Re: Dual licensing
Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote: I agree with the point that the creative spark is not communitarian. My point -- if we are to use Eric Raymond's book as an example (see Raymond's busness model 8 Free the Software, Sell the Brand) -- is that dual licensing IS an authentic open source model. This is just words, but anyway: dual-licensing involves a closed source license as much as an open one; in business terms, even more, because that's where the money is. So dual-licensing is really less an open source model than a closed one. I'd really like to be shown any essential flaw in this reasoning. But as I said, it's just words, academic, not important, not pressing, don't waiste your time. Thanks. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Dual licensing
In our case the free evaluation copy is the public NetBSD sources, although we support a range of additional hardware which we have not (yet) contributed back. We don't normally give out evaluation copies, although we would probably do it if a prospective customer required it to complete a sale. In some cases a hardware company will hire us to do a port, and will include an evaluation copy of the software with evaluation hardware. Those evaluation copies are not crippled nor are they under a different license, though of course they do not come with any support. Pricing for the basic software without support ranges from $3000 to $10,000 depending on the hardware platform--generally newer stuff costs more, less common stuff costs more. Excellent information, Ian. Thanks. Again on words. It seems what you sell is not open after all, because you have not contributed back yet. Your selling the future. That's a fine model, but again, what you sell, *when* you sell it, is not open. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Dual licensing
Marius Amado Alves [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Again on words. It seems what you sell is not open after all, because you have not contributed back yet. Your selling the future. That's a fine model, but again, what you sell, *when* you sell it, is not open. Your first criticism was that it was not possible to sell open source software because somebody could undercut you. Now your criticism is that what we are selling is not publically available except through us (or our customers if they choose to distribute it). I presume that you see the shifting target. If your point is that there exists something which can be described as open source and which can not be sold, I concede. The same is obviously true of proprietary software. This is a weird argument all the way around. Nobody disputes that Red Hat is selling open source software and services. Nobody disputes that they are a successful company. What else do you need to see for an example of commercial open source? Ian -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Dual licensing
If done appropriately, a comparison between 2 software programs that are similar in most respects - - except one distributed as a proprietary product (without antitrust violations, i.e., legally) and the other through open source dual -licensing - - the program that should do better is the latter, not because it has a closed source counterpart, but because of the benefits that follow from the open source version. No doubt there may be exceptions in practice (a project may not be managed carefully or there may be problems with free-riding), but, in the main, the dual licensing model will do better than the closed source proprietary model; hence, the significant feature of dual-licensing is its connection to the open source development method. If you disagree, then you disagree with some of the ideas underlying open source, which is not the same as making a case against the logic of the dual-licensing model. - Rod - Original Message - From: Marius Amado Alves [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: OSI license discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 07, 2004 7:55 AM Subject: Re: Dual licensing Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote: I agree with the point that the creative spark is not communitarian. My point -- if we are to use Eric Raymond's book as an example (see Raymond's busness model 8 Free the Software, Sell the Brand) -- is that dual licensing IS an authentic open source model. This is just words, but anyway: dual-licensing involves a closed source license as much as an open one; in business terms, even more, because that's where the money is. So dual-licensing is really less an open source model than a closed one. I'd really like to be shown any essential flaw in this reasoning. But as I said, it's just words, academic, not important, not pressing, don't waiste your time. Thanks. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3 -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Dual licensing
Ok, since you bit the academic discussion, here it goes. Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote: If done appropriately, a comparison between 2 software programs that are similar in most respects - - except one distributed as a proprietary product (without antitrust violations, i.e., legally) and the other through open source dual -licensing - - the program that should do better is the latter, not because it has a closed source counterpart, but because of the benefits that follow from the open source version. I fully agree. And of course with only the words closes and open you must call closed to the entirely closed and open to the partially open. No doubt there may be exceptions in practice (a project may not be managed carefully or there may be problems with free-riding), but, in the main, the dual licensing model will do better than the closed source proprietary model; hence, the significant feature of dual-licensing is its connection to the open source development method. If you disagree, then you disagree with some of the ideas underlying open source, which is not the same as making a case against the logic of the dual-licensing model. The dual-licensing requires a market need for *closed* source. How can this be in line with the open source ideals? (Please note I'm not at all against practising the dual-licensing model, given the current state of affairs.) -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Dual licensing
Your first criticism was that it was not possible to sell open source software because somebody could undercut you. Now your criticism is that what we are selling is not publically available except through us (or our customers if they choose to distribute it). I presume that you see the shifting target. Of course. First you explained (very well) how undercutting was not an issue in practice, and then you indicated that what you really sell is a closed part. These are the two different targets. This is a weird argument all the way around. Nobody disputes that Red Hat is selling open source software and services. Nobody disputes that they are a successful company. What else do you need to see for an example of commercial open source? Red Hat sells a *closed* configuration. And mainly support (Red Hat Enterprise etc.) Not the open software (Fedora). Please understand that I am not against any known or existing open source business models. And I do not dispute some work well in practice. I merely note that: - you never sell open source directly, there is always some 'trick' - one of tricks, dual-licensing, is based on the market need for closed source, 'against' open source ideals I merely try to discuss these issues here in as much as they relate to license terms. For example: dual-licensing requires a 'viral' license; open source direct sale seems to discriminate and break clause 6, and stop being open source; etc. And note a possible conclusion is simply: that's the way it is, business has 'tricks', these are the open source ones. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Dual licensing
