Re: Standard non-copyleft free license?
On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 01:14:30PM -0500, Don Armstrong wrote: I agree that we should be promoting freedom. However, I don't think that our licenses need to promote freedom, so long as they don't restrict it. That is, I don't think I'll ever see the day where we decide not to package BSD or X licensed software merely because it fails to promote freedom. [If that indeed was the point you were driving at... perhaps I've misunderstood what you were getting at when you used promote.] If you inferred that I was planning to argue that the BSD or MIT/X11 licenses should be construed as non-DFSG-free, you inferred incorrectly. You apparently ascribe a lot more side effects to the phrase promoting freedom than I do. The job of a copyright license is to *grant permissions*. And often to restrict them, as is the case in the GPL (linking, etc.), No. What sort of linking isn't already restricted under copyright law? The alternative to a software license isn't the public domain. It's All Rights Reserved. and many no warranty clauses. That's a different area of law entirely (and, in the U.S., one that's almost always litigated at the state level, rather than federally as copyright is). The context of the discussion is copyright licenses. If you want to start a thread about the threat to freedom that disclaimers of warranty pose, then please do so -- but IMO it's not germane to this one. -- G. Branden Robinson| The noble soul has reverence for Debian GNU/Linux | itself. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Friedrich Nietzsche http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgpMDhsXdKiMd.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Standard non-copyleft free license?
On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 12:57:14PM -0500, Don Armstrong wrote: On Mon, 17 Mar 2003, Branden Robinson wrote: License documents that succumb excessively to lawyer's desires to have many sticks with which to beat the licensee should be rejected as non-DFSG-free, because they don't promote freedom. I don't think we really need to worry about whether a license promotes freedom; we should worry whether a license restricts that freedom or not. I disagree. Our Social Contract says that our priorities are our users and Free Software. This means that we expect ourselves to be advocates of and defenders of these priorities. We're not just committed to not making life *worse* for our users and Free Software. These are guiding principles that direct our actions; not merely toggle switches on a veto stamp. We're not merely committed to preventing backsliding. We're committed to forward progress. Licenses that terrorize the licensee and discourage him or her from exercising the rights he or she should be able to expect from a Free Software license are not the sort of thing people should need to worry about coming from Debian main. Certainly. I'm just commenting on the motivation behind the clause. Since the actual action that the clause prevents is (at least in the US) illegal in itself, I don't see a significant problem for Debian. I don't care what's legal or illegal; the law could change tomorrow, and over the past few years in the U.S. this has actually happened a few times. It is not the job of a copyright license to reiterate what is or is not legal in a particular jurisdiction. The job of a copyright license is to *grant permissions*. If you don't want to grant any permissions, you don't need a license at all. -- G. Branden Robinson|Men use thought only to justify Debian GNU/Linux |their wrong doings, and speech only [EMAIL PROTECTED] |to conceal their thoughts. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |-- Voltaire pgp2nLqn4s8bT.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Standard non-copyleft free license?
On Tue, 18 Mar 2003, Branden Robinson wrote: I don't think we really need to worry about whether a license promotes freedom; we should worry whether a license restricts that freedom or not. I disagree. Our Social Contract says that our priorities are our users and Free Software. This means that we expect ourselves to be advocates of and defenders of these priorities. I agree that we should be promoting freedom. However, I don't think that our licenses need to promote freedom, so long as they don't restrict it. That is, I don't think I'll ever see the day where we decide not to package BSD or X licensed software merely because it fails to promote freedom. [If that indeed was the point you were driving at... perhaps I've misunderstood what you were getting at when you used promote.] The job of a copyright license is to *grant permissions*. And often to restrict them, as is the case in the GPL (linking, etc.), and many no warranty clauses. Don Armstrong -- I was thinking seven figures, he said, but I would have taken a hundred grand. I'm not a greedy person. [All for a moldy bottle of tropicana.] -- Sammi Hadzovic [in Andy Newman's 2003/02/14 NYT article.] http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/14/nyregion/14EYEB.html http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgpAhe4CI89wn.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Standard non-copyleft free license?
