Re: [License-discuss] dual licensing and the Open Source Definition
On 12/17/2013 09:34 PM, zgil...@culturestrings.org wrote: On 12/14/2013 02:21 PM, Engel Nyst wrote: It's quite common place today; I say weird not because it's uncommon (it's not) but for several other reasons, among which one similar to yours if I understand you correctly: this particular dual licensing doesn't seem to serve the goals intended by the license (not by OSI). Whether you consider these goals focused to assure software freedom/openness or to promote alternative business models. Indeed, the purpose of my question was to find out whether a single license could guarantee that the source remains available in all scenarios, and also ensure that using the library would be free for all end-users, yet entail a (one-time) charge for vendors of commercial/proprietary software. I think there are several advantages (both practical and technical) to using a single license over multiple licenses, but at the same time consider such advantages to be secondary to offering at least one license that is OSI-approved. Please note, this is not what I said. I don't support trying to use GPL with proprietary licenses for particular uses, one-time or not. Businesses could and should be built without relying on (additional or not) licenses that go back to copyright restrictions. If one's goal is to make money by something else than donations (as you were writing), my suggestion would be to look into ways that aren't donations, nor relying on copyright restrictions. I gave a couple of quick examples. Thank you for making so many excellent points. The model based on a transitive grace period is very interesting, even though it still requires dual-licensing for full compatibility with other open source projects and libraries. One way or the other, then, it might have to be a dual-licensing model that offers the GPL in conjunction with the license of choice... I'd make two more notes here. First, the two dual licensing real-world facts, the model you were initially referring to, and the dual licensing in the example of transitive grace period, are, IMO, entirely unrelated, as far as reasons/intents of dual-licensing are concerned. The transitive grace period license seems (to me) a viable licensing framework for who wants to make software proprietary for a while (12 months, for the first licensee/second licensor). It seemed relevant to your intent to ask for a fee via copyright. However, this license, as opposed to proprietary (licensing fee for business use), is *not* proprietary itself, or not in my reading. Concerning its OSI approval, you may find a lot of discussion on it (example [1]) in the archives of this mailing list. IIRC, there have been a lot more concerns on proliferation, practicality and understandability on how the license works, than problems on OSD compliance. Please check them out if you wish, though. I haven't re-read some emails on TGPPL possibly for years, my memory may be faulty. Dual-licensing with GPL is here for compatibility with GPL. I'd add that there are other open source copyleft projects (and licenses) that dual license or allow relicensing to GPL, to ensure compatibility. Most permissive licenses/projects don't need it, but copyleft licenses/projects need it if they want this compatibility. That happens because GPL scope is maximum, and copyleft is usually defined as licensed under the same license (so there's a conflict between such copylefts). A second note I'd make: whether this particular licensing attempt is interesting to you or not, please note a distinctive feature it has, opposed to dual licensing models for business: all paths result eventually in open source software available, and with all source, including for downstreams. Maybe in 12 months (if the licensee chooses TGPPL and the grace period), maybe immediately. [1] http://ur1.ca/g7w2v -- ~ Excuse me, Professor Lessig, but may I ask you to sign this CLA, so that we have legally your permission to distribute your CC-licensed words? ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] dual licensing and the Open Source Definition
On 12/14/2013 02:21 PM, Engel Nyst wrote: Hello, On 12/12/2013 11:46 PM, zgil...@culturestrings.org wrote: As per the Open Source Definition, commercial use of Open Source software must be permitted, yet the license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale. One interesting side-effect of the above is that software can be released under a strong copyleft license, for instance the GPL, and yet be accompanied by the option to buy one's way out of the license, thereby releasing the buyer from any and all obligation to make the modified source available to the public. I'm not sure there's causality between the two. Commercial use must be permitted (not denied, as in non-commercial use), and, there are other business models than those based on copyright restrictions (fee per copy). Commercial services around the software, customizations at user's place, are a few other possibilities. They are alternatives to fee-per-copy-otherwise-restricted traditional models. This is a major point, in my opinion, that should be understood. However, indeed this isn't happening in the scenarios you're referring to: proprietary-GPL dual licensing or open core business models are a weird case that has emerged in practice. It's quite common place today; I say weird not because it's uncommon (it's not) but for several other reasons, among which one similar to yours if I understand you correctly: this particular dual licensing doesn't seem to serve the goals intended by the license (not by OSI). Whether you consider these goals focused to assure software freedom/openness or to promote alternative business models. Indeed, the purpose of my question was to find out whether a single license could guarantee that the source remains available in all scenarios, and also ensure that using the library would be free for all end-users, yet entail a (one-time) charge for vendors of commercial/proprietary software. I think there are several advantages (both practical and technical) to using a single license over multiple licenses, but at the same time consider such advantages to be secondary to offering at least one license that is OSI-approved. 1) to what extent does the GPL meet the OSI promise regarding the source of Open Source Software remaining open? After all, if vendors can take GPL'ed software and buy their way out of the license so that binaries, with or without changes, can be distributed without restriction and without a corresponding source, then something is probably not working the way it was originally intended. It's an interesting perspective you seem to have, that GPL may be at fault on this point. I'm not sure I disagree, depends what exactly you mean and where you're looking for improvements; but again, it has nothing to do (AFAICT) with OSD/OSI. Rather, I can see why among all licenses, GPL and AGPL are favorites in this game. Copyright system is such that a license like GPL, which requires a strong leveling of the playing field for contributors (nobody can use copyright to restrict works/derivatives), is exposed /more/ in a sense to copyright privilege when a single owner adds up for themselves separate rights from all contributors. When one can what no one else can (as opposed here to permissive licenses, where everyone can restrict derivatives), that one has more power. That's a philosophical matter, though, and it doesn't mean at all that the GPL by itself doesn't work to keep software open. GPL and many other licenses make the software open source. Then again, it seems to me that the possibility to regulate one-time charges for commercial use from _within_ a license should be much preferred over a de facto option to bypass the license altogether. See above on business models. (and please see below for another option) On 12/13/2013 10:02 PM, zgil...@culturestrings.org wrote: The framework in which I am interested would allow a distinction between derivative work in general, and changes to a specific library in particular. In other words, I'm looking for a license that would guarantee source availability of all patches that were applied to an open source library, but not necessarily of the code that uses the interfaces which that library exports. This goal (and only it) sounds like you may want to take a look at MPL or LGPL. With MPL it's simple, files that contain code of the original work are covered by copyleft. Outside files (even within a fork of the library/framework, though, note), are not bound to any condition. Depending how you interpret derivative works (in copyright law, and add the intention of LGPL licensors), LGPL copyleft seems to cover the library/framework, but not the software using its API. The actual scope is disputed though. Also, there are others with approximately this scope. On 12/13/2013 09:46 PM, zgil...@culturestrings.org wrote: Here, too, my issue is with the idea that an effective open source license needs to be upgraded
Re: [License-discuss] dual licensing and the Open Source Definition
Hello, On 12/12/2013 11:46 PM, zgil...@culturestrings.org wrote: As per the Open Source Definition, commercial use of Open Source software must be permitted, yet the license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale. One interesting side-effect of the above is that software can be released under a strong copyleft license, for instance the GPL, and yet be accompanied by the option to buy one's way out of the license, thereby releasing the buyer from any and all obligation to make the modified source available to the public. I'm not sure there's causality between the two. Commercial use must be permitted (not denied, as in non-commercial use), and, there are other business models than those based on copyright restrictions (fee per copy). Commercial services around the software, customizations at user's place, are a few other possibilities. They are alternatives to fee-per-copy-otherwise-restricted traditional models. This is a major point, in my opinion, that should be understood. However, indeed this isn't happening in the scenarios you're referring to: proprietary-GPL dual licensing or open core business models are a weird case that has emerged in practice. It's quite common place today; I say weird not because it's uncommon (it's not) but for several other reasons, among which one similar to yours if I understand you correctly: this particular dual licensing doesn't seem to serve the goals intended by the license (not by OSI). Whether you consider these goals focused to assure software freedom/openness or to promote alternative business models. 1) to what extent does the GPL meet the OSI promise regarding the source of Open Source Software remaining open? After all, if vendors can take GPL'ed software and buy their way out of the license so that binaries, with or without changes, can be distributed without restriction and without a corresponding source, then something is probably not working the way it was originally intended. It's an interesting perspective you seem to have, that GPL may be at fault on this point. I'm not sure I disagree, depends what exactly you mean and where you're looking for improvements; but again, it has nothing to do (AFAICT) with OSD/OSI. Rather, I can see why among all licenses, GPL and AGPL are favorites in this game. Copyright system is such that a license like GPL, which requires a strong leveling of the playing field for contributors (nobody can use copyright to restrict works/derivatives), is exposed /more/ in a sense to copyright privilege when a single owner adds up for themselves separate rights from all contributors. When one can what no one else can (as opposed here to permissive licenses, where everyone can restrict derivatives), that one has more power. That's a philosophical matter, though, and it doesn't mean at all that the GPL by itself doesn't work to keep software open. GPL and many other licenses make the software open source. Then again, it seems to me that the possibility to regulate one-time charges for commercial use from _within_ a license should be much preferred over a de facto option to bypass the license altogether. See above on business models. (and please see below for another option) On 12/13/2013 10:02 PM, zgil...@culturestrings.org wrote: The framework in which I am interested would allow a distinction between derivative work in general, and changes to a specific library in particular. In other words, I'm looking for a license that would guarantee source availability of all patches that were applied to an open source library, but not necessarily of the code that uses the interfaces which that library exports. This goal (and only it) sounds like you may want to take a look at MPL or LGPL. With MPL it's simple, files that contain code of the original work are covered by copyleft. Outside files (even within a fork of the library/framework, though, note), are not bound to any condition. Depending how you interpret derivative works (in copyright law, and add the intention of LGPL licensors), LGPL copyleft seems to cover the library/framework, but not the software using its API. The actual scope is disputed though. Also, there are others with approximately this scope. On 12/13/2013 09:46 PM, zgil...@culturestrings.org wrote: Here, too, my issue is with the idea that an effective open source license needs to be upgraded in order for software to become profitable for its copyright holder, or convenient for the vendors of commercial software that would like to use it. I am also not sure that a license that allows the modified source of a library to no longer be available is an upgrade to begin with, but that is of course subject to interpretation. I sympathize with the sentiment. In any case, I don't think another license that is proprietary is an improvement. 2) Consider the case of an individual entrepreneur who created a software library, and who would like to require vendors of commercial
