http://imagej.273.s1.nabble.com/creating-a-real-blank-image-tp5010383p5010523.html
but this is not what I had in mind.
problems and my questions 1., 2., and 3.
Source" projects.
deals with other BSD licenses. Hence it isn't really a BSD-2 link.
etc.
etc.
> 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>