On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 07:02:55PM -0500, Don Armstrong wrote: On Fri, 14 Mar 2003, Branden Robinson wrote: Publicity rights are not within the scope of copyright law. The right to use people's names or likenesses to promote things is not assumed to attach to copyright licenses in the first place. I'd hope so, but you never know these days.[1] Well, if we're going to play cynic... These days, you're best off assuming that a copyright license doesn't even grant you the rights it says it does, thanks to recent legislation. It would be very unreasonable in the current climate to assume that you had rights not even hinted at in the license document. Regardless, their idea is that if you then used their names, it gives their lawyers an extra stick to beat you with, beyond just using the standard slander/libel laws. [Plus, they get to bring in the FBI to track you down.] License documents that succumb excessively to lawyer's desires to have many sticks with which to beat the licensee should be rejected as non-DFSG-free, because they don't promote freedom. Licenses that terrorize the licensee and discourage him or her from exercising the rights he or she should be able to expect from a Free Software license are not the sort of thing people should need to worry about coming from Debian main. -- G. Branden Robinson| Convictions are more dangerous Debian GNU/Linux | enemies of truth than lies. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Friedrich Nietzsche http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgp657E7V1x5C.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Standard non-copyleft free license?
On Mon, 17 Mar 2003, Branden Robinson wrote: License documents that succumb excessively to lawyer's desires to have many sticks with which to beat the licensee should be rejected as non-DFSG-free, because they don't promote freedom. I don't think we really need to worry about whether a license promotes freedom; we should worry whether a license restricts that freedom or not. Licenses that terrorize the licensee and discourage him or her from exercising the rights he or she should be able to expect from a Free Software license are not the sort of thing people should need to worry about coming from Debian main. Certainly. I'm just commenting on the motivation behind the clause. Since the actual action that the clause prevents is (at least in the US) illegal in itself, I don't see a significant problem for Debian. Don Armstrong -- Personally, I think my choice in the mostest-superlative-computer wars has to be the HP-48 series of calculators. They'll run almost anything. And if they can't, while I'll just plug a Linux box into the serial port and load up the HP-48 VT-100 emulator. -- Jeff Dege, [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgpzTXD9XOiOV.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Standard non-copyleft free license?
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 08:09:03PM -0500, David Turner wrote: Copyright (c) year copyright holders Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the Software), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: [The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.] THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED AS IS, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE. Stuff in [] is optional. Stuff in needs to be replaced. Credit where credit is due, Dave: this is the MIT/X11 license. -- G. Branden Robinson| You live and learn. Debian GNU/Linux | Or you don't live long. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Robert Heinlein http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgp0jt47BCaVK.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Standard non-copyleft free license?
On Fri, 14 Mar 2003, Branden Robinson wrote: I think Dave's recommendation of the MIT/X11 license, though he didn't call it by that name, is preferable, because it sticks closer to the legal scope of copyright law. Could be. They're slightly different of course, and I'm not well equiped to argue whether the terms of the BSD license step outside of the boundaries able to be enforced from copyright law. Publicity rights are not within the scope of copyright law. The right to use people's names or likenesses to promote things is not assumed to attach to copyright licenses in the first place. I'd hope so, but you never know these days.[1] Regardless, their idea is that if you then used their names, it gives their lawyers an extra stick to beat you with, beyond just using the standard slander/libel laws. [Plus, they get to bring in the FBI to track you down.] Don Armstrong 1: [rant deleted] -- Of course Pacman didn't influence us as kids. If it did, we'd be running around in darkened rooms, popping pills and listening to repetitive music. http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgp9s3XUoPokB.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Standard non-copyleft free license?
