Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
On Sun, 2003-09-28 at 19:09, John Cowan wrote: David Presotto scripsit: As an aside, it might have been less inflamatory if the license has said ``if source of the program and any derivatives is distributed under an inheritive license (e.g. GPL), it must ALSO be distributed under this license.'' Then Sean would always have access to changed code for his proprietary works if anyone has access to them. Someone must have suggested this already but I don't see it in the archive. No, no one has, and I think this is quite a clever idea. It's appropriate to apply it to derivative works only, not to to distributions of unchanged code. I once asked Stallman about this and he claimed that such a license would be incompatible with the GPL. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
RE: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
On Sat, 27 Sep 2003, Lawrence E. Rosen wrote: I'm sorry that I'm coming in late to this conversation but I've been busy. I'm concerned about the following section of the proposed license: 4. Redistributions of source code must not be used in conjunction with any software license that requires disclosure of source code (ex: the GNU Public License, hereafter known as the GPL). Licenses seem sometimes to be used as weapons rather than to foster freely reusable code. In this case, the author has made clear, he wants to allow his software to be used with proprietary derivative works but not with the GPL. It is, I guess, the anti-GPL license. In that sense, I think, it violates the OSD. Which term? The discrimination clauses, #4 and #5, talk about persons or groups, and fields of endeavor. Defining what either of those mean has always been troublesome. An easy test is nationality (can't deny Polish citizens, for example) or career (can't deny the military). It's a big stretch to try and claim that people who use the GPL is a group or field of endeavor - because if we did, every term of every license could be challenged as OSI-incompatible. I suppose we could point to #9, and claim that the word use in the above section is too vague and could apply to mere aggregation on a single distribution medium. Or that use in the context of using OSSAL software on a GNU-licensed operating system is also too vague. But as far as I can tell, the proposed license is anti-GPL in the same way that the GPL itself is anti-everything-that-isn't-a-subset-of-the-GPL. We may not think it's a very good license, most of us would probably lobby against its use, but I can't see a term of the OSD that it violates (at least the section above, I've not read the full OSSAL license). Whether Sean realizes it or not, I think Ernie Prabhakar captured Sean's primary concern most closely: that a GPL-only fork would arise and capture more development momentum than a BSD-licensed original. I can't recall that ever happening, but I do hear similar sentiments from Apache members from time to time. OpenOffice has had issues with developers fixing bugs or adding new features but only offering those patches under the GPL, rather than granting them to Sun to dual-license under GPL and SISSL. On 6/30/2003 Brian Behlendorf asked this list to consider a recent Microsoft license provision that read as follows: [You agree] [t]hat you are not allowed to combine or distribute the Software with other software that is licensed under terms that seek to require that the Software (or any intellectual property in it) be provided in source code form, licensed to others to allow the creation or distribution of derivative works, or distributed without charge. Once again, this is a license that says don't use that license rather than do use this license. The former wording seems like discrimination to me and the latter like any reciprocal license we've approved since the beginning. I don't recall a consensus being formed as to whether the above violated any OSD term. Of course I'm not pushing for that license to be certified, neither do we see anyone from Microsoft here to push it, but it's still an interesting test case IMHO. Is that a distinction without a difference? Or should we assert that licenses of the form don't use that license are contrary to the OSD because they discriminate? I would wonder whether you can reasonably define use above in a way that doesn't de-qualify the GPL. Brian -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
On Sun, 28 Sep 2003, Russell Nelson wrote: Brian Behlendorf writes: It's not flame bait. Show me an open source license that specifies that each user pay the copyright holder for use. You could have a license which specifies that each user have to pay the copyright holder when they get the software from the copyright holder. It would have to allow others to redistribute it without fee, but the license itself *could* require payment upon recipt from the copyright holder. Some people would be perfectly willing to pay. That doesn't meet the requirement above. You're saying I could charge for the act of allowing a download to someone. Very different than what I suggest above. Note I'm not trying to argue that such a license (every user pays a fee) is what OSI should be worried about accomodating or anything. For good reason any such license would fail the OSD. I'm just saying that there are people out there who passionately cling to the notion that if you get value for using a piece of software, you should be paying the authors of that software, and that charity as the motivation to pay isn't strong enough. Whether that notion, like the notion that a musician or filmmaker should also be paid by everyone who enjoys their work (see: RIAA, etc), will die a quick or a slow death, or even die at all, is an open question. Brian -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
Chip Salzenberg writes: According to Brian Behlendorf: ... there are people out there who passionately cling to the notion that if you get value for using a piece of software, you should be paying the authors of that software ... What if the authors are of a different opinion? Are you suggesting that charity should be illegal? (- strawman alert) It depends on whether should is to be enforced violently or non-violently. Are we still on topic here? I'm sure I'm not, and maybe you weren't either, so I'll not press the issue. -- --My blog is at angry-economist.russnelson.com | Can I recommend python? Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | Just a thought. 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | -Dr. Jamey Hicks Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
According to Brian Behlendorf: ... there are people out there who passionately cling to the notion that if you get value for using a piece of software, you should be paying the authors of that software ... What if the authors are of a different opinion? Are you suggesting that charity should be illegal? (- strawman alert) Or did you mean, there are people who believe you should pay them if they wrote or otherwise contributed to software you use? At which point you're in the land of proprietary software and on the wrong list. -- Chip Salzenberg - a.k.a. - [EMAIL PROTECTED] I wanted to play hopscotch with the impenetrable mystery of existence, but he stepped in a wormhole and had to go in early. // MST3K -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
The OSSAL lets widget makers who use the same set of modules, ensure that any work on the modules that they have an interest in (that is done in the public), will be usable to them in a product. So? Let's say that somebody wanted to donate a module back to you, but they wanted to use a proprietary license? You'd refuse it, right? Does that proprietary license allow me to include the changes into my repo and under the terms of the OSSAL? If so, I have no problems with it. :) If not, then that widget maker would be stuck maintaining the changes as newer versions are released. The whole point of the OSSAL is for the widget maker is to reduce their costs by releasing usable software to other widget makers. If the widget maker is dependent on software from 8 different modules, what incentive do they have to make a change and release that change under terms != OSSAL? A widget maker is a market driven force interested in reducing costs. Why should the GPL be any different to you? A patch under the GPL is the same as a patch released in an unusable form. My bias and the OSSALs bias against the GPL stems from the terms in the GPL that prevent me from using GPL'ed code in products. I want this to happen: http://www.deadly.org/article.php3?sid=20030927090008 But it can't happen with GPL software (if Interix wants to make money that is). In this case, Interix won because it used BSDL code (from which the OSSAL is derived), but the community may not win (i.e. reciprocal flow of code) because Interix has no protection that their changes won't be snagged by an organization/group that hasn't helped them out (I know that a competitor could grab their changes, but libc is as far from trade secret code as it gets). Assuming a competitor grabs the code and future versions don't have those changes, both companies have to burden the costs independently of maintaining those changes. Widget makers want to reduce costs and engineers are lazy and will punt the code as fast as they can. -sc -- Sean Chittenden -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
