http://imagej.273.s1.nabble.com/creating-a-real-blank-image-tp5010383p5010518.html
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.
this is allowed by the "BSD-2 license of ImageJ2".
2.
3.
especially concerning [year], [fullname].
licenses, is not quite to the point.
> 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>