OSL 2.0 and linking of libraries
Hi, because I do _not_ want to use the GPL nor the LGPL, I have decided to distribute my software under the OSL 2.0. Section 1.c says: to distribute copies of the Original Work and Derivative Works to the public, with the proviso that copies of Original Work or Derivative Works that You distribute shall be licensed under the Open Software License; I do want to allow linking a library included to software under a different license. As far as i understand it, the only thing I would have to do is to include a notice that goes something like: Clarification of section 1.c of the license: Linking a program against a library or loading machine readable code compiled from Source Code is _not_ considered creating a derivative Derivative Work. Am I correct and is there a well known template for such a notice that one should use? The request is probably common, I think. Thanks, peter. pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
RE: OSL 2.0 and linking of libraries
It looks like the language you suggested is perfect for the template you selected. Rod -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Prohaska) Date: 4/1/04 9:55 am To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subj: OSL 2.0 and linking of libraries Hi, because I do _not_ want to use the GPL nor the LGPL, I have decided to distribute my software under the OSL 2.0. Section 1.c says: to distribute copies of the Original Work and Derivative Works to the public, with the proviso that copies of Original Work or Derivative Works that You distribute shall be licensed under the Open Software License; I do want to allow linking a library included to software under a different license. As far as i understand it, the only thing I would have to do is to include a notice that goes something like: Clarification of section 1.c of the license: Linking a program against a library or loading machine readable code compiled from Source Code is _not_ considered creating a derivative Derivative Work. Am I correct and is there a well known template for such a notice that one should use? The request is probably common, I think. Thanks, peter. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Clarification on Using Licenses
Eugene Wee scripsit: For example, I wish to use the IBM Public license version 1.0, and I change every instance of International Business Machines Corporation or IBM to Example Corporation. In this particular case, you can use the Common Public License, which templates all instances of IBM except one, the maintainer of the license. Making similar changes to other licenses is usually not a problem, although it technically constitutes a breach of copyright. The GPL explicitly forbids changing it, in order to prevent the creation of a large number of subtly incompatible licenses. Also, what about superficial changes to the license itself, on the same lines as of the above mentioned alterations? Do these affect the open source status of the software? Not if they're superficial enough, but we can't tell that until we see. For example, using the BSD license template I find that name of the ORGANIZATION nor the names of its contributors is more suitably replaced by names of the copyright holders nor the names of the contributors, in the 3rd condition. Furthermore, what if I replace COPYRIGHT OWNER with COPYRIGHT HOLDERS in the disclaimer, considering that the former is also used? Gratuitously altering language long established, and which may have legal meaning, is usually a Bad Idea. -- But you, Wormtongue, you have done what you could for your true master. Some reward you have earned at least. Yet Saruman is apt to overlook his bargains. I should advise you to go quickly and remind him, lest he forget your faithful service. --Gandalf John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
RE: OSL 2.0 and linking of libraries
Peter Prohaska wrote: I do want to allow linking a library included to software under a different license. As far as i understand it, the only thing I would have to do is to include a notice that goes something like: Clarification of section 1.c of the license: Linking a program against a library or loading machine readable code compiled from Source Code is _not_ considered creating a derivative Derivative Work. Am I correct and is there a well known template for such a notice that one should use? The request is probably common, I think. You don't need the clarification. Simply linking a program against a library or loading machine readable code compiled from source code doesn't create a derivative work of software. /Larry Rosen -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
RE: OSL 2.0 and linking of libraries
Lawrence E. Rosen wrote, in part: You don't need the clarification. Simply linking a program against a library or loading machine readable code compiled from source code doesn't create a derivative work of software. Huh!!!? Clarification or recent citation please? As far as I understand it, when moduleA + moduleB = statically linked executable executable IS a derivative work of both moduleA and moduleB. And if sourceA is compiled or translated to create moduleA, then moduleA IS a derivative work of sourceA, (but this is a slightly different question.) Dynamic linking is further different, and your statement may be accurate under that circumstance. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: OSL 2.0 and linking of libraries
Lawrence E. Rosen scripsit: You don't need the clarification. Simply linking a program against a library or loading machine readable code compiled from source code doesn't create a derivative work of software. Well, that may turn out to be the case. But there's enough dispute on the point that I wish you'd introduce an option into the OSL allowing the licensor to include or exclude such situations. The fact that people believe (even though there's no empirical evidence for it) that the GPL prevents MPL-style forking by creating a Larger Work in fairly well-defined situations has been important to the well-being of many projects. -- John Cowan www.ccil.org/~cowan www.reutershealth.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] We want more school houses and less jails; more books and less arsenals; more learning and less vice; more constant work and less crime; more leisure and less greed; more justice and less revenge; in fact, more of the opportunities to cultivate our better natures. --Samuel Gompers -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: OSL 2.0 and linking of libraries