I think if I were to remove the following from the clause, (ex: the GNU Public License, hereafter known as the GPL), the discussion wouldn't have been nearly as involved. *sigh* On the contrary, the words in parentheses only clarify the previous words. Yes, you have been very careful in drafting the license to be OSD compliant, but your craftiness makes me think of suggesting an amendment to the OSD. Few days back, we had a discussion on use of non-free interfaces to free software - and the particular example used was use of CORBA interface to a GPL'ed application. My understanding of the consensus on this list is that it is permissible, because writing an interface to a GPL'ed program does not amount to creation of a derivative work. On the other hand, the proposed OSSA license does not permit this, and is therefore, discriminatory. The infringing portion is:- 'must not be linked to software that is released with a license' ^^ If I'm a widget maker, I can't use a piece of code that's only available under the terms of the GPL. How else can I ensure that software is GPL free or that there is an alternative software available? trollI just assume push software developers away from depending on any GPL software in any way, shape, or form and retire the license and its software as the biggest evolutionary mistake in software's history./troll If this clears the OSD, it is OSD which should be changed. The entire spirit behind the OSS movement is to prevent fragmentation of s/w, and s/w which will not interact with each other. OSSAL explicitly enables this. No, the OSSAL is a counter reactionary license to the GPL. The GPL created the need for the OSSAL because it fragmented the open source software market by alienating widget makers from depending on what should be freely available software that can be downloaded on the local mirror/CVSup server. -sc -- Sean Chittenden -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
Sean Chittenden writes: Why should the GPL be any different to you? A patch under the GPL is the same as a patch released in an unusable form. My bias and the OSSALs bias against the GPL stems from the terms in the GPL that prevent me from using GPL'ed code in products. Exactly my point. It's not the GPL that you're biased against, but that's how you have your license written. As such, it will fail to achieve your stated goals. On the other hand, the EU Datagrid license will. I strongly suggest that you use their license, which I will be sending to the board for approval in short order. -- --My blog is at angry-economist.russnelson.com | Can I recommend python? Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | Just a thought. 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | -Dr. Jamey Hicks Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
Because I want widget makers to be able to take OSSAL code, and use it in proprietary products. But that's what the FSF is doing! Why don't you want them to do it? The OSSAL lets widget makers who use the same set of modules, ensure that any work on the modules that they have an interest in (that is done in the public), will be usable to them in a product. So? Let's say that somebody wanted to donate a module back to you, but they wanted to use a proprietary license? You'd refuse it, right? Why should the GPL be any different to you? I have to disagree here. It is true that it is up to the original author whether or not he takes back derivative works that return with a viral (inheritive?) clause like GPL does. However, there is little incentive for modifiers that have no interest in other peoples' propietary abilities to avoid things like the GPL. In fact, there may be some incentive to use the GPL because that's what many of your friends are using and hence the 'default' choice. Even if the changes are redistributed both under the original license and the GPL, the more popular one will eventually win out as third and fourth parties eventually get lazier and don't feel like using two licenses. I am of the firm belief that BSD/OSSAL software will exist as long as markets exist. If code is released under the OSSAL and if that code is really cool, people might still use and improve on it even though its not under the GPL. In essense, its requirement might push more people into making improvements that can be incorporated into proprietary code than without the OSSAL. That's my whole theory/prediction. If OSSAL code can be used in products, widget makers will lend resources to improve the OSSAL code where appropriate and push those changes back to the community because of source code maintenance costs. Of course, the question of whether or not that's a realistic expectation is open to debate. I believe the only way to really find out is to try it. Trying it with or without the OSI's approval makes a big difference in its eventual probability of success. Many organizations look to the OSI as a guiding light for what's a fair license and what isn't (or even what's considered a valid license! ex: freshmeat.net). Right now the members of this list (but hopefully not the OSI Board) are bent on arguing that OSI and the OSD is responsible for only permitting licenses that GPL compatible. The GPL is not compatible with widget makers. Why should widget makers be excluded from participating in the open source movement? I see no reason provided their interests are protected. As an aside, it might have been less inflamatory if the license has said ``if source of the program and any derivatives is distributed under an inheritive license (e.g. GPL), it must ALSO be distributed under this license.'' Then Sean would always have access to changed code for his proprietary works if anyone has access to them. Someone must have suggested this already but I don't see it in the archive. Inflammatory to who? To GPL users? Look at the reaction that Microsoft has to the GPL? Heck, I'm inclined to agree with some of their critiques of the GPL. Look at my reaction to the GPL: the OSSAL. At least I'm here asking for review and critiques from some people in the open source community. I thought about changing the words in the OSSAL to read as follows: frag 3. Redistributions of source code and contributions (i.e. patches) to source code may be licensed under more than one license and must not have the terms of the OSSAL removed. If there are conflicting terms between one or more licenses and the OSSAL, the terms in the conflicting license must defer to the corresponding terms in the OSSAL or the terms of the conflicting license are waived. 4. If redistributions of source code, in either a textual or non-textual form and any contributions made to source code, in either a textual or non-textual form, are distributed under an inheritive license, source code and its contributions must also be distributed under the terms of the OSSAL. 5. Redistributions of source code in either a textual or non-textual form must not exclusively depend on software that requires disclosure of source code unless an acceptable, usable, and non-commercially available alternative exists in the market place. /frag But that dilutes my intentions and isn't nearly as vitriolic or elegant as the original. I'm still crafting and will come up with another draft in a bit. -sc -- Sean Chittenden -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
Because I believe that if I provide, as an example, a programming language and someone writes a module for that language, the least that the module author can do is release the module under business friendly terms. If someone writes a module for my lang but releases it under the GPL, if I want to use that module, I have to duplicate that effort. The problem here, Sean, which you seem to be ignoring, is that you're treating the GPL as if it were somehow *worse* than a proprietary license. It isn't. Ah, but it is though. Hear me out: A proprietary license doesn't foster a community to stand behind it to work on software that is unavailable to widget makers. The GPL was, with I believe malintent, crafted specifically toward preventing widget makers from basing products on existing code. Further, the GPL encourages primary copyright holders to release code that is unusable to anyone but the primary copyright holders. It is, at its worst, identical to a proprietary license. Since you claim to believe that proprietary licensing is good and you want to encourage proprietary licensing, why have you written a license which says that one kind of proprietary license is good, and yet another is bad? Could you try to explain this to me? A proprietary license is only as good as the usability of the contribution to the rest of the community. If the license makes the code unusable, then the contribution isn't usable either. I'm less concerned about proprietary licenses (as explained in previous emails) as I am with widget makers being able to take existing code and use it in interesting and novel ways, while at the same time allowing those contributions to flow backwards to the community without hindering a widget maker's desire to lend resources to open source projects/modules. -sc -- Sean Chittenden -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
If the changes are outside of the scope of a business's core, then maintaining those changes is expensive and it is in the businesses best interests to release those changes. The OSSAL prevents those changes from being licensed under the GPL, making those changes available to other widget makers. You aren't answering Ian's question (which is also my question). What is the difference between this proprietary license: You can do anything to this code but sell it and the GPL? Both of them interfere with solving the problem that you say the OSSAL addresses. Yet the OSSAL only prohibits the latter and not the former. Correct, that's for market forces to correct, not some chunk of legalese. See previous posts about why the GPL is not looked kindly upon by me or the OSSAL. -sc -- Sean Chittenden -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
