, see: > >>>>> http://opensource.com/law/13/8/motivation-free-software-licensing > >>>>> > >>>>> Regards, > >>>>> Curtis > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Herbie <[hidden email]> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Many thanks Stephan, > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> for clarifying the issue a bit. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I hope that you are right with "sell"... > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Isn't a copyright always a restriction of the right to copy? > >>>>>> To make a notice accessible, appears to be something different--no? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Best regards > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Herbie > >>>>>> > >>>>>> ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On 17.11.14 18:02, Stephan Saalfeld wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Hi Herbie, > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> `fundamentally different' is a very vague and bold statement and as > >>>>>>> such > >>>>>>> prone to misinterpretation by those less familiar with the topic. I > >>>>>>> therefore feel urged to clarify: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> The only difference between the licenses of ImageJ1 and ImageJ2 is > >>>>>>> that > >>>>>>> you cannot claim that you wrote ImageJ2, but you can claim that you > >>>>>>> wrote ImageJ1. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> With both licenses you can use, modify, give away, sell, wrap the > >>>>>>> licensed code, parts of it, or binary distributions of it, in open > >>>>>>> source as well as closed source commercial projects. No constraints. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> The exact difference between the two licenses is that ImageJ2 requires > >>>>>>> you to retain that copyright notice and make this information > >>>>>>> accessible > >>>>>>> for those consuming your derived work, i.e. give minimal virtual kudos > >>>>>>> to those who developed ImageJ2. I, personally, would spare > >>>>>>> `fundamental' for something more `fundamental'. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Best, > >>>>>>> Stephan > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Sat, 2014-11-15 at 10:51 +0100, Herbie wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Many thanks Curtis! > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> The <http://imagej.net/Licensing> overview is very helpful to get an > >>>>>>>> impression. However, the footnote regarding ImagJ1 is less clear but > >>>>>>>> it > >>>>>>>> explains why... > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> In any case, the license of ImagJ1 and that of ImagJ2 are > >>>>>>>> fundamentally > >>>>>>>> different. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Thanks again and best regards > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Herbie > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: > >>>>>>>> On 15.11.14 00:02, Curtis Rueden wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Hi Herbie, > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I need to know whether plain ImageJ2 (not Fiji with its > >>>>>>>>> additional > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> plugins) is open source in exactly the same legal sense as plain > >>>>>>>>>> ImageJ1? > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Like most of the SciJava software projects [1], ImageJ2 uses the > >>>>>>>>> Simplified > >>>>>>>>> BSD License [2], one of the most popular permissive OSS licenses. It > >>>>>>>>> makes > >>>>>>>>> only one stipulation: that derivative works retain the copyright > >>>>>>>>> notice, > >>>>>>>>> for purposes of provenance tracking and citation. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> We have been very careful to track the origin of all source code in > >>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>> projects, including dependencies, to ensure that all stated licenses > >>>>>>>>> are > >>>>>>>>> indeed valid. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> The following newly minted wiki page summarizes everything, > >>>>>>>>> including > >>>>>>>>> a > >>>>>>>>> discussion of ImageJ 1.x's copyright status: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> * http://imagej.net/Licensing > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> These pages may be informative as well: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> * http://choosealicense.com/ > >>>>>>>>> * > >>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_status_of_work_by_ > >>>>>>>>> the_U.S._government > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Regards, > >>>>>>>>> Curtis > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> [1] http://imagej.net/SciJava > >>>>>>>>> [2] http://imagej.net/BSD > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 1:11 PM, Herbie <[hidden email]> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Dear Curtis and those who are in the know, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> for good reasons I need to know whether plain ImageJ2 (not Fiji > >>>>>>>>>> with > >>>>>>>>>> its > >>>>>>>>>> additional plugins) is open source in exactly the same legal sense > >>>>>>>>>> as > >>>>>>>>>> plain > >>>>>>>>>> ImageJ1? > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> With "plain ImageJ2" I mean the software that provides about the > >>>>>>>>>> same > >>>>>>>>>> functionality as ImageJ1. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Best regards > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Herbie > >>>>>>>>>> ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>>> ImageJ mailing list: http://imagej.nih.gov/ij/list.html > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> ImageJ mailing list: http://imagej.nih.gov/ij/list.html > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> ImageJ mailing list: http://imagej.nih.gov/ij/list.html > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>> ImageJ mailing list: http://imagej.nih.gov/ij/list.html > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> ImageJ mailing list: http://imagej.nih.gov/ij/list.html > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>> ImageJ mailing list: http://imagej.nih.gov/ij/list.html > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> -- > >>>> ImageJ mailing list: http://imagej.nih.gov/ij/list.html > >>>> > >>>> > >>> -- > >>> ImageJ mailing list: http://imagej.nih.gov/ij/list.html > >>> > >>> > >> -- > >> ImageJ mailing list: http://imagej.nih.gov/ij/list.html > >> > > > > -- > > ImageJ mailing list: http://imagej.nih.gov/ij/list.html > > > > -- > ImageJ mailing list: http://imagej.nih.gov/ij/list.html -- ImageJ mailing list: http://imagej.nih.gov/ij/list.html |
«
Return to ImageJ
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |