Re: Dual licensing -- other wrinkles
Dear All (esp. Rick): To clarify the mud somewhat: I construe my header preamble as an offer of license choice (subject to payment) between GPL and BSD. If so, then: 1. Does this license choice pertain to everyone who subsequently receives the software and derivative works? 2. Is it possible for a user to remove or deny this license choice in his derivative work? (I should think not, I would think even if the preamble was removed, the code is still covered by the offer of license choice.) 3. Is such a license choice, since it involves payment, in any way construable as a disallowed restriction in GPL? (I should think not either, since the license choice happens before GPL is invoked, so to speak.) In doing this, I do accept the consequences: A. If the user chooses to accept the code under GPL, then he can pass it on under GPL without charging. The third party, like the original user, can accept it under GPL, but has to pay to remove the reciprocity requirement. B. If the user has paid and chooses to accept the code under BSD, a third party who has not paid cannot then use this code as BSD, since the header preamble denies him the choice. Instead he can still accept it under GPL. Does this make sense? Cheers, Glen Low, Pixelglow Software www.pixelglow.com -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Dual licensing -- other wrinkles
Sam Barnett-Cormack scripsit: Well, that depends on if you're living entirely in the US, or on the basis of international copyright treaties, in which case you or other parties might be in countries that don't require the insanity of registered copyright. The U.S. doesn't *require* copyrights to be registered -- that would be against the Berne Convention, and in fact was one of the stumbling-blocks to U.S. acceptance of Berne, back in the day. It simply grants a privilege to people who do register: they can sue in U.S. court for infringement and do not have to prove actual monetary damages -- instead, they can get US$50,000 per infringing act, which is quite a hefty threat. You don't need to be a U.S. citizen or resident to register, either. So if you are the copyright owner of open-source software, it may be worthwhile to pay the registration fee (the cost is $30 for a perpetual registration, though you need to register at least each new version, if not each actual release) in order to put teeth into your license. IANAL, TINLA. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan[EMAIL PROTECTED] You tollerday donsk? N. You tolkatiff scowegian? Nn. You spigotty anglease? Nnn. You phonio saxo? Nnnn. Clear all so! `Tis a Jute (Finnegans Wake 16.5) -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Dual licensing -- other wrinkles
No Spam scripsit: B. If the user has paid and chooses to accept the code under BSD, a third party who has not paid cannot then use this code as BSD, since the header preamble denies him the choice. Instead he can still accept it under GPL. The line if the user has paid is rather vague. Paid whom, exactly? Anyone? Is it enough if I slip my brother-in-law a fin for passing me the software? -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.reutershealth.com www.ccil.org/~cowan [R]eversing the apostolic precept to be all things to all men, I usually [before Darwin] defended the tenability of the received doctrines, when I had to do with the [evolution]ists; and stood up for the possibility of [evolution] among the orthodox -- thereby, no doubt, increasing an already current, but quite undeserved, reputation for needless combativeness. --T. H. Huxley -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
the provide, license verbs (was: Dual licensing)
Sam Barnett-Cormack wrote: On Tue, 8 Jun 2004, Marius Amado Alves wrote: ... My point was: provide, license, seem to equate in practice (in the case of open source) ... they mean entirely different things. Let me illustrate. The author gives me a copy of the software... Under no license? -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: the provide, license verbs (was: Dual licensing)
Quoting Marius Amado Alves ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): Sam Barnett-Cormack wrote: The author gives me a copy of the software... Under no license? Marius, if you receive a piece of software encumbered by copyright (as essentially all useful software is), you have the implied right to use and (if needed) compile the software -- as provided by copyright statute. Other rights such as the right of redistribution, and the creation and distribution of derivative works, are by default reserved to the copyright holder. So, if you (lawfully) acquire a piece of software, you have a bundle of rights by statutory action, by default. Upon acquiring it, you might find a licence grant from the copyright holder that is contingent on a stated set of obligations. If the obligations don't appeal to you, nothing requires you to accept the licence, but then you possess only the rights conveyed by statute (e.g., no right of redistribution). Copyright owners who don't want recipients to have that option often resort to clipwrap agreements (an intended instrument of contract law), instead. (There are other reasons some authors prefer such instruments, but that's a different discussion.) -- Cheers,Rehab is for quitters. Rick Moen [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: the provide, license verbs (was: Dual licensing)