Changes made to the BSD code by the authors of the GPL product are changes that are available only under the GPL. Yes, and changes made to the BSD code by the authors of a proprietary product are changes that are only available to the authors of the proprietary product. What's the essential difference? If the changes are outside of the scope of a business's core, then maintaining those changes is expensive and it is in the businesses best interests to release those changes. The OSSAL prevents those changes from being licensed under the GPL, making those changes available to other widget makers. That did not answer my question. Please try again. Your statement also happens to be at least partly false. The copyright holder of code can license it under whatever restrictions it chooses. In particular, the copyright holder can license the code to itself under the OSSAL, and to everybody else under the GPL. Correct, but now the author has to maintain the changes if they want to keep it licensed under the GPL. I like some of the wording from a revised version of the OSSAL that I have yet to publish, which states: 4. If redistributions of source code, in either a textual or non-textual form and any contributions made to source code, in either a textual or non-textual form, are distributed under an inheritive license, source code and its contributions must also be distributed under the terms of the OSSAL. Which prevents exactly what you're implying, but does so by stooping to the tactics that the GPL uses, which I find reprehensible. This is something that I haven't reconciled with myself yet and likely will in the next day or two (translation: more scotch needeth be applied). That is, the copyright holder can release the code under the GPL, while still using it in a proprietary product. You've several times mentioned that you are concerned about new modules. If those new modules are not derivative works of the original OSSAL code, but merely use an API which it provides, then this can be done with an OSSAL project. Which is fine, 'cause the language itself is going to be distributed under a contract that requires redistributed modules be available under the terms of the OSSAL. Naturally nobody other than the copyright holder can take this GPL code, link it to OSSAL code, and redistribute the result in binary form. However, anybody can take this GPL code and redistribute the source, and that same anybody can take the original OSSAL code and redistribute the source of that. Users can link the resuting code together, provided they do not redistribute the resulting binary. Which is what you'd do if you're making widgets... So the source code can get released, it can in principle be used, and yet it will be under the GPL even though the original code was under the OSSAL. This approach would work nicely in the BSD pkgsrc system, though binary packages would not be permitted. Which isn't very practical for installation CD's in the case of Open Office or KDE or Mozilla, or anything that takes an appreciable amount of time to compile. This would admittedly be a mildly perverse exercise. Yet it is the type of exercise which you say that you are concerned about. If any ``widget maker'' would go to the trouble of releasing GPL modules of BSD licensed code, they could easily go to the only slightly greater trouble of doing the same thing with OSSAL licensed code. Which, now that you point it out, is something I need to think about. I think I'll resort to having my legal staff ensure that contributions are released under the OSSAL much the same way the EFF does with contributions to gcc. In practice I don't know of any widget maker who has even bothered to release GPL versions of BSD licensed code; it seems like a pointless exercise in bad public relations. Do you know of any companies which have done this? The Linux kernel? This type of trick can also be done with the GPL, of course, but the results are relatively ineffective because the GPL imposes restrictions on any redistribution of GPL code. The OSSAL does not impose any restrictions until a copyleft license enters the mix, so the only effort needed is to keep the copyleft license out until it is too late. Point taken, I'll stew on this a bit. Since the OSSAL operates with the assumption of reciprocity amongst its users/community, I'm not sure this is a problem I'd solve with license restrictions. *still thinking about this* -sc -- Sean Chittenden -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
Why should the GPL be any different to you? A patch under the GPL is the same as a patch released in an unusable form. My bias and the OSSALs bias against the GPL stems from the terms in the GPL that prevent me from using GPL'ed code in products. Exactly my point. It's not the GPL that you're biased against, but that's how you have your license written. Well, I am though. I'm biased against open source software that can't be used in a product. The GPL is the anti-collaboration between widget makers license. I'm not particularly biased against the LGPL or most any other license in existence that sees the light of day in the open source community (save maybe the license that Java's released under). As such, it will fail to achieve your stated goals. I think I'll achieve my goals because of the contributions of the folks on this list and duly appreciate your help in aiding my efforts. On the other hand, the EU Datagrid license will. I strongly suggest that you use their license, which I will be sending to the board for approval in short order. I'm interested in the EU Datagrid license to see if it meets my needs, but I haven't read it yet. -sc -- Sean Chittenden -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003, Sean Chittenden wrote: The problem here, Sean, which you seem to be ignoring, is that you're treating the GPL as if it were somehow *worse* than a proprietary license. It isn't. Ah, but it is though. Hear me out: A proprietary license doesn't foster a community to stand behind it to work on software that is unavailable to widget makers. Well, it seems the OSSAL fosters a community to stand behind it to work on software that may be later *usurped* by widget makers. See below. The GPL was, with I believe malintent, crafted specifically toward preventing widget makers from basing products on existing code. Further, the GPL encourages primary copyright holders to release code that is unusable to anyone but the primary copyright holders. Speaking of malintent, it may be argued that the OSSAL encourages a corporation with a large amount of financial backing to issue a large upgrade to their or someone else's open source product and issuing it as closed source software for sale, thereby essentially doing a bait and switch tactic. But this is already allowable under BSD. No, the OSSAL tries to *prohibit* someone else from exercising the same freedoms over the code to create a GPL fork. That said, I'm not arguing malintent in *either* case -- I'm merely stating that your implicit claim of the moral high ground does not, imho, withstand strutiny. * * * * * I am neither a lawyer nor a software licensing expert. However, I have written, and continue to write, open source software, and I am privileged to listen in on the very educational discussions on this list. In that spirit, I would like to suggest that the issue at hand cannot be resolved by the Dialectic -- arguments to zero in on the truth. Sean is, as far as I can tell, coming from a politically rightist perspective, whereas folks like RMS are coming from a leftist perspective. Perhaps, unless the OSSAL can be clearly shown to conflict with an OSD clause, it should be ratified, and this issue put to rest. I for one cannot imagine myself ever using the OSSAL -- and this is to put it mildly. If the majority of my colleagues feel the same way, the OSSAL will die on the vine. If not, then perhaps there is some groundswell of support for a pro business open source consortium, however ill-conceived I and some members of this list may think its founding canon may be. To the extent that I see this as a political issue, and if indeed there is such a groundswell, I'm not sure if this is an avoidable outcome. My regards and peace, Ihab -- Ihab A.B. Awad [EMAIL PROTECTED] Department of Genetics Stanford University -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
The problem here, Sean, which you seem to be ignoring, is that you're treating the GPL as if it were somehow *worse* than a proprietary license. It isn't. Ah, but it is though. Hear me out: A proprietary license doesn't foster a community to stand behind it to work on software that is unavailable to widget makers. Well, it seems the OSSAL fosters a community to stand behind it to work on software that may be later *usurped* by widget makers. See below. The GPL was, with I believe malintent, crafted specifically toward preventing widget makers from basing products on existing code. Further, the GPL encourages primary copyright holders to release code that is unusable to anyone but the primary copyright holders. Speaking of malintent, it may be argued that the OSSAL encourages a corporation with a large amount of financial backing to issue a large upgrade to their or someone else's open source product and issuing it as closed source software for sale, thereby essentially doing a bait and switch tactic. But this is already allowable under BSD. No, the OSSAL tries to *prohibit* someone else from exercising the same freedoms over the code to create a GPL fork. But that's free enterprise and something that they can do... now they have to maintain it, perform their own audits, etc. While I personally would request that those changes be sent back to the community, I believe it to be the large corporation's right to do so. In granting them that right, I also am granted the right to do the same if I see it fit. That's free will and the right or wrong choice will be determined by the markets. [snip] In that spirit, I would like to suggest that the issue at hand cannot be resolved by the Dialectic -- arguments to zero in on the truth. I fully agree that there is next to zero chance for a complete consensus as to what's right, best, etc., but I think that arguments such as these are a wonderful tool/aid to strengthening each everyone's positions (for better or worse) and then letting life determine the rest. Sean is, as far as I can tell, coming from a politically rightist perspective, whereas folks like RMS are coming from a leftist perspective. Please, please, please don't lump me in with the political right wingers. The extent of what I will say on politics is that I believe in market driven economies and letting _open_ markets correct themselves. The Open Source world is as good of an open market as I've ever seen. [snip] -sc -- Sean Chittenden -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