Marius Amado Alves [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Your first criticism was that it was not possible to sell open source software because somebody could undercut you. Now your criticism is that what we are selling is not publically available except through us (or our customers if they choose to distribute it). I presume that you see the shifting target. Of course. First you explained (very well) how undercutting was not an issue in practice, and then you indicated that what you really sell is a closed part. These are the two different targets. You started out talking about open source software. There is absolutely nothing in the definition of open source software which requires it to be on an FTP site somewhere for public download. Open source software which is not publically available is still fully open source. If you want to talk about something else, namely open source software which is available for anybody to download, then we can talk about that. But that is a strict subset of open source software. (An example of a commercial company which sells this subset of open source software is cheapbytes.com). - you never sell open source directly, there is always some 'trick' There is no trick, except by your unstated definition. If you think there is a trick, please point to the aspect of open source software which is being finessed. As I said in my last note, I concede that there are probably types of open source software which can not be sold commercially. But it does not follow that no type of open source software may be sold commercially. I merely try to discuss these issues here in as much as they relate to license terms. For example: dual-licensing requires a 'viral' license; open source direct sale seems to discriminate and break clause 6, and stop being open source; etc. Direct sale as such does not violate OSD #6. It would only violate OSD #6 if certain people were not permitted to buy it. No discrimination does not mean available to all; it means no specific restriction. Ian -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Creative Commons Attribution
--- Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, the Creative Commons licenses are not OSI-approved: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ I think there are two licenses that meet the Open Source Definition: the Attribution license: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/ ...and the Attribution-ShareAlike license: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/ (Why the other licenses would not be Open Source is left as an exercise to the reader.) In discussing this on the Creative Commons cc-licenses list, one commenter thought that the Attribution license element* would not meet the OSD. http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2004-June/000898.html The Attribution license element requires that the upstream creator's copyright notices be kept intact; that their names or pseudonyms, if provided, be included in the work where other authors' names are, as best as possible for the medium; and that an URL for license and copyright info be included. Hi, i don't think that attribution match with osi definition, as it requires to allow derivative works, and CC-by has not this clause. I do agree that CC-by-sa match with osi definition as this second license allows derivative works. Despite of this, remember that in some legal sistems the attribution clause is not required, as the law requires this kind of right. So for instance in cc-spa and in cc-ita they have decided to include the attribution clause per defoult in all the license solutions. A question: about the source code: as CC refers to multimedia many times there is not source code. But, in CC there is not requirements to deliver or make availabe a copy of the work in an open format (as FDL does). Any comments? by montre _ ---o0o--- Aconsegueix [EMAIL PROTECTED] gratutament a http://teatre.com :-))-: -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Dual licensing
You started out talking about open source software. There is absolutely nothing in the definition of open source software which requires it to be on an FTP site somewhere for public download. Open source software which is not publically available is still fully open source. I think the open source way requires public availability, technically, for bazaar-like development to take place. But I'll have to sleep on this. If you want to talk about something else, namely open source software which is available for anybody to download, then we can talk about that. But that is a strict subset of open source software. (An example of a commercial company which sells this subset of open source software is cheapbytes.com). I'll check, thanks. There is no trick, except by your unstated definition. If you think there is a trick, please point to the aspect of open source software which is being finessed. Dual-licensing relies on a market need for closed source, and requires a 'viral' license. If that's not tricky, I'm Michael Valentine Smith. Direct sale as such does not violate OSD #6. It would only violate OSD #6 if certain people were not permitted to buy it. No discrimination does not mean available to all; it means no specific restriction. This interpretation of clause 6 seems radically different from the ones I've seen in the past, it seems more 'liberal', all in all 'better', and together with your first paragraph (also a more 'liberal' interpretation to me), it promises to make theoretically sound business models that were not sound before, at least in my mind. I'll have to sleep on all this. Thanks a lot. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Dual licensing
Though you protest that you are not against open source, I think your words betray that protestation; certainly, arguing that those who support or develop open source software never sell open source directly, there is always some 'trick' - - is not exactly a praiseworthy outlook. In that regard, I am doubtful that you are raising an earnest argument. Even so, your point overlooks a critical detail: there is no restriction against selling software. That the open source model renders it less likely that a vendor will succeed in selling open source software is not the same as a restriction against doing so. Of course, one aim of open source development, it seems to me, is that those who desire to make commercial use of the work of others add value before doing so. I do not understand how someone may properly characterize this as a trick or imply that success with open source is based on a delusion. - Rod Ok, since you bit the academic discussion, here it goes. Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote: If done appropriately, a comparison between 2 software programs that are similar in most respects - - except one distributed as a proprietary product (without antitrust violations, i.e., legally) and the other through open source dual -licensing - - the program that should do better is the latter, not because it has a closed source counterpart, but because of the benefits that follow from the open source version. I fully agree. And of course with only the words closes and open you must call closed to the entirely closed and open to the partially open. No doubt there may be exceptions in practice (a project may not be managed carefully or there may be problems with free-riding), but, in the main, the dual licensing model will do better than the closed source proprietary model; hence, the significant feature of dual-licensing is its connection to the open source development method. If you disagree, then you disagree with some of the ideas underlying open source, which is not the same as making a case against the logic of the dual-licensing model. The dual-licensing requires a market need for *closed* source. How can this be in line with the open source ideals? (Please note I'm not at all against practising the dual-licensing model, given the current state of affairs.) -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3 -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Dual licensing
Marius Amado Alves scripsit: Red Hat sells a *closed* configuration. It isn't closed-source, though. Anyone can clone it, and some people have. -- Eric Raymond is the Margaret Mead John Cowan of the Open Source movement.[EMAIL PROTECTED] --Bruce Perens, http://www.ccil.org/~cowan some years agohttp://www.reutershealth.com -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Dual licensing
