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: Creative Commons Attribution
Hi Evan, On Jun 4, 2004, at 8:46 AM, Evan Prodromou wrote: 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. (This is a summary, and the details are much better explained in the legal text of the licenses, which can be found at the URLs above. Some people compare this requirement to the notorious obnoxious BSD advertising clause. I disagree, at least about the obnoxious part, but that's just me.) ANYWAYS, my correspondent said that a previous license that had similar attribution requirements was refused approval. My question to the audience is: does anyone remember this incident? Is there something about requiring attribution that's not OSD-compatible? Well obnoxiousness per se is not part of the OSI criteria, though it will surely get you castigated on this mailing list. :-) There certainly are licenses that require attribution of various kinds that are OSI-approved, like the Artistic License and specifically the Attribution Assurance License. http://opensource.org/licenses/attribution.php Can you describe how and if the CC license requirements may differ from this? -- Ernie P. IANAL, TINLA, etc., etc. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For approval: wxWindows-to-wxWidgets license name change
Hmm. Once upon a time, I though that OSI policy was to require 'templates' for all approved licenses, and that any variations on that template were automatically approved. Is that (or was that ever) a formal policy? -- Ernie P. On May 23, 2004, at 10:09 PM, Julian Smart wrote: Hello, Due to circumstances beyond our control (i.e. Microsoft!), we've had to change wxWindows' name to wxWidgets. I don't know if we need to have a second OSI-sanctioned license with the new name, or if the existing one can be modified, but keeping a single license would be preferred if it's possible. Many thanks in advance for considering this issue! Julian Smart wxWindows/wxWidgets project founder === == Julian Smart [EMAIL PROTECTED] 3F1, 28 Gillespie Crescent,www.anthemion.co.uk Edinburgh, Midlothian, U.K., EH10 4HU +44 (0)131 229 5306 StoryLines: story structuringwww.writerscafe.co.uk HelpBlocks: HTML help authoring www.helpblocks.com DialogBlocks: cross-platform dialogs www.anthemion.co.uk/dialogblocks === == -- 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: [OT?] US CA govt use of PDF fill-in forms
On Apr 26, 2004, at 9:59 AM, Ihab A.B. Awad wrote: Actually, with all due respect to FSF India's opinion -- which is pretty much what I would expect from FSF anywhere -- I claim the US tax agencies' policy fails an even weaker standard: that of the availability of more than one source for the software required to use the format. That isn't quite true. For example, Apple's Quartz technology is an alternative implementation of the PDF standard, and I use it regularly to read (and generate) PDF documents via the Internet. And I personally consider PDF a huge improvement over having to download MS Word documents, in terms of both user experience and cross-platform compatibility. Rather than focus on trying to insist on an alternative to PDF - is there a viable one? - I would think it more effective to encourage the development of alternative software for using it. Apple has shown that it is at least possible. I realize that Apple's technology on runs on the Mac. However, the fact that multiple PDF readers don't exist on other platforms could be considered a limitation of those platforms, rather than of PDF. :-) Perhaps what you are really saying - which might be at least slightly relevant to this list - is that you only want governments to use document formats that are supported by open source implementations. Is that your point? - Ernie P. (personal opinion only) --- Ernest N. Prabhakar, Ph.D. Product Manager, UNIX Open Source Mac OS X Product Marketing (408) 974-3075 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Adaptive Public License
Hi Carmen, I sympathize with your goal. I think there's really several things going on: a) You want to create a license for your project b) You want to make it easy for people to create variations of your license c) You'd like to get OSI approval once to cover all licenses In that sense, the APL is really a meta-license, which is intended to make it trivial to generate various OSI-compliant licenses. Is that a fair statement? There has been periodic talk of such a Universal License, and I applaud your willingness to undertake this beast. I suspect the problem is that the optional modules make life easier for the *licensor*, but painfully confusing for the *licensee*. I wonder if it might be more productive - and simpler - to break the problem down differently. One approach might be to create a Customizable Public License rather than an Adaptive one. 1. Create a baseline license (with no optional terms, though a few 'fill-in-the-blanks, like ), which reflects your immediate needs 2. As a separate document, define optional modules which could be used to modify the baseline APL. 3. Specify that people need to change the name when using a different version (and perhaps suggest a naming scheme which reflects the modules included). 