Right now the members of this list (but hopefully not the OSI Board) are bent on arguing that OSI and the OSD is responsible for only permitting licenses that GPL compatible. Not at all. I think your license is open source, and I said so. My apologies. I've gotten so many responses that I forget who has said what. -sc -- Sean Chittenden -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
'tips hat to a BSDer and [snips] Just to make sure things are clear: I don't think anyone on this list would argue that OSI should beonly permitting licenses that GPL compatible. In fact, the OSI has approved numerous licenses that are GPL-incompatible. Further, any of us come from the BSD tradition and have our own issues with the GPL, though we try to respect and understand their 'business model'. *chuckles at business model* Also, you should realize that while the OSI board makes decisions that are -informed by- this dialogue, but since this group doesn't speak with a coherent voice they aren't required to follow us in any formal way. In fact, I think I've noticed several distinct criticisms of your license, which its important not to confuse: *nods* Let me run through this excellent as a way to hopefully pair down the threads that are worth engaging in: A. It is morally wrong to create a license incompatible with the GPL *nods* I don't think this will be resolved by anything anyone says and is a difference of ideological opinions (which everyone is entitled to and is a good thing(TM)). B. It is pointless to create such a license, since you're solving a non-existing problem. Subject to debate, decided by the author and influenced by the decision reached by the OSI board and members of this list. C. As a practical matter, it is a bad idea to openly criticize the GPL :-/ Agreed, I'm sure I didn't win any points in doing so. D. The license as written doesn't accomplish your stated goal, regardless of whether or not that goal as valid Short of a signed contract, fully accomplishing that goal is impossible, but it doesn't prevent the goal from being stated as a guiding light/statement of philosophy for the community. E. There's other licenses (like the EU DataGrid) which accomplish your purposes just as effectively, and we should avoid needless duplication, so please use that instead. Yeah, I read this license and liked it with the exception of one point: contributions to EUDGL software can be hopelessly interdependent on GPL bits, which I'm not wild about. [snip] Enough meta-rambling; back to the debate... Whoa! Wait a sec, you mean code talks and there's more to software than its license? :) -sc -- Sean Chittenden -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003, Sean Chittenden wrote: Speaking of malintent, it may be argued that the OSSAL encourages a corporation with a large amount of financial backing to issue a large upgrade to their or someone else's open source product and issuing it as closed source software for sale, thereby essentially doing a bait and switch tactic. But this is already allowable under BSD. No, the OSSAL tries to *prohibit* someone else from exercising the same freedoms over the code to create a GPL fork. But that's free enterprise and something that they can do... now they have to maintain it, perform their own audits, etc. I agree. I was merely reacting to your use of the word malintent. Sean is, as far as I can tell, coming from a politically rightist perspective, whereas folks like RMS are coming from a leftist perspective. Please, please, please don't lump me in with the political right wingers. My apologies for the lumping. I sincerely thought this would be a statement with which you would agree and which would help clarify things. The extent of what I will say on politics is that I believe in market driven economies and letting _open_ markets correct themselves. The Open Source world is as good of an open market as I've ever seen. Great. As I said before, I am personally in favor of you joining this market, your chosen terms of trade in hand. Peace, Ihab -- Ihab A.B. Awad [EMAIL PROTECTED] Department of Genetics Stanford University -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
Quoting Ernie Prabhakar ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): In fact, I think I've noticed several distinct criticisms of your license, which its important not to confuse: A. It is morally wrong to create a license incompatible with the GPL That would be a claim that, if actually expressed here (and I don't remember it being) would be rather silly unto self-parody, off-topic, and a waste of everyone's time. B. It is pointless to create such a license, since you're solving a non-existing problem. I'm not sure if you're referring to my feedback here, or not. If so, I said that _one_ of problems that Sean claimed on-list that OSSAL solves is by operation of copyright law inherently non-existent, that of non-copyleft codebases being converted to copyleft terms. I hope my analysis left the truth of that point clear. The other aim, of preventing redistribution of derivative works that include copylefted code, seemed so obviously inherently within the licensor's discretion, if that's what floats his boat, as to be not worthy of comment. Plenty of other OSI-approved licences conflict with sundry copylefted ones, and claiming that constitutes discrimination against particular fields of endeavour is absurd. Some people here have expressed personal views that Sean's cementing of his hobbyhorse into licence text is against his long-term interest. Me, I figure he probably knows what he wants, and that the main question of interest is OSD-compliance. (It looks OSD-compliant to me, just riddled with squirrely wording in places, that badly needs a good editor: E.g., what exactly does it mean for a redistribution to be used in conjunction with something? Call in the Rewrite staff, Sean.) C. As a practical matter, it is a bad idea to openly criticize the GPL I can't remember anyone saying that it was a bad idea. Boring as all hell, and a waste of everyone's time, but that's a different matter. -- Cheers, By reading this sentence, you agree to be bound by the Rick Moen terms of the Internet Protocol, version 4, or, at your [EMAIL PROTECTED] option, any later version. -- Seth David Schoen -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
Quoting Sean Chittenden ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): Right now the members of this list (but hopefully not the OSI Board) are bent on arguing that OSI and the OSD is responsible for only permitting licenses that GPL compatible. I can't think of a way to say this that's not blunt, so what the hell: Sean, I really think you need to switch to decaf. It should be blindingly obvious to you that the OSI has a very long track record of approving (not permitting) licences that aren't GPL-compatible. For heaven's sake, read the ever-loving list of approved licences, already! Start with the old BSD licence, whose advertising clause renders it GPL-incompatible, and keep moving down through OSI history to the present. The GPL is not compatible with widget makers. People employing numerous counter-examples in business would differ. But, Sean, you would have fewer problems with people poking holes in the logic of your GPL-is-bad factual claims if you would stick to the subject, which is OSD-compliance of your licence. Whether your licence is good, bad, or indifferent for for man, beast, and various segments of each is really irrelevant to what you _claimed_ is your goal in raising this topic in the first place -- i.e., evaluation of your licence. So, please skip all the justifications for your licence and sundry criticisms of software ecologies you don't like: They're irrelevant to the subject, and of minor interest at best. -- Cheers, Rick Moen ROMANI, ITE DOMVM! [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
On Mon Sep 29 17:20:36 EDT 2003, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As an aside, it might have been less inflamatory if the license has said ``if source of the program and any derivatives is distributed under an inheritive license (e.g. GPL), it must ALSO be distributed under this license.'' Then Sean would always have access to changed code for his proprietary works if anyone has access to them. Someone must have suggested this already but I don't see it in the archive. Inflammatory to who? To GPL users? Look at the reaction that Microsoft has to the GPL? Heck, I'm inclined to agree with some of their critiques of the GPL. Look at my reaction to the GPL: the OSSAL. At least I'm here asking for review and critiques from some people in the open source community. I thought about changing the words in the OSSAL to read as follows: frag 3. Redistributions of source code and contributions (i.e. patches) to source code may be licensed under more than one license and must not have the terms of the OSSAL removed. If there are conflicting terms between one or more licenses and the OSSAL, the terms in the conflicting license must defer to the corresponding terms in the OSSAL or the terms of the conflicting license are waived. 4. If redistributions of source code, in either a textual or non-textual form and any contributions made to source code, in either a textual or non-textual form, are distributed under an inheritive license, source code and its contributions must also be distributed under the terms of the OSSAL. 5. Redistributions of source code in either a textual or non-textual form must not exclusively depend on software that requires disclosure of source code unless an acceptable, usable, and non-commercially available alternative exists in the market place. /frag Infammatory to me, just as the GPL is; I don't like restrictions. I'm equally bothered by the indemnity clause that appears in my LPL license. However, just because I don't really want to use either the GPL or OSSAL, I would still call them equally open source. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
