CVSROOT: /web/www
Module name: www
Changes by: Brett Smith <brett> 12/01/05 15:03:12
Modified files:
licenses : gpl-faq.html license-recommendations.html
Log message:
300 lines is the benchmark for a program that doesn't need copyleft.
This change was motivated by two things:
* I thought the previous recommendation referred to file size, rather
than number of lines, which is not what RMS intended.
* The recommendation isn't meant to change over time. When the
previous recommendation was written, GPLv2 was the latest version.
It's 339 lines, so this 300 lines benchmark makes a pretty similar
result. Today, people reading the old recommendation might compare
their software against GPLv3, and could end up avoiding copyleft
for packages that are big enough to benefit from it.
This patch was approved by RMS.
CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/licenses/gpl-faq.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.172&r2=1.173
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/licenses/license-recommendations.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.9&r2=1.10
Patches:
Index: gpl-faq.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/licenses/gpl-faq.html,v
retrieving revision 1.172
retrieving revision 1.173
diff -u -b -r1.172 -r1.173
--- gpl-faq.html 12 Dec 2011 19:07:10 -0000 1.172
+++ gpl-faq.html 5 Jan 2012 15:03:03 -0000 1.173
@@ -112,8 +112,8 @@
<li><a href="#WhyMustIInclude">Why does the GPL require including a
copy of the GPL with every copy of the program?</a></li>
- <li><a href="#WhatIfWorkIsShort">What if the work is not much longer
- than the license itself?</a></li>
+ <li><a href="#WhatIfWorkIsShort">What if the work is not very
+ long?</a></li>
<li><a href="#RequiredToClaimCopyright">Am I required to claim a
copyright on my modifications to a GPL-covered program?</a></li>
@@ -240,8 +240,8 @@
<li><a href="#WhyMustIInclude">Why does the GPL require including a
copy of the GPL with every copy of the program?</a></li>
- <li><a href="#WhatIfWorkIsShort">What if the work is not much longer
- than the license itself?</a></li>
+ <li><a href="#WhatIfWorkIsShort">What if the work is not very
+ long?</a></li>
<li><a href="#GPLOmitPreamble">Can I omit the preamble of the GPL,
or the instructions for how to use it on your own programs, to save
@@ -971,13 +971,16 @@
the program.</p></dd>
-<dt id="WhatIfWorkIsShort">What
- if the work is not much longer than the license itself?
+<dt id="WhatIfWorkIsShort">What if the work is not very long?
<span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#WhatIfWorkIsShort"
>#WhatIfWorkIsShort</a>)</span></dt>
-<dd><p>
-If a single program is that short, you may as well use a simple
-all-permissive license for it, rather than the GNU GPL.</p></dd>
+
+<dd><p>If a whole software package contains very little
+code—less than 300 lines is the benchmark we use—you may
+as well use a simple lax license for it, rather than a copyleft
+license like the GNU GPL.
+We <a href="/licenses/license-recommendations.html#software">recommend
+the Apache License 2.0</a> for such cases.</p></dd>
<dt id="GPLOmitPreamble">Can I omit the preamble of the GPL, or the
@@ -3571,7 +3574,7 @@
<p>
Updated:
<!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2011/12/12 19:07:10 $
+$Date: 2012/01/05 15:03:03 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
</div>
Index: license-recommendations.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/licenses/license-recommendations.html,v
retrieving revision 1.9
retrieving revision 1.10
diff -u -b -r1.9 -r1.10
--- license-recommendations.html 23 Dec 2011 14:23:40 -0000 1.9
+++ license-recommendations.html 5 Jan 2012 15:03:03 -0000 1.10
@@ -52,13 +52,12 @@
concept of copyleft in more detail, and why it is generally the best
licensing strategy.</p>
-<p>There are only a couple of kinds of projects that we think should not
-have any copyleft at all. The first is very small projects. As a
-rough benchmark, we compare the project's source code to the text of
-the GPL. When the source code is not much longer than the license,
-the benefits provided by copyleft are usually too small to justify the
-inconvenience of making sure a copy of the license always accompanies
-the software.</p>
+<p>There are only a couple of kinds of projects that we think should
+not have any copyleft at all. The first is very small projects. We
+use 300 lines as our benchmark: when a software package's source code
+is shorter than that, the benefits provided by copyleft are usually
+too small to justify the inconvenience of making sure a copy of the
+license always accompanies the software.</p>
<p>The second is projects that implement free standards that are
competing against proprietary standards, such as Ogg Vorbis (which
@@ -184,7 +183,7 @@
<p>
Updated:
<!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2011/12/23 14:23:40 $
+$Date: 2012/01/05 15:03:03 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
</div>