4. Obtain OSI approval for the baseline license, and (separately, but simultaneously) approval that modifications associated with the various optional modules would NOT impact OSI approval. That way, it is still the responsibility of the licensors to create a coherent document, but if they follow a well-defined path they are effectively pre-approved of OSI certification. Would anyone else find that useful/interesting? -- Ernie P. On Apr 15, 2004, at 6:58 PM, Carmen Leeming wrote: I am sorry for the confusion in my previous email regarding our application of the Adaptive Public License. We have developed a specific program that we wish to distribute as open source. Our requirements were not met by any existing license. We therefore hired a lawyer to aid in drafting a new license that would fit the needs of our product. In the meantime, I have been promoting open source throughout my University and encouraging other groups to release their software as open source too. Since the University was spending a lot of money on this lawyer, we thought it best to try to meet the needs of the other projects that the University would like to release. Due to various research group restrictions, patent right clauses were desired in some cases and not in others. Different groups had ideas for how they wished changes to be documented as well. Another concern with a university is about how widespread software could be distributed for internal use without needing to release the source externally. For example, some universities own partial interest in start-up companies that spawned from research at the university. In some cases you may want to allow sharing of modifications to these entities without forcing the changes to be released publicly; in other cases you may want to maximize the openness of the software and prohibit widespread-internal distributions of closed source modifications. Seeing that the University of Victoria could gain more benefit from this license if we made it adaptable, that was the route we chose. We also had input from other universities about whether or not these features would meet their needs. We then added the jurisdictional option to allow other universities (or anyone else) to be able to use this license. I hope this clears up the issue of why we are applying. We developed a license to meet our needs, which are not limited to a single project. We could have submitted several similar licenses with the adaptive clauses pre-set, but felt that this would just add needlessly to the group of existing licenses. We felt a more elegant solution was to have one license that our various research groups could use by simply modifying a few initial conditions. --Carmen Leeming -- 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
Adaptive Public License Re: License Committee Report v2
On Apr 14, 2004, at 11:26 PM, Russell Nelson wrote: Unfortunately, even after two tries there have been insufficient comments on the Adaptive Public License. Maybe the third's the charm? Title: Adaptive Public License Submission: http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:6913:200305: bogcdnbbhnfbgpdeahob License: http://www.mamook.net/APL.html So, I'm curious what the OSI position is on model licenses like this. Does having a semi-modular license like this actually simplify the task of OSI approval? Or is it easier to let people modify their own licenses as they see fit? I think the reason there's few opinions is that it is so darn complicated (even by Open Source standards!). The most complicated part is that I can't tell whether the license terms are *always* fixed for a given Initial Work. Could the author perhaps clarify that? It also might help if the author could summarize: - which clauses are relevant to OSI certification - which clauses are different from existing OSI licenses - the patent philosophy (which I couldn't parse) -- Ernie P. IANAL, TINLA, etc. etc. FWIW, here's some of what I see as the most relevant sections, but the list isn't exhaustive. 1.7. INDEPENDENT MODULE means a separate module of software and/or data that is not a derivative work of or copied from the Licensed Work or any portion thereof. In addition, a module does not qualify as an Independent Module but instead forms part of the Licensed Work if the module: (a) is embedded in the Licensed Work; (b) is included by reference in the Licensed Work other than by a function call or a class reference; or (c) must be included or contained, in whole or in part, within a file directory or subdirectory actually containing files making up the Licensed Work. 1.18. SUBSEQUENT WORK means a work that has resulted or arises from changes to and/or additions to: (a) the Initial Work; (b) any other Subsequent Work; or (c) to any combination of the Initial Work and any such other Subsequent Work; where such changes and/or additions originate from a Subsequent Contributor. A Subsequent Work will originate from a Subsequent Contributor if the Subsequent Work was a result of efforts by such Subsequent Contributor (or anyone acting on such Subsequent Contributor's behalf, such as, a contractor or other entity that is engaged by or under the direction of the Subsequent Contributor). For greater certainty, a Subsequent Work expressly excludes and shall not capture within its meaning any Independent Module. 3.6. INDEPENDENT MODULES. This License shall not apply to Independent Modules of any Initial Contributor, Subsequent Contributor, Distributor or any Recipient, and such Independent Modules may be licensed or made available under one or more separate license agreements. 3.7. LARGER WORKS. Any Distributor or Recipient may create or contribute to a Larger Work by combining any of the Licensed Work with other code not governed by the terms of this License, and may distribute the Larger Work as one or more products. However, in any such case, Distributor or Recipient (as the case may be) must make sure that the requirements of this License are fulfilled for the Licensed Work portion of the Larger Work. (b) The Initial Contributor may at any time introduce requirements or add to or change earlier requirements (in each case, the EARLIER DESCRIPTION REQUIREMENTS) for documenting changes resulting in Subsequent Works by revising Part 1 of each copy of the Supplement File distributed by the Initial Contributor with future copies of the Licensed Work so that Part 1 then contains new requirements (the NEW DESCRIPTION REQUIREMENTS) for documenting such changes. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: License for a document or presentation?