[License-discuss] dual licensing and the Open Source Definition
Greetings,As per the Open Source Definition, commercial use of Open Source software must be permitted, yet "the license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale."One interesting side-effect of the above is that software can be released under a strong copyleft license, for instance the GPL, and yet be accompanied by the option to "buy one's way out of the license," thereby releasing the buyer from any and all obligation to make the modified source available to the public. For a possible real-life example please see the cygwin project, and specifically the clause concerning the project license (found under "Cygwin License Contract" at http://www.redhat.com/services/custom/cygwin/, and mentioned here for illustration purposes only).In light of the above, and given the guarantee of the Open Source Definition with respect to source availability and fields of endeavor, a couple of questions arise:1) to what extent does the GPL meet the OSI promise regarding the source of Open Source Software remaining open? After all, if vendors can take GPL'ed software and buy their way out of the license so that binaries, with or without changes, can be distributed without restriction and without a corresponding source, then something is probably not working the way it was originally intended.2) Consider the case of an individual entrepreneur who created a software library, and who would like to require vendors of commercial products that _depend_ on that library to pay a _one-time fee_, but otherwise be permitted to use the library or distribute it in any way they see fit without additional charges, and provided that the original source code, along with all changes that were applied to it, remain available to the public. Would that author be able to release his/her library under an OSI-approved license? Having gone through the various licenses on the site, I was unable to identify a single license that adequately meets this scenario.I believe that (2) could be of interest to independent developers who either prefer not to, or are unable to rely on voluntary donations for the continuing development of their projects. Then again, it seems to me that the possibility to regulate one-time charges for commercial use from _within_ a license should be much preferred over a de facto option to bypass the license altogether. Ultimately, then, the purpose of this post is to discuss, and hopefully find out, whether a license can be written with the above scenario in mind, and yet remain in compliance with the Open Source Definition.Looking forward to your thoughts,z. gilboa ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] dual licensing and the Open Source Definition
zgil...@culturestrings.org scripsit: One interesting side-effect of the above is that software can be released under a strong copyleft license, for instance the GPL, and yet be accompanied by the option to buy one's way out of the license, thereby releasing the buyer from any and all obligation to make the modified source available to the public. Technically, that is not correct. Licensing applies on a per-copy basis, so in that situation there are some copies of the source that are available under an open source license and other copies that are available under a proprietary license. This is only possible for the licensor, who is not obliged to follow the restrictions of his own license. In light of the above, and given the guarantee of the Open Source Definition with respect to source availability [...] OSD #2 is narrower than people tend to think: it requires the licensor to make source available, and to allow people who have that source to redistribute it. OSD #3 requires only that the license permit modifications and derivative works: it does not require those derivative works to be Open Source: see below. [T]o what extent does the GPL meet the OSI promise regarding the source of Open Source Software remaining open? 1) Entirely; and 2) There is no such promise. The GPL applies only to copies of works to which it is applied by the licensor. If other copies exist under other licenses, that has nothing to do with the validity of the GPL. But more importantly, the fact that a work is under an OSI license does not guarantee that all derivative works must be under OSI licenses. Many widely used Open Source licenses such as the BSD/MIT family and the MPL family allow for proprietary derivatives of open-source works. After all, if vendors can take GPL'ed software and buy their way out of the license so that binaries, with or without changes, can be distributed without restriction and without a corresponding source, then something is probably not working the way it was originally intended. RMS probably doesn't like it, no. But people can use the GPL however they want to. 2) Consider the case of an individual entrepreneur who created a software library, and who would like to require vendors of commercial products that _depend_ on that library to pay a _one-time fee_, but otherwise be permitted to use the library or distribute it in any way they see fit without additional charges, and provided that the original source code, along with all changes that were applied to it, remain available to the public. Would that author be able to release his/her library under an OSI-approved license? In a word, no. Requiring some users to pay for source and not others flatly contravenes OSD #5. But that's an ideal scenario for a GPL + proprietary dual license. Vendors of proprietary software who want to use the library in ways the GPL forbids have to make terms with the author. What those terms are, whether a single payment or otherwise, are entirely between the author and the customers, and no concern of this list. Then again, it seems to me that the possibility to regulate one-time charges for commercial use from _within_ a license should be much preferred over a de facto option to bypass the license altogether. It comes to the same thing: bypassing the GPL is bypassing the GPL. And since the GPL's author has forbidden people to make modified versions of it, alternative terms must be placed outside it. This makes sense anyway in terms of the model in which some copies are available under GPL and others are available under the proprietary license. -- My confusion is rapidly waxing John Cowan For XML Schema's too taxing:co...@ccil.org I'd use DTDshttp://www.ccil.org/~cowan If they had local trees -- I think I best switch to RELAX NG. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] dual licensing and the Open Source Definition
Your fundamental confusion is that you don't understand how dual licensing works. A license gives you a set of terms under which you are allowed to do something that you would not be allowed to do without the license. Dual licensing is the situation where you have a potential choice of licenses. All cases where you can buy out of a GPL license are dual licensing situations. The company owns the copyright to the license, and gives you a choice of an open source license for free, or a commercial license for money. There is nothing in the GPL saying that you can do this, and there is nothing you could put in the GPL saying that you could not do this either. The GPL is popular for this purpose because it is both well-understood, and inconvenient for many commercial purposes. (So there is incentive to purchase the upgrade to a commercial license.) With that cleared up, here are the answers to your questions. 1) The GPL is perfectly fine under the OSD. 2) No license with the kind of conditions that you want would qualify as open source. On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 1:46 PM, zgil...@culturestrings.org wrote: Greetings, As per the Open Source Definition, commercial use of Open Source software must be permitted, yet the license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale. One interesting side-effect of the above is that software can be released under a strong copyleft license, for instance the GPL, and yet be accompanied by the option to buy one's way out of the license, thereby releasing the buyer from any and all obligation to make the modified source available to the public. For a possible real-life example please see the cygwin project, and specifically the clause concerning the project license (found under Cygwin License Contract at http://www.redhat.com/services/custom/cygwin/, and mentioned here for illustration purposes only). In light of the above, and given the guarantee of the Open Source Definition with respect to source availability and fields of endeavor, a couple of questions arise: 1) to what extent does the GPL meet the OSI promise regarding the source of Open Source Software remaining open? After all, if vendors can take GPL'ed software and buy their way out of the license so that binaries, with or without changes, can be distributed without restriction and without a corresponding source, then something is probably not working the way it was originally intended. 2) Consider the case of an individual entrepreneur who created a software library, and who would like to require vendors of commercial products that _depend_ on that library to pay a _one-time fee_, but otherwise be permitted to use the library or distribute it in any way they see fit without additional charges, and provided that the original source code, along with all changes that were applied to it, remain available to the public. Would that author be able to release his/her library under an OSI-approved license? Having gone through the various licenses on the site, I was unable to identify a single license that adequately meets this scenario. I believe that (2) could be of interest to independent developers who either prefer not to, or are unable to rely on voluntary donations for the continuing development of their projects. Then again, it seems to me that the possibility to regulate one-time charges for commercial use from _within_ a license should be much preferred over a de facto option to bypass the license altogether. Ultimately, then, the purpose of this post is to discuss, and hopefully find out, whether a license can be written with the above scenario in mind, and yet remain in compliance with the Open Source Definition. Looking forward to your thoughts, z. gilboa ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] dual licensing and the Open Source Definition
https://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/selling-exceptions may be informative here. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] dual licensing and the Open Source Definition