On Tuesday 11 March 2003 04:56 pm, Glenn Maynard wrote: On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 03:46:05PM -0800, Terry Hancock wrote: They could, of course, sell the software to someone else, but the usual caveats about selling free software (i.e. you can be easily undersold) apply. That might be valuable to them if they wanted to build significantly on it, though. The only way you get this is if you require that the software remain free: that they not be able to add a bit of non-free code to it, and add restrictions prohibiting further redistribution. The only way you'll get that is with a copyleft, not with a BSD-ish license. No, you misunderstand me. I know they can make a competing derivative of the code I produce (but I don't particularly fear this). The problem I'm trying to solve is of specifying ownership of the actual code I deliver. If I don't say anything in the contract, it might be interpreted as work for hire, and they can sell me *verbatim* the code I give them under contract under a proprietary license. *That's* what I'm trying to avoid. I don't think they will particularly care to compete with me on the market, so I'm not especially worried about that, but in any case the fact that mine will be GPL'd is all the leverage I would need anyway. To contrast the two cases: NO LICENSE AND OWNER UNSPECIFIED * They may own the software under the work for hire concept (and it probably takes a court to decide). * They have the right to sell the code under a proprietary license. They can prevent me from distributing it under *any* license or deriving my own version from it. BSD-TYPE LICENSE * I own the software, but it is free-licensed. * They have the right to sell derived software under any license they want AND SO DO I. * I release *my* derivative version under the GPL, and no one can say I can't. That is, the caveats you're referring to are caveats of copylefted software, not of free software in general. They're caveats of both, generally speaking, at least until the other party contributes enough code to seriously compete with me. At that point, I don't care too much, though -- they'll be different products. You must remember that I will have already made my money on this when I deliver it. Thank you very much for the boiler plate version and links, David Turner and Don Armstrong. I do wish though that there were a cannonical, name-recognizable version like the GPL that one could simply refer to, or copy verbatim. Maybe I'll try to fill that niche by posting a few sample licenses with use instructions like the FSF does with the GPL. The idea is to have a sort of best practice list, since the GPL is not *always* the right choice. I like copyleft, but in this case I don't need it, and it improves the value to my client, who is going to pay me well for it. As for legal advice, yeah I know I'm on my own. ;-) I do actually have a lawyer I can ask, but it's not really her specialty. Cheers, Terry -- Terry Hancock ( hancock at anansispaceworks.com ) Anansi Spaceworks http://www.anansispaceworks.com
Standard non-copyleft free license?
Admidst the storms of controversy, I'd just like to ask a (hopefully) simple question... ;-) The GPL is the clear winner for being a maximally standard copyleft free license. The BSD license is apparently not directly usable (mentions Berkeley explicitly, etc), so these licenses are generally called BSD-type. Or, AFAIK, anyway. Is there a *standard* boilerplate for a BSD-type or say maximally free non-copyleft license (if BSD doesn't cut it). The only requirement I want to have is that credit is given correctly and that it positively asserts that I own copyright in the work. Probably also the no warranty language. No advertising clauses are needed. ;-) I am delivering work on a contract, and this is (to be) part of the contract terms -- i.e. that they get the code with no strings, but it isn't theirs. That is, they can't turn around and charge me a license fee to use or redistribute the code I wrote! The important distinction is to prevent it from being considered a work for hire in the usual sense. I don't want to ruffle their feathers by making them consider all the license details -- I'd like to just say BSD license or some appropriate standard that they can live with. They could, of course, sell the software to someone else, but the usual caveats about selling free software (i.e. you can be easily undersold) apply. That might be valuable to them if they wanted to build significantly on it, though. Also it must be freely convertable to GPL, as, if I build anything on it *after* the contract, I'll want to have copyleft on the changes. The package is probably going to be a collection of Debian packaging scripts to install a large suite of scientific applications using apt/apt-get, so it is I think on-topic, since I will most likely want to contribute the code for use by Debian packagers (I don't think Debian will accept it directly for policy reasons, but it shouldn't be too much of a fix-up -- basically I need to use a weird prefix to keep my installation out of the way of the OS and optionally-selectable, it also has to load on Red Hat and Solaris, etc.). If no such standard boilerplate license exists -- would it be reasonable to propose publishing one with instructions, along the same lines as the FSF has done with the GPL? Thanks, Terry -- Terry Hancock ( hancock at anansispaceworks.com ) Anansi Spaceworks http://www.anansispaceworks.com
Re: Standard non-copyleft free license?
