On Thu, Apr 21, 2005 at 12:01:47PM +0100, Peter Murray-Rust wrote:
> The InChI code itself does not fit under Sourceforge licenses as the code
> itself is normative and it is important that mutants do not arise. I do not
> know of any Open Source licenses that can manage this. It may be that some
> ideas from Creative Commons will work. If anyone has ideas, we'd be
I see two possibilities here:
Your code/project is so authorative that everybody will just use your
work. Having a standards body like IUPAC behind it helps here I guess.
Most people in the Free Software world would not think about forking
anything, even less so something standard-ish. Forks are a pain to
maintain or take on.
One could argue that if a fork is ever getting more attention than the
original project, your idea (or the execution thereof) was bound to
You do something like what the Apache project did, i.e. require clear
derivatives to rename their project. That's why IBM called theirs
Of course, then you might get into trouble about when a derivative is
required to change name, what if RedHat fixes a bug in your code, do
they have to rename it? Debian solves this by mostly not thinking about
it, and the Apache project does the same for the Linux distributions.
I am not sure whether there is good license boilerplate for this which
makes sure your project is still considered Free Software, this would
Maybe my above remarks did not help for the situation at hand, but I
think your point of reasoning is not a priori an argument for having
your code be proprietary.
As for Creative Commons, most of their licenses are still considered
non-free by e.g. Debian, though I heard fixes are upcoming which will
make those which are not clearly non-free acceptable.