Forrest J. Cavalier III scripsit: As far as I understand it, when moduleA + moduleB = statically linked executable executable IS a derivative work of both moduleA and moduleB. That's what's at issue. There aren't any cases in point, so we are forced back on analogical reasoning. It seems pretty clear that a tarball is not a derivative work: it is a compilation, like a collection of articles or an anthology of short stories. The copyright in a compilation as such extends only to the choice of components and their arrangement: in the case of a tarball, the latter point is mechanically determined and irrelevant. But it's not clear why there should be a distinction in law between a tarball and a static executable. In both cases, it's tolerably easy to identify individual parts of the result with the corresponding original inputs, although these do not look the same (as a result of compression in the one case, and compilation on the other). In short, if I supply you with the source of a GPLed program plus binary versions of certain non-GPL modules, and allow you to do the linking, it doesn't seem that this offends the Copyright Act as conditioned by the GPL's grants. Yet this is exactly the case that the LGPL was designed to handle. And I'm willing to bet that the LPGL's requirement for providing the proprietary parts of a program in linkable form is far more often honored in the breach than in the observance. -- You let them out again, Old Man Willow! John Cowan What you be a-thinking of? You should not be waking! [EMAIL PROTECTED] Eat earth! Dig deep! Drink water! Go to sleep! www.reutershealth.com Bombadil is talking.www.ccil.org/~cowan -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
RE: OSL 2.0 and linking of libraries
Forrest J. Cavalier III wrote: [...] moduleA + moduleB = statically linked executable executable IS a derivative work of both moduleA and moduleB. Read this and try to extrapolate it to software and static linking [dynamic linking aside for a moment]: http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/125_F3d_580.htm See also http://lwn.net/2001/1108. (License agreements and first sale doctrine) Here's the ruling: http://tinyurl.com/3c2n2 regards, alexander. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: OSL 2.0 and linking of libraries
Alexander Terekhov scripsit: Here's the ruling: http://tinyurl.com/3c2n2 Interesting, but I think it's easily distinguishable. This case involves Softman, who bought collections of software from Adobe and repackaged them for resale. The court treated this as a sale rather than a licensing, invoked the first-sale doctrine (thus neglecting any incidental copying Softman was doing), said the EULA (which was only displayed for assent when the software was installed) did not apply to Softman because they had not assented, and told Adobe to stuff it. Here we have collections which unambiguously are collections: the question about statically linked software is precisely whether or not it is a collection. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan[EMAIL PROTECTED] To say that Bilbo's breath was taken away is no description at all. There are no words left to express his staggerment, since Men changed the language that they learned of elves in the days when all the world was wonderful. --The Hobbit -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
RE: OSL 2.0 and linking of libraries
Read this and try to extrapolate it to software and static linking [dynamic linking aside for a moment]: http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/125_F3d_580.htm If I were defending, and my attorney tried to cite only that one as defense for a software license/copyright violation, I wouldn't feel too confident. See also http://lwn.net/2001/1108. (License agreements and first sale doctrine) Here's the ruling: http://tinyurl.com/3c2n2 (Does a denial of injunctive relief carry the same weight of precedence as the outcome of a trial?) If the ruling at that URL (Softman v Adobe) extends to all software licenses and EULA's, and the Lee v A.R.T. case applies to compiled works, then I have serious doubts that most provisions of most of the OSI-approved licenses mean anything at all for most users of software. It would mean that if one is simply going to compile, link, and/or use software (and not edit the source, or distribute copies) then licenses (open or closed-source) can be ignored if you obtained a lawful copy. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: OSL 2.0 and linking of libraries
Here we have collections which unambiguously are collections: the question about statically linked software is precisely whether or not it is a collection. I think someone must successfully argue that it is only a collection (and does not meet the definition of derivative work:) from http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/101.html A ''derivative work'' is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a ''derivative work''. My take on this definition is that most statically linked programs include a relocation table and symbol tables which are annotations of the source code. These annotations are not particularly original, but if you declare that your statically linked program is not an original work of authorship, then it is not protected under copyright law. Now that may be OK to the open source community, but it will be, um, difficult position for a proprietary software producer to hold. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: OSL 2.0 and linking of libraries