Sean Chittenden said on Sat, Sep 27, 2003 at 08:07:51PM -0700,: I think if I were to remove the following from the clause, (ex: the GNU Public License, hereafter known as the GPL), the discussion wouldn't have been nearly as involved. *sigh* On the contrary, the words in parentheses only clarify the previous words. Yes, you have been very careful in drafting the license to be OSD compliant, but your craftiness makes me think of suggesting an amendment to the OSD. Few days back, we had a discussion on use of non-free interfaces to free software - and the particular example used was use of CORBA interface to a GPL'ed application. My understanding of the consensus on this list is that it is permissible, because writing an interface to a GPL'ed program does not amount to creation of a derivative work. On the other hand, the proposed OSSA license does not permit this, and is therefore, discriminatory. The infringing portion is:- 'must not be linked to software that is released with a license' ^^ If this clears the OSD, it is OSD which should be changed. The entire spirit behind the OSS movement is to prevent fragmentation of s/w, and s/w which will not interact with each other. OSSAL explicitly enables this. -- +~+ Mahesh T. Pai, LL.M., 'NANDINI', S. R. M. Road, Ernakulam, Cochin-682018, Kerala, India. http://in.geocities.com/paivakil +~+ -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
Sean Chittenden writes: Correct, but the BSD license does not ensure that all software developed will be available under terms friendly for businesses, which goes back to the point of me writing the OSSAL. Neither does the OSSAL. Anybody can make changes to OSSAL-licensed code and not distribute it under terms friendly for businesses. Everybody except businesses which distribute GPLed software. Your licenses fails to achieve its goal. -- --My blog is at angry-economist.russnelson.com | Can I recommend python? Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | Just a thought. 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | -Dr. Jamey Hicks Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
Mike Wattier writes: The OSI is a political organization yeah.. and IMHO this is the very reason that many who want to support the Open Source community, will not do so. It is slowly becoming a cheerleading section for the GPL. Not really. The GPL is legally troubled. It attempts to do things which require formation of a contract, and yet it explicitly claims to not be a license but instead only copyright permissions. The Open Software License is a better, if lesser known choice. Well..there are those within the community to which the GPL is a hindrance, plain and simple. The only reason I can see for this is because you wish to siphon work out of the community's tank. Those of us who own small businesses have needs that are not being met by currently defined OSI approved licenses, Then devise a license which fits under the Open Source Definition. No worries, mate. for doing this, however the trend on new license submissions is always use an existing license or use the GPL Indeed, yes. License proliferation is a problem, particularly when the terms conflict. -- --My blog is at angry-economist.russnelson.com | Can I recommend python? Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | Just a thought. 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | -Dr. Jamey Hicks Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
Brian Behlendorf writes: It's not flame bait. Show me an open source license that specifies that each user pay the copyright holder for use. You could have a license which specifies that each user have to pay the copyright holder when they get the software from the copyright holder. It would have to allow others to redistribute it without fee, but the license itself *could* require payment upon recipt from the copyright holder. Some people would be perfectly willing to pay. The requisite licensing doesn't force you to change your business model to distribute open source software. You just have to use a license which tolerates that action which is commonly called piracy. Microsoft tolerates piracy of its software in certain cases, so clearly piracy is to the benefit of even the most proprietary software company. -- --My blog is at angry-economist.russnelson.com | Can I recommend python? Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | Just a thought. 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | -Dr. Jamey Hicks Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
David Presotto scripsit: As an aside, it might have been less inflamatory if the license has said ``if source of the program and any derivatives is distributed under an inheritive license (e.g. GPL), it must ALSO be distributed under this license.'' Then Sean would always have access to changed code for his proprietary works if anyone has access to them. Someone must have suggested this already but I don't see it in the archive. No, no one has, and I think this is quite a clever idea. It's appropriate to apply it to derivative works only, not to to distributions of unchanged code. Sean, what do you think? -- Deshil Holles eamus. Deshil Holles eamus. Deshil Holles eamus. Send us, bright one, light one, Horhorn, quickening, and wombfruit. (3x) Hoopsa, boyaboy, hoopsa! Hoopsa, boyaboy, hoopsa! Hoopsa, boyaboy, hoopsa! -- Joyce, _Ulysses_, Oxen of the Sun [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
Sean Chittenden writes: Because I believe that if I provide, as an example, a programming language and someone writes a module for that language, the least that the module author can do is release the module under business friendly terms. If someone writes a module for my lang but releases it under the GPL, if I want to use that module, I have to duplicate that effort. The problem here, Sean, which you seem to be ignoring, is that you're treating the GPL as if it were somehow *worse* than a proprietary license. It isn't. It is, at its worst, identical to a proprietary license. Since you claim to believe that proprietary licensing is good and you want to encourage proprietary licensing, why have you written a license which says that one kind of proprietary license is good, and yet another is bad? Could you try to explain this to me? -- --My blog is at angry-economist.russnelson.com | Can I recommend python? Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | Just a thought. 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | -Dr. Jamey Hicks Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
Sean Chittenden writes: What I'm trying to understand is why you say that incorporating BSD code in a proprietary product is a good thing and simulataneously say that incorporating BSD code in a GPL product is a bad thing. Changes made to the BSD code by the authors of the GPL product are changes that are available only under the GPL. Yes, and changes made to the BSD code by the authors of a proprietary product are changes that are only available to the authors of the proprietary product. What's the essential difference? If the changes are outside of the scope of a business's core, then maintaining those changes is expensive and it is in the businesses best interests to release those changes. The OSSAL prevents those changes from being licensed under the GPL, making those changes available to other widget makers. You aren't answering Ian's question (which is also my question). What is the difference between this proprietary license: You can do anything to this code but sell it and the GPL? Both of them interfere with solving the problem that you say the OSSAL addresses. Yet the OSSAL only prohibits the latter and not the former. The OSSAL doesn't work. Consider using the EU Datagrid license instead. -- --My blog is at angry-economist.russnelson.com | Can I recommend python? Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | Just a thought. 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | -Dr. Jamey Hicks Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
Sean Chittenden [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Changes made to the BSD code by the authors of the GPL product are changes that are available only under the GPL. Yes, and changes made to the BSD code by the authors of a proprietary product are changes that are only available to the authors of the proprietary product. What's the essential difference? If the changes are outside of the scope of a business's core, then maintaining those changes is expensive and it is in the businesses best interests to release those changes. The OSSAL prevents those changes from being licensed under the GPL, making those changes available to other widget makers. That did not answer my question. Please try again. Your statement also happens to be at least partly false. The copyright holder of code can license it under whatever restrictions it chooses. In particular, the copyright holder can license the code to itself under the OSSAL, and to everybody else under the GPL. That is, the copyright holder can release the code under the GPL, while still using it in a proprietary product. You've several times mentioned that you are concerned about new modules. If those new modules are not derivative works of the original OSSAL code, but merely use an API which it provides, then this can be done with an OSSAL project. Naturally nobody other than the copyright holder can take this GPL code, link it to OSSAL code, and redistribute the result in binary form. However, anybody can take this GPL code and redistribute the source, and that same anybody can take the original OSSAL code and redistribute the source of that. Users can link the resuting code together, provided they do not redistribute the resulting binary. So the source code can get released, it can in principle be used, and yet it will be under the GPL even though the original code was under the OSSAL. This approach would work nicely in the BSD pkgsrc system, though binary packages would not be permitted. This would admittedly be a mildly perverse exercise. Yet it is the type of exercise which you say that you are concerned about. If any ``widget maker'' would go to the trouble of releasing GPL modules of BSD licensed code, they could easily go to the only slightly greater trouble of doing the same thing with OSSAL licensed code. In practice I don't know of any widget maker who has even bothered to release GPL versions of BSD licensed code; it seems like a pointless exercise in bad public relations. Do you know of any companies which have done this? This type of trick can also be done with the GPL, of course, but the results are relatively ineffective because the GPL imposes restrictions on any redistribution of GPL code. The OSSAL does not impose any restrictions until a copyleft license enters the mix, so the only effort needed is to keep the copyleft license out until it is too late. Ian -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