On Apr 8, 2004, at 10:52 AM, Steve Thomas wrote: Is there an existing OS license that would fit licensing a slide presentation to Open source? I have a slide show I use for making presentations on Open Source around the country, and it occurs to me it should be Open Source! But I don't know how to license it, since it's not a code. I'd recommend the Common Documentation License - simple, but preserves authorship. http://www.opensource.apple.com/cdl/ -- Ernie P. Disclosure: I helped write it, and my employer uses it. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Use Reciprocal Public License or new license
Hi Paul, On Mar 19, 2004, at 7:29 AM, Fearn, Paul A./Urology wrote: After reviewing the existing approved licenses, our team thought the Reciprocal Public License 1.1 meets our needs, however our industrial affairs team wanted to make some small changes. Could you let me know if these 4 changes are reasonable, or if we need to go through the new license approval process? Well, I think that's two different questions. The changes certainly seem reasonable, and making it more explicit/symmetric by saying including Licensor shouldn't hurt OSD compliance. However, I don't know the threshold for when the OSD board needs to make an affirmative statement. I suppose it depends on what you're looking for. Do you want your new license posted on our website, and the ability to advertise OSD compliance? Are you participating in contractual agreements that require OSD compliance? Do you want the original RPL authors to adopt your changes? Or do you just want the warm fuzzy feeling that you're doing the right thing by the community? -- Ernie P. IANAL, TINLA, etc. Thanks, Paul Fearn Reciprocal Public License Version 1.1, November 1, 2002 - 1. Does the copyright statement at top of license need to stay as Copyright (C) 2001-2002 Technical Pursuit Inc., All Rights Reserved. or should it be changed to this? Copyright (C) 2004 Caisis Team, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, All Rights Reserved. 2. In Preamble paragraph 2, our industrial affairs team wanted to add the including Licensor phrase after third parties? Would this require creating a new license? This License is based on the concept of reciprocity. In exchange for being granted certain rights under the terms of this License to Licensor's Software, whose Source Code You have access to, You are required to reciprocate by providing equal access and rights to all third parties [including Licensor] to the Source Code of any Modifications, Derivative Works, and Required Components for execution of same (collectively defined as Extensions) that You Deploy by Deploying Your Extensions under the terms of this License. In this fashion the available Source Code related to the original Licensed Software is enlarged for the benefit of everyone. -- 3. In Preamble item c from this section Under the terms of this License You may:, the group also wanted to add the including Licensor phrase. c. Create Extensions to the Licensed Software consistent with the rights granted by this License, provided that You make the Source Code to any Extensions You Deploy available to all third parties [including Licensor], under the terms of this License, document Your Modifications clearly, and title all Extensions distinctly from the Licensed Software. -- 4. Are these changes to Exhibit A correct? Copyright (C) 1999-2004 P.Alli, J.Fajardo, P.Fearn, D.Kuo, K.Regan, F.Sculli (Caisis Team), Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, All Rights Reserved. Unless explicitly acquired and licensed from Licensor under the MSKCC Software Transer Agreement(STA), the contents of this file are subject to the Reciprocal Public License (RPL) Version 1.1, or subsequent versions as allowed by the RPL, and You may not copy or use this file in either source code or executable form, except in compliance with the terms and conditions of the RPL. You may obtain a copy of both the STA and the RPL (the Licenses) at http://www.cancerdb.org. = Please note that this e-mail and any files transmitted with it may be privileged, confidential, and protected from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any reading, dissemination, distribution, copying, or other use of this communication or any of its attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message and deleting this message, any attachments, and all copies and backups from your computer. -- 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: Use Reciprocal Public License or new license