Original Message Subject: Re: [License-discuss] dual licensing and the Open Source Definition From: Ben Tilly bti...@gmail.com Date: Fri, December 13, 2013 8:33 am To: License Discuss license-discuss@opensource.org Your fundamental confusion is that you don't understand how dual licensing works. A license gives you a set of terms under which you are allowed to do something that you would not be allowed to do without the license. Dual licensing is the situation where you have a potential choice of licenses. How dual licensing works is clear; my issue pertains much more to what a specific license, or licensing system, is meant to achieve. I never suggested that dual licensing was problematic in and of itself, only that some aspects of it were against the spirit of the OSD as I understood it. All cases where you can buy out of a GPL license are dual licensing situations. The company owns the copyright to the license, and gives you a choice of an open source license for free, or a commercial license for money. There is nothing in the GPL saying that you can do this, and there is nothing you could put in the GPL saying that you could not do this either. The GPL is popular for this purpose because it is both well-understood, and inconvenient for many commercial purposes. (So there is incentive to purchase the upgrade to a commercial license.) Here, too, my issue is with the idea that an effective open source license needs to be upgraded in order for software to become profitable for its copyright holder, or convenient for the vendors of commercial software that would like to use it. I am also not sure that a license that allows the modified source of a library to no longer be available is an upgrade to begin with, but that is of course subject to interpretation. With that cleared up, here are the answers to your questions. 1) The GPL is perfectly fine under the OSD. 2) No license with the kind of conditions that you want would qualify as open source. On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 1:46 PM, zgil...@culturestrings.org wrote: Greetings, As per the Open Source Definition, commercial use of Open Source software must be permitted, yet the license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale. One interesting side-effect of the above is that software can be released under a strong copyleft license, for instance the GPL, and yet be accompanied by the option to buy one's way out of the license, thereby releasing the buyer from any and all obligation to make the modified source available to the public. For a possible real-life example please see the cygwin project, and specifically the clause concerning the project license (found under Cygwin License Contract at http://www.redhat.com/services/custom/cygwin/, and mentioned here for illustration purposes only). In light of the above, and given the guarantee of the Open Source Definition with respect to source availability and fields of endeavor, a couple of questions arise: 1) to what extent does the GPL meet the OSI promise regarding the source of Open Source Software remaining open? After all, if vendors can take GPL'ed software and buy their way out of the license so that binaries, with or without changes, can be distributed without restriction and without a corresponding source, then something is probably not working the way it was originally intended. 2) Consider the case of an individual entrepreneur who created a software library, and who would like to require vendors of commercial products that _depend_ on that library to pay a _one-time fee_, but otherwise be permitted to use the library or distribute it in any way they see fit without additional charges, and provided that the original source code, along with all changes that were applied to it, remain available to the public. Would that author be able to release his/her library under an OSI-approved license? Having gone through the various licenses on the site, I was unable to identify a single license that adequately meets this scenario. I believe that (2) could be of interest to independent developers who either prefer not to, or are unable to rely on voluntary donations for the continuing development of their projects. Then again, it seems to me that the possibility to regulate one-time charges for commercial use from _within_ a license should be much preferred over a de facto option to bypass the license altogether. Ultimately, then, the purpose of this post is to discuss, and hopefully find out, whether a license can be written with the above scenario in mind, and yet remain in compliance with the Open Source Definition. Looking forward to your thoughts, z. gilboa ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] dual licensing and the Open Source Definition
Original Message Subject: Re: [License-discuss] dual licensing and the Open Source Definition From: John Cowan co...@mercury.ccil.org mailto:co...@mercury.ccil.org Date: Fri, December 13, 2013 8:28 am To: license-discuss@opensource.org mailto:license-discuss@opensource.org zgil...@culturestrings.org mailto:zgil...@culturestrings.org scripsit: One interesting side-effect of the above is that software can be released under a strong copyleft license, for instance the GPL, and yet be accompanied by the option to buy one's way out of the license, thereby releasing the buyer from any and all obligation to make the modified source available to the public. Technically, that is not correct. Licensing applies on a per-copy basis, so in that situation there are some copies of the source that are available under an open source license and other copies that are available under a proprietary license. This is only possible for the licensor, who is not obliged to follow the restrictions of his own license. In light of the above, and given the guarantee of the Open Source Definition with respect to source availability [...] OSD #2 is narrower than people tend to think: it requires the licensor to make source available, and to allow people who have that source to redistribute it. OSD #3 requires only that the license permit modifications and derivative works: it does not require those derivative works to be Open Source: see below. Thank you for clarifying this. The framework in which I am interested would allow a distinction between derivative work in general, and changes to a specific library in particular. In other words, I'm looking for a license that would guarantee source availability of all patches that were applied to an open source library, but not necessarily of the code that uses the interfaces which that library exports. [T]o what extent does the GPL meet the OSI promise regarding the source of Open Source Software remaining open? 1) Entirely; and 2) There is no such promise. The GPL applies only to copies of works to which it is applied by the licensor. If other copies exist under other licenses, that has nothing to do with the validity of the GPL. But more importantly, the fact that a work is under an OSI license does not guarantee that all derivative works must be under OSI licenses. Many widely used Open Source licenses such as the BSD/MIT family and the MPL family allow for proprietary derivatives of open-source works. After all, if vendors can take GPL'ed software and buy their way out of the license so that binaries, with or without changes, can be distributed without restriction and without a corresponding source, then something is probably not working the way it was originally intended. RMS probably doesn't like it, no. But people can use the GPL however they want to. 2) Consider the case of an individual entrepreneur who created a software library, and who would like to require vendors of commercial products that _depend_ on that library to pay a _one-time fee_, but otherwise be permitted to use the library or distribute it in any way they see fit without additional charges, and provided that the original source code, along with all changes that were applied to it, remain available to the public. Would that author be able to release his/her library under an OSI-approved license? In a word, no. Requiring some users to pay for source and not others flatly contravenes OSD #5. But that's an ideal scenario for a GPL + proprietary dual license. Vendors of proprietary software who want to use the library in ways the GPL forbids have to make terms with the author. What those terms are, whether a single payment or otherwise, are entirely between the author and the customers, and no concern of this list. Then again, it seems to me that the possibility to regulate one-time charges for commercial use from _within_ a license should be much preferred over a de facto option to bypass the license altogether. It comes to the same thing: bypassing the GPL is bypassing the GPL. And since the GPL's author has forbidden people to make modified versions of it, alternative terms must be placed outside it. This makes sense anyway in terms of the model in which some copies are available under GPL and others are available under the proprietary license. -- My confusion is rapidly waxing John Cowan For XML Schema's too taxing: co...@ccil.org mailto:co...@ccil.org I'd use DTDs http://www.ccil.org/~cowan If they had local trees -- I think I best switch to RELAX NG. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org mailto:License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Dual-Licensing (GPLv2 and Artistic License 2.0)
The idea of dual licensing is that the copyright owner has offered you a choice of license terms. Pick the one you like better. Just make sure to follow those terms and you're fine. (And yes, the Artistic License does let you sell binaries without source.) On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 1:18 AM, Nico Diekhaus nico.diekh...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, I can’t find any details about dual-licensing, that helps me. I have a question about a source code I found and want to use for my program. The souce code is licensed with the GPLv2 and the Artistic License 2.0. Can I use the code for my program (and sell the program) without posting my source code on the internet? If it is just licensed without GPL I would say yes. Because I found the following in the Artistic License: „(6) You may Distribute a Modified Version in Compiled form without the Source, provided that you comply with Section 4 with respect to the Source of the Modified Version.” “(4) You may Distribute your Modified Version as Source (either gratis or for a Distributor Fee, and with or without a Compiled form of the Modified Version) provided that you clearly document how it differs from the Standard Version, including, but not limited to, documenting any non-standard features, executables, or modules, and provided that you do at least ONE of the following: (a) make the Modified Version available to the Copyright Holder of the Standard Version, under the Original License, so that the Copyright Holder may include your modifications in the Standard Version. (b) ensure that installation of your Modified Version does not prevent the user installing or running the Standard Version. In addition, the Modified Version must bear a name that is different from the name of the Standard Version. (c) allow anyone who receives a copy of the Modified Version to make the Source form of the Modified Version available to others under (i) the Original License or (ii) a license that permits the licensee to freely copy, modify and redistribute the Modified Version using the same licensing terms that apply to the copy that the licensee received, and requires that the Source form of the Modified Version, and of any works derived from it, be made freely available in that license fees are prohibited but Distributor Fees are allowed. Distribution of Compiled Forms of the Standard Version or Modified Versions without the Source” So did I understand this right? Can I use the code of that program if I ... ... 1. clearly document how it differs from the Standard Version ... 2. (b) ensure that installation of your Modified Version does not prevent the user installing or running the Standard Version. In addition, the Modified Version must bear a name that is different from the name of the Standard Version. I hope I made my point clear and someone can help me. Thank you very much! Greetings, Nico Diekhaus ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
[License-discuss] Dual-Licensing (GPLv2 and Artistic License 2.0)