[snip] That's fine, but if a widget maker releases a piece of software under the GPL, other widget makers won't care and won't look at the resulting open sourced code. In fact they do. People who sell proprietary software are among the heaviest contributors to the open-source community. While there is a basis for this claim, it isn't particularly helpful to a discussion one way or another. I'm trying to suggest that the GPL and BSD/MIT licenses don't fit my needs as a business and I think the OSSAL is an adequate alternative that suits my needs and the needs of others. Your license is fine, once the ambiguities are squeezed out, and I recommend that the OSI approve it. Are you apart of the approval process? *doesn't remember reading that part* I don't believe your advocacy is founded on sound argumentation, which is an entirely independent point. This list discusses both. Well, from what I can tell, any conclusion that isn't the GPL seems to indicate a flaw in whoever's argumentation. :) -sc -- Sean Chittenden -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
[snip] But you haven't made your point as to why a BSD+anti-copyleft is more sellable, unless your customer is MicroSoft, or other company hoping to segment the world of open source software into as many incompatible islands as possible. By and large, the GPL isn't attractive to software widget manufacturers. By ensuring a set of components that a widget manufacturer uses will always be available to them, there in lies the appeal. OSSAL software is something that widget makers can depend on. BSD isn't a sure thing, OSSAL is. The GPL is like the perpetual patent though, it never expires and becomes usable to other businesses. *shudder* It only took you two paragraphs to break your promise to maintain the distinction between closed source and commercial. GPL software is extremely usable in business.[1] *sigh* I defined what business means to me in the context of this discussion and am fully aware of that there are other business models other than widget manufacturers. Why is getting into a semantical debate that important? (btw, I checked and I didn't promise anything: please don't try and obligate me to something I didn't obligate myself to.) If you can't keep your promise on the distinction, don't post any more. Is it really that big of a deal if I call a widget manufacturer a business? Widget manufacturers are by and large businesses, though as stated above, I know the opposite isn't exclusively true. -sc -- Sean Chittenden -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
The GPL interferes with the creation of proprietary software. Correct, which is what I object to and why I created the OSSAL. Businesses using OSSAL software would give the business the ability to create proprietary software, even though the non-core parts are most likely open and available to the public. That's really perverse, Sean. Pretend that the GPL is a proprietary license for software distributed by the FSF. Let's say that this business (the FSF) takes a piece of BSD-licensed software, makes even a trivial modification, and licenses it under their proprietary license (the GPL). The software leaves the realm of software modifiable by you, or anyone else who wants to make proprietary changes. You say this is bad, but it's exactly the same thing that happens when any other company does the same thing. Why do you want your license to discriminate against the FSF? Because I want widget makers to be able to take OSSAL code, and use it in proprietary products. The OSSAL lets widget makers who use the same set of modules, ensure that any work on the modules that they have an interest in (that is done in the public), will be usable to them in a product. Doing a license review is expensive and not necessary with OSSAL because OSSAL bits are always OSSAL (same with the GPL). If I were a dying business or wanted to send a big 'ole f- you to the people in my industry, I'd use the GPL because widget makers couldn't use the GPL'ed code in their widgets. It's like the ultimate tease, which isn't cool in my book of ethics. -sc -- Sean Chittenden -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
Why does everyone insist that they're protecting my interests by likening a piece of BSD code that goes closed source as a bad thing or as if it's not what I want? That is precisely what I want people to be able to do! That's a smart business for reusing someone else's wheel design, kinda like a dated patent. The GPL is like the perpetual patent though, it never expires and becomes usable to other businesses. *shudder* (Note that this is in the same reply where you promised to stop using the word ``business.'') I'm not saying that incorporating BSD code into a proprietary product is a bad thing, or that it is not what you want. What I'm trying to understand is why you say that incorporating BSD code in a proprietary product is a good thing and simulataneously say that incorporating BSD code in a GPL product is a bad thing. Changes made to the BSD code by the authors of the GPL product are changes that are available only under the GPL. GPL code is nothing like a perpetual patent; it's a copyright on a particular expression. Naturally the GPL doesn't apply to your code; how could it? The GPL only applies to code that somebody else wrote. Correct. For your purposes GPL code is unusable. That's fine. For your purposes proprietary code is unusable. That's fine. My question is: what is the difference between the two cases? Why is GPL bad and proprietary good? Why bother to distinguish the GPL case? See 1st point above. -sc -- Sean Chittenden -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
Your license is fine, once the ambiguities are squeezed out, and I recommend that the OSI approve it. Are you apart of the approval process? *doesn't remember reading that part* As an individual, no; as a member of this list, yes. Ah, ok... didn't know if you had special political power over the OSI review process or not. Well, from what I can tell, any conclusion that isn't the GPL seems to indicate a flaw in whoever's argumentation. :) -sc It so happens that my latest piece of free software was issued under the Academic Free License. I wound up dual-licensing it under the GPL because the AFL's patent poison-pill is GPL-incompatible. AFL patent poison-pill? -sc -- Sean Chittenden -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
Sean Chittenden scripsit: It so happens that my latest piece of free software was issued under the Academic Free License. I wound up dual-licensing it under the GPL because the AFL's patent poison-pill is GPL-incompatible. AFL patent poison-pill? -sc The AFL says that if you sue the author of an AFL-licensed piece of software under a software patent claim (related or not), you lose all rights to that software. This is an additional restriction beyond what the GPL allows, so the FSF labels it free but GPL-incompatible. http://www.opensource.org/licenses/afl-2.0.php http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses -- My confusion is rapidly waxing John Cowan For XML Schema's too taxing:[EMAIL PROTECTED] I'd use DTDshttp://www.reutershealth.com If they had local trees -- http://www.ccil.org/~cowan I think I best switch to RELAX NG. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
Lawrence E. Rosen scripsit: The latest version of the AFL has a different patent termination clause. Sorry, I forgot that. I suggested to a client recently that they get around any issue of GPL incompatibility by simply waiving any such incompatibility as an additional licensing statement. Licensor intends this license to be compatible with the GPL, and hereby waives any claim that the license is incompatible with the GPL. Umm, IANAL, but I don't see how that could possibly work. Surely it's the *GPL* author who has to waive the claim. Otherwise, you could get a license like this: This is the Eating Improbable Objects License. In order to create derivative works from the software to which this license applies, you must Eat Improbable Objects. In public. Any claim of incompatibility with the GPL is hereby waived. Surely you couldn't create a derivative work from two works, one under the GPL and the other under the EIOL! The GPL licensor would claim (rightly IMHO) that the derivative work was unlicensed. TINLA (obviously). /Larry -- After fixing the Y2K bug in an application: John Cowan WELCOME TO censored [EMAIL PROTECTED] DATE: MONDAK, JANUARK 1, 1900 http://www.ccil.org/~cowan -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
Sean Chittenden [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What I'm trying to understand is why you say that incorporating BSD code in a proprietary product is a good thing and simulataneously say that incorporating BSD code in a GPL product is a bad thing. Changes made to the BSD code by the authors of the GPL product are changes that are available only under the GPL. Yes, and changes made to the BSD code by the authors of a proprietary product are changes that are only available to the authors of the proprietary product. What's the essential difference? On a separate but related topic, I can write a license which says ``This source code may be used by anybody other than my direct competitors. If you modify this code, you may release source code for the modifications, but you need not.'' Obviously such a license is not open source, but it seems to me that I am permitted to take OSSAL code and relicense it under those terms. Then similarly a different non-competitor could pick up my changes, change them further, and release the new code under a license which forbids me to use it. So then somebody has taken my changes, made their own changes, released their own changes in source code form, but I can't take advantage of them, even though everybody else can. I have to reimplement those changes myself. So I don't even see how the OSSAL protects against the problem you say that you are most concerned about. So I don't think you've managed to write a quid pro quo license. I think you've only managed to write a GPL sucks license. Ian -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