On Mar 19, 2004, at 1:12 PM, Fearn, Paul A./Urology wrote: Thanks for the feedback. I am specifically looking to 1. advertise OSD compliance (use the OSI Certification Mark) 2. do the right thing by the community Well, someone official will have to comment on the threshold issue. However, it (naively) looks as if the [including Licensor] clause is intended as a clarification, rather than an substantive change. Is that correct? If that's the case, perhaps you can ask your lawyers whether you can just post a clarification of your intent alongside the license, rather than modifying the actual license. That would perhaps allow you to use the RPL as is. My recollection from this list is that simply changing names of the 'templated' form of the license doesn't affect OSD compliance. However, in some cases you may need to check with the original author of the license to get permission, since not all open source licenses are -themselves- open source. -- Ernie P. IANAL, TINLA, etc. Regards, Paul - Do you want your new license posted on our website, and the ability to advertise OSD compliance? Are you participating in contractual agreements that require OSD compliance? Do you want the original RPL authors to adopt your changes? Or do you just want the warm fuzzy feeling that you're doing the right thing by the community? -Original Message- From: Ernest Prabhakar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 2:01 PM To: Fearn, Paul A./Urology Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Use Reciprocal Public License or new license Hi Paul, On Mar 19, 2004, at 7:29 AM, Fearn, Paul A./Urology wrote: After reviewing the existing approved licenses, our team thought the Reciprocal Public License 1.1 meets our needs, however our industrial affairs team wanted to make some small changes. Could you let me know if these 4 changes are reasonable, or if we need to go through the new license approval process? Well, I think that's two different questions. The changes certainly seem reasonable, and making it more explicit/symmetric by saying including Licensor shouldn't hurt OSD compliance. However, I don't know the threshold for when the OSD board needs to make an affirmative statement. I suppose it depends on what you're looking for. Do you want your new license posted on our website, and the ability to advertise OSD compliance? Are you participating in contractual agreements that require OSD compliance? Do you want the original RPL authors to adopt your changes? Or do you just want the warm fuzzy feeling that you're doing the right thing by the community? -- Ernie P. IANAL, TINLA, etc. Thanks, Paul Fearn Reciprocal Public License Version 1.1, November 1, 2002 - 1. Does the copyright statement at top of license need to stay as Copyright (C) 2001-2002 Technical Pursuit Inc., All Rights Reserved. or should it be changed to this? Copyright (C) 2004 Caisis Team, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, All Rights Reserved. 2. In Preamble paragraph 2, our industrial affairs team wanted to add the including Licensor phrase after third parties? Would this require creating a new license? This License is based on the concept of reciprocity. In exchange for being granted certain rights under the terms of this License to Licensor's Software, whose Source Code You have access to, You are required to reciprocate by providing equal access and rights to all third parties [including Licensor] to the Source Code of any Modifications, Derivative Works, and Required Components for execution of same (collectively defined as Extensions) that You Deploy by Deploying Your Extensions under the terms of this License. In this fashion the available Source Code related to the original Licensed Software is enlarged for the benefit of everyone. -- 3. In Preamble item c from this section Under the terms of this License You may:, the group also wanted to add the including Licensor phrase. c. Create Extensions to the Licensed Software consistent with the rights granted by this License, provided that You make the Source Code to any Extensions You Deploy available to all third parties [including Licensor], under the terms of this License, document Your Modifications clearly, and title all Extensions distinctly from the Licensed Software. -- 4. Are these changes to Exhibit A correct? Copyright (C) 1999-2004 P.Alli, J.Fajardo, P.Fearn, D.Kuo, K.Regan, F.Sculli (Caisis Team), Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, All Rights Reserved. Unless explicitly acquired and licensed from Licensor under the MSKCC Software Transer Agreement(STA), the contents of this file are subject to the Reciprocal Public License (RPL) Version 1.1, or subsequent versions as allowed by the RPL, and You may not copy or use this file
Re: LAB Public License proposal
Hi DJ, On Mar 16, 2004, at 10:26 AM, DJ Anubis wrote: Le lundi 15 Mars 2004 21:35, Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. a crit: It might help if you highlighted the changes (using color text or bold facing). Is your explanation as to why you have declined to adopt the CUA Office Public License limited to the desire to comply with regulations in three jurisdictions? Would you be more specific? Rod A highlighted version is on line at http://www.lab-project.net/tests_priv/liclab-annotated.html for review. Thanks, the highlights help enormously. It looks like the only direct changes are: 10. LICENSE means this document in its integrality, without reserve or disclaimer other than herein published. 