Hello, I can’t find any details about dual-licensing, that helps me. I have a question about a source code I found and want to use for my program. The souce code is licensed with the GPLv2 and the Artistic License 2.0. Can I use the code for my program (and sell the program) without posting my source code on the internet? If it is just licensed without GPL I would say yes. Because I found the following in the Artistic License: „(6) You may Distribute a Modified Version in Compiled form without the Source, provided that you comply with Section 4 with respect to the Source of the Modified Version.” “(4) You may Distribute your Modified Version as Source (either gratis or for a Distributor Fee, and with or without a Compiled form of the Modified Version) provided that you clearly document how it differs from the Standard Version, including, but not limited to, documenting any non-standard features, executables, or modules, and provided that you do at least ONE of the following: (a) make the Modified Version available to the Copyright Holder of the Standard Version, under the Original License, so that the Copyright Holder may include your modifications in the Standard Version. (b) ensure that installation of your Modified Version does not prevent the user installing or running the Standard Version. In addition, the Modified Version must bear a name that is different from the name of the Standard Version. (c) allow anyone who receives a copy of the Modified Version to make the Source form of the Modified Version available to others under (i) the Original License or (ii) a license that permits the licensee to freely copy, modify and redistribute the Modified Version using the same licensing terms that apply to the copy that the licensee received, and requires that the Source form of the Modified Version, and of any works derived from it, be made freely available in that license fees are prohibited but Distributor Fees are allowed. Distribution of Compiled Forms of the Standard Version or Modified Versions without the Source” So did I understand this right? Can I use the code of that program if I ... ... 1. *clearly document how it differs from the Standard Version* ... 2. (b) ensure that installation of your Modified Version does not prevent the user installing or running the Standard Version. In addition, the Modified Version must bear a name that is different from the name of the Standard Version. I hope I made my point clear and someone can help me. Thank you very much! Greetings, Nico Diekhaus ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: Dual licensing
Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): All, esp. Sam Rick: Sorry to be pedantic, but after looking at the OSI-approved RPL, it is obvious it restricts internal use: (Casting my mind back to figure out the connection to me:) If memory serves, Stephen North raised a question about whether copyright law reserves the right of making derivative works irrespective of distribution to the copyright holder. I replied (in effect) that it's an unsettled point of law and likely to remain so. Point One: Finding an OSI-cerified licence and saying it purports to regulate internal use unfortunately doesn't resolve the point of law. I've never looked at the RPL until about five minutes ago. It looks to me like yet another basically pointless also-ran, but feel free to prove me wrong and make it a world-beater. (I won't be holding my breath.) 1.2 Deploy... includes without limitation, any and all internal use or distribution of Licesned Software within your business or organization other than for research and/or personal use... Point Two: OK, the term Deploy is defined within the scope of the licence as including many internal uses. But then, the question then becomes what rights and duties are specified in reference to that term. That other shoe appears to drop in clause 6.0 Your Obligations And Grants: Any Extensions that You create or to which You contribute must be Deployed under the terms of this License or a future version of this License released under Section 7. Straightforward copyleft (reciprocal) clause. A further sentence of the same clause requires that what you make and Deploy must be distinctly titled from the original code. Section 6.1 is the privacy-infringing clause, whereby source code of anything you Deploy must be available publicly for 12 months. You may recall a different but related thread: Restrictions of that sort on private usage are unpopular with a lot of people, but nowhere barred by the OSD. An earlier version of the Apple Public Source License (currently at 2.0) contained such a provision. It was judged OSD-compliant (because, well, it _was_ OSD-compliant), occasioning some mildly unpleasant spats between commentators who found the provision reasonable and others (e.g., Stallman) who considered it to infringe privacy rights nobody had previously considered in that context. So, RPL has a moderately noxious anti-privacy clause, illustrating that the intersection of OSD-compliant and dumb idea aren't a null set. QED. (My opinion; yours for a small fee and disclaimer of reverse-engineering rights.) -- Cheers,Ceterum censeo, Caldera delenda est. Rick Moen [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Dual licensing
On Sun, 13 Jun 2004, No Spam wrote: All, esp. Sam: It irks me that some companies or individuals could use open-source software for profit under internal use, and not pay the original author. If what you want is to create a monopoly and charge a monopoly rent (paying the author royalties) or control internal use, then you don't want open source. As a contributor to Open Source I oppose the concept of monopolies and monopoly rents, and do not care what sector (public, private, education, etc) a user/contributor comes from, or whether they are for-profit or not. That is my choice, and I choose Free/Libre and Open Source Software. If you don't agree with that choice, then create/use/distribute/modify non-free software. As soon as you go with non-free software you have lost the open-sharing of the open source development model which exists only because of the lack of a monopoly required to collect a monopoly rent or control internal use, so you should not concern yourself with trying to have your cake and eating mine too. Off-topic plug: If you are Canadian, are a supporter of Commons-based peer production, the Internet, FLOSS, are opposed to the DMCA being brought into Canada... We need you. We are running an information campaign during the federal election on these issues: http://digital-copyright.ca/ -- Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: http://www.flora.ca/ Open letters with Susan Crean http://www.flora.ca/creators/ Petition for Users' Rights, Protect Internet creativity and innovation Election 2004: http://digital-copyright.ca/ -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Dual licensing
All, esp. Sam Rick: Sorry to be pedantic, but after looking at the OSI-approved RPL, it is obvious it restricts internal use: 1.2 Deploy... includes without limitation, any and all internal use or distribution of Licesned Software within your business or organization other than for research and/or personal use... In fact, Technical Pursuit freely admits it is perhaps more viral than the GPL. http://www.technicalpursuit.com/licenses_faq.html#rpl_viral http://www.technicalpursuit.com/licenses_faq.html#why_new_license It's a shame it's a company-specific license and no word about GPL compatibility (I would guess it is not compatible since this is an additional restriction to GPL). Cheers, Glen Low, Pixelglow Software www.pixelglow.com -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Dual licensing
Marius Amado Alves writes: (At the SDC we're drafting a new license. We're using the term fair source for internal work. I don't know if that's the term that will be exposed. Suggestions welcome. www.softdevelcoop.org) I use Source Available to describe software where you can get the source code, but the license doesn't guarantee you anything more than that. -- --My blog is at angry-economist.russnelson.com | The USA has turned into a Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | people that are afraid of 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | everything and responsible Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | FWD# 404529 via VOIP | for nothing. -- GF -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
[Off-topic] open-source-debate (was Re: Dual licensing)
RM == Rick Moen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: RM Now, people here are generally (if somewhat vaguely) RM sympathetic to your desire to find a business model that works RM for you, because we're generally pleasant and agreeable RM people. But sooner or later we'll tend to come back to an RM inconvenient fact -- that this ultimately is just not the RM Improve Glen Low's Business mailing list. RM However,, if you want to start such a list, I can recommend RM some good open-source software to run it on. ;- So, this whole thread has been really interesting, but really, really off-topic. I started looking around for a list for discussing the pros and cons of Open Source, and I found that there really wasn't one. Seeing an opportunity, I started a new list with the great freelists.org service.* It's called open-source-debate, and the list charter is to foster debate about the underlying precepts of Open Source or Free Software. The subscription Web page is here: http://www.freelists.org/list/open-source-debate You can also subscribe by sending mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'subscribe' in the Subject field. ~ESP * http://www.freelists.org/. Freelists is a great service, by the way. They host discussions about Open Source software and Open Content free of charge, and they use Open Source software to do it. -- Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wikitravel - http://wikitravel.org/en/ The free, complete, up-to-date and reliable world-wide travel guide -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Dual licensing
I'm sorry, Marius, I'm confused. How can be it open source, and yet if used commercially, the authors get a cut? The thing is, we don't see how that hurts the basic tenets of the free software philosophy. ... I know this, and this is the single 'wrong' thing about free software in the view on many people (SDC, UUU, Alladin...) Putting the authors out of the loop is silly and unfair. It may be wrong (silly, unjfair, etc.) but it *is* the definition of both free software and open source. The *intent* is to take the author out of the loop. Once your software is free or open source, you don't own it any more. It belongs to its users. You are not the first to propose some form of limited sharing, with some amount of ability to return profits to the author when users themselves are making profits. However, each and every time, such ideas have floundered on this basic principle--the principle that the author cannot restrict(*) the end users rights to use and redistribute the software for any purpose once they have obtained a copy. (*Some forms of restriction are allowed if they facilitate the principle of non-restriction, e.g. the GPL requiring that if you distribute a non-human readable form, you must also desribute a human readable form.) The ability to enforce a limited sharing is considered a monopoly rent. You as the author are inherently a monopoly, as you (perhaps a collective you if the software was written by a group) are the author and conceptually no one else can be that. Thus, any ability you have to control the software puts you in the position of a controlling monopoly. If that control prohibits others from using the software without returning something to you, then what those users must return to you is a monopoly rent. And if that cotrol (either through a monopoly rent) or through some other mechanism prevents some group of users from using (or redistributing to whoever they want) the software after they have obtained it, then it makes the software non-open source. (And the key point is that the users must be able to redistibute the software to anyone, including users who the original author would not give the software to and that those redistributed to users must have equal rights even if the original author would not have given them such rights and also cannot be restricted in their use or redistribution.) If you want to make a profit from selling open source software, you are free to attempt to do so, and there appear to be mechanisms to do so. However, you can't do it through a monopoly rent system and call it open source. The closest one can come to collecting a monopoly rent is finding some way to make oneself the preferred provider of the software and collecting such rents on the first sale--that is sometimes called selling the brand. My company has developed a strategy for doing just that, and we'll see over time whether it is successful. However, we recognize that in doing so, our ability to extract income form the software is only proportional to the extra value we continue to add (or at least that our customers perceive we add). The fact that some form of our software is open source means that there will always be the threat that users who don't perceive the value we add can find a way to get the software for a lower cost than what we charge, so there will always be a downward force on our prices that we will have to compensate for by adding the perceived value. However, we can't add that value through a license clause that requires payment under some conditions. That simply makes the software not open source. Violating a key part of open source as I tried to explain above. Other forms of limited sharing may be good, right, correct, laudable, etc. However, the definition of open source is that the author is out of the loop once the software is obtained by the users and it is the users that have control. No amount of arguing will ever change that. There are very smart people involved in the open source movement and they understand that principle and what it entails and have chosen to accept it. And while you may not think that some other form of limited sharing does not hurt the free software philosophy, they will never agree, because they consider the end user's rights (even if the end user is the evil empire) to be paramount. It is a matter of principle, and at some level it defines the free software philosophy--which isn't as much about sharing as some people think, as it is about *not being able to restrict* sharing, which is a slightly different thing. Excuse my long-windedness, -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)
