[kepler-dev] an introduction and some questions

Christopher Brooks cxh at eecs.berkeley.edu
Tue Apr 5 10:41:07 PDT 2005

Bertram writes:
[> >Timothy writes] 
>  > 3.  Are there any policies (or strong feelings) on intellectual 
>  > property and software licensing?  I see many Kepler source files that 
>  > are copyrighted by the University of California and have a 
> since many of the contrib. members are UC members (Berkeley, San Diego, Santa
> Barbara, and in the future we'll see also stuff from Davis -- would be
> nice to have one Kepler member from each UC campus ;-)
>  > Berkeley-style license.  I also see a fair number of files with a GNU 
>  > Public License.  I want to be able to distribute NDDP software freely 
>  > (I've used an MIT-style license for past projects). I would like the 
>  > NDDP to retain the copyright on the software I contribute.  And I would 
>  > prefer to avoid dependencies on software with licenses more restrictive 
>  > than the Berkeley license.  Does using a CVS repository at UCSB (?) 
>  > have any implications in these regards?
> hmm.. good questions. I'll pass on those however. 
> License experts to the front!

(I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on TV. :-)

At the Ptolemy project, we try to stick with the BSD style copyright.
The copyright holder need not necessarily be 
"The Regents of the University of California."

For example, ptolemy/graph has classes that have 
"The University of Maryland." holding the copyright.

So, having NDDP retain the copyright is fine.  

Ideally, each file has one copyright holder.  It makes things easier
when updating dates etc., and if there are issues, it is easier
to deal with one entity instead of two.

It is best if we stick with the wording as is, without modification.
Resist the temptation to add or deleted text to the notice.

Of course, ultimately, everyone is (mostly) free to develop under
what ever copyright they would like, but at the minimum, stick
with one of the standard copyright notices. 

I have some notes at

I prefer not to see GPL'd software if only because it makes it harder
to push software to corporate sponsors.  If GPL'd software is present,
it should be clearly marked so that sponsors can avoid it if
necessary.  Ideally, the core of a system does not have GPL'd
components.  (BTW - I'd rather not have a big argument about GPL via
email.  Edward has communicated with Richard Stallman about our
license and while RMS would prefer we are GPL'd, RMS sees that our
license is better than most).

Anyway, the above is just my opinion, and really only applies to
Ptolemy software, not to Kepler or any other packages.

BTW - Law is based on precedence, not logic.  


More information about the Kepler-dev mailing list