While it is not done in practise yet, (we are still arranging to make it possible) Compiler Resources, Inc. does intend to sell open source software (and at some level the FSF does so today or at least did in the past). We have a currently closed source product, Yacc++, that we intend to release an open source version of. Truly open source, under the GPL, and other developers may fork, resell, or do whatever the GPL allows them to do with it. We will also sell that exact same version (at a reduced price from other closed source versions). We hope that some distributions of open source software may in fact begin incorporating the open source version into their distributions and that copies of the open source software gets given away for free. Now, as noted, we will also be selling closed source versions (and support for the open source version). This is where we intend to continue making the majority of our profits. However, there will be some clients who wish to buy the open source version from us, perhaps because they will then get it in combination with a proprietary version or to get support or just to get the latest open source copy we have released in a timely fashion. Thus, we will be *selling* the open source version. As I mentioned, (at least at one time) the FSF did the same. One could buy a distribution tape of Emacs from them (for about $150). As I recall, we, in fact, did so. Not because, we were particularly enamoured with giving the FSF money, but because we wanted a reliable copy, and we were no more enamoured with giving someone else the money. There was at least the hope that the money we gave to the FSF would be plowed back into supporting further development of Emacs. As to the pricing model, we intend to sell the open source version for about a quarter what we sell our flagship closed source version for, which is also the price we sell upgrades to our best customers for. Matching the upgrade price is the key reason we picked that price point--the open source version will help support customers who do not want more current versions, but want more freedom in modifying the software and supporting themselves. We have a fairly extensive client base who would like to self-support and are using older versions that they do not wish to upgrade, but do need sources for to handle incompatibilities in the underlying OS that have crept in over the years (e.g. we have Windows 3.x users that need an XP version, of the same old copy of our software, and we want to make their life easier). Note, the price point we have selected is about half the price of comparable competing closed source products. As to the development model, we intend to accept contributions (provide that the authors are willing to assign copyright owernship for us, so we can dual license and incorporate into our closed source versions) and will offer such enahncement authors some form of compensation for their contibutions (advance copies of the next free release are one likely candidate and attribution credit if desired). Is it possible that some authors will fork a competing version and sell or give that away, yes? However, we expect to mitigate that threat by providing only a subset of the flagship products functionality--a substantial subset, so that the open source version is not a toy or demo version, but in fact a valuable product in itself (just not quite as good as our flagship product)--with the further promise that other features from our flagship product will get incorporated into the open source version over time. That means any fork will either have to track our open source releases or will become less functional. Note, no where in our plans are attempts to keep others from selling the same open source software (nor from giving it away). In fact, we hope that some distributions do in fact give the open source version away, as loss leaders for our closed source version. At the same time, we do expect to sell the open source version, just not as the primary revenue stream. As far as I can tell, precluding others from selling or giving away your open source software, violates what most people mean by open source. At time same time, just because we allow others to give it away, does not mean that we have to give it away--that's a separate decision. It is possible to segment the market and still sell open source software. Hope this helps, -Chris * Chris ClarkInternet : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Compiler Resources, Inc. Web Site : http://world.std.com/~compres 23 Bailey Rd voice : (508) 435-5016 Berlin, MA 01503 USA fax: (978) 838-0263 (24 hours) -- -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Dual licensing
Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote: Though you protest that you are not against open source, I think your words betray that protestation; certainly, arguing that those who support or develop open source software never sell open source directly, there is always some 'trick' - - is not exactly a praiseworthy outlook. You're taking my criticism as antagonism. I can't think of anything more to say to avert that. In that regard, I am doubtful that you are raising an earnest argument. Even so, your point overlooks a critical detail: there is no restriction against selling software. That the open source model renders it less likely that a vendor will succeed in selling open source software is not the same as a restriction against doing so. I never disputed that. Of course, one aim of open source development, it seems to me, is that those who desire to make commercial use of the work of others add value before doing so. Anything you sell has to have some added value. I fail to see the connection to open source development. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Dual licensing
Le lundi 07 Juin 2004 14:46, Marius Amado Alves a écrit : The dual-licensing requires a market need for *closed* source. How can this be in line with the open source ideals? (Please note I'm not at all against practising the dual-licensing model, given the current state of affairs.) Why dual licensing should be connected to *closed* source? You find many examples, such as Trolltech or MySQL, proposing such dual-licensing schemes. Not bcause customers WANT closed source, but simply because they also want to make internal develpment or internal use which does not fit the GPL or other Open Source license. If you only propose GPL, you cut yourself from companies who would like to use your software, but must use your software or make it a subproject of non Open Source compatible software, or even, basically, cause they think their specific knowlege in a particular field cannot be shared. Without closed source AND dual licensing, really free software would never (or at least not before the next glaciation) make its own bed in most companies. The 3 models are acceptable, dual-liecnsing does not really break Open Source paradigms. -- JCR aka DJ Anubis LAB Project Initiator coordinator -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Dual licensing
Why dual licensing should be connected to *closed* source? You find many examples, such as Trolltech or MySQL, proposing such dual-licensing schemes. Not bcause customers WANT closed source, but simply because they also want to make internal develpment or internal use which does not fit the GPL or other Open Source license. Rubbish. All internal development or use fits any open source licence. If you only propose GPL, you cut yourself from companies who would like to use your software, but must use your software or make it a subproject of non Open Source compatible software, or even, basically, cause they think their specific knowlege in a particular field cannot be shared. This is making my case. Without closed source AND dual licensing, really free software would never (or at least not before the next glaciation) make its own bed in most companies. Ditto. The 3 models are acceptable, dual-liecnsing does not really break Open Source paradigms. The that's the way it is conclusion. As I said, possibly a valid one. Thanks. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Dual licensing
Great information about the Yacc++ business, Chris. Yes, I'm sure it helps. But I'll have to digest it carefully. I'll say something eventually. Thanks a lot. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Dual licensing