Re: Dual licensing
Free software is about freedom (liberty) for the end user. It's not about control by the author (except in specific limited respects). If you want control by the author, then you have a different philosophy. Freedom is about giving up control. More freedom, less control. More control, less freedom. Get it? When philosophy and law collide, the enforcable law always dominates. The Copyright Act is limited in scope (by judicial interpretation) to transferring copies in contractual privity by the copyright owner and those receiving the copies -- (the contracting parties). Any enforceable term allowed by contract law, including use restrictions that are not and attempt to regulate copyright law outside of privity may be placed on the copyrighted material by the owner of the copyright. Any attempt to regulate copyright rewards outside of contractual privity is preempted by sec. 301 of the Copyright Act regardless of the philosophical underpinnings of free as in 'freedom' software. I am attracted to the philosophical principle of free software and copyleft, unfortunately that kind of licensing is not possible under current law. Even worse is the fact that the exponentially growing pool of software utility patents and their attendant field of use restrictions without any requirement of contractual privity are rapidly rendering software copyright license discussions irrelevant to developements in Information Technology. Daniel Wallace -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Dual licensing
Quoting Marius Amado Alves ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): I know this, and this is the single 'wrong' thing about free software in the view on many people (SDC, UUU, Alladin...) Putting the authors out of the loop is silly and unfair. If you don't like losing even that much of the ultimate control that's otherwise guaranteed to the copyright owner by copyright statutes, then don't. But then it's not open source. Nobody's forcing you or any other software author to use open source licensing. You're always perfectly free to use any proprietary licensing of your choosing. The open source community consists of coders and users who've become tired of some of the consequences of the proprietary model, and therefore have opted out. For example, even Dan Bernstein's software[1], as generous as his permission grants for them are, may not be lawfully maintained in any straightforward and long-term-feasible fashion by successor programmers, for lack of legal permission to create and distribute derivatives. A lot of us, long ago, got tired of being trapped using software that suddenly becomes no longer available, has restrictions on use, or cannot lawfully be maintained by its surrounding community. So, we gradually replaced it. The programmers of the resulting codebases? Nobody put them out of the loop in the sense you speak of. They decided by themselves, for diverse reasons, not to be there. If you, for your part, would rather not, that's OK. Nobody minds, and we can be friendly neighbours. You might even decide that the advantages of open source are compelling for some of your projects, even if not for most of yours. [1] A couple of his smaller and older packages are open source, but I'm referring here to his major and newer ones. -- Cheers, The shortest distance between two puns is a straightline. Rick Moen [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Dual licensing
Quoting dlw ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): Any attempt to regulate copyright rewards outside of contractual privity is preempted by sec. 301 of the Copyright Act regardless of the philosophical underpinnings of free as in 'freedom' software. Oh, give it up, already. As I'm sure you are well aware, 17 USC 301 existed to terminate common law copyright and prior state statutes. It in no way precludes copyright owners from granting _under_ the Federal statute rights that the statute would otherwise have reserved to them by default. Look, Wallace, it's nice that you got contract law firmly lodged into your head, but, I'm sorry, these bogus legalisms you keep dreaming up against the concept of copyright licensing are wearying. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Dual licensing
I must admit I'm somewhat sympathetic to Marius' aims, if not convinced about the actual details. Ideally, I would like to craft a dual license that says, in legalese, if you don't pay, reciprocate; if you pay, you don't have to reciprocate. QED. However like Marius I find the GPL and other open source licenses inadequate to express this, since most if not all allow certain situations to avoid reciprocation e.g. internal use, web services. I should think GPL and friends were never designed to be the bad cop part of a good cop, bad cop dual-licensing scheme to get priopetary users to pay. Practically, the GPL does cover most of what I want and ultimately not being Microsoft or an army-of-lawyers-employing company, there's not much I can do to enforce it except the moral authority of being the copyright owner. So it looks like it shall be GPL + some simple BSD-like priopetary license. Cheers, Glen Low, Pixelglow Software www.pixelglow.com -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Dual licensing
However like Marius I find the GPL and other open source licenses inadequate to express this, since most if not all allow certain situations to avoid reciprocation e.g. internal use, web services. I should think GPL and friends were never designed to be the bad cop part of a good cop, bad cop dual-licensing scheme to get priopetary users to pay. Well, you're never going to be able to restrict internal use on a license that allows redistribution, IMO. Take the example of a book... You buy, or are given legally, a book. Now, copyright stops you from doing most things with it, of course, including fanfic, strictly. However, no-one can stop you, legally, from writing fanfic for your own consumption, provided you don't 'distribute' it. What counts as distributions is, of course, a good question. Leaving it lying around in a private place (physically) and someone picking it up and flicking through it probably isn't, nor, I reckon, would be sharing it with a private group who are writing together. By the same token, you cannot be stoped from colouring in certain words with highligher, or even blacking tham out, or from taking the book apart and putting it together in a new order. At that point, you're not breaking copyright law in the slightest, those are things you can do to *your* book.[1] Look at software the same. One *entity* (corporation, household, whatever) has a legal copy, their's a lot of stuff they can do with it that is fine by law as long as they don't pass it outside of that entity. Of course, a click-wrap license is another matter entirely, but a simple implicit license like the BSD license, or the GPL, could not do it, except as a condition that's only enforceable if they *do* also do something they would not otherwise have an right to. IANAL [1] I'm more certain about the colouring in/cutting up bit than the fanfic bit, but still... -- Sam Barnett-Cormack -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Dual licensing
dlw scripsit: Any attempt to regulate copyright rewards outside of contractual privity is preempted by sec. 301 of the Copyright Act regardless of the philosophical underpinnings of free as in 'freedom' software. That turns out not to be the case. I am attracted to the philosophical principle of free software and copyleft, unfortunately that kind of licensing is not possible under current law. Put your money where your mouth is. Reuse FSF-copyrighted software in a proprietary product, and invite the FSF to sue you. You'll make a jim-dandy test case. Even worse is the fact that the exponentially growing pool of software utility patents and their attendant field of use restrictions without any requirement of contractual privity are rapidly rendering software copyright license discussions irrelevant to developements in Information Technology. Patents are indeed a concern. -- Business before pleasure, if not too bloomering long before. --Nicholas van Rijn John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ccil.org/~cowan http://www.reutershealth.com -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Dual licensing
Sam Barnett-Cormack scripsit: You buy, or are given legally, a book. Now, copyright stops you from doing most things with it, of course, including fanfic, strictly. FWIW, the case that text-only fanfic actually constitutes a derivative work is extremely shaky. The leading case is about comic books, where of course there is a purely graphical resemblance as well. All those BigCos telling little web sites to take down their fanfic are skating on extremely thin ice, and they know it. -- Samuel Johnson on playing the violin: John Cowan Difficult do you call it, Sir? [EMAIL PROTECTED] I wish it were impossible.http://www.ccil.org/~cowan -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Dual licensing
All, esp. Sam: It irks me that some companies or individuals could use open-source software for profit under internal use, and not pay the original author. Under open source, I then have two choices: 1. Offer the software for free under GPL. Then if no-one redistributes it but uses it internally, I lose the revenue stream from the proprietary license. 2. Offer the software for a price (Ian's model) under BSD. The high price keeps the recipients honest and helps ameliorate the dilution of income due to any redstribution. However, I lose the try-before-you-buy and open-sharing aspects of the open source development model, and would probably be difficult to make competitive, price-wise, in non-niche markets. Cheers, Glen Low, Pixelglow Software www.pixelglow.com -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Dual licensing
Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): Ideally, I would like to craft a dual license that says, in legalese, if you don't pay, reciprocate; if you pay, you don't have to reciprocate. QED. This clearly isn't the right mailing list to seek help with that. More about that below. However like Marius I find the GPL and other open source licenses inadequate to express this, since most if not all allow certain situations to avoid reciprocation e.g. internal use, web services. I should think GPL and friends were never designed to be the bad cop part of a good cop, bad cop dual-licensing scheme to get proprietary users to pay. Surprisingly enough, many things turn out to have uses for which they were never designed. Of a certainty, you're correct that Prof. Moglen and Richard Stallman most definitely never designed the GNU GPL to be a component of a proprietary-software business model. Notwithstanding that fact, it's definitely feasible to do so in some circumstances -- as I believe I mentioned earlier. Now, people here are generally (if somewhat vaguely) sympathetic to your desire to find a business model that works for you, because we're generally pleasant and agreeable people. But sooner or later we'll tend to come back to an inconvenient fact -- that this ultimately is just not the Improve Glen Low's Business mailing list. However,, if you want to start such a list, I can recommend some good open-source software to run it on. ;- -- Cheers,Ceterum censeo, Caldera delenda est. Rick Moen [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Dual licensing