My take on this definition is that most statically linked programs include a relocation table and symbol tables which are annotations of the source code. These annotations are not particularly original, but if you declare that your statically linked program is not an original work of authorship, then it is not protected under copyright law. That only means it is not separately protected under copyright. The owner of the source code copyright retains control over all copying of the work, including copies that involve mechanical transformation and later copying of that transformation. Otherwise, copyright would not be maintained when a modern digital copier is used to copy an art print, which is clearly not the case. Likewise, printing a document using PostScript does not create a separately copyrighted document even though the raw script looks nothing like the WYSIWYG editor window. I agree with Larry Rosen's view, but confusion in regards to this issue is so rampant that failure to state it explicitly in the license leads to an endless stream of FAQs. Roy -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Some questions about GPL/LGPL
Some questions about GPL/LGPL: 1. Is it valid to put GPL/LGPL and the source code of a self-extraction binary into the binary itself? (When the binary executes, the source code will be extracted.) 2. What is the requirement of a 'written offer' of source code? Is it allowed to merely put a text file containing the offer text into the installation destination without explicit user intervention during installation? 3. I read that the user is not required to accept GPL/LGPL to use the software. Are distributors required to explicitly tell the user about GPL? Why does WinCvs require the user to accept GPL to continue installation? 4. I saw some totally free software use LGPL'd library. The author of the totally free software put the source code and binary on the Web for download. In the source code, the LGPL'd library's source code and license is included, while in the binary, only the shared library included. The license of the totally free software itself does not require the binary be distributed along with source code, and does not state the fact that LGPL'd library included. Is this valid use of LGPL library? Wang Xianzhu __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/ -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: OSL 2.0 and linking of libraries
On Thu, Apr 01, 2004 at 02:46:01PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Lawrence E. Rosen scripsit: You don't need the clarification. Simply linking a program against a library or loading machine readable code compiled from source code doesn't create a derivative work of software. Well, that may turn out to be the case. But there's enough dispute on the point that I wish you'd introduce an option into the OSL allowing the licensor to include or exclude such situations. The fact that people believe (even though there's no empirical evidence for it) that the GPL prevents MPL-style forking by creating a Larger Work in fairly well-defined situations has been important to the well-being of many projects. As this thread turns out again, I think, there is currently no way to know if clarification is needed or not. Since the copyright/license issue is a day to day problem in the life of a developer, I would suggest to look at the problem from a users perspective. The Creative Commons are a good example of what is practial licensing technique. (warning, lenghty and very biased by personal experience) I think there are a few groups that need to be addressed: a) initial author of the software (let's call him creator) b) someone contribution to the project (let's call him contributor) c) another developer using the code (let's call him code user) d) someone creating real derivative work (let's call him derivator) e) someone just using the resulting software - knowingly or not, because he might trust a distributor (let's call him application user) What do they want, need or like: To keep the mail reasonable, i will only address the view of the creator. The relations to the other groups are clear to see, i hope. a) The Creator (who actually wants to share his code ;) a.1) Find and understand a licence that fits his needs. a.1.1) Where can i get advice? - no easy to understand advice available - read them all and better be a native speaker = license is often chosen out of pupularity (not good) a.1.2) Can I adapt a license without creating a new one? - If someone get's my code and reads GPL, he will assume that he may not link against it in a commercial project - If he reads LGPL, he assumes that he may - Annotations / clarification statements are not expected = If some extension mechanism is need, it should be well defined so that everyone who reads i.e. MY-PUBL should expect two files. One containing MY-PUBL and one containing something like Clarifications on MY-Publ...consider linking... The license itself is included as copying.my-publ Even better would be one glue file and n copying files containing license modules. = since i want people to use my code, it is essential that understanding the license does not become a stepping stone for others that want to reuse the code. That can best be achieved by using well known licenses and to collect project special adaptions in a well known location. a.2) Apply license to my code. a.2.1) Where can i find advice? - hard to find, again - for the GPL: in the license or on the FSF pages - for the Creative Commons: online, easy to understand = A license that addresses source code should always be accompanied with information on how to apply it (an uri is sufficient, i think) = reference uris should include the version number of a licence and there should optionally be a latest uri. (note that if you go to http://www.opensource.org/site_index.php and click on the Open Software License link, you get version 1.0 as http://www.opensource.org/licenses/osl.php . If you look at the bottom of the page, you suddenly realise that there is a version 2.0 under http://opensource.org/licenses/osl-2.0.php . Not very sane behaviour, i think) a.2.2) What do i have to add to my code? - is For copyright see... enough? - do i need to include the whole license in every file? - do i have to edit leagel code? IANAL! = Templates needed. Examples needed. = Providing RDF fragments and images like CC seems to be a good idea. (anyone installed the ccMoz plugin? It's worth a try for all wozilla users) a.2.3) Can I automate the copyright application? - can i create a template files tree that i can reuse for any future project without needing to change them? - can a fellow programmer copy the license without checking the whole leagel file for project specific changes? - I never want to edit legal code because i might break it = License with a name like OSL sould _not_ have options, neither should it contain your name. = Creative Commons approach to options is reasonable because each version has it's own name and it is made clear from the bottom up that (CC) means a set of licenses Suggestions: 1) It could be a good idea to contact the CC folks. Source code licensing is at least in their FAQ section. (http://creativecommons.org/faq) That clearly shows that other people than me are also interested in easing the