Quoting Marius Amado Alves ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): This is just words, but anyway: dual-licensing involves a closed source license as much as an open one; in business terms, even more, because that's where the money is. So dual-licensing is really less an open source model than a closed one. I'd really like to be shown any essential flaw in this reasoning. If you're claiming the _only_ purpose of dual-licensing is to support proprietary business models, then there are any number of counter-examples. Offhand, the one that comes to mind is the AIC7xxx SCSI host adapter block-device driver, which, when last I checked, was dual-licensed GPL and BSD in order to be used by both Linux and BSD kernels. (Please note that the term closed source is unclear and pretty nearly meaningless. Therefore, I use proprietary to denote software not available under OSD/DFSG-compliant terms.) -- Is it not the beauty of an asynchronous form of discussion that one can go and make cups of tea, floss the cat, fluff the geraniums, open the kitchen window and scream out it with operatic force, volume, and decorum, and then return to the vexed glowing letters calmer of mind and soul? -- The Cube, forum3000.org -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Dual licensing
Le lundi 07 Juin 2004 18:22, Marius Amado Alves a écrit : You find many examples, such as Trolltech or MySQL, proposing such dual-licensing schemes. Not bcause customers WANT closed source, but simply because they also want to make internal develpment or internal use which does not fit the GPL or other Open Source license. Rubbish. All internal development or use fits any open source licence. Sorry, but a word was missing in my sentence. you should read: Not because customers WANT closed source, but simply because the same customers also want to make internal development or internal use which does not fit the GPL or other Open Source license. -- JCR aka DJ Anubis LAB Project Initiator coordinator -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Dual licensing
Quoting Marius Amado Alves ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): Nice case. Of course this happens only because the GPL is viral. You know, you might want to save the polemics for a crowd that's less experienced in these matters. With the possible exception of Ken Brown, nobody here's likely to be impressed. ;- (The AIC7XXX driver is dual-licensed for _compatibility_ with both BSD-licensed and GPL-licensed codebases. Not being complete idiots, nobody here, to my knowledge, buys that drivel about the creation of derivative works including GPL codebases somehow wrenching inherent ownership rights out of the hands of the other codebase's owner, and forcing it also to be issued under GPL terms.) In the event that you're not just trolling, and are honestly new to the issue, there are a number of terms less likely to make you sound like a licensing crank: ShareAlike (from Creative Commons), reciprocal (from OSI, Objectweb.org, and others), or copyleft (from FSF). Personally, I would go with reciprocal. -- Cheers, Learning Java has been a slow and tortuous process for me. Every Rick Moen few minutes, I start screaming 'No, you fools!' and have to go [EMAIL PROTECTED] read something from _Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs_ to de-stress. -- The Cube, www.forum3000.org -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Dual licensing
Sorry, but a word was missing in my sentence. you should read: Not because customers WANT closed source, but simply because the same customers also want to make internal development or internal use which does not fit the GPL or other Open Source license. No difference. I read they as the same costumers before. Are you referring to proprietary software X that is forbidden by its one licensing terms to be combined with open source software Y, and therefore you need to 'unopen' Y to proceed? If that's the case, I conceed, but I don't see the point of a license like that of X. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Dual licensing
Quoting Marius Amado Alves ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): Red Hat sells a *closed* configuration. And mainly support (Red Hat Enterprise etc.) Not the open software (Fedora). There is, as far as I can tell, nothing the least bit proprietary in the software contents of any of the RHEL 3.0 variants, or the RHAS 2.1 variants before it. (I have not been able to licence-audit all of the packages, but to a first approximation everything in the distribution appears to be under licences permitting public redistribution.) As far as I (a non-lawyer, and thus not offering professional legal advice) can tell, a lawful possessor of RHEL 3.0 may (per USA law and probably others) lawfully duplicate and give away duplicates of his CDs. If, in addition to that, he takes sufficient steps to also avoid infringing Red Hat's trademark rights, he may alternatively sell the software in question. By using trademark rights and a bundled service agreement to offer a branded, supported offering to business only for an annual fee, yet also respecting fully the rights of forking and redistribution in all of the software's licences, Red Hat, Inc. strikes me as having accomplished something remarkable and (in my view) commendable. You seem to have misunderstood its provisions -- but then, many people seem to have done so. I merely try to discuss these issues here in as much as they relate to license terms. For example: dual-licensing requires a 'viral' license; I see no reason why a reciprocal licence necessarily _must_ be a component of dual-licensing; rather, the pragmatic licence-compatbility problems requiring dual-licensing just don't seem to arise with combinations solely of non-copylefted codebases. The primary non-copyleft open-source licenses, to the best of my recollection, are as follows: o Old BSD licence (advertising clause) o Apache licence (newer versions of which have patent-termination clauses) o MIT X11 licence, or equivalently o New BSD licence. Those mix well not so much because of the lack of a reciprocal/copyleft provision per se, but more exactly because they lack provisions that limit licence combination. It would be perverse to create a non-reciprocal licence that clashes with the above licences, but could certainly be done easily. Here's an example: Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that this software not be used to create derivative works with codebases under the BSD, Apache, or MIT X11 licences. -- Cheers,Linux means never having to delete your love mail. Rick Moen -- Don Marti [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Dual licensing
Nice case. Of course this happens only because the GPL is viral. You know, you might want to save the polemics for a crowd that's less experienced in these matters. With the possible exception of Ken Brown, nobody here's likely to be impressed. ;- No troll. I just said that to link to a previous point of mine, namely that dual-licensing requires a reciprocal license. [Technically, viral = reciprocal. This has been discussed before. The difference is merely of perspective. Naturally license authors and grantors prefer the positively connoted reciprocal. Naturally users that find themselves restricted in some way by a reciprocal license (e.g. dual-licensing costumers) will understand and use the term viral better. And when discussing that perspective it's correct to use it too. But I see this has a potential of being misunderstood as a provocation of some kind in this list, so I'll try to remember that and avoid it and save us all some time.] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Dual licensing
