Re: Is the Sybase Open Watcom License ok?
On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 01:08:58AM +, Jason Spiro wrote: Le 05-07-2006, Adam Borowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit : Hmm, it doesn't appear to say even a word about _Sybase's_ patents at all. It speaks about Your (ie, the user/distributor's) patents. So, let's say an organization/company which owns one of Debian's mirrors, a mirror which carries non-free like most mirrors do, owns a patent. Not a software patent -- a patent for a mousetrap or a drug. Now, let's say that EvilCorp wants to do some patent trolling. They buy out any of openwatcom's contributors -- it's a big patent with hundreds or thousands of contributors, many of them corporate. In fact, often you can't tell who owns CorpA without a longer research; it can be owned by CorpB and then by CorpC and finally by EvilCorp. Now, EvilCorp starts a litigation against the university/company which provides our mirror. The defender for all practical reasons just lost all his patents. ... The license isn't good enough even for non-free, I would say. Adam, I do not understand why you say it can't go in non-free. Here is the clause you are referring to: 3. Your Grants. In consideration of, and as a condition to, the licenses granted to You under this License, You hereby grant to Sybase and all third parties a non-exclusive, royalty-free license, under Your Applicable Patent Rights and other intellectual property rights (other than patent) owned or controlled by You, to use, reproduce, display, perform, modify, distribute and Deploy Your Modifications of the same scope and extent as Sybase's licenses under Sections 2.1 and 2.2. I mean 12.1c: 12.1 Termination. This License and the rights granted hereunder will terminate: [...] (c) automatically without notice if You, at any time during the term of this License, commence an action for patent infringement (including as a cross claim or counterclaim) against Sybase or any Contributor. It seems to me that the clause only grants Sybase rights to distributors' patents for the purpose of developing and distributing Open Watcom, not for any other purpose. Am I correct? 12.1c appears to mention _any_ patents, even mousetrap or drug ones. However, I see now that this clause only _terminates_ the license, without making you liable. So, that university/company who owns that mousetrap patent can simply remove openwatcom from mirrors they provide for Debian. This is obviously non-free, but not worse than any other withdrawable-at-whim license. Of course, that' just my analysis -- what would you say, folks? Cheers, -- 1KB // Microsoft corollary to Hanlon's razor: // Never attribute to stupidity what can be // adequately explained by malice. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is the Sybase Open Watcom License ok?
Le 05-07-2006, Adam Borowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit : Hmm, it doesn't appear to say even a word about _Sybase's_ patents at all. It speaks about Your (ie, the user/distributor's) patents. So, let's say an organization/company which owns one of Debian's mirrors, a mirror which carries non-free like most mirrors do, owns a patent. Not a software patent -- a patent for a mousetrap or a drug. Now, let's say that EvilCorp wants to do some patent trolling. They buy out any of openwatcom's contributors -- it's a big patent with hundreds or thousands of contributors, many of them corporate. In fact, often you can't tell who owns CorpA without a longer research; it can be owned by CorpB and then by CorpC and finally by EvilCorp. Now, EvilCorp starts a litigation against the university/company which provides our mirror. The defender for all practical reasons just lost all his patents. ... The license isn't good enough even for non-free, I would say. Adam, I do not understand why you say it can't go in non-free. Here is the clause you are referring to: 3. Your Grants. In consideration of, and as a condition to, the licenses granted to You under this License, You hereby grant to Sybase and all third parties a non-exclusive, royalty-free license, under Your Applicable Patent Rights and other intellectual property rights (other than patent) owned or controlled by You, to use, reproduce, display, perform, modify, distribute and Deploy Your Modifications of the same scope and extent as Sybase's licenses under Sections 2.1 and 2.2. It seems to me that the clause only grants Sybase rights to distributors' patents for the purpose of developing and distributing Open Watcom, not for any other purpose. Am I correct? Kind regards, Jason Spiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- When you open Windows, bugs get in! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is the Sybase Open Watcom License ok?
Adam Borowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Tue, Jul 04, 2006 at 12:44:35AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: 12.1 Termination. This License and the rights granted hereunder will terminate: [...] (c) automatically without notice if You, at any time during the term of this License, commence an action for patent infringement (including as a cross claim or counterclaim) against Sybase or any Contributor. This copyright licence attempts to enforce all Sybase's and Contributors' patents, whether applicable or not. All patents. Not just software ones. Hmm, it doesn't appear to say even a word about _Sybase's_ patents at all. It speaks about Your (ie, the user/distributor's) patents. Yes, I got that backwards. Sorry. It's the other type of bad patent clause. It seeks to allow Sybase and Contributors to infringe Licensees' patents, whether applicable/software or not. Thanks for the correction and explanation, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is the Sybase Open Watcom License ok?
