License

Sep 16, 2011 at 7:46 PM

Here on CodePlex, both V2 and V3 alpha are licensed under the Ms-PL. What I wish to bring up is that, V2 was originally posted on CodeProject and licensed under the CPOL. These licenses conflict and are not compatible.

Furthermore, for V3 I would like to see a non-copyleft license that does not conflict with the GPL. The ability to use this Library in GPL projects, would be very attractive to many developers.

However, I think to be fair and for the same reasons the Ms-PL should not be used, neither should the GPL or LGPL. 

Two of the licenses that I thought might potentially suit this project are the Simplified BSD, and MIT License.

Coordinator
Sep 16, 2011 at 9:41 PM
Edited Sep 16, 2011 at 9:42 PM

Agree to make it as open as possible. What are most significant differences between Simplified BSD, and MIT License?

Sep 17, 2011 at 12:24 AM

The 3-Clause BSD License (aka, Modified BSD) has one clause specifically prohibits the advertising of the copyright holders name. MIT License was based off of that license, but without the aforementioned prohibition. The 2-Clause BSD (aka, Simplified BSD) also does not prevent advertisement using copyright holders name. Because of this, the Simplified BSD and MIT licenses are nearly identical.

Both are not-copyleft, very open, specifically tailored for allowing modifications.

Personally, I'd recommend the Simplified BSD, as stated before, they're very very similar.

Coordinator
Sep 19, 2011 at 10:01 AM

Was about to modify license.
The "New BS License" template requires that you provide values for the following fields: Year, Owner, Organization.
Thus there is no explicit owner or a company behind this code don't know what to feel in. 

Sep 19, 2011 at 5:42 PM

The Owner and Organization of the license would both be the name of the Project, or in this case, "Global Mouse and Keyboard Hooks .Net Library in C#".

Which actually brings me to the beginning of another discussion.

Something I've been thinking about is this: the Title of this project is "Global Mouse and Keyboard Hooks .Net Library in C#". The library has now been expanded to Application hooks, and the title of the project does not need to specifically include C#. Additionally, the root namespace is Gma.UserActivityMonitor which is inconsistent with the name of the project.

Could the project be renamed to something like, UserActivityMonitor.NET, and rename the "team" to The UAM Team? The root namespace could then be changed to UAM.UserActivityMonitor. For the New BSD license, the Owner would then become The UAM Team, and the Orginization UserActivityMonitor.NET.

Just a thought.

Coordinator
Sep 19, 2011 at 8:05 PM
  1. Renaming of the project to mention also application hooks makes sense
  2. "Gma" (my initials) is the common namespace prefix I use in all my private projects. Since this is no longer my private project, but an open source project we should change it.
  3. UserActivityMonitor - sounds to general and a bit scary for me :D.

I would suggest we try to generate several alternatives.

 

Sep 19, 2011 at 8:18 PM
gmamaladze wrote:

I would suggest we try to generate several alternatives.

 

Okay. I'll brainstorm a bit... see what comes to mind.

Sep 20, 2011 at 12:02 PM
PyrrhicVictor wrote:

Something I've been thinking about is this: the Title of this project is "Global Mouse and Keyboard Hooks .Net Library in C#". The library has now been expanded to Application hooks, and the title of the project does not need to specifically include C#. Additionally, the root namespace is Gma.UserActivityMonitor which is inconsistent with the name of the project.

Could the project be renamed to something like, UserActivityMonitor.NET, and rename the "team" to The UAM Team? The root namespace could then be changed to UAM.UserActivityMonitor.

I agree with PhyrricVictor.

I think the project should be renamed to something like User Activity Hook.

Additionally, dropping the Gma from the root namespace will be great.