Login  Register

Re: A formal question re ImageJ2

Posted by Herbie-4 on Nov 18, 2014; 11:24am
URL: http://imagej.273.s1.nabble.com/creating-a-real-blank-image-tp5010383p5010518.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