On Tue, Jul 04, 2006 at 12:44:35AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: 12.1 Termination. This License and the rights granted hereunder will terminate: [...] (c) automatically without notice if You, at any time during the term of this License, commence an action for patent infringement (including as a cross claim or counterclaim) against Sybase or any Contributor. This copyright licence attempts to enforce all Sybase's and Contributors' patents, whether applicable or not. All patents. Not just software ones. Hmm, it doesn't appear to say even a word about _Sybase's_ patents at all. It speaks about Your (ie, the user/distributor's) patents. So, let's say an organization/company which owns one of Debian's mirrors, a mirror which carries non-free like most mirrors do, owns a patent. Not a software patent -- a patent for a mousetrap or a drug. Now, let's say that EvilCorp wants to do some patent trolling. They buy out any of openwatcom's contributors -- it's a big patent with hundreds or thousands of contributors, many of them corporate. In fact, often you can't tell who owns CorpA without a longer research; it can be owned by CorpB and then by CorpC and finally by EvilCorp. Now, EvilCorp starts a litigation against the university/company which provides our mirror. The defender for all practical reasons just lost all his patents. Sure, software patents are evil, but we're talking about patents of _any_ kind here. And even though non-software patents are often controversial as well, Debian can't make dropping any patents owned by one of mirror operators as simple as buying out a legal entity which by a long chain of ownership owns the copyright to a 10-line patch buried deep inside openwatcom. The license isn't good enough even for non-free, I would say. -- 1KB // Microsoft corollary to Hanlon's razor: // Never attribute to stupidity what can be // adequately explained by malice. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Is the Sybase Open Watcom License ok?
Hi all, Is the license pasted below OK? It is OSI-approved, but someone on debian-devel mentioned there were many problematic bits, including 2.2(c), and advised me to post it here. I hope to package openwatcom, a C/C++ IDE that produces efficient DOS, Linux, and Windows code and includes a superb debugger. Thanks in advance, Jason Spiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sybase Open Watcom Public License version 1.0 1. General; Definitions. This License applies only to the following software programs: the open source versions of Sybase's Watcom C/C++ and Fortran compiler products (Software), which are modified versions of, with significant changes from, the last versions made commercially available by Sybase. As used in this License: 1.1 Applicable Patent Rights mean: (a) in the case where Sybase is the grantor of rights, (i) claims of patents that are now or hereafter acquired, owned by or assigned to Sybase and (ii) that cover subject matter contained in the Original Code, but only to the extent necessary to use, reproduce and/or distribute the Original Code without infringement; and (b) in the case where You are the grantor of rights, (i) claims of patents that are now or hereafter acquired, owned by or assigned to You and (ii) that cover subject matter in Your Modifications, taken alone or in combination with Original Code. 1.2 Contributor means any person or entity that creates or contributes to the creation of Modifications. 1.3 Covered Code means the Original Code, Modifications, the combination of Original Code and any Modifications, and/or any respective portions thereof. 1.4 Deploy means to use, sublicense or distribute Covered Code other than for Your internal research and development (RD) and/or Personal Use, and includes without limitation, any and all internal use or distribution of Covered Code within Your business or organization except for RD use and/or Personal Use, as well as direct or indirect sublicensing or distribution of Covered Code by You to any third party in any form or manner. 1.5 Larger Work means a work which combines Covered Code or portions thereof with code not governed by the terms of this License. 1.6 Modifications mean any addition to, deletion from, and/or change to, the substance and/or structure of the Original Code, any previous Modifications, the combination of Original Code and any previous Modifications, and/or any respective portions thereof. When code is released as a series of files, a Modification is: (a) any addition to or deletion from the contents of a file containing Covered Code; and/or (b) any new file or other representation of computer program statements that contains any part of Covered Code. 1.7 Original Code means (a) the Source Code of a program or other work as originally made available by Sybase under this License, including the Source Code of any updates or upgrades to such programs or works made available by Sybase under this License, and that has been expressly identified by Sybase as such in the header file(s) of such work; and (b) the object code compiled from such Source Code and originally made available by Sybase under this License. 1.8 Personal Use means use of Covered Code by an individual solely for his or her personal, private and non-commercial purposes. An individual's use of Covered Code in his or her capacity as an officer, employee, member, independent contractor or agent of a corporation, business or organization (commercial or non-commercial) does not qualify as Personal Use. 1.9 Source Code means the human readable form of a program or other work that is suitable for making modifications to it, including all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, scripts used to control compilation and installation of an executable (object code). 1.10 You or Your means an individual or a legal entity exercising rights under this License. For legal entities, You or Your includes any entity which controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with, You, where control means (a) the power, direct or indirect, to cause the direction or management of such entity, whether by contract or otherwise, or (b) ownership of fifty percent (50%) or more of the outstanding shares or beneficial ownership of such entity. 2. Permitted Uses; Conditions Restrictions.Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, Sybase hereby grants You, effective on the date You accept this License and download the Original Code, a world-wide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license, to the extent of Sybase's Applicable Patent Rights and copyrights covering the Original Code, to do the following: 2.1 You may use, reproduce, display, perform, modify and distribute Original Code, with or without Modifications, solely for Your internal research and development and/or Personal Use, provided that in each instance: (a) You must retain and reproduce in all copies of Original Code the copyright and other proprietary notices and
Re: Is the Sybase Open Watcom License ok?
