3

got a question about an open source project I'm planning to put in place (to be hosted either at Codeplex or Sourceforge).

In short, the project will consist of an XSD file to define a schema for XML files to adhere to, and some C# code to work with those XML files.

But I'm not sure what license I should give it, especially the XSD file. The project will be mostly a class library, so I'm tempted to go with LGPL, so it can be used by both free and proprietary software.

But the one thing is, I don't want the XSD file to be able to be changed, cause I'm trying to put up a standard for data-sharing of a specific problem domain, and imo there's no point in making a standard open source, or is it ?

Or should I release the XSD as a separate project ? Not sure what's the right way to go...

Thanks for any advise on the matter.

Mathieu

tjeuten
  • 649
  • 9
  • 28
  • 4
    I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because **it is about licensing or legal issues**, not programming or software development. [See here](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/a/274964/1402846) for details, and the [help/on-topic] for more. – Kevin Brown-Silva Jun 04 '15 at 23:42

1 Answers1

4

I think you are making a big mistake. In fact, I think that the XSD files should be released under a more liberal license.

If someone wants to create a proprietary version of HTML and fork Firefox to work with it they are only creating needless work for themselves. For the most part, it doesn't cause any problems for Mozilla or the W3C because nobody is going to care or use it. Granted, at one time, both Netscape and Microsoft tried to add proprietary HTML extensions. Microsoft eventually realized the value in browser interoperability. Netscape didn't last long enough for it to matter.

If you put a restrictive license on the schema, you will decrease the likelihood that anyone will adopt your standard. Many developers are constrained by the licenses of components they can use in their projects. What is the point of having a standard, unless it is open to all developers?

Keep in mind, and XSD file is not a standard or a schema. It is only a representation of a standard.

For example, if you have an XHTML XSD, changing the XSD does not change the XHTML schema. The XHTML schema is defined by an English document published by the W3C. The only way to change the XHTML schema is to get the W3C to publish and updated version of the document. If you change an XHMTL XSD, you have created a representation of different schema.

By putting the XSD file under a restrictive license doesn't do anything to protect your schema, it only forces someone to code from scratch a new XSD file for their proprietary extensions.

Have you considered that your standard might have flaws, or not cover certain use cases you haven't considered? If your standard can't meet all the needs of a developer they won't use it. You could promise to incorporate improvements in to the standards, but what happens if you get hit by a bus? If you are the only person who can legally change the standard it will eventually stagnate and become irrelevant.

Zlatin Zlatev
  • 3,034
  • 1
  • 24
  • 32
mikerobi
  • 20,527
  • 5
  • 46
  • 42
  • Thanks for your input. So I should probably release the XSD under LGPL too, right ? LGPL if I understand correctly is free to use and adapt, for both proprietary and free software, right ? – tjeuten Feb 20 '11 at 09:00