I know that, but I want people to take bits and make them proprietary. More correctly. In my own context, I want to be able to use the fruits of my labor. The contributions that I seek are from other widget makers using the same tool for their widget. In that case, a community style license may be more appropriate. For example Netscape uses (used?) this. All modified releases are to be publicly available (much like the GPL), but furthermore everyone who is not Sean Chittenden has to license his modifications to Sean under arbitrary terms. This allows Sean to do whatever he wants, for example selling the modifications. Under the OSSAL, there is no central organization, like there is with the MPL. The OSSAL is much more distributed than the MPL, which is why I like it more than the MPL. [snip] -sc -- Sean Chittenden -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
What I'm trying to understand is why you say that incorporating BSD code in a proprietary product is a good thing and simulataneously say that incorporating BSD code in a GPL product is a bad thing. Changes made to the BSD code by the authors of the GPL product are changes that are available only under the GPL. Yes, and changes made to the BSD code by the authors of a proprietary product are changes that are only available to the authors of the proprietary product. What's the essential difference? If the changes are outside of the scope of a business's core, then maintaining those changes is expensive and it is in the businesses best interests to release those changes. The OSSAL prevents those changes from being licensed under the GPL, making those changes available to other widget makers. [snip] -sc -- Sean Chittenden -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
I'm sorry that I'm coming in late to this conversation but I've been busy. No prob, life happens: I sympathize. I'm concerned about the following section of the proposed license: 4. Redistributions of source code must not be used in conjunction with any software license that requires disclosure of source code (ex: the GNU Public License, hereafter known as the GPL). Licenses seem sometimes to be used as weapons rather than to foster freely reusable code. In this case, the author has made clear, he wants to allow his software to be used with proprietary derivative works but not with the GPL. It is, I guess, the anti-GPL license. In some ways yes, in some ways no. I think if I were to remove the following from the clause, (ex: the GNU Public License, hereafter known as the GPL), the discussion wouldn't have been nearly as involved. *sigh* In that sense, I think, it violates the OSD. It violates the OSD because you dub it the anti-GPL? What part of the OSD does this not comply with? I'm confused as to how you arrive at this statement. The point of the OSSAL is to prompt businesses who haven't or aren't involved in open source to use open source because they will get a return on investment or will be able to see their investment (resources of some sort) grow. We have long agreed that a license can impose a reciprocity condition, for example, you may distribute copies of your derivative works to the public as long as they are licensed under this same license. That's in essence what the GPL, Mozilla, IBM, CPL, and OSL licenses require. So if I would've said, Redistributions of source code must only be used in conjunction with software that can be used in proprietary software projects without requiring the disclosure of source code, no one would have had a problem? [snip] Once again, this is a license that says don't use that license rather than do use this license. The former wording seems like discrimination to me and the latter like any reciprocal license we've approved since the beginning. How can I rephrase this to achieve the intent that I think I've made pretty clear? Is that a distinction without a difference? Or should we assert that licenses of the form don't use that license are contrary to the OSD because they discriminate? Indirect proofs or explanations are often easier to convey. -sc -- Sean Chittenden -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
Sean Chittenden writes: Because I want widget makers to be able to take OSSAL code, and use it in proprietary products. But that's what the FSF is doing! Why don't you want them to do it? The OSSAL lets widget makers who use the same set of modules, ensure that any work on the modules that they have an interest in (that is done in the public), will be usable to them in a product. So? Let's say that somebody wanted to donate a module back to you, but they wanted to use a proprietary license? You'd refuse it, right? Why should the GPL be any different to you? -- --My blog is at angry-economist.russnelson.com | Can I recommend python? Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | Just a thought. 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | -Dr. Jamey Hicks Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
Lawrence E. Rosen scripsit: Is that a distinction without a difference? Or should we assert that licenses of the form don't use that license are contrary to the OSD because they discriminate? I think that it is a distinction without a difference. You could as well say that the GPL discriminates against people who write proprietary software by denying them the right to use valuable GPLed modules in their products. -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ccil.org/~cowan Does anybody want any flotsam? / I've gotsam. Does anybody want any jetsam? / I can getsam. --Ogden Nash, _No Doctors Today, Thank You_ -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
You've suggested that some people confuse open source with the GPL, but I don't think anybody on this list has that confusion. Certainly many companies use xBSD licensed code, just as many companies use GPL code. I don't see that either point proves that the OSSAL would be useful. I am in the throws of designing a language. Businesses who create commercial, redistributed products, use (indeed prefer) BSD/MIT licensed software. A language who's core is BSD/MIT is of use to businesses. A language who's modules are all GPL is a language of little use to a business that doesn't want to have to reinvent the wheel. On the other hand, a language with all of its modules that are available under a BSD/MIT license, is of value. To achieve this, I wrote OSSAL and will distribute it the language. An MIT or BSD license does not achieve the end result that I am looking for. The OSSAL is an MIT license with some baggage to prevent copyleft modules, however the OSSAL's use is obviously broader than that and has been well received by a half dozen people or so in the last 24hrs (thank you to those who have sent praise, I'm glad I'm not existing in a void or am delusional). [snip] You say that the OSSAL explicitly permits proprietary forks, but the BSD license does that as well. The OSSAL prohibits something very specific: if somebody takes code under license X, and takes GPL code, and links them together, and distributes the result, that is permitted if X is the BSD license, but prohibited if X is the OSSAL license. Correct. If someone needs some code that is only available under the GPL, then there exists the need for that code to be rewritten under a BSD/MIT license. [snip] This doesn't seem useful to me, but obviously I don't speak for the OSI. It's useful if you're a business in that if you use OSSAL software in a product, you're never going to have to go back and rewrite that code that you depend on if the module author goes copyleft. In doing so, more businesses would likely use and contribute to Open Source. When I read that statement it is clear to me that that is true of the BSD license as well. Can you please explain to me, in words of one syllable and taking very slow steps, why it is not? Quid pro quo: three single syllable words that can both be said slowly, and do a halfway decent job of summarizing the OSSAL. The BSD/MIT license (which I support enthusiastically), however, can almost be summarized as, quid pro throw (as in thrown into the abyss without any assurance for getting something usable back in return). From a business's point of view, the BSD/MIT license is deficient in its ability to provide some form of quid pro quo for its efforts to release code into the wild while still preserving the ability for potential competitors to assimilate the code or any modifications made by the public. The BSD/MIT licenses do not protect a business' ability to reap any kind of contributions in the form of usable intellectual property. Non-feasance to address these issues by the authors of the BSD or MIT licenses doesn't preclude me from writing a BSD or MIT-like license that satisfies a business's needs. Those opposing the OSSAL are arguing that a BSD or MIT license covers a business's basis, however it does not for the reasons stated above. [snip] -sc -- Sean Chittenden -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