On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 07:14:22 + (UTC) Jason Spiro wrote: Hi all, Is the license pasted below OK? [...] Sybase Open Watcom Public License version 1.0 [...] Whoever finds the time to thoroughly analyse this license, please consider to review the following thread, before: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/06/msg00545.html Actually, Sybase Open Watcom Public License version 1.0 has many parts in common with the APPLE PUBLIC SOURCE LICENSE Version 2.0 (which was discussed in the above-cited thread). The two licenses are similar, but not equal. It seems one is derived from the other (I don't know which one came first, though). My opinion, from a rapid glance, is that Sybase Open Watcom Public License version 1.0 is *not* suitable for releasing DFSG-free software. There are at least a broad patent-retaliation clause and a choice of venue. Other issues could be hidden inside the long text (I just gave a look to some sections...). -- :-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-) .. Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgp8408vSKsB7.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Is the Sybase Open Watcom License ok?
Jason Spiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] Is the license pasted below OK? I don't think so. It seems to contradict itself - resulting in a possible termination clause. It also requires long-term distribution, discriminates against some commercial activities and attempts to enforce patents unrelated to this software (or any software). At best, it seems unclear, so I'd advise seeking clarification of 1, 2.1(b), 2.1(c), 2.2(e), 6, 12.1(c), 13.5(b). After that, it depends how you and ftpmasters feel about everyone travelling to California. It is OSI-approved, but someone on debian-devel mentioned there were many problematic bits, including 2.2(c), and advised me to post it here. The debian-devel thread is visible at http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/07/msg00029.html Sadly, the failed Open Source Initiative seems to approve licences far too readily these days. I hope to package openwatcom, a C/C++ IDE that produces efficient DOS, Linux, and Windows code and includes a superb debugger. That is ITP bug 376431 Sybase Open Watcom Public License version 1.0 1. General; Definitions. This License applies only to the following software programs: the open source versions of Sybase's Watcom C/C++ and Fortran compiler products (Software), which are modified versions of, with significant changes from, the last versions made commercially available by Sybase. As used in this License: Does this definition of licence restrict the permitted derived works? 1.1 Applicable Patent Rights mean: [...] The inclusion of patent rights in a copyright licence worries me. [...] 2. Permitted Uses; Conditions Restrictions.Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, Sybase hereby grants You, effective on the date You accept this License and download the Original Code, a world-wide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license, to the extent of Sybase's Applicable Patent Rights and copyrights covering the Original Code, to do the following: 2.1 You may use, reproduce, display, perform, modify and distribute Original Code, with or without Modifications, solely for Your internal research and development and/or Personal Use, provided that in each instance: (a) You must retain and reproduce in all copies of Original Code the copyright and other proprietary notices and disclaimers of Sybase as they appear in the Original Code, and keep intact all notices in the Original Code that refer to this License; and (b) You must retain and reproduce a copy of this License with every copy of Source Code of Covered Code and documentation You distribute, and You may not offer or impose any terms on such Source Code that alter or restrict this License or the recipients' rights hereunder, except as permitted under Section 6. This combines with 1 above to make me wonder even more whether the permitted derived works are limited. (c) Whenever reasonably feasible you should include the copy of this ^^^ Lawyerbomb, especially about something as icky as click-wrap. License in a click-wrap format, which requires affirmative acceptance by clicking on an I accept button or similar mechanism. If a click-wrap format is not included, you must include a statement that any use (including without limitation reproduction, modification or distribution) of the Software, and any other affirmative act that you define, constitutes acceptance of the License, and instructing the user not to use the Covered Code in any manner if the user does not accept all of the terms and conditions of the License. 2.2 You may use, reproduce, display, perform, modify and Deploy Covered Code, provided that in each instance: (a) You must satisfy all the conditions of Section 2.1 with respect to the Source Code of the Covered Code; (b) You must duplicate, to the extent it does not already exist, the notice in Exhibit A in each file of the Source Code of all Your Modifications, and cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that You changed the files and the date of any change; (c) You must make Source Code of all Your Deployed Modifications publicly available under the terms of this License, including the license grants set forth in Section 3 below, for as long as you Deploy the Covered Code or twelve (12) months from the date of initial Deployment, whichever is longer. You should preferably distribute the Source Code of Your Deployed Modifications electronically (e.g. download from a web site); This was noted on debian-devel as a problem and I think I agree. It's unusual in that it's unlikely to be a practical problem unless ftpmasters remove the package, but the time differences probably make it fail DFSG. (d) if You Deploy Covered Code in object code, executable form only, You must include a prominent notice, in the code itself as well as in related documentation, stating that Source Code of the Covered Code is available under the terms of this License