3.2. Availability of Source Code. and if made available via ELECTRONIC DISTRIBUTION MECHANISM, must remain available for at least twenty-four (24) months after the date it initially became available, or at least twelve (12) months after a subsequent version of that particular MODIFICATIONS has been made available to such recipients. YOU are responsible for ensuring that the SOURCE CODE version remains available even if the ELECTRONIC DISTRIBUTION MECHANISM is maintained by a third party. 3.3. Description of Modifications. In your SOURCE CODE, YOU must include comments marking the beginning and end of your MODIFICATIONS, as well as your name. .4. Inability to Comply Due to Statute or Regulation. 1. Inform ORIGINAL AUTHOR of statute, judicial or regulation incompatibility and ask for an allowance to specific limitations. Attention: ORIGINAL AUTHOR can allow you to distribute a LICENSE limited COVERED CODE, but you first must ask. 2. Comply with the terms of this LICENSE to the maximum extent possible You cannot reject the whole LICENSE when only one statement is not acceptable du to regulations, statute or judicial order. Only the relevant statement may be discarded, after informing ORIGINAL AUTHOR. I don't see anything there that would be likely to affect OSD compliance. However, Section 4 seems slightly ambiguous - it might be clearer if you said, You must comply with all of the following conditions, or you must refrain from using the software. or whatever the intent actually is. I frankly don't quite understand Section 10, but perhaps that's due to the translating back and forth. One of the reson we had to change some things from CUA Office Public License have to do with French laws imposing some legal mentions on all contractual papers or forms. We had to introduce a section for French Government End Users. In final, CUA Office Public License is great, only missing non USA specific legal information. This license only fills the gap. To be honest, I am a little unhappy with all the Attentions.Some of them I agree are useful to clarify the intent and purpose of the license.Some of them seem more like commentary than clarification, for example: 2. If YOU created one or more MODIFICATIONS, YOU must add your name as a CONTRIBUTOR to the notice described in EXHIBIT A - Lab Public License Required information.. Attention: Fair practice. YOU have to be credited for your work. Perhaps it is just the language, but this article seems to require you to accept -responsibility- for the work, not that other people give you credit. A minor detail, but since I didn't carefully review all the Attentions, I'm not entirely comfortable that all of them support the license as intended. This raises a larger, somewhat sensitive issue. I greatly appreciate all the effort you've gone through to submit and revise this license to address our concerns. However, given that this is for use in France, I would surmise that you are not a native English speaker.There are several places where the phrasing and spelling seem inappropriate, or at least slightly confusing.I think it would be worthwhile for you to find a friendly English collaborator to work on the wording of the Attentions, to avoid possible misunderstandings and ensure they are aligned with the larger license terms. I don't know that this is necessary for OSD compliance, but then again I'm not sure it isn't. Best of luck, Ernie Prabhakar IANAL, TINLA, etc. -- JCR aka DJ Anubis LAB Project Initiator coordinator -- 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 X-Oz license
Hi Sue, On Mar 2, 2004, at 3:50 PM, selussos wrote: Hi I would like to submit the X-Oz license for OSI compliancy. I've written the following up per your request on the site. Thanks for the detailed summary. Could you perhaps comment on why you are not just explicitly using the Apache 1.1 license with name changes? In most cases, the benefit of reusing an existing license outweighs the benefits of any minor improvements in clarity, in terms of developer comprehensibility. -- Ernie P. IANAL, TINLA, etc., etc. and so forth First, the license in question, which we have termed the X-Oz license can be found in full at: http://www.x-oz.com/licenses.html. The first part of the license (the permission notice) is taken from the XFree86 1.0 license. Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the Software), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: The first three condition clauses are taken from the Apache 1.1 license, where we substituted our name for the ASF. 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions, and the following disclaimer 2.Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution 3. The end-user documentation included with the redistribution, if any, must include the following acknowledgment: This product includes software developed by X-Oz Technologies (http://www.x-oz.com/). Alternately, this acknowledgment may appear in the software itself, if and wherever such third-party acknowledgments normally appear. The fourth condition is from the XFree86 1.0 license, again with the appropriate nominal-only substitutions. 