Red Hat sells a *closed* configuration. And mainly support (Red Hat Enterprise etc.) Not the open software (Fedora). There is, as far as I can tell, nothing the least bit proprietary in the software contents of any of the RHEL 3.0 variants You're right and I was wrong on this point. I forgot that open does not imply public. As far as I (a non-lawyer, and thus not offering professional legal advice) can tell, a lawful possessor of RHEL 3.0 may (per USA law and probably others) lawfully duplicate and give away duplicates of his CDs. IANAL either but I'm pretty sure this is the case. By using trademark rights and a bundled service agreement to offer a branded, supported offering to business only for an annual fee, yet also respecting fully the rights of forking and redistribution in all of the software's licences, Red Hat, Inc. strikes me as having accomplished something remarkable and (in my view) commendable. Yes. But note it's brand, and support, that make most of the business. Not the software items themselves. (Please remember this is the academic question!) I see no reason why a reciprocal licence necessarily _must_ be a component of dual-licensing; rather, the pragmatic licence-compatbility problems requiring dual-licensing just don't seem to arise with combinations solely of non-copylefted codebases. The primary non-copyleft open-source licenses, to the best of my recollection, are as follows: o Old BSD licence (advertising clause) o Apache licence (newer versions of which have patent-termination clauses) o MIT X11 licence, or equivalently o New BSD licence. Those mix well not so much because of the lack of a reciprocal/copyleft provision per se, but more exactly because they lack provisions that limit licence combination. It would be perverse to create a non-reciprocal licence that clashes with the above licences, but could certainly be done easily. Here's an example: Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that this software not be used to create derivative works with codebases under the BSD, Apache, or MIT X11 licences. I was also privately referred to the Microsoft EULAs as an example of terms meant to avoid mixing with OOS. Thanks all. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Dual licensing
Quoting Marius Amado Alves ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): No troll. I just said that to link to a previous point of mine, namely that dual-licensing requires a reciprocal license. [Technically, viral = reciprocal. This has been discussed before. The difference is merely of perspective. Ah, just like relocation camp versus concentration camp is just a matter of perspective, and reflects absolutely no intent to prejudice discussion through loaded rhetoric. I see. ;- Naturally license authors and grantors prefer the positively connoted reciprocal. I tend to favour whatever term is most descriptive and rhetorically neutral. Copyleft strikes me as actually slightly better in the latter department, but needs to be explained to the uninitiated. The polemical nature of viral in this context, by contrast, strikes me as completely self-evident. Naturally users that find themselves restricted in some way by a reciprocal license (e.g. dual-licensing costumers) will understand and use the term viral better. That does not strike me as natural, but rather as special pleading and (most precisely to the point) factual inaccuracy: It is erroneous to claim that such users are thereby restricted -- as that term carries with it the incorrect corollary assumption of entitlement. The users have been generously granted a particular bundle of rights by the copyright owner, and would (hypothetically) prefer to have even more rights -- to something they do not own. My sympathy for people wanting property that doesn't belong to them is pretty minimal. Where that property is software, I'm usually inclined to advise them that they're welcome to buy, commission, or write something that suits them better. I'll even recommend a compiler or two. And when discussing that perspective it's correct to use it too. I _will_ agree that the attitude is common -- but not correct -- up to about the age of six. Afterwards, one expects youngsters to understand that generosity is not entitlement. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Dual licensing
Marius Amado Alves [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I think the open source way requires public availability, technically, for bazaar-like development to take place. But I'll have to sleep on this. Let's not confuse bazaar-like development with open source software. Remember that The Cathedral and the Bazaar was a contrast between two different types of open-source development, specifically the ones (formerly) practiced by the FSF (Cathedral) and by Linus (Bazaar). It was not about any sort of proprietary development. Direct sale as such does not violate OSD #6. It would only violate OSD #6 if certain people were not permitted to buy it. No discrimination does not mean available to all; it means no specific restriction. This interpretation of clause 6 seems radically different from the ones I've seen in the past, it seems more 'liberal', all in all 'better', and together with your first paragraph (also a more 'liberal' interpretation to me), it promises to make theoretically sound business models that were not sound before, at least in my mind. I'll have to sleep on all this. Thanks a lot. It is clear to me that OSD #6 does not prohibit direct sale of the software. I've never heard anybody seriously claim otherwise. Certainly neither the GPL nor the BSD license prohibit sale of the software. In fact, any requirement that GPL software be available to all would violate one of the basic FSF requirements for free software: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html You should also have the freedom to make modifications and use them privately in your own work or play, without even mentioning that they exist. If you do publish your changes, you should not be required to notify anyone in particular, or in any particular way. Ian -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Dual licensing
It is clear to me that OSD #6 does not prohibit direct sale of the software. I've never heard anybody seriously claim otherwise. It's another thing. By clause 6, you must either sell to all recipients, or give away to all recipients. I think this makes software sale incompatible with bazaar-like development. But I must ponder this and other things I've learned in this discussion. Thanks. Certainly neither the GPL nor the BSD license prohibit sale of the software. Then they should stop saying because this software is provided free of charge... -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Dual licensing
Marius Amado Alves [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It is clear to me that OSD #6 does not prohibit direct sale of the software. I've never heard anybody seriously claim otherwise. It's another thing. By clause 6, you must either sell to all recipients, or give away to all recipients. I think this makes software sale incompatible with bazaar-like development. But I must ponder this and other things I've learned in this discussion. Thanks. Software sale may indeed be incompatible with bazaar-like development. The point is that it is not incompatible with open source licensing. Open source does not imply bazaar. As I said earlier, the cathedral model of development is just as much open source, and was indeed used by the FSF for a long time. Certainly neither the GPL nor the BSD license prohibit sale of the software. Then they should stop saying because this software is provided free of charge... Neither license says that. Read them again. Ian -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Seeking input on license of existing project
The license of this project is not necessarily under control of the developer, an employee at an academic institution. We're trying to move the project over to sourceforge, but we're not sure how OSI kosher this license is. The parts I'm unsure about are #3 (advertising materials) and #5 (attribution). Your feedback is much appreciated. - primer3 release 0.9 (distribution 0_9_test) Copyright (c) 1996,1997,1998 Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research. 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 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. Redistributions of source code must also reproduce this information in the source code itself. 2. If the program is modified, redistributions must include a notice (in the same places as above) indicating that the redistributed program is not identical to the version distributed by Whitehead Institute. 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display the following acknowledgment: This product includes software developed by the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research. 4. The name of the Whitehead Institute may not be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission. 5. We also request that use of this software be cited in publications as Steve Rozen, Helen J. Skaletsky (1996,1997,1998) Primer3. Code available at http://www-genome.wi.mit.edu/genome_software/other/primer3.html THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE WHITEHEAD INSTITUTE ``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 WHITEHEAD INSTITUTE 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. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
