http://imagej.273.s1.nabble.com/creating-a-real-blank-image-tp5010383p5010525.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>