Marius Amado Alves writes: and because your questioning indicates convergence with the SDC philosophy, which is really simple: it's open source, but if it's used commercially, then the authors get a cut. I'm sorry, Marius, I'm confused. How can be it open source, and yet if used commercially, the authors get a cut? That sounds much more like the Aladdin Free Public License, but it's not an open source license. -- --My blog is at angry-economist.russnelson.com | The USA has turned into a Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | people that are afraid of 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | everything and responsible Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | FWD# 404529 via VOIP | for nothing. -- GF -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Dual licensing
Marius Amado Alves writes: tout court to mean something different, but life has shown repeatedly that the vast majority of speakers won't follow the suggestion. Actually, it's a small minority of speakers who won't follow the suggestion. Their life is made more complicated by their choice. In time, someone will violate their license, and when sued, will claim innocent infringement because But they said their software was Open Source and the judge will believe them. -- --My blog is at angry-economist.russnelson.com | The USA has turned into a Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | people that are afraid of 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | everything and responsible Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | FWD# 404529 via VOIP | for nothing. -- GF -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Dual licensing
I'm sorry, Marius, I'm confused. How can be it open source, and yet if used commercially, the authors get a cut? The thing is, we don't see how that hurts the basic tenets of the free software philosophy. That sounds much more like the Aladdin Free Public License... I'll check. Thanks. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Dual licensing
tout court to mean something different, but life has shown repeatedly that the vast majority of speakers won't follow the suggestion. Actually, it's a small minority of speakers who won't follow the suggestion. Their life is made more complicated by their choice... Well, we don't really have figures do we? It's you perception against mine. But no problem, I've agreed already not to use the term open source with a different meaning that the OSD. (At the SDC we're drafting a new license. We're using the term fair source for internal work. I don't know if that's the term that will be exposed. Suggestions welcome. www.softdevelcoop.org) -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Dual licensing
Marius Amado Alves said on Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 08:17:56AM +0100,: Why are the other conditions e.g. the requirement to distribute under the same license (GPL) not considered restrictions? So that people do not (mis)use the freedoms to restrict/takeaway/deny freedoms downstream. -- Mahesh T. Pai http://paivakil.port5.com Money can't buy love, but it sure gets you a great bargaining position. - From the Tao of Programming -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Dual licensing
Marius Amado Alves [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'm sorry, Marius, I'm confused. How can be it open source, and yet if used commercially, the authors get a cut? The thing is, we don't see how that hurts the basic tenets of the free software philosophy. Please read: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html Note in particular: Thus, you should be free to redistribute copies, either with or without modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to anyone anywhere. Being free to do these things means (among other things) that you do not have to ask or pay for permission. Ian -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Dual licensing
I'm sorry, Marius, I'm confused. How can be it open source, and yet if used commercially, the authors get a cut? The thing is, we don't see how that hurts the basic tenets of the free software philosophy. Please read: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html Note in particular: Thus, you should be free to redistribute copies, either with or without modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to anyone anywhere. Being free to do these things means (among other things) that you do not have to ask or pay for permission. I know this, and this is the single 'wrong' thing about free software in the view on many people (SDC, UUU, Alladin...) Putting the authors out of the loop is silly and unfair. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Dual licensing
Marius Amado Alves [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'm sorry, Marius, I'm confused. How can be it open source, and yet if used commercially, the authors get a cut? The thing is, we don't see how that hurts the basic tenets of the free software philosophy. Please read: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html Note in particular: Thus, you should be free to redistribute copies, either with or without modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to anyone anywhere. Being free to do these things means (among other things) that you do not have to ask or pay for permission. I know this, and this is the single 'wrong' thing about free software in the view on many people (SDC, UUU, Alladin...) Putting the authors out of the loop is silly and unfair. Free software is about freedom (liberty) for the end user. It's not about control by the author (except in specific limited respects). If you want control by the author, then you have a different philosophy. Freedom is about giving up control. More freedom, less control. More control, less freedom. Get it? You don't have to love free software. You don't have to think it's a good idea. If you want to do something else, then do it. The free software would welcome your help, but we're doing reasonably well on our own. (As someone who has been participating in these arguments for 14 years now, I'm grateful that at least we no longer have to hear the arguments about how free software can never work in the commercial world.) Ian -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Dual licensing
Free software is about freedom (liberty) for the end user. It's not about control by the author (except in specific limited respects). If you want control by the author, then you have a different philosophy. Freedom is about giving up control. More freedom, less control. More control, less freedom. Get it? Then why isn't it just public domain software? I don't see what's so bad about having contributors agree to share with the author if they share with anyone else. That doesn't seem like 'control' to me. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Dual licensing
Stephen C. North [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Free software is about freedom (liberty) for the end user. It's not about control by the author (except in specific limited respects). If you want control by the author, then you have a different philosophy. Freedom is about giving up control. More freedom, less control. More control, less freedom. Get it? Then why isn't it just public domain software? Public domain software is indeed an example of free software. I don't see what's so bad about having contributors agree to share with the author if they share with anyone else. That doesn't seem like 'control' to me. There is, of course, nothing bad about contributors agreeing to share with the author. What's bad is *requiring* them to share with the author. It makes it impossible to keep a set of changes private within a circle of friends. Freedom includes the freedom not to share. Again, free software is about giving up control. The GPL gives up control in a special way, one which ensures that nobody else can take control. The BSD license gives up control in a much broader sense. They are both free software. If you don't want to give up control, then don't produce free software. There are many other choices. Cast thy bread upon the waters: for thou shalt find it after many days (Ecclesiastes 11:1). Ian -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: free Re: Dual licensing
Chris F Clark writes: 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? No. -- --My blog is at angry-economist.russnelson.com | The USA has turned into a Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | people that are afraid of 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | everything and responsible Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | FWD# 404529 via VOIP | for nothing. -- GF -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
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 (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 (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: Dual licensing
Kindly tell what point you feel I'm trying to evade. That your SDC licence plainly is proprietary. The SDC Conditions v. 2 breach exactly clause 6 of the OSD (*). If proprietary is the right term to describe (informally) a 9/10 open source license, then OK, the SDC Conditions v. 2 are proprietary. BTW, that's a technicality that I believe can be solved. That is, it is possible to revise the SDC Conditions, or make a new license, that does not breach clause 6, and still implements the SDC philosophy--which is NOT proprietary. One way to do it is simply to elliminate the distinction between commercial and non-commercial, and charge everybody. The reason I don't want do go that way, is because I want to offer the software gratis to certain uses, e.g. academic. In my opinion this scenario clearly reveals a drawback of (the strong interpretation of) OSD clause 6--but please this is just a fool's opinion, don't pay any attention :-) __ (*) And this only under a certain 'strong' interpretation of clause 6, namely one whereby restrict includes requiring a fee. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Dual licensing
Sam Barnett-Cormack wrote: Requiring a fee for use is certainly a restriction. It's open source if you charge someone a fee, but they can pass it on without anyone having to pay anyone anything - but if such second-hand recipients have to pay the original licensor money, it's not Open Source - by the letter and spirit of the definition. I see. But the SDC philosophy is sort of the other way around. Nobody charges upstream in the distribution. Only when revenues are generated downstream, the shares go back up to every author. And also only then are the shares negotiated. In my perception this model is not against the spirit of open source--and probably not even against the letter. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Dual licensing
Quoting Marius Amado Alves ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): BTW, that's a technicality that I believe can be solved. That is, it is possible to revise the SDC Conditions, or make a new license, that does not breach clause 6, and still implements the SDC philosophy--which is NOT proprietary. We'll be glad to see that licence, when you finish it. One way to do it is simply to eliminate the distinction between commercial and non-commercial, and charge everybody. Would those people then have the right to redistribute? Be sure to check OSD clause #1. The SDC Conditions v. 2 clause 6 appears to (intentionally) violate that principle, at present -- because your developers specifically wish to _not_ grant that right, but rather reserve it to the copyright holder, requiring each new recipient to likewise purchase a licence: 6. A copy used in a business must have a specific license for that use explicitly issued by SDC. Such a license is called a commercial license and is explained in the Commented Conditions. (Your proposed change seems to amount, in essence, to removing the phrase in a business from the above, extending the requirement to all users.) The intent of OSD (it seems to me) has always been to describe via a few easily-grasped practical guidelines the underlying core concept of open source -- loosely speaking, access to source code with the perpetual right to freely use, redistribute, or fork the codebase (or create derivative works based on it) for any purpose whatsoever. It honestly seems to me that that's not what you're trying to accomplish. If so, you're not trying to do open source. I should hasten to add: I'm certainly not trying to denigrate what you're aiming for: You might end up with very useful proprietary licence arrangements. I'm just saying you seem to be aiming for something that's clearly not open source. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Dual licensing