free Re: Dual licensing
hi ya marius On 7 Jun 2004, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: Marius Amado Alves [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ... Certainly neither the GPL nor the BSD license prohibit sale of the software. Then they should stop saying because this software is provided free of charge... Neither license says that. Read them again. in my limited view of licenses... the software is free ... - you can usually download, without paying cash to them, for whatever it is they are selling what is NOT free is whatever widgets and services and $$$ they add to the free stuff to make it acme widgets corp's version of free stuff c ya alvin -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Dual licensing
Certainly neither the GPL nor the BSD license prohibit sale of the software. Then they should stop saying because this software is provided free of charge... Neither license says that. Duh? NO WARRANTY 11. BECAUSE THE PROGRAM IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE... (GPL) -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Dual licensing
Marius Amado Alves [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Certainly neither the GPL nor the BSD license prohibit sale of the software. Then they should stop saying because this software is provided free of charge... Neither license says that. Duh? NO WARRANTY 11. BECAUSE THE PROGRAM IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE... (GPL) You said provided free of charge. The GPL says licensed free of charge. See the difference? We are talking about whether you can sell a copy of a GPL program. You can charge for providing a copy. You can't charge for licensing it--the license is automatic. Ian -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Dual licensing
You said provided free of charge. The GPL says licensed free of charge. See the difference? Not really, but duh to myself. I should know better. Maybe it will come to me in my sleep. Thanks. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Dual licensing
Thanks all for having putting up with this blockhead. I think I advanced a bit. I make a fool of myself here and there. I only hope I'm a fool on a hill. My vision is: free the software, but every author gets paid his share when the software generates revenue. I try to juggle the license terms to get this done. I'd gladly delegate this quest, but I'm not in that position yet. I'm alone. I err. You forgive. If and when my dream license is made, we'll all be its authors. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
free Re: Dual licensing
What part of OSD#6 prevents someone for charging to license the software to one group and give the software away for free to another as long as the same open source license is made available to both? Actually, as long as the license is OSI compatible--meaning effectively that some recipient could give the software to the party to which one does not wish to sell, is there any reason that a developer could not sell open source software only to a select group of people? For example, consider the following possible strawmen: Strawman 1: 1) Developer A creates software. 2a) Developer A creates a web site and offers the software for gratis distribution to non-commercial users via a web site. 2b) Said developer offers for sale (but not gratis) direct distribution to commercial users. 3) Developer A ships the software to said users under the GPL. 4) Non-commercial user B gets a copy of said software and gives (or sells) it to commercial enity B (under the terms of the GPL) 5a) Can developer A, say that they have complied with the OSI definition? 5b) What if they indicate that such circumvention is legal--but discouraged at the web site? Strawman 2, same as one, but substitute for 2a/b 2a) Developer A creates a web site and offers the software for sale to non-commercial users via a web site. 2b) Said developer refuses to sell (directly, i.e. themselves) to commercial users. -Chris -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Dual licensing
Quoting Marius Amado Alves ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): Rick Moen (and others) suggest the term open source be used only as defined by OSI. Maybe that would be a good thing, and as I said and pointed out (and Rick wasn't listening) I never say just open source tout court to mean something different, but life has shown repeatedly that the vast majority of speakers won't follow the suggestion. Fortunately, a bunch of us have vast patience, and will be glad to politely remind said vast majority, in order to protect and perpetuate the useful distinction between what is open source and what is not. (Please remember that OSI was founded by people who invented that term in the software context. Simple courtesy would suggest you cease trying to abuse their core concept.) Commercial open source is a fairly established term to denote efforts (like the SDC's) to profitably license freely distributable and modifiable source code. Please cease referring to what is proprietary licensing as open source, which is erroneous and misleading. Thank you. Kindly tell what point you feel I'm trying to evade. That your SDC licence plainly is proprietary. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
authors Re: Dual licensing
hi ya marius On Mon, 7 Jun 2004, Marius Amado Alves wrote: Thanks all for having putting up with this blockhead. I think I advanced a bit. I make a fool of myself here and there. I only hope I'm a fool on a hill. glad to watch the show, i learned a few things too watching ... My vision is: free the software, yup, a good goal but every author gets paid his share when the software generates revenue. that portion of revenue to authors should be off the top, not after everybody takes their nickel and dimes out of it with nothing left over rant i doubt any GPL author gets paid $$ from commercial entities using their GPL code ... ( to me, that's wrong, and i doubt it was the intent that ( large big-5 computer companies get to make a fortune on ( the work of GPL authors - how to see that originating authors and derivatives get their share is a good trick question some folks gets their share of the pie, because the distributors wants patches and fixes and new features ??? the people that are making the $$$ are the distributors and retailers and system integrators with converting from xxx to linux-based solutions waiting for the day when GPL starts to go non-commercial :-) when it'd be harder for non-gpl (binary only) products ( eg. video and nic drivers ) that (tries to) runs with any generic linux box and one has no way to fix the bugs .. :-) /rant c ya alvin -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Educational Community License
