CPL
Hi, I am project manager for a scientific s/w dev project, AstroGrid. We are involved with similar projects worldwide under the banner of an organisation called IVOA (http://ivoa.net) and I've volunteered to investigate and deliver an open source license that any of the IVOA member projects, including AstroGrid, can use. The goal is that any of the software we develop can be shared amongst the partner projects without limitations (save retaining copyright and contribution notices) AND that any code can be taken, adapted and used by any commercial concern without restriction (again save for copyright limitations). We don't want gnu-style licenses which force any extension of the code to be also opened up. I was initially looking at the IBM public license but note that this has since morphed into the Common Public License (CPL). Is the CPL suitable for our purposes? Thanks, Tony. __ Tony Linde Phone: +44 (0)116 223 1292Mobile: +44 (0)7753 603356 Fax:+44 (0)116 252 3311Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Post: Department of Physics Astronomy, University of Leicester Leicester, UK LE1 7RH Project Manager,Director, AstroGrid Leicester e-Science Centre http://www.astrogrid.orghttp://www.e-science.le.ac.uk/ -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: apache license 2.0 for consideration
Roy T. Fielding wrote: On a side note, since software patent law is applied to the method of something and not to the particular expression, a patent license for doing that something remains in force regardless of the software that is later used to do it. The license is from the owner of the method to the legal entity using that method. Correct, although a patent license grant may very well be limited to one particular application. For example, I could license you under my patent to practice a method using only the software I provide to you. In other words, it is a blanket permission -- once you have the permission, you can use whatever tool you like (even one not derived from the ASL2 work) up until the permission is revoked. The ASL2 grants in clause 3 a patent license to make, have made, use, offer to sell, sell, import, and otherwise transfer the Work. If I Contribute software for one of my patented methods to ASL2- licensed code, you have the right to use *that code* to practice my patented method. You do not have permission to use your own software to practice my patented method. In that case you are not using the Work. If a company sues for infringement on the basis of a patent being included in XY, where XY consists of X (non-infringing) and Y (infringing), then that will be brought up by the defense and the company will have to claim Y infringes as well (or drop the case entirely). As such, there is no need for the patent license to talk about derivative works. Nor would it be safe to do so, since derivative work is a concept of copyright law, not patent law. I'm not even sure the license still exists if you take out the Contribution I made (embodying my patented method) and put it in some other work. Arnoud -- Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch patent attorney - Speaking only for myself Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/ -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: apache license 2.0 for consideration
Arnoud Engelfriet scripsit: I'm not even sure the license still exists if you take out the Contribution I made (embodying my patented method) and put it in some other work. It's hard to say, certainly. But consider this case: I have patented a gear, and I give you a patent license to make use of this gear. Now you build a machine one part of which is the gear, and I sue, claiming that you were licensed only to use the gear, not the machine of which the gear is a part. Surely you would reply that the very essence of a gear is to be used as a part of something. And likewise with a software library. IANAL, TINLA. -- He made the Legislature meet at one-horse John Cowan tank-towns out in the alfalfa belt, so that [EMAIL PROTECTED] hardly nobody could get there and most of http://www.reutershealth.com the leaders would stay home and let him go http://www.ccil.org/~cowan to work and do things as he pleased.--Mencken, Declaration of Independence -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: apache license 2.0 for consideration
On Tuesday, 24 February 2004, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote: If a company sues for infringement on the basis of a patent being included in XY, where XY consists of X (non-infringing) and Y (infringing), then that will be brought up by the defense and the company will have to claim Y infringes as well (or drop the case entirely). As such, there is no need for the patent license to talk about derivative works. Nor would it be safe to do so, since derivative work is a concept of copyright law, not patent law. I'm not even sure the license still exists if you take out the Contribution I made (embodying my patented method) and put it in some other work. In that case there would no mystery about the FSF position. If that's the right interpretation of the patent grant, then ASL2 isn't a free software license at all. E -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: CPL
Tony Linde writes: The goal is that any of the software we develop can be shared amongst the partner projects without limitations (save retaining copyright and contribution notices) AND that any code can be taken, adapted and used by any commercial concern without restriction (again save for copyright limitations). We don't want gnu-style licenses which force any extension of the code to be also opened up. The best choice for this list of permissions is Larry Rosen's Academic Free License. -- --My blog is at angry-economist.russnelson.com | Coding in Python Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | is like 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | sucking on sugar. Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | FWD# 404529 via VOIP | Sweet! -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Erlang Public License
Hi, could you have a look at the Erlang Public License, which covers the Open Source version of Ericsson's Erlang language? I'm just an ordinary Erlang user and would like to know if it complies with your standards. They say it is derived from the Mozilla Public License, but I am not expert enough to judge the differences. Here is the license http://www.erlang.org/EPLICENSE here is some explanation http://www.erlang.org/license/EPL1x0-explained.html Regards, Marc -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Erlang Public License
Marc van Woerkom scripsit: could you have a look at the Erlang Public License, which covers the Open Source version of Ericsson's Erlang language? It's absolutely just a variant of the MPL, with a new name, a different controlling law, and otherwise still as Open Source as ever. No worries. -- Deshil Holles eamus. Deshil Holles eamus. Deshil Holles eamus. Send us, bright one, light one, Horhorn, quickening, and wombfruit. (3x) Hoopsa, boyaboy, hoopsa! Hoopsa, boyaboy, hoopsa! Hoopsa, boyaboy, hoopsa! -- Joyce, Ulysses, Oxen of the Sun [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