4. Except as contained in this notice, the name of X-Oz Technologies shall not be used in advertising or otherwise to promote the sale, use or other dealings in this Software without prior written authorization from X-Oz Technologies. And finally our disclaimer notice is also from the Apache 1.1 license. THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED ``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESSED 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 X-OZ TECHNOLOGIES OR ITS CONTRIBUTORS 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 Best Regards. Sue P.S. The Apache 1.1 is also on the OSI site as OSI-compliant, http://www.opensource.org/licenses/apachepl.php PPS I am subscribed to this list ;-) Every morning I wake up saying, I'm still alive a miracle. And so I keep on pushing. Jacques Cousteau -- 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: ATT open source license FAQ
On Oct 29, 2003, at 8:50 PM, Kevin Mack wrote: Hello, I'm just trying out the ksh93 package and the FAQ at http://www.research.att.com/sw/download says: We believe that it conforms to the provisions of the Open Source Definitions (OSD), and have submitted the license for certification, but we have not heard back. What's the status? Has ATT posted their license to this list for discussion? I don't remember seeing it. I thought that this list was required to review it before approval. Also, is there an online version of their license somewhere? I wonder if its been cleaned up since the previous version I saw, and I'd rather not have to download their stuff without first seeing the license. Their licenses page just says there's lots of licenses, but doesn't even tell if you if there is a single ATT license. -- Ernie P. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Apple Public Source License 2.0 submitted for OSI approval
Dear License-Discuss: Apple has revised the Apple Public Source License (OSI-approved APSL 1.2) to resolve various concerns raised by the community and to provide greater clarity and simplicity to our license. In particular, we are proud to say that we have received the FSF's certification that the APSL 2.0 qualifies as a Free Software License: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/apsl.html Today we respectfully submit the APSL 2.0 to license-discuss for OSI approval. It is based in large part on our previous OSI-approved APSL 1.2 but with more liberal terms. The new APSL 2.0 can be found at: http://www.opensource.apple.com/apsl/2.0.txt A redlined comparision of APSL 2.0 with the previous APSL 1.2 can be found at: http://www.opensource.apple.com/apsl/2.0-redline.pdf The major changes are: 1. Licensees will only be required to release source code of Modifications they Externally Deploy (new Section 1.4, and Sections 2.1, 2.2). External Deployment is defined to cover the external distribution of APSL'ed code or use of APSL'ed code to provide a service (including content delivery) to a third party through electronic communication with that party. What this means is that internal modifications can now be kept private by both individuals and corporations. Previously all internally deployed modifications, except those of an individual for his/her own private use or those for internal RD, had to be disclosed. Consequently, the old definitions of Deploy and Personal Use (Sections (old) 1.4 and 1.8) have been deleted. 2. Language has been added to Sections 2.1 and 2.2 to clarify that licensees may use and distribute Covered Code internally and externally, and for commercial or non-commercial purposes. This is not a substantive change, but the fact that commercial use is permitted (and always has been) was apparently not clear to some licensees in the past. 3. Licensees will now have the choice of providing source code to either just the users of the code or (as before) to the general public (Section 2.2(c)). 4. The Licensee's grant of rights clause (Section 3) has been simplified and made more symmetric. 5. The Termination clause relating to patent suits (Section 12.1(c)) has been narrowed such that the license will terminate only if a licensee _initiates_ an action for patent infringement against Apple. It will not terminate in cases where Apple first sues the licensee and they file a countersuit. We are hopeful that the APSL 2.0 will receive OSI approval as it contains more liberal terms than the APSL 1.2. Thank you in advance for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Ernie Prabhakar on behalf of the Darwin Team at Apple P.S. You can also view our public announcement at: http://www.opensource.apple.com/apsl/2.0-announce.html -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Apple Public Source License 2.0 submitted for OSI approval