Re: OSL 2.0 and linking of libraries
Roy T. Fielding [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote, in part: My take on this definition is that most statically linked programs include a relocation table and symbol tables which are annotations of the source code. These annotations are not particularly original, but if you declare that your statically linked program is not an original work of authorship, then it is not protected under copyright law. That only means it is not separately protected under copyright. The owner of the source code copyright retains control over all copying of the work, including copies that involve mechanical transformation and later copying of that transformation. You forgot 17 USC 117. See comments below... Otherwise, copyright would not be maintained when a modern digital copier is used to copy an art print, which is clearly not the case. Likewise, printing a document using PostScript does not create a separately copyrighted document even though the raw script looks nothing like the WYSIWYG editor window. I agree with Larry Rosen's view, but confusion in regards to this issue is so rampant that failure to state it explicitly in the license leads to an endless stream of FAQs. I don't think appealing to analogy of art prints is a good strategy, because software is special because of the fair uses permitted by 17 USC 117. To summarize... 1. The Softman v Adobe opinion referenced in this thread presented a court which very strongly disagreed that purchased software was licensed, even when the copyright holder claimed it was only licensed not sold. 2. The opinion on static linking, advocated here by Mr. Rosen and others, is that no derivative work is created by mere compilation and linking. 3. Then we have 17 USC 117, which states: (a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. - Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided: (1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or [snip] So if all the above holds, if I become a lawful owner of a copy of licensed software without assenting to the license, I can ignore the license terms if all I want to do is compile, install, and use the software unmodified, and the software is not encumbered by patents. (Only if there were patents involved, or I were to desire to create a derivative work, or make copies of the original or derivative work, I would need to agree to the open source license.) But let's say I didn't want to do anything more than compile and use itDoes that also mean I can ignore clauses in the license about limitations of liability? The Termination for Patent Action in OSL (and others) doesn't apply either then? Specification of Venue is irrelevant to me too? The GPL can easily be circumvented in practice too by automated package download and build systems. It makes the GPL not much stronger than the LGPL. I think this discussion is incredibly important to open source software. If the above end up being true, companies using dual-licensing strategies to generate revenue will not be able to rely on that revenue model. Wow. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: OSL 2.0 and linking of libraries
That only means it is not separately protected under copyright. The owner of the source code copyright retains control over all copying of the work, including copies that involve mechanical transformation and later copying of that transformation. You forgot 17 USC 117. See comments below... It would take a pretty extreme court to say that making necessary copies for personal use has any applicability to copying for redistribution to others, which is the only sort of copying controlled by open source licenses. Roy -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: OSL 2.0 and linking of libraries
On Thu, Apr 01, 2004 at 08:32:41PM +0100, Robert Osfield wrote: It'd be nice to have an official OSL version specifically which allows for programs to link against libraries without license propagation, as LGPL is to GPL. This could then be used off the shelf without need for customization. It would certainly save on time when adopting the license, and also education of users who'll need to get to grips with the implications of yet another OS license. As stated bevore, i would try to avoid raising the number of licenses in general. There has to be a better way. Nevertheless, i also would like to have an off the shelf track to follow. In the end, the problem boils down to clarification and not to seperate licenses. Perhaps one could just 1) include a clarification statement in the license 2) make it clear that it is only in effect as long as the license is not accompanied by a clarification notice by the cpr holder. On 1) This way, it doesn't matter what derived work is anymore because we just define it. That should reduce the FAQ size. On 2) Because there are different opinions concerning this point, it is good to make it clear that the license respects this fact. So whenever i want to link against a library, i know what the default is and i'll see if a clarification notice is shipped. That shouldn't take too long and is acceptable for me. A problem is though, that any file can include a different license note and i can never be sure that i havn't missed something. Does anyone know how a situation is handled if a file COPYRIGHT is shipped and it tells me that the included license applies to all files distributed together with it and then there is a file in a subdirectory that includes a different copyright notice at its top? regards, peter. pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