I essentially agree with Rick's comment, but it may be somewhat misleading. I suspect a copyright holder who issues a license would argue that the license changes everything. As such, if you are in lawful possession of software that is accompanied by a license, you are restricted to accepting the terms of the license or rejecting them. That's it. On the other hand, the default rules Rick mentions would apply to a work like a book, which is not customarily distributed with a license. Rod - Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.cyberspaces.org .. Original Message ... On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 08:33:15 -0700 Rick Moen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Quoting Marius Amado Alves ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): Sam Barnett-Cormack wrote: The author gives me a copy of the software... Under no license? Marius, if you receive a piece of software encumbered by copyright (as essentially all useful software is), you have the implied right to use and (if needed) compile the software -- as provided by copyright statute. Other rights such as the right of redistribution, and the creation and distribution of derivative works, are by default reserved to the copyright holder. So, if you (lawfully) acquire a piece of software, you have a bundle of rights by statutory action, by default. Upon acquiring it, you might find a licence grant from the copyright holder that is contingent on a stated set of obligations. If the obligations don't appeal to you, nothing requires you to accept the licence, but then you possess only the rights conveyed by statute (e.g., no right of redistribution). Copyright owners who don't want recipients to have that option often resort to clipwrap agreements (an intended instrument of contract law), instead. (There are other reasons some authors prefer such instruments, but that's a different discussion.) -- Cheers,Rehab is for quitters. Rick Moen [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- 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: the provide, license verbs (was: Dual licensing)
Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. scripsit: I suspect a copyright holder who issues a license would argue that the license changes everything. As such, if you are in lawful possession of software that is accompanied by a license, you are restricted to accepting the terms of the license or rejecting them. That's it. I think there is room to at least doubt it. Proprietary software companies uniformly take the view that because the software has not been sold to you (it says so right on the shrink-wrap), you have neither ownership nor possession but at best natural detention of it, and the only thing separating you (who have plonked down for it) from an outright thief is the license. (I suppose your ownership of the *medium* is undisputed, but that's a different matter.) Therefore, you have no rights except what the license gives you, and in particular the first-sale rule does not apply (since there has been no sale at all). They would hardly bother with this machinery if the mere act of providing a license were enough. No, they have to deny you the iure proprietatis altogether. the default rules Rick mentions would apply to a work like a book, which is not customarily distributed with a license. But it is customarily sold. Then lands were fairly portioned; Then spoils were fairly sold: The Romans were like brothers In the brave days of old. Now Roman is to Roman More hateful than a foe, And the Tribunes beard the high, And the Fathers grind the low. --Macaulay, _Lays of Ancient Rome_ -- [W]hen I wrote it I was more than a little John Cowan febrile with foodpoisoning from an antique carrot [EMAIL PROTECTED] that I foolishly ate out of an illjudged faith www.ccil.org/~cowan in the benignancy of vegetables. --And Rosta www.reutershealth.com -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: the provide, license verbs
Quoting Marius Amado Alves ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): I know all this. But can you give an open source software without a license? Think of it this way: There's a default licence (absent an explicit licence statement) that is implicit in copyright law. Copyright law grants to lawful recipients the right to compile and the right to use -- but not the right to create derivative works or redistribute.[1] Because the rights to create derivative works and redistribute are an important core concept of what we mean by open source, works under such terms are classified as proprietary. For example, most software produced by Daniel J. Bernstein was released in that state -- as a deliberate choice, since Bernstein happens to like the resulting rights grant. In the mailing list thread, the querent asked how it was possible to give someone a software codebase under no licence. That was the question I asked. The querent didn't ask if the resulting software would be proprietary. Had he asked that question, my answer would have been yes. [1] I'm speaking of copyright statutes in countries that are signatory to the Berne Convention on Copyrights. This covers almost all countries; it's possible that some of the exceptions have significantly different copyright regimes, though I doubt it. -- Cheers,I've been suffering death by PowerPoint, recently. Rick Moen -- Huw Davies [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: the provide, license verbs
Think of it this way: There's a default licence (absent an explicit licence statement) that is implicit in copyright law. Copyright law grants to lawful recipients the right to compile and the right to use -- but not the right to create derivative works or redistribute.[1] Do you say the law prevents me from taking a legal copy of a copyrighted work, which is a program, and privately modifying that program for my own use? Wouldn't that be a bit like owning a legal copy of copyrighted music, but not having the right to change any of the notes? Or buying a magazine but having the right to remove any of the pages or to add it to a scrapbook? Is software treated specially in copyright law? Surprised, Stephen North -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: the provide, license verbs (was: Dual licensing)