The spirit of Open Source is to allow the downstream distributors to distribute however they like, without restriction. *Any* restriction. Why are the other conditions e.g. the requirement to distribute under the same license (GPL) not considered restrictions? -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Dual licensing
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004, Marius Amado Alves wrote: Sam Barnett-Cormack wrote: Requiring a fee for use is certainly a restriction. It's open source if you charge someone a fee, but they can pass it on without anyone having to pay anyone anything - but if such second-hand recipients have to pay the original licensor money, it's not Open Source - by the letter and spirit of the definition. I see. But the SDC philosophy is sort of the other way around. Nobody charges upstream in the distribution. Only when revenues are generated downstream, the shares go back up to every author. And also only then are the shares negotiated. In my perception this model is not against the spirit of open source--and probably not even against the letter. The spirit of Open Source is to allow the downstream distributors to distribute however they like, without restriction. *Any* restriction. That includes restricting their ability to charge for the distribution (of identical or derivative works), by demanding any share thereof. And this is what is meant by 'no restrictions' in the OSD. -- Sam Barnett-Cormack -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Dual licensing
Quoting Marius Amado Alves ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): The spirit of Open Source is to allow the downstream distributors to distribute however they like, without restriction. *Any* restriction. Why are the other conditions e.g. the requirement to distribute under the same license (GPL) not considered restrictions? The GPL (and MPL, LGPL, Arpic, Affero, etc.) licences' copyleft obligations have historically annoyed a number of open source people: They're of course free to eschew (and replace using the sweat of their own brows) affected code -- a quite honourable choice taken, for example, by the OpenBSD Foundation in removing copylefted modules from what became OpenSSH. I would guess that consensus classes those licences' copyleft provisions as fair play and easily within the province of open source because the reciprocity required is no more than what the original developer did -- availability of your source under the same terms if you've released derivatives in public -- and because those provisions otherwise don't restrict the rights to fork, use, derive, or redistribute in any way. (In other words, saying any restriction is an over-simplification. Nobody serious alleges that the Apache licence isn't open source just because it includes a clause protecting the Apache Foundation's trademarks, even though that's a restriction of the licenced code -- because the substantive rights that the concept open source entails are unaffected.) -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Dual licensing
The intent of OSD (it seems to me) has always been to describe via a few easily-grasped practical guidelines the underlying core concept of open source -- loosely speaking, access to source code with the perpetual right to freely use, redistribute, or fork the codebase (or create derivative works based on it) for any purpose whatsoever. I'm only trying to add to that the requirement that a part of any generated revenue is payed to the authors (if they want). This should be completely orthogonal to the open source requirements, and hence unhurtful of them, but I'm having technical problems. Not unsurmountable I believe, but hard. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Dual licensing
Quoting Marius Amado Alves ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): I'm only trying to add to that the requirement that a part of any generated revenue is payed to the authors (if they want). Hmm. Remember, the primary conceptual concerns of the OSD are the long-term freedoms of developers and users. OSD #2 says, among other things: 2. Source Code [...] Where some form of a product is not distributed with source code, there must be a well-publicized means of obtaining the source code for no more than a reasonable reproduction cost -- preferably, downloading via the Internet without charge. Requiring royalties for particular _uses_ of the software after lawful aquisition is probably not even possible legally, let alone compliant with the spirit of the OSD: In the USA, at least, people have the right to execute code they've acquired lawfully, by statute -- or such is my recollection from an Eben Moglen piece at the time of SCO Group's initial legal filing. This might be one of the reasons why the OSD text never quite gets around to saying that recipients must have the right to use code for any purpose without original-developer strings attached: It's assumed. (Hi, Bruce. Maybe you as the OSD's original author can comment.) -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Dual licensing
Requiring royalties for use of the software after lawful aquisition is probably not even possible legally... In that case it is indeed an unsurmountable problem. But in my opinion still merely technical. I don't see it hurting any spirit. On the contrary, to me it's very clear that rewarding the authors is just, and not rewarding them unjust. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Dual licensing
Marius Amado Alves scripsit: Why are the other conditions e.g. the requirement to distribute under the same license (GPL) not considered restrictions? In addition to the reasons mentioned by others, there is also the fact that the GPL, BSD, Artistic, and MIT licenses are *prior* to the OSD (and its earlier version the Debian Free Software Guidelines). If the OSD says that one of those licenses is not free/open source, so much the worse for the OSD, and it will need to be changed or clarified. So far this hasn't been seriously needed. You can never entirely trap a slippery reality in a net of words. -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.reutershealth.com www.ccil.org/~cowan Original line from The Warrior's Apprentice by Lois McMaster Bujold: Only on Barrayar would pulling a loaded needler start a stampede toward one. English-to-Russian-to-English mangling thereof: Only on Barrayar you risk to lose support instead of finding it when you threat with the charged weapon. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Dual licensing
Marius: You might want to consider a proper dual license rather than your semi-open license. The AFPL which is not an OSI-certified license might fit the bill for the open part: http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~ghost/doc/cvs/Public.htm, since it limits commercial use. On the other hand, downstream sharing could be accomplished with Freenet's Fairshare scheme (as opposed to a seperate license): http://freenetproject.org/index.php?page=fairshare. Cheers, Glen Low, Pixelglow Software www.pixelglow.com -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Dual licensing
Marius Amado Alves [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'm only trying to add to that the requirement that a part of any generated revenue is payed to the authors (if they want). This should be completely orthogonal to the open source requirements, and hence unhurtful of them, but I'm having technical problems. Not unsurmountable I believe, but hard. It is not orthogonal at all. When software is open source, it means that anybody can fork it at will, without having to pay. Open source means freedom for users, including freedom from royalty payments. What you are looking for is not a bad thing, but it is not open source. Ian -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Dual licensing
Marius Amado Alves [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 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. The program is licensed free of charge. That means that nobody is required to pay for a license to use the program, or (for that matter) to distribute the program. In other words, if you have a copy of the program, you do not need to additionally pay for the license. This is not true of, for example, Microsoft Windows. However, the fact that the program is licensed free of charge does not mean that anybody is required to actually provide it free of charge. In fact, GPL clause 1 explicitly states You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy. In other words, it is always licensed free of charge, but it need not be provided free of charge. If the warranty disclaimer said because this program is provided free of charge, then it would not apply in the cases where the program is sold for a fee. Your original comment was in response to my statement: Certainly neither the GPL nor the BSD license prohibit sale of the software. And you said: Then they should stop saying because this software is provided free of charge... I hope that it is clear that my statement is true, and your statement is irrelevant since the licenses do not say that. At this point I'm starting to doubt the value of this conversation. You seem to be frequently misunderstanding what to me seems like plain English. Is this a language problem? Or are you just trolling? Ian -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
The OSI as a critic (was: Dual licensing)
A private correspondent wrote to me, expressing astonishment at the notion that the OSD might be changed simply because one of the major powers (meaning, as I suppose, the GPL) was found not to be conformant with its terms, whereas wannabe compliant licenses are made to conform to the OSD. I like my reply enough [buffs nails] to publish it. The OSD is a criticism of open-source licenses, and the OSI is a critic. If a theatre critic says that so-and-so's new play is no good, this is generally accepted as within bounds, and if the critic is respected, the play will probably not last very long. But if the critic says that _Hamlet_ is no good (as opposed to a particular production of it), he will make himself a laughingstock -- not because Shakespeare is a major power, but because his plays (with some exceptions) have held the stage for four centuries, and have become part of the fabric of the definition of good plays, at least in the anglophone theatre. This analogy is culture-bound, but one can find analogous analogies (!) in other cultures, and in fact the OSD does represent a cultural artefact: it states in concise form what our understanding of free and open-source software is. -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.reutershealth.com www.ccil.org/~cowan It's the old, old story. Droid meets droid. Droid becomes chameleon. Droid loses chameleon, chameleon becomes blob, droid gets blob back again. It's a classic tale. --Kryten, Red Dwarf -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Dual licensing
Ian, you've been most helpful, and it's a pity you thing I'm trolling now. My point was: provide, license, seem to equate in practice (in the case of open source). You have not contested this. But it's ok. I'm not trolling, but I'm not making a big issue of it either. Let it be. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Dual licensing
You might want to consider a proper dual license rather than your semi-open license. This is one thing we're considering, yes. The AFPL which is not an OSI-certified license might fit the bill for the open part: http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~ghost/doc/cvs/Public.htm, since it limits commercial use. On the other hand, downstream sharing could be accomplished with Freenet's Fairshare scheme (as opposed to a seperate license): http://freenetproject.org/index.php?page=fairshare. We'll check these references. Thanks a lot. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Dual licensing