Hi Brad, A cursory examination doesn't reveal anything that looks like it violates the OSD, but I did have a few comments: 1. While I think I understand the intent, your HTML version just feels wrong: http://wheeler.kelley.indiana.edu/ecl1.htm; One, despite the disclaimers, it looks like a sleazy attempt to pretend compliance. I know you didn't mean that, but it just looks bad. Second, the usual reason for HTML is to provide better formatting. Your bullet items in the HTML are all mangled up, and its a little hard to say exactly what you're requesting 2. I have to ask: Did you look at the original Apache license? http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-1.1 Perhaps I'm being naive, but I would think you could readily create your own version of that license simply by a) adding a clause about clearly indicating modifications and b) genericizing the trademark clause. I realize you're already close to it (since you share the MIT heritage), but if there was anyway to adopt the phrasing -- and look feel -- of Apache 1.1, it might reduce the learning curve still further. Just my $.02. As I said, I don't see anything OSD-problematic, but I did find the review a little harder than I felt it needed to be. Best of luck, -- enp IANAL, TINLA, etc., etc. On Jun 7, 2004, at 10:54 AM, Wheeler, Bradley C. wrote: [ Please discuss this license ] Greetings, The purpose of this message is to submit the Educational Community License (ECL) for OSI certification. This request is driven by a recent acceleration of application software projects in higher education (over a dozen current projects with new grants pending). There is a growing concern that many of these projects will need to share code and interoperate with each other to achieve their full potential for users. In the present state, many of these projects are evolving on unique licenses from their local host universities. There is a timely opportunity and need for a common license that can be used for these and future projects. In a step towards realizing a common license, the Sakai Project (www.sakaiproject.org http://www.sakaiproject.org/ ) ($6.8M project) and the Open Source Portfolio Initiative (OSPI)(www.theospi.org http://www.theospi.org/ ) ($1M project) - both funded by the Mellon Foundation - have both agreed to use the proposed Educational Community License. This includes formal acceptance from the administration at Foothill-De Anza Community College District, Indiana University, MIT, Stanford University, the University of Michigan and several companies who provide support for open source software in higher education (no small feat to reach common agreement!). The IMS Global Learning consortium (50 members) that works on interoperability matters and sharing in the education community has also endorsed the ECL as it sees a tremendous need for a common license. Other universities and projects have indicated their interest in using the license if it receives OSI certification. As a board member for both the Sakai Project and OSPI, I am submitting ECL on their behalf, and I can provide supporting letters or emails from any of the institutions named here if those would be helpful. ECL is conceived as a very open license regarding the creation of derivative works, reuse of code, and freedom to commercialize. It builds on the very successful university-commercial experiences of the uPortal Project that also used a very unrestrictive license. It adds some explicit restrictions deemed necessary to protect the trademarks/brands of the copyright holders and provides for a lineage of modifications to help users understand the origins of their software. The title of the license is intended to further adoption among open source projects in higher education - especially administrative and teaching/learning application software projects. There is no single community, organization, or project implied by the license as the pattern is that two-three universities pool their resources with a foundation or government grant to create some new application. Each may have its own community of users, identity, and organization, but all are generally affiliated in one way or another with educational endeavors. The following numbered items correspond to the Getting a License Approved items from the OSI website: 1. Title: Educational Community License 2. HTML Version in OSI mock up: http://wheeler.kelley.indiana.edu/ecl1.htm Full Plain Text Version is at the end 3. Legal Analysis: Comments and references to the Open Source Definition are in [brackets]. - The Educational Community License This Educational Community License (the License) applies to any original work of authorship (the Original Work) whose owner (the Licensor) has placed the following notice immediately following the copyright notice for the Original Work: Copyright (c) year copyright holders Licensed under the Educational Community
Re: Seeking input on license of existing project
Hi Christian, Almost like I just told the ECL fellow - isn't this the same as Apache 1.0? http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-1.0 What *is* our policy on licenses that are just name changes? -- Ernie P. IANAL, TINLA, etc., etc. On Jun 7, 2004, at 12:16 PM, Christian Gunning wrote: The license of this project is not necessarily under control of the developer, an employee at an academic institution. We're trying to move the project over to sourceforge, but we're not sure how OSI kosher this license is. The parts I'm unsure about are #3 (advertising materials) and #5 (attribution). Your feedback is much appreciated. - primer3 release 0.9 (distribution 0_9_test) Copyright (c) 1996,1997,1998 Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research. 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 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. Redistributions of source code must also reproduce this information in the source code itself. 2. If the program is modified, redistributions must include a notice (in the same places as above) indicating that the redistributed program is not identical to the version distributed by Whitehead Institute. 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display the following acknowledgment: This product includes software developed by the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research. 4. The name of the Whitehead Institute may not be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission. 5. We also request that use of this software be cited in publications as Steve Rozen, Helen J. Skaletsky (1996,1997,1998) Primer3. Code available at http://www-genome.wi.mit.edu/genome_software/other/primer3.html THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE WHITEHEAD INSTITUTE ``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 WHITEHEAD INSTITUTE 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. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3 -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Educational Community License
I agree that the license complies with the OSD. I also agree that your last paragraph could be clearer. I suspect that you could even delete it. The name and trademarks of copyright holder(s) may NOT be used in advertising or publicity pertaining to the Original or Derivative Works without specific, written prior permission. Title to copyright in the Original Work and any associated documentation will at all times remain with the copyright holders. The rights referred to in the clause above are exclusive rights by definition so permission is required regardless of inclusion of the clause in a license. If a trademark is used in the license and I have overlooked it, then the clause *might* help. - Rod Rod Dixon Blog: http://opensource.cyberspaces.org - Original Message - From: Ernest Prabhakar [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Wheeler, Bradley C. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 07, 2004 4:58 PM Subject: Re: For Approval: Educational Community License : Hi Brad, : : A cursory examination doesn't reveal anything that looks like it : violates the OSD, but I did have a few comments: : : 1. While I think I understand the intent, your HTML version just : feels wrong: : http://wheeler.kelley.indiana.edu/ecl1.htm; : : One, despite the disclaimers, it looks like a sleazy attempt to pretend : compliance. I know you didn't mean that, but it just looks bad. : : Second, the usual reason for HTML is to provide better formatting. : Your bullet items in the HTML are all mangled up, and its a little hard : to say exactly what you're requesting : : 2. I have to ask: Did you look at the original Apache license? : : http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-1.1 : : Perhaps I'm being naive, but I would think you could readily create : your own version of that license simply by a) adding a clause about : clearly indicating modifications and b) genericizing the trademark : clause. : : I realize you're already close to it (since you share the MIT : heritage), but if there was anyway to adopt the phrasing -- and look : feel -- of Apache 1.1, it might reduce the learning curve still : further. : : Just