Quoting Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): I essentially agree with Rick's comment, but it may be somewhat misleading. I suspect a copyright holder who issues a license would argue that the license changes everything. As such, if you are in lawful possession of software that is accompanied by a license, you are restricted to accepting the terms of the license or rejecting them. That's it. I suppose it might depend on the facts of the case. I had in mind the sort of situation where you download a source tarball, unpack it, and find source code with a copyright notice and (say) a GPLv2 COPYING file, which states as clause 5: You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it. Of course, the GPL authors' surmise about how licensing works may be mistaken, and I imagine a judge would look at the facts of the case to determine the intent of the parties. -- Cheers,Ceterum censeo, Caldera delenda est. Rick Moen [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: the provide, license verbs
Quoting Stephen C. North ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): Do you say the law prevents me from taking a legal copy of a copyrighted work, which is a program, and privately modifying that program for my own use? John Cowan says yes: http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/faq/modifications Dan Bernstein says no: http://cr.yp.to/softwarelaw.html When you get that resolved, please let me know. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: the provide, license verbs
Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): Rick Moen scripsit: When you get that resolved, please let me know. Resolved how? I was looking forward to seeing Stephen C. North make the attempt -- but then, I always did have a deplorably low sense of humour. -- Cheers, This is Unix. Stop acting so helpless. Rick Moen -- D.J. Bernstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: the provide, license verbs
I was looking forward to seeing Stephen C. North make the attempt -- but then, I always did have a deplorably low sense of humour. As with most matters raised here, it's been resolved - in the imagination of the writer. This is license-discuss, not license-reality so, all's well. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: the provide, license verbs
Quoting Stephen C. North ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): As with most matters raised here, it's been resolved - in the imagination of the writer. To be serious for a moment, I don't have a definitive answer to your question. Sorry. On a prior occasion (elsewhere) when the question came up, I referred querents to John Cowan's opinion and analysis on the matter -- which then drew personal abuse (towards _me_) from Prof. Bernstein. The intended humour (such as it was) in my reply this time lay in my making a somewhat more determined effort to not get caught in the middle again. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: the provide, license verbs (was: Dual licensing)
On Wed, 9 Jun 2004, Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote: I essentially agree with Rick's comment, but it may be somewhat misleading. I suspect a copyright holder who issues a license would argue that the license changes everything. As such, if you are in lawful possession of software that is accompanied by a license, you are restricted to accepting the terms of the license or rejecting them. That's it. On the other hand, the default rules Rick mentions would apply to a work like a book, which is not customarily distributed with a license. The authors of the GPL seem to disagree. . Original Message ... On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 08:33:15 -0700 Rick Moen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Quoting Marius Amado Alves ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): Sam Barnett-Cormack wrote: The author gives me a copy of the software... Under no license? Marius, if you receive a piece of software encumbered by copyright (as essentially all useful software is), you have the implied right to use and (if needed) compile the software -- as provided by copyright statute. Other rights such as the right of redistribution, and the creation and distribution of derivative works, are by default reserved to the copyright holder. So, if you (lawfully) acquire a piece of software, you have a bundle of rights by statutory action, by default. Upon acquiring it, you might find a licence grant from the copyright holder that is contingent on a stated set of obligations. If the obligations don't appeal to you, nothing requires you to accept the licence, but then you possess only the rights conveyed by statute (e.g., no right of redistribution). Copyright owners who don't want recipients to have that option often resort to clipwrap agreements (an intended instrument of contract law), instead. (There are other reasons some authors prefer such instruments, but that's a different discussion.) -- Cheers,Rehab is for quitters. Rick Moen [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- 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 -- Sam Barnett-Cormack -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: the provide, license verbs
