Re: License check for a new(ly modified) license..
On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 21:27:11 -0400 Felyza Wishbringer wrote: [...] My proposed WTFPLv3 (2011) http://gamingtools.com/WTFPLv3.txt Which changed name of the license and copyright. and add 2 termsconditions statements Updated from earlier today... a change to TC 1, which now states: You have sole liability for ... This sounds awkward to me: it is my understanding that liability is usually excluded or limited in Free Software licenses. For instance, compare with GNU GPL v2, section 12: |12. IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN WRITING | WILL ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MAY MODIFY AND/OR | REDISTRIBUTE THE PROGRAM AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR DAMAGES, | INCLUDING ANY GENERAL, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING | OUT OF [...] -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt New GnuPG key, see the transition document! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgpNefAMddBfj.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: License check for a new(ly modified) license..
My reading and understanding is that they are basically the same. From the GPLv2, it states that the copyright holder (author) and anyone who modifies or redistributes the code cannot be held liable to you for damages. From the proposed WTFPLv3, it states You are solely liable for 'what you do with it'.. which should be pretty much a clear indication that the author is not liable. Am I mistaken on this? | 12. IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN WRITING | WILL ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MAY MODIFY AND/OR | REDISTRIBUTE THE PROGRAM AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR DAMAGES, | INCLUDING ANY GENERAL, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING | OUT OF [...] -- -Felyza -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/cahzo7k+fjjm9+c_nfj1dm333-qbnwklsedayeeswf23i+w+...@mail.gmail.com
Re: License check for a new(ly modified) license..
On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 15:17:13 -0400 Felyza Wishbringer wrote: My reading and understanding is that they are basically the same. I am not convinced... From the GPLv2, it states that the copyright holder (author) and anyone who modifies or redistributes the code cannot be held liable to you for damages. From the proposed WTFPLv3, it states You are solely liable for 'what you do with it'.. which should be pretty much a clear indication that the author is not liable. What happens when the You referred to by the license modifies and/or redistributes the code, as permitted by the license itself? At that point, someone who modifies and/or redistributes the code _can_ be held liable for what he/she does with the code... This scenario looks very different from what would happen with the GNU GPL v2. At least as far as I see it. -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt New GnuPG key, see the transition document! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgp6A5ONRqYr5.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: License check for a new(ly modified) license..
Would this be better wording? 2. Nobody is liable for what .. you do with it The WTFPL goes beyond disclaimer to place liability on the licensee. That's an unusual step, and I'm not convinced that it preserves the recipient's freedom. -- -Felyza -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/cahzo7kkxsdb75bsrsrycckh-rakt01awxbfcysmfj+0qfuu...@mail.gmail.com
Re: License check for a new(ly modified) license..
Le Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 07:02:53PM -0400, Felyza Wishbringer a écrit : Would this be better wording? 2. Nobody is liable for what .. you do with it Dear Felyza, I think that unfortunately, there is no possiblity to have a license that is short and fun / satyrical / provocative / …, and at the same time have a wording that accurately fits the laws of many countries about liabilities and intellectual property. Just see for instance at the Creative Commons Universal Public Domain Dedication license: http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode This said, there are some minimalistic license that have a very short disclaimer, like the GNU All-Permissive license: http://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/html_node/License-Notices-for-Other-Files Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110927232906.ga6...@merveille.plessy.net
Re: License check for a new(ly modified) license..
Felyza Wishbringer fel...@gmail.com writes: Would this be better wording? I don't have a lot of interest in constructing new license texts, since I much prefer that all software distributors avoid unnecessary license proliferation. Please, instead of constructing new licenses, use an existing widely-used well-understood free-software license, such as the terms of the Expat license. -- \“Only the educated are free.” —Epictetus | `\ | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87sjnhzc73@benfinney.id.au
Re: License check for a new(ly modified) license..