my $.02. As I said, I don't see anything OSD-problematic, but I : did find the review a little harder than I felt it needed to be. : : Best of luck, : -- enp : IANAL, TINLA, etc., etc. : : : : On Jun 7, 2004, at 10:54 AM, Wheeler, Bradley C. wrote: : : [ Please discuss this license ] : : Greetings, : : The purpose of this message is to submit the Educational Community : License (ECL) for OSI certification. This request is driven by a : recent : acceleration of application software projects in higher education (over : a dozen current projects with new grants pending). There is a growing : concern that many of these projects will need to share code and : interoperate with each other to achieve their full potential for users. : In the present state, many of these projects are evolving on unique : licenses from their local host universities. There is a timely : opportunity and need for a common license that can be used for these : and : future projects. : : In a step towards realizing a common license, the Sakai Project : (www.sakaiproject.org http://www.sakaiproject.org/ ) ($6.8M project) : and the Open Source Portfolio Initiative (OSPI)(www.theospi.org : http://www.theospi.org/ ) ($1M project) - both funded by the Mellon : Foundation - have both agreed to use the proposed Educational : Community : License. This includes formal acceptance from the administration at : Foothill-De Anza Community College District, Indiana University, MIT, : Stanford University, the University of Michigan and several companies : who provide support for open source software in higher education (no : small feat to reach common agreement!). The IMS Global Learning : consortium (50 members) that works on interoperability matters and : sharing in the education community has also endorsed the ECL as it sees : a tremendous need for a common license. Other universities and : projects : have indicated their interest in using the license if it receives OSI : certification. As a board member for both the Sakai Project and OSPI, I : am submitting ECL on their behalf, and I can provide supporting letters : or emails from any of the institutions named here if those would be : helpful. : : ECL is conceived as a very open license regarding the creation of : derivative works, reuse of code, and freedom to commercialize. It : builds on the very successful university-commercial experiences of the : uPortal Project that also used a very unrestrictive license. It adds : some explicit restrictions deemed necessary to protect the : trademarks/brands of the copyright holders and provides for a lineage : of : modifications to help users understand the origins of their software. : : The title of the license is intended to further adoption among open : source projects in higher education -
RE: For Approval: Educational Community License
Dear Earnest, Thank you for catching the formatting errors on the HTML - they have been corrected. Also, I sincerely apologize to the OSI community if I misunderstood the instructions and intent for rendering the license in HTML. I was not at all making a sleazy attempt to pretend compliance but rather trying to follow the submission instruction of saving the conversion step: Render the license in two formats: HTML and plain text. Put the HTML version on a web page. We will convert it into the same style as the existing approved licenses. You can help us by publishing it in that style yourself to save us the conversion step. http://opensource.org/docs/certification_mark.php#approval I guess I went too far in doing the conversion work for the appearance of a license page! The URL for this has only been sent to OSI for approval. It is not being shared or used otherwise. Yes, we did review the Apache license and felt that working from the MIT license to meet the needs of our projects/community was equally efficient. Again, thank you for your time in reviewing our request. -- Brad P.S. - I'm not sure if this reply-to-all will make it to the license-discuss list as I am not registered with it, but please do convey this apology it if it is a closed list. -Original Message- From: Ernest Prabhakar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 07, 2004 3:59 PM To: Wheeler, Bradley C. Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: For Approval: Educational Community License Hi Brad, A cursory examination doesn't reveal anything that looks like it violates the OSD, but I did have a few comments: 1. While I think I understand the intent, your HTML version just feels wrong: http://wheeler.kelley.indiana.edu/ecl1.htm; One, despite the disclaimers, it looks like a sleazy attempt to pretend compliance. I know you didn't mean that, but it just looks bad. Second, the usual reason for HTML is to provide better formatting. Your bullet items in the HTML are all mangled up, and its a little hard to say exactly what you're requesting 2. I have to ask: Did you look at the original Apache license? http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-1.1 Perhaps I'm being naive, but I would think you could readily create your own version of that license simply by a) adding a clause about clearly indicating modifications and b) genericizing the trademark clause. I realize you're already close to it (since you share the MIT heritage), but if there was anyway to adopt the phrasing -- and look feel -- of Apache 1.1, it might reduce the learning curve still further. Just my $.02. As I said, I don't see anything OSD-problematic, but I did find the review a little harder than I felt it needed to be. Best of luck, -- enp IANAL, TINLA, etc., etc. On Jun 7, 2004, at 10:54 AM, Wheeler, Bradley C. wrote: [ Please discuss this license ] Greetings, The purpose of this message is to submit the Educational Community License (ECL) for OSI certification. This request is driven by a recent acceleration of application software projects in higher education (over a dozen current projects with new grants pending). There is a growing concern that many of these projects will need to share code and interoperate with each other to achieve their full potential for users. In the present state, many of these projects are evolving on unique licenses from their local host universities. There is a timely opportunity and need for a common license that can be used for these and future projects. In a step towards realizing a common license, the Sakai Project (www.sakaiproject.org http://www.sakaiproject.org/ ) ($6.8M project) and the Open Source Portfolio Initiative (OSPI)(www.theospi.org http://www.theospi.org/ ) ($1M project) - both funded by the Mellon Foundation - have both agreed to use the proposed Educational Community License. This includes formal acceptance from the administration at Foothill-De Anza Community College District, Indiana University, MIT, Stanford University, the University of Michigan and several companies who provide support for open source software in higher education (no small feat to reach common agreement!). The IMS Global Learning consortium (50 members) that works on interoperability matters and sharing in the education community has also endorsed the ECL as it sees a tremendous need for a common license. Other universities and projects have indicated their interest in using the license if it receives OSI certification. As a board member for both the Sakai Project and OSPI, I am submitting ECL on their behalf, and I can provide supporting letters or emails from any of the institutions named here if those would be helpful. ECL is conceived as a very open license regarding the creation of derivative works, reuse of code, and freedom to commercialize. It builds on the very successful university-commercial experiences of the uPortal Project that also used
Re: Dual licensing
You said provided free of charge. The GPL says licensed free of charge. See the difference? Not really, but duh to myself. I should know better. Maybe it will come to me in my sleep. Thanks. (Myself) It didn't come in my sleep. Perhaps someone can explain it to me. If the disclaimer were for the license itself, I'd understand, but no, it's explicitly for the program. And you cannot distribute the program without a license attached. So where's the difference, except in words? Thanks. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