Sorry, just noticed a typo. The announcement URL should be: http://www.opensource.apple.com/news/2.0-announce.html -- Ernie P. From: Ernest Prabhakar [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:Apple Public Source License 2.0 submitted for OSI approval Date: Wednesday, August 6, 2003 9:27:07 AM US/Pacific To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dear License-Discuss: Apple has revised the Apple Public Source License (OSI-approved APSL 1.2) to resolve various concerns raised by the community and to provide greater clarity and simplicity to our license. In particular, we are proud to say that we have received the FSF's certification that the APSL 2.0 qualifies as a Free Software License: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/apsl.html Today we respectfully submit the APSL 2.0 to license-discuss for OSI approval. It is based in large part on our previous OSI-approved APSL 1.2 but with more liberal terms. The new APSL 2.0 can be found at: http://www.opensource.apple.com/apsl/2.0.txt A redlined comparision of APSL 2.0 with the previous APSL 1.2 can be found at: http://www.opensource.apple.com/apsl/2.0-redline.pdf The major changes are: 1. Licensees will only be required to release source code of Modifications they Externally Deploy (new Section 1.4, and Sections 2.1, 2.2). External Deployment is defined to cover the external distribution of APSL'ed code or use of APSL'ed code to provide a service (including content delivery) to a third party through electronic communication with that party. What this means is that internal modifications can now be kept private by both individuals and corporations. Previously all internally deployed modifications, except those of an individual for his/her own private use or those for internal RD, had to be disclosed. Consequently, the old definitions of Deploy and Personal Use (Sections (old) 1.4 and 1.8) have been deleted. 2. Language has been added to Sections 2.1 and 2.2 to clarify that licensees may use and distribute Covered Code internally and externally, and for commercial or non-commercial purposes. This is not a substantive change, but the fact that commercial use is permitted (and always has been) was apparently not clear to some licensees in the past. 3. Licensees will now have the choice of providing source code to either just the users of the code or (as before) to the general public (Section 2.2(c)). 4. The Licensee's grant of rights clause (Section 3) has been simplified and made more symmetric. 5. The Termination clause relating to patent suits (Section 12.1(c)) has been narrowed such that the license will terminate only if a licensee _initiates_ an action for patent infringement against Apple. It will not terminate in cases where Apple first sues the licensee and they file a countersuit. We are hopeful that the APSL 2.0 will receive OSI approval as it contains more liberal terms than the APSL 1.2. Thank you in advance for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Ernie Prabhakar on behalf of the Darwin Team at Apple -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Royalty-free Patent Policies for Open Source?
Hi Larry, You wrote: The patent grants in most open source licenses are fully compatible with the W3C patent policy. The patent grants in the OSL and AFL are *not* tied to specific implementations and are broader than the W3C patent grant. I understand they may be compatible, but I'm not clear how they guarantee compliance. Can you help me understand what you mean by that? When I see: 2) Grant of Patent License. Licensor hereby grants You a world-wide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, non-sublicenseable license, under patent claims owned or controlled by the Licensor that are embodied in the Original Work as furnished by the Licensor (Licensed Claims) to make, use, sell and offer for sale the Original Work. Licensor hereby grants You a world-wide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, non-sublicenseable license under the Licensed Claims to make, use, sell and offer for sale Derivative Works. I assume that means a Derivative Works is covered by the patent grant, but an Independent Work, with similar functionality, would not be. That is, just because (say) IBM released a piece of source code covered by the OSL which implemented a patented algorithm in, does that mean I (in a commercial application) could freely write my own code that used that same patent? If not, how does that automatically satisfy the W3C criteria? -- Ernie P. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Royalty-free Patent Policies for Open Source?
Hi all, http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/28135.html W3C rejects net patent tax, avoids web schism By Andrew Orlowski 16/11/2002 The web standards consortium W3C has agreed on a policy that should prevent nasty royalty surprises for developers in the future. Does anyone have good examples of patent grants that meet the terms of this policy? For example, has anyone actually licensed patents in this way for use by the Open Source community? Is there a well-defined way to make a patent royalty-free for Open Source while still collecting royalties from commercial users? Personally, I'm mostly happy that W3C is planning to go this route, but I'm curious how it will work out in practice. I'm curious whether there are any existing licenses that are already consistent with this policy. -- Ernie P. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