On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 13:16:34 -0400 Felyza Wishbringer wrote: [...] I found a license that pretty much works, but I don't like that it has no warranty disclaimer. So, I modified it per the license allowance, but I want an official 'yes its okay'. [...] First, per the code of conduct, I am modifying usage of one word, in all its references, for the purposes of the list. I am not completely sure that this was really necessary: does the suggestion to avoid foul language apply to quotations that should otherwise have been literal? But anyway... [...] ---Begin License--- DO WHATEVER THE DUCK YOU WANT TO PUBLIC LICENSE Version 3, September 2011 Copyright (C) 2011 Felyza Wishbringer I think you should also acknowledge the original license text's copyright holder with an appropriate copyright notice (Copyright (C) 2004 Sam Hocevar s...@hocevar.net). Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim or modified copies of this license, and changing it is allowed as long as the name is also changed. DO WHATEVER THE DUCK YOU WANT TO PUBLIC LICENSE TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION 0. You just DO WHAT THE DUCK YOU WANT TO. 1. You are solely responsible for WHAT THE DUCK YOU DO WITH IT. I am not sure that clause 1 is completely OK. Unfortunately, I seem to be unable to clearly explain where's the problem with it, but it does not look absolutely harmless to me... 2. There is no DUCKING WARRANTY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED. ---End License--- Another issue to bear in mind is license proliferation, which is bad. Please stop a second and think, before going on: do we absolutely need one more license? We should avoid writing new licenses or new license versions, unless it _really_ is necessary. [...] Thank you in advance. You're welcome. -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt New GnuPG key, see the transition document! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgp3QPopJa2A3.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: License check for a new(ly modified) license..
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 09:45:58PM +0200, Simon Chopin wrote: [...] Actually, if you read Sam Hocevar's FAQ webpage about the WTFPL[1], this issue is adressed by adding a separate disclaimer. It seems pretty hard to miss. I must add that most of the time I see this licence used for program software, this disclaimer is added. I haven't checked Sam's work but it seems probable that it is also there. Sorry for the spam, I forgot the link : [1] http://sam.zoy.org/wtfpl/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: License check for a new(ly modified) license..
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 01:16:34PM -0400, Felyza Wishbringer wrote: I am planning on submissions to a project that is looking to finish up their Debian legality. I found a license that pretty much works, but I don't like that it has no warranty disclaimer. So, I modified it per the license allowance, but I want an official 'yes its okay'. Hi, Actually, if you read Sam Hocevar's FAQ webpage about the WTFPL[1], this issue is adressed by adding a separate disclaimer. It seems pretty hard to miss. I must add that most of the time I see this licence used for program software, this disclaimer is added. I haven't checked Sam's work but it seems probable that it is also there. Therefore, I would suggest you to simply use the WTFPLv2 + disclaimer instead of contributing to licence proliferation. Cheers, Simon signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: License check for a new(ly modified) license..
Hi, Added Sam, and I hope he doesn't mind, as I think he's the one which can give the best answer to this. On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 21:29:20 +0200 Francesco Poli invernom...@paranoici.org wrote: DO WHATEVER THE DUCK YOU WANT TO PUBLIC LICENSE Version 3, September 2011 Copyright (C) 2011 Felyza Wishbringer I think you should also acknowledge the original license text's copyright holder with an appropriate copyright notice (Copyright (C) 2004 Sam Hocevar s...@hocevar.net). Really? My reading of WTFPL is that you have to precisely remove Sam's name and put the name of who is licensing: and changing it is allowed as long as the name is changed. License, as I read it, has no copyright for itself, which sounds pretty logical given its spirit :) regards, -- Ricardo Mones http://people.debian.org/~mones «Q: Why was Stonehenge abandoned? A: It wasn't IBM compatible.» signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: License check for a new(ly modified) license..