Now, that is a genuine academic argument. I am sure the issue will never be resolved to everyone's satisfaction...primarily because no one cares enough about what you do to software you lawfully possess and want to hack for private and personal use. Who would bring such a lawsuit, and how would the suit get past a motion to dismiss? Rod - Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.cyberspaces.org .. Original Message ... On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 11:29:14 -0700 Rick Moen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Quoting Stephen C. North ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): Do you say the law prevents me from taking a legal copy of a copyrighted work, which is a program, and privately modifying that program for my own use? John Cowan says yes: http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/faq/modifications Dan Bernstein says no: http://cr.yp.to/softwarelaw.html When you get that resolved, please let me know. -- 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: the provide, license verbs
Quoting Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): Now, that is a genuine academic argument. I am sure the issue will never be resolved to everyone's satisfaction...primarily because no one cares enough about what you do to software you lawfully possess and want to hack for private and personal use. Who would bring such a lawsuit, and how would the suit get past a motion to dismiss? Thank you for making that point. (I was thinking that. I was also thinking: In general, how is the copyright holder even going to find out, let alone care?) There are any number of legal issues people are curious about that will probably never be adjudicated because nobody cares enough to pay for the legal costs -- and this seems like a classic. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: the provide, license verbs
It's not entirely academic what do you with your legal copy of a program in the darkness of your room... :-) after all, what if you were legal corporation or entity, using it for your private use and making money from it? The GPL doesn't care. The QPL, reflecting Trolltech's concerns, does. Look at 4c and especially 6c. Obviously they are concerned about companies getting a legal albeit free copy, making changes and/or incorporating into their own proprietary products and neither releasing the code nor paying them, essentially defeating their revenue model. Cheers, Glen Low, Pixelglow Software www.pixelglow.com -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: the provide, license verbs
Quoting No Spam ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): The QPL, reflecting Trolltech's concerns, does [care what you do with code in private]. Look at 4c... 4. You may distribute machine-executable forms of the Software or machine-executable forms of modified versions of the Software, provided that you meet these restrictions: [...] c. You must ensure that all modifications included in the machine-executable forms are available under the terms of this license. This has nothing to do with private usage. It states that if you distribute modified executables, you must make the source available under QPL terms. and especially 6c. 6. You may develop application programs, reusable components and other software items that link with the original or modified versions of the Software. These items, _when distributed_, are subject to the following requirements: [...] c. If the items are not available to the general public, and the initial developer of the Software requests a copy of the items, then you must supply one. This doesn't, either. (Emphasis added.) Obviously they are concerned about companies getting a legal albeit free copy, making changes and/or incorporating into their own proprietary products and neither releasing the code nor paying them, essentially defeating their revenue model. If so, neither of the licence provisions you point to reflects that concern. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: the provide, license verbs
All, esp. Rick: It depends on what you mean by distribute. If distribute here means offer or give to the public (i.e. anyone who is not you) then QPL 6c doesn't make any sense, since by definition then the item is available to the general public. If distribute here means offer to give to a subset of the public (or perhaps your own subsidiaries or divisions, see Trolltech's FAQ on the GPL), then this would violate OSD #5, although perhaps Trolltech means to include proprietary software that links to their stuff in this group. Even so, then invoking clause 6c, the limited distributor would have to give Trolltech an executable at least, and then by clause 6a and 6b, the distributor would have to give Trolltech the source and a license to use it. I would have favored the QPL over the GPL in my thoughts about relicensing macstl, since it seems simpler and slightly stronger, except for: 1. It is a company-specific license and rewiring it for Pixelglow Software would necessarily mean resubmission to OSI. 2. The network effect of GPL, there's simply more GPL stuff out there, despite my (minor) worries about its suitability for a dual-licensing scheme. Cheers, Glen Low, Pixelglow Software www.pixelglow.com -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: the provide, license verbs
Quoting No Spam ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): If distribute here means offer or give to the public (i.e. anyone who is not you) then QPL 6c doesn't make any sense, since by definition then the item is available to the general public. Not my reading. It seems to me to say If you distribute this outside your personal world (e.g., intracompany) at all, then you must make your work available directly to the original developer (us) upon request, rather than obliging us to hunt it down. Trolltech wants to be able to say We hear you provided a modified Qt toolkit to an external coder in Outer Mongolia. We don't want to have to seek out some guy in Ulan Bator, so kindly file-attach your changes to return e-mail immediately, in accordance with QPL clause 6c. -- Cheers, The Viking's Reminder: Rick Moen Pillage first, _then_ burn. [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