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 03:46:05PM -0800, Terry Hancock wrote: I don't want to ruffle their feathers by making them consider all the license details -- I'd like to just say BSD license or some appropriate standard that they can live with. They could, of course, sell the software to someone else, but the usual caveats about selling free software (i.e. you can be easily undersold) apply. That might be valuable to them if they wanted to build significantly on it, though. The only way you get this is if you require that the software remain free: that they not be able to add a bit of non-free code to it, and add restrictions prohibiting further redistribution. The only way you'll get that is with a copyleft, not with a BSD-ish license. That is, the caveats you're referring to are caveats of copylefted software, not of free software in general. -- Glenn Maynard
Re: Standard non-copyleft free license?
Copyright (c) year copyright holders Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the Software), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: [The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.] THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED AS IS, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE. Stuff in [] is optional. Stuff in needs to be replaced. On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 18:46, Terry Hancock wrote: Admidst the storms of controversy, I'd just like to ask a (hopefully) simple question... ;-) The GPL is the clear winner for being a maximally standard copyleft free license. The BSD license is apparently not directly usable (mentions Berkeley explicitly, etc), so these licenses are generally called BSD-type. Or, AFAIK, anyway. Is there a *standard* boilerplate for a BSD-type or say maximally free non-copyleft license (if BSD doesn't cut it). The only requirement I want to have is that credit is given correctly and that it positively asserts that I own copyright in the work. Probably also the no warranty language. No advertising clauses are needed. ;-) I am delivering work on a contract, and this is (to be) part of the contract terms -- i.e. that they get the code with no strings, but it isn't theirs. That is, they can't turn around and charge me a license fee to use or redistribute the code I wrote! The important distinction is to prevent it from being considered a work for hire in the usual sense. I don't want to ruffle their feathers by making them consider all the license details -- I'd like to just say BSD license or some appropriate standard that they can live with. They could, of course, sell the software to someone else, but the usual caveats about selling free software (i.e. you can be easily undersold) apply. That might be valuable to them if they wanted to build significantly on it, though. Also it must be freely convertable to GPL, as, if I build anything on it *after* the contract, I'll want to have copyleft on the changes. The package is probably going to be a collection of Debian packaging scripts to install a large suite of scientific applications using apt/apt-get, so it is I think on-topic, since I will most likely want to contribute the code for use by Debian packagers (I don't think Debian will accept it directly for policy reasons, but it shouldn't be too much of a fix-up -- basically I need to use a weird prefix to keep my installation out of the way of the OS and optionally-selectable, it also has to load on Red Hat and Solaris, etc.). If no such standard boilerplate license exists -- would it be reasonable to propose publishing one with instructions, along the same lines as the FSF has done with the GPL? Thanks, Terry -- Terry Hancock ( hancock at anansispaceworks.com ) Anansi Spaceworks http://www.anansispaceworks.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- -Dave Turner GPL Compliance Engineer Support my work: http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=novalisp=FSF
Re: Standard non-copyleft free license?
On Tue, 11 Mar 2003, Terry Hancock wrote: Is there a *standard* boilerplate for a BSD-type or say maximally free non-copyleft license (if BSD doesn't cut it). You're looking for the Modified BSD or so called, 3-clause BSD license. FE, see http://www.xfree86.org/3.3.6/COPYRIGHT2.html#5 Copyright 4049 by Foo Bar Baz III. All rights reserved. Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. 3. The name of the author may not be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission. THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE AUTHOR `AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. I looked through the rest of your terms, and it seems to meet them, but obviously, this isn't legal advice, so if you have questions, you should consider asking a lawyer. Don Armstrong -- There's no problem so large it can't be solved by killing the user off, deleting their files, closing their account and reporting their REAL earnings to the IRS. -- The B.O.F.H.. http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgpehokH6XBCW.pgp Description: PGP signature