On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 22:41:15 +0200 Ricardo Mones wrote: Hi, Hi Ricardo! (Hi Sam!) Added Sam, and I hope he doesn't mind, as I think he's the one which can give the best answer to this. That's OK with me. On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 21:29:20 +0200 Francesco Poli invernom...@paranoici.org wrote: DO WHATEVER THE DUCK YOU WANT TO PUBLIC LICENSE Version 3, September 2011 Copyright (C) 2011 Felyza Wishbringer I think you should also acknowledge the original license text's copyright holder with an appropriate copyright notice (Copyright (C) 2004 Sam Hocevar s...@hocevar.net). Really? My reading of WTFPL is that you have to precisely remove Sam's name and put the name of who is licensing: and changing it is allowed as long as the name is changed. I thought that name was referring to the license name, not to the license author's name. But let's see what Sam has to say about this... License, as I read it, has no copyright for itself, which sounds pretty logical given its spirit :) Regardless of any consideration about the license spirit, I read the copyright notice (Copyright (C) 2004 Sam Hocevar s...@hocevar.net) as applying to the license text, not to the licensed work. See for instance http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/t/toilet/toilet_0.2-1/toilet.copyright where two separate copyright notices appear, with two different years. I interpret them as being one for the toilet program and one for the license text. -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt New GnuPG key, see the transition document! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgpxP6mZBwDdp.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: License check for a new(ly modified) license..
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011, Francesco Poli wrote: Added Sam, and I hope he doesn't mind, as I think he's the one which can give the best answer to this. That's OK with me. On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 21:29:20 +0200 Francesco Poli invernom...@paranoici.org wrote: DO WHATEVER THE DUCK YOU WANT TO PUBLIC LICENSE Version 3, September 2011 Copyright (C) 2011 Felyza Wishbringer I think you should also acknowledge the original license text's copyright holder with an appropriate copyright notice (Copyright (C) 2004 Sam Hocevar s...@hocevar.net). Really? My reading of WTFPL is that you have to precisely remove Sam's name and put the name of who is licensing: and changing it is allowed as long as the name is changed. I thought that name was referring to the license name, not to the license author's name. But let's see what Sam has to say about this... Yes, it's unfortunate that a lot of WTFPL software also bears my copyright. I could transfer the copyright for the WTFPL to another entity for clarification. License, as I read it, has no copyright for itself, which sounds pretty logical given its spirit :) Regardless of any consideration about the license spirit, I read the copyright notice (Copyright (C) 2004 Sam Hocevar s...@hocevar.net) as applying to the license text, not to the licensed work. See for instance http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/t/toilet/toilet_0.2-1/toilet.copyright where two separate copyright notices appear, with two different years. I interpret them as being one for the toilet program and one for the license text. Yes, I believe Francesco's understanding of the licence terms are correct to the extent that they perfectly match my view. Note that anyone unhappy with the terms of the WTFPL because of the complex wording or for any other reason can relicence the software under almost any licence of their choice without having to ask for permission. -- Sam. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110926215923.gj7...@hocevar.net
Re: License check for a new(ly modified) license..
Since this has sparked some interesting debate over the wording, for reference: WTFPLv1.0 (2000) http://repo.or.cz/w/wmaker-crm.git/blob/refs/heads/master:/COPYING.WTFPL WTFPLv1.1 (2010?) https://www.ohloh.net/licenses/wtfpl_1_1 http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/threadmill.git/plain/COPYING.WTFPL Removed (]d) Unsure where this originated, it is not in the windowmaker project where WTFPL started. Both 1.0 and 1.1 expressly disallow any modification to the license. WTFPLv2 (2004) http://sam.zoy.org/wtfpl/ http://ks.lamiral.info/imapsync/COPYING Version line moved up, copyright changed, license permissions changed, terms and conditions added for clarity (assumed) The second link as address Which expressly allows modification, with the 'name' caveat. My proposed WTFPLv3 (2011) http://gamingtools.com/WTFPLv3.txt Which changed name of the license and copyright. and add 2 termsconditions statements Updated from earlier today... a change to TC 1, which now states: You have sole liability for ... If v2 is accepted as 'legal tender', then Sam would be present copyright holder. Sam, with your permission, can I use the text of of the DO WHAT THE ... license for the text of my DO WHATEVER THE... license? I can either put my name, your name, or leave the copyright notice off the license all together, whichever you prefer if you'll allow usage. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAHzo7KLsOK2KuL=3rFLL5TBAVAksHS6wg4pmqfNy2=gvaar...@mail.gmail.com