Quoting Ian Lance Taylor ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): At this point I'm starting to doubt the value of this conversation. You seem to be frequently misunderstanding what to me seems like plain English. Is this a language problem? Or are you just trolling? Marius's native language is almost certainly Portuguese --- or, one might say, português. (He's a linguist and computer scientist with the University of Porto, who says on the Web that he's fond of the Ada programming language.) I'd rather write off most of these patterns of dispute to unfortunate mishap, and regret having responded irritably to some of his posts. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: free Re: Dual licensing
Chris F Clark scripsit: 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? I'd say it complies. -- John Cowan www.reutershealth.com www.ccil.org/~cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] 'Tis the Linux rebellion / Let coders take their place, The Linux-nationale / Shall Microsoft outpace, We can write better programs / Our CPUs won't stall, So raise the penguin banner of / The Linux-nationale. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Dual licensing
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004, Marius Amado Alves wrote: Ian, you've been most helpful, and it's a pity you thing I'm trolling now. My point was: provide, license, seem to equate in practice (in the case of open source). You have not contested this. But it's ok. I'm not trolling, but I'm not making a big issue of it either. Let it be. He has contested it - they mean entirely different things. Let me illustrate. The author gives me a copy of the software. He has *provided* it - I may or may not have paid. At this point, I have a legally optained copy of the software, and may use it. Then I want to give someone else a copy. I have no legal right to do this, so I implicitly accept the offered terms of the GPL (for example) when I do so. The product is then licensed. The important part is that it is *licensed* (this point) at no cost. That is to say, it costs me no more to be able to distribute/modify/whatever than it does to just get it. And that when I do distribute/modify/whatever, I determine the cost to the person I give it to, and keep any money I receive. If I had to give a share of this money to an upstream licensor, this would actually be, effectively, a license fee - in order to be licensed to distribute my modified copy, I have to pay a per-copy fee. -- Sam Barnett-Cormack -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Dual licensing -- other wrinkles
Dear all, The discussion has been very enlightening. Some other wrinkles I thought of: As the author of a work, I am free to license it as I will, even offering it under 2 or more licenses. Similarly I can require all contributors to allow me to do the same thing. Now: 1. Can I simply write a preamble in my headers saying if you didn't pay for this, it is licensed under GPL; if you did pay for this, you can either choose GPL or (unnamed commercial license)? 2. I'm not interested in the complexities of collecting sublicensing and subsublicensing fees -- all I want to do is, if you pay for it, you can use it any way you see fit, including except that you can't sublicense it as anything else but GPL. Would the header preamble handle this? Is it sufficient for the other license to be some sort of permissive non-reciprocal license like CPL, BSD, etc., or do I have to put more teeth into it? 3. Suppose at some later stage, I discover another GPL'ed derivative of my work in the wild. Does the fact that I have dual license mean that if the other author says, I don't want to submit this code back to you under your dual license, I cannot then incorporate his code back into my dual licensed code base? Thanks in advance for your answers. 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
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004, No Spam wrote: 3. Suppose at some later stage, I discover another GPL'ed derivative of my work in the wild. Does the fact that I have dual license mean that if the other author says, I don't want to submit this code back to you under your dual license, I cannot then incorporate his code back into my dual licensed code base? AIUI, no, you cannot, unless you make a seperate version that is *only* GPL and is not offered under any other licenses - unless *all* contributors agree to it. -- Sam Barnett-Cormack -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Dual licensing -- other wrinkles
No Spam scripsit: 1. Can I simply write a preamble in my headers saying if you didn't pay for this, it is licensed under GPL; if you did pay for this, you can either choose GPL or (unnamed commercial license)? Sure. 2. I'm not interested in the complexities of collecting sublicensing and subsublicensing fees -- all I want to do is, if you pay for it, you can use it any way you see fit, including except that you can't sublicense it as anything else but GPL. Would the header preamble handle this? Is it sufficient for the other license to be some sort of permissive non-reciprocal license like CPL, BSD, etc., or do I have to put more teeth into it? I'm not sure what the point is of doing a dual license like that. You normally dual license either to be compatible with two different codebases (both GPL and MPL, say) or to let people pay to opt out from reciprocity. 3. Suppose at some later stage, I discover another GPL'ed derivative of my work in the wild. Does the fact that I have dual license mean that if the other author says, I don't want to submit this code back to you under your dual license, I cannot then incorporate his code back into my dual licensed code base? The GPL doesn't force people to publish their changes in any way, except that if they publish modified binaries, they must publish modified sources at no additional charge (to prevent holding up the sources for ransom). If you get changes licensed under the GPL, you can't incorporate them into the commercially licensed version of your app unless the author either transfers copyright to you or gives you a license to do so -- and you can't extort consent in advance, either. -- John Cowan www.ccil.org/~cowan www.reutershealth.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] SAXParserFactory [is] a hideous, evil monstrosity of a class that should be hung, shot, beheaded, drawn and quartered, burned at the stake, buried in unconsecrated ground, dug up, cremated, and the ashes tossed in the Tiber while the complete cast of Wicked sings Ding dong, the witch is dead. --Elliotte Rusty Harold on xml-dev -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Dual licensing -- other wrinkles
Sam Barnett-Cormack scripsit: AIUI, no, you cannot, unless you make a seperate version that is *only* GPL and is not offered under any other licenses - unless *all* contributors agree to it. In fact, if you register your version with the Copyright Office and the contributor does not, you can spit on the contributor's license, because he'll only be able to sue for actual pecuniary damages, and there are none. Of course, your ethical position is then terrible. -- Is not a patron, my Lord [Chesterfield],John Cowan one who looks with unconcern on a man http://www.ccil.org/~cowan struggling for life in the water, and when http://www.reutershealth.com he has reached ground encumbers him with help? [EMAIL PROTECTED] --Samuel Johnson -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Dual licensing -- other wrinkles
Quoting No Spam ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): 1. Can I simply write a preamble in my headers saying if you didn't pay for this, it is licensed under GPL; if you did pay for this, you can either choose GPL or (unnamed commercial license)? I don't see why not. It's reasonably common to let recipients choose to accept the codebase under one or another of two (or more) alternative sets of licence conditions. OpenOffice.org does so, for example. However, in that hypothetical, a recipient who then elected GPL terms could then turn around and pass it on to other parties likewise under GPL terms (without necessarily paying you or anyone else). You might dislike not getting that second-level revenue; however, as with all copyleft licences, you as copyright holder would be the only one with the legal right to include the codebase in proprietary (or other differently-licensed) derivatives. (I'll assume, by the way, that in saying unnamed commercial licence, you mean unnamed proprietary licence.) 2. I'm not interested in the complexities of collecting sublicensing and subsublicensing fees -- all I want to do is, if you pay for it, you can use it any way you see fit, including except that you can't sublicense it as anything else but GPL. Sounds like. I've been pointing out, for years, this way of using copyleft to protect one's monopoly on certain ownership rights (such as proprietary derivatives). It's interesting to hear someone else mention the possibility. Would the header preamble handle this? Is it sufficient for the other license to be some sort of permissive non-reciprocal license like CPL, BSD, etc., or do I have to put more teeth into it? Standard answer: The right licence depends on what you want to achieve with your property. (But I think I'll be addressing your concern more precisely, below.) 3. Suppose at some later stage, I discover another GPL'ed derivative of my work in the wild. Does the fact that I have dual license mean that if the other author says, I don't want to submit this code back to you under your dual license, I cannot then incorporate his code back into my dual licensed code base? Consider: The other author can apply to his personally-written code whatever terms of use he wishes. If his chosen terms don't clash with yours, then he can redistribute the derivative work created by combining his work and your earlier one, without violating your copyright. (In your hypothetical, a qualifying licence choice on his part would be any licence that does not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted by the GPL as to your portion of the dervative work (GPLv2 clause 6). That could be a permissive (BSDish) licence, it could be pure GPLv2 terms, it could be the same terms you specified (dual-licensed), or any number of others. What you're really like, of course, would be to get the other author's work under the same terms you specified -- dual licensed. Presumably, you'd have to work out with him the revenue arrangement to divide fees from users electing [unnamed proprietary licence]. Coaxing the other author into granting that specific permission bundle might require paying him; you could alternatively just buy his copyright title. -- Cheers, Don't use Outlook. Outlook is really just a security Rick Moenhole with a small e-mail client attached to it. [EMAIL PROTECTED]-- Brian Trosko in r.a.sf.w.r-j -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Dual licensing -- other wrinkles
John Cowan, et. al.: I want to let people pay to opt out from reciprocity. However having paid to do so, and they receive the software under a permissive license, they can then re-release the software under any sort of license including a permissive license. Then a third party could use the permissive source in a proprietory product without paying me. I don't have the resources or legal training to produce my own commercial license. All I'm hoping for is either a straightforward commercial license template, or I can reuse BSD and tack on a phrase like: You may only sublicense the code under the GPL. Alternatively, I could just rely on the header preamble, assuming (?) that a user is not allowed to remove it. Then any third party coming across the code has to apply the test of whether he paid for it to the code, and so on -- if he didn't pay, it's licensed under GPL; if he did, then he can choose between GPL and BSD (for example). 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
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004, John Cowan wrote: Sam Barnett-Cormack scripsit: AIUI, no, you cannot, unless you make a seperate version that is *only* GPL and is not offered under any other licenses - unless *all* contributors agree to it. In fact, if you register your version with the Copyright Office and the contributor does not, you can spit on the contributor's license, because he'll only be able to sue for actual pecuniary damages, and there are none. Of course, your ethical position is then terrible. 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. -- Sam Barnett-Cormack -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
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: 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
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
