Re: For Approval: Open Project Public License (OPPL)
Larry Masters writes: May have to put this back on the drawing board. Basically what we are wanting to do with the license is control code created to work with the licensed software, control meaning that any software created to work with it must be released under the same license and source code made avaiable. Yes, back on the drawing board. The control you want is unavailable to OSI Certified Open Source Software. You're trying to control use. -- --My blog is at angry-economist.russnelson.com | Spinach ala mode -- a good Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | way to eat spinach? Or a 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | bad way to eat ice cream? Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | FWD# 404529 via VOIP | -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
For Approval: Open Project Public License (OPPL)
Just wanted to bring this up again. Did not have any comments on it before. Also would like some input from others if you think this covers derivatives, or other projects based on the licensed projects code. Hi I would like to submit the Open Project Public License (OPPL) for OSI compliance. This license is based on the QPL license with changes to allow distribution of combined application and other modifications noted below. (PERMISSION NOTICE) [snip] This license applies to any software containing a notice placed by the copyright holder saying that it may be distributed under the terms of the Open Project Public License (OPPL) version 1.0 or above. Such software is herein referred to as the Software. This license covers modification and distribution of the Software or components of the Software, use of third-party application programs based on the Software or components of the Software, third-party applications that interact with this software and development of free software which uses the Software or components of the Software. (GRANTED RIGHTS) [snip] 1. You are granted the non-exclusive rights set forth in this license provided you agree to and comply with any and all conditions in this license. Whole or partial distribution of the Software, items that link with the Software, items that link with a component of the Software, or items that interact with any portion of the Software in any form signifies acceptance of this license. 2. Same as QPL license 3. Remove in a form that is separate from the Software, such as patches a. Same as QPL b. Same as QPL Added sub section c. c. When modifications to the Software are released any files modified must carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change. Section 4 unchanged. 5. You may use the original or modified versions of the Software to link, run, or interact in anyway with application programs or components legally developed by you or by others. 6. You may develop application programs, reusable components and other software items that link or interact with the original or modified versions of the Software or other reusable components of the Software. These items, when distributed, are subject to the following requirements: subsections a b and c unchanged. [snip] NO WARRANTY Sections 7 and 8: verbatim of the GPL License Sections 11 and 12 MISCELLANEOUS Section 9: modified version of Section 11 of the Mozilla Public License to name venue for any disputes arising from license.(State and Court district changed) License is viewable online: http://nextco.net/~matti/awaiting_approval.htm Thank you in advance, Larry E. Masters -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Project Public License (OPPL)
On Tue, 16 Mar 2004, Larry Masters wrote: 1. You are granted the non-exclusive rights set forth in this license provided you agree to and comply with any and all conditions in this license. Whole or partial distribution of the Software, items that link with the Software, items that link with a component of the Software, or items that interact with any portion of the Software in any form signifies acceptance of this license. If I distribute an text editor that can be used to edit Software or its components, does it mean I am suddenly accepting the license because my editor is interacting with a portion of the Software in some form? Thanks, Alex. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Project Public License (OPPL)
Alex, Do you think section 5 covers this? 5. You may use the original or modified versions of the Software to link, run, or interact in anyway with application programs or components legally developed by you or by others. Larry E. Masters Alex Rousskov wrote: On Tue, 16 Mar 2004, Larry Masters wrote: 1. You are granted the non-exclusive rights set forth in this license provided you agree to and comply with any and all conditions in this license. Whole or partial distribution of the Software, items that link with the Software, items that link with a component of the Software, or items that interact with any portion of the Software in any form signifies acceptance of this license. If I distribute an text editor that can be used to edit Software or its components, does it mean I am suddenly accepting the license because my editor is interacting with a portion of the Software in some form? Thanks, Alex. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3 -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Project Public License (OPPL)
Alex, Under section 5 the user would be able to use the editor if the editor was legally created or obtained. At least this is what I would think. May have to put this back on the drawing board. Basically what we are wanting to do with the license is control code created to work with the licensed software, control meaning that any software created to work with it must be released under the same license and source code made avaiable. Larry E. Masters Alex Rousskov wrote: The hypothetical editor in question has nothing to do with Software. It does not use Software. Its author is unaware of the Software. However, Item 1 quoted below is so broad that, it seems to me, distributing said text editor would signify acceptance of this license because the editor may interact with Software in some environments. For example, a user may use the editor to edit Software. Would distributing the editor signify acceptance of the license? Alex. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Project Public License (OPPL)
Larry Masters scripsit: May have to put this back on the drawing board. Basically what we are wanting to do with the license is control code created to work with the licensed software, control meaning that any software created to work with it must be released under the same license and source code made avaiable. In that case, I suggest you consider the Open Source License or the GPL, both of which have that property. -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.reutershealth.com www.ccil.org/~cowan I come from under the hill, and under the hills and over the hills my paths led. And through the air. I am he that walks unseen. I am the clue-finder, the web-cutter, the stinging fly. I was chosen for the lucky number. --Bilbo -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Project Public License (OPPL)
On Tue, 16 Mar 2004, Larry Masters wrote: Under section 5 the user would be able to use the editor if the editor was legally created or obtained. At least this is what I would think. Agreed. My concern is not about the user of the editor, but about the author of the editor. It seems odd to me that innocent actions of unsuspecting author automatically signify acceptance of your license. Again, the author and the editor have nothing to do with Software, but the editor may interact in some form with your Software, just because editors can edit any software. In other words, by saying interact with Software in any form you are subjecting the whole world to your license, and that seems wrong, even for a viral license. An editor interacts with Software. An ISP carrying Software bits over the network interacts with Software. A web browser displaying Software sources interacts with Software. A compiler compiling Software interacts with Software. Revision control system interacts with Software. Etc., etc. All these interactions should be out of your license scope, I guess, but they seem to automatically signify acceptance instead. May have to put this back on the drawing board. Basically what we are wanting to do with the license is control code created to work with the licensed software, control meaning that any software created to work with it must be released under the same license and source code made avaiable. I understand the intent. IMHO, you need to define created to work with the licensed software in a much more narrow sense than any form of interaction for the license to be sane/certifiable. An editor is created to work with any software sources and, hence, with your Software. Same for debugger, compiler, etc. But all of them should be outside of your license restrictions. Does this clarify? Thanks, Alex. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Project Public License (OPPL)
John, I do not agree that the GPL would work for this. I have seen problems in other projects where someone creates an program to work with another program but the source code is not released because it is argued that the new program is not derived from the other, which with my understanding of the GPL and US copyright law this could be true that the new program is not derived. Program X does this. Program Y does something else, but will work with Program X. The GPL also states that the license covers works as a whole. We want to make sure that even a plugin when distributed by itself must follow the license of the original program, and make source code available. The QPL is somthing like what we want, but it did not allow releasing modified version of the original program as a whole, you can only release patches. Larry E. Masters John Cowan wrote: Larry Masters scripsit: May have to put this back on the drawing board. Basically what we are wanting to do with the license is control code created to work with the licensed software, control meaning that any software created to work with it must be released under the same license and source code made avaiable. In that case, I suggest you consider the Open Source License or the GPL, both of which have that property. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Project Public License (OPPL)
On Tue, 16 Mar 2004, Larry Masters wrote: I have seen problems in other projects where someone creates an program to work with another program but the source code is not released because it is argued that the new program is not derived from the other, which with my understanding of the GPL and US copyright law this could be true that the new program is not derived. Program X does this. Program Y does something else, but will work with Program X. My understanding is that ones license cannot restrict something that has not been derived from ones work. And for a good reason! Alex. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Project Public License (OPPL)
Larry Masters scripsit: I have seen problems in other projects where someone creates an program to work with another program but the source code is not released because it is argued that the new program is not derived from the other, which with my understanding of the GPL and US copyright law this could be true that the new program is not derived. Program X does this. Program Y does something else, but will work with Program X. The trouble is that it's impossible to say where the borderline is. A Windows version of your program works with Windows, and a Linux version works with Linux, neither of which is under your license. Even if we neglect the operating system, what about a program under your license which generates output on the standard output? If you use a pager (such as more or less), your program is working with the pager, which is under the GPL or BSD license depending on which version it is. And so on. I fear you are asking more than is reasonable. -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.reutershealth.comhttp://www.ccil.org/~cowan .e'osai ko sarji la lojban. Please support Lojban! http://www.lojban.org -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Project Public License (OPPL)
John and Alex, How does this sound? Original QPL version: 1. You are granted the non-exclusive rights set forth in this license provided you agree to and comply with any and all conditions in this license. Whole or partial distribution of the Software, or software items that link with the Software, in any form signifies acceptance of this license. OPPL 1. You are granted the non-exclusive rights set forth in this license provided you agree to and comply with any and all conditions in this license. Whole or partial distribution of the Software, *items that link with the Software, items that link with a component of the Software, or* items that interact with any portion of the Software to form an extended version of the Software signifies acceptance of this license. It may also be possible to leave out the quoted text above, or add the text to form an extended version of the Software after those 2 items??? I do thank you both for your time. BTW this is for a scripted project using PHP that can be extended using plugins. Larry E. Masters -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Project Public License (OPPL)
On Tue, 16 Mar 2004, Larry Masters wrote: Whole or partial distribution of the Software, *items that link with the Software, items that link with a component of the Software, or* items that interact with any portion of the Software to form an extended version of the Software signifies acceptance of this license. It may also be possible to leave out the quoted text above, or add the text to form an extended version of the Software after those 2 items??? How do you define an extended version of the Software? Is it different than a derivative work based on the Software? For example, does a PHP compiler that produces bytecode from your scripts interact to form an extended version of your software? Does a webserver that produces HTML from your scripts interact to form an extended version of your software? It looks like the answer could be yes in both cases. Also, how does one define a minimal component that is still protected by the license? Your license says any portion. I suspect that small pieces of your Software will be repeated by other authors without any intentional relation to your Software. Is mentioning of any portion significant? Thanks, Alex. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