Let me clarify some vocabulary: people = home user or developer of applications out side of a commercial entity working on a not for sale piece of software. businesses = commercial developers interested explicitly in the purpose of developing commercial applications and products. What about commercial entities who work on not-for-sale software for purposes other than developing commercial software products? Been there, worked for one of those. One of those not-for-sale software projects was canned because it wasn't viable because it was written using GPL software, the other was golden and was taken from our department and sucked into the bowels of engineering to be converted into a full blown commercial app. Businesses prefer non-GPL software for depts like these, but don't forbid it though use of GPL software can be potentially expensive (the software was rewritten around the GPL bits). What about home users who develop software for their own use and later find someone willing to pay for it? If they use GPL software, it could be expensive down the road if the author is using modules that aren't BSD/MIT-like (rewrite/refactor). Avoiding GPL software from the start is one way to lower the cost of software development (or at the very least, converting RD into a product). The commercial/noncommercial view of splitting the world is pretty useless IMO. Every human being can be a user, developer, and distributor, and the roles change constantly. Agreed. Simply trying to point out that there are several different points of views surrounding software development and the two biggest, IMHO, are those who doodle out code for personal or internal consumption, and those who are trying to turn a commercial product. It interferes with the creation of proprietary software. Not at all! It interferes with transforming free software into proprietary software. Creating new proprietary software is greatly aided by GPL tools. Agreed, case in point being gcc. But, creating proprietary software that includes/uses GPL software... is a waste of time and is the antithesis of creating a proprietary software product. Businesses using OSSAL software would give the business the ability to create proprietary software, even though the non-core parts are most likely open and available to the public. They have this under the GPL (as long as their proprietary software isn't a derived work of the GPL software). They have this under the BSD license even if it IS a derived work. Yeah, but it's derived works that are the question in this case. I utterly fail to see how ANYONE benefits from this proposed license over a pure BSD license. It's completely ludicrous to claim that my ability to take a GPL project and make it into a plugin for your product does ANYTHING to reduce someone's freedom to release proprietary software based on your code. See other emails where I explain the value of the OSSAL. Of course they can't make proprietary work derived from my plugin, but they can't if I release a binary-only plugin either (which you allow), or if I don't release it at all (because it's based on GPL code I don't own). Which is what I want to be able to do and have the license protect that ability. Additionally, for those of us that might choose to combine GPL and OSSAL work, all this means is we need to distribute our code seperately and make our users do the actual linking/compiling/combining themselves. Not separately, just under two licenses... though in the case of my language, your GPL'ed code is in violation of my language's license (the OSSAL) which makes your GPL'ed contribution as valuable as `cat /dev/random /dev/stdout`. It sucks, but you're free to make whatever license terms you like. I suspect you'll see a lot less use of your software under this than you would under a pure BSD license, but again, it's your call. Sure, it's possible... but since every module is usable to businesses, I bet you'd see more businesses use the language. Since Java and .Net generally (I know about mono and kaffe) require some kind of capital, esp for a halfway decent j2ee impl, businesses would be pleased to have a set of dependable and trustworthy tools to work from. Please, if you want your work to be freely transformable into proprietary work, just use the BSD license. Not gunna happen, though I do release software under the BSDL when appropriate. -sc -- Sean Chittenden -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
Businesses using OSSAL software would give the business the ability to create proprietary software, even though the non-core parts are most likely open and available to the public. The same is true of software under the BSD license. Correct, but the BSD license does not ensure that all software developed will be available under terms friendly for businesses, which goes back to the point of me writing the OSSAL. If someone takes BSD-licensed code, modifies it and does a binary-only release, the modifications are not available at all. So businesses cannot use these modifications. Correct, but it did give the business a place to start from allowing them to complete a product faster. If someone takes BSD-licensed code, modifies it and releases the result under GPL, the modifications are available but with certain restrictions. Now businesses cannot use the modifications either (unless they accept the restrictions). Which is why I wrote the OSSAL... So I don't really see the difference here. In both cases the modifications are not available without restriction. Why does it matter that in one case they are licensed under a restrictive license? Because I believe that if I provide, as an example, a programming language and someone writes a module for that language, the least that the module author can do is release the module under business friendly terms. If someone writes a module for my lang but releases it under the GPL, if I want to use that module, I have to duplicate that effort. If I don't want to maintain my copy, I'll open source it (the logical thing to do to keep costs/bugs down), but this leaves two competing projects in the same space. Time is more precious to me and I'd rather not have anyone waste it as a result of some idealogical whim. I personally have invested roughly 1.5K hours in 2003 on this project, a little reciprocity/quid pro quo would be nice and that's what the OSSAL delivers me. As the license discussion states, if you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. -sc -- Sean Chittenden -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
RE: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
Bruce Shyer is on a -paid for by IBM- team. Tony Stanco is on a -paid for by IBM team-. Ed Black is -bought and paid for by- IBM. (smile). Before you jump too quick to conclusions, ask IBM and get back to me. By the way the CCIA mission statement on its website (www.ccianet.org) reads: CCIA's mission is to further our members' business interests by being the leading industry advocate in promoting open, barrier-free competition in the offering of computer and communications products and services worldwide Res Ipse Loquitur. I have no problems with it...like I said, I'd be happy to have a check from IBM too. Its just time to end the mythology that Linux is something that people who are above money sell. Linux is a business product. It makes money. It makes more money as it is advertised, promoted and sold, etc. Linux salesman are capitalists, not philanthropists. I don't see a difference, nor do I think it is objectionable. Aside from all that, you were at the conference when Bruce Perens conceded that the GPL has commercial limitations. Ask Ed to give you a copy of the tape. The original point of my comment was that there are a number of software developers that want more commercial capability with the Linux platform. This has been a real concern for open source developers for many years. Developers asking real questions about this deserve real answers, not hype. BSD, MIT and other licenses date the GPL. Presently, there are hundreds of variations of open source licenses that people choose to do business with. Some just happen to conflict with the GPL on legitimate grounds. Just because someone asks a question about the GPL doesn't make them a conspirator. kb -Original Message- From: Robin 'Roblimo' Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 26, 2003 12:56 AM To: Ken Brown Subject: Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License Ken Brown wrote: Big Rick, Your IBM funded-man Tony Stanco has the tape. You should ask him for a copy. By the way, I see quite of bit of IBM money moving around Washington these (ie. Ed Black, Bruce Schneir et al.) Let them know that I have no problem AdTI would be happy to accept far less money than those guys are getting to support our research. I just got off the phone with Bruce Schneier* (before reading your email) and he told me the report he and Dan and the rest released through CCIA was not funded by anyone to the best of his knowledge. If it was, he said, I didn't get any. And don't worry, Ken: Your bud Jonathan Zuck at ACT is on the case, fighting Ed Black and the other Marxists. Why, we even gave him a platform at NewsForge to tell The Truth: http://newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=03/09/24/2333239 Or are you just jealous that Jonathan got funding for anti-studies and you didn't? :) - Robin 'Roblimo' Miller proudly funded by many OSDN sponsors -- including both Microsoft and IBM *Bruce and I both spell his last name Schneier but we are probably wrong. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
Ken Brown scripsit: [...] is on a -paid for by IBM- team. [...] is on a -paid for by IBM team-. [...] is -bought and paid for by- IBM. (smile). This is offensive. Please stop it. Publishing private mail is even more offensive. Please don't do it. Ethnic slurs are totally unacceptable. Stop it. I am a Reuters employee, but my opinions are my own. The fact that I work for Reuters, and that Reuters's home base is the U.K., does not mean (as a certain Irish nationalist nutcase told me last year) that I am in the pay of the English. Res Ipse Loquitur. Ipsa. Res is a feminine noun. Priscian's head shrinks, cracks. -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.ccil.org/~cowan Is it not written, That which is written, is written? -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
Sean Chittenden scripsit: A language who's core is BSD/MIT is of use to businesses. A language who's modules are all GPL is a language of little use to a business that doesn't want to have to reinvent the wheel. On the other hand, a language with all of its modules that are available under a BSD/MIT license, is of value. I suppose you mean that you are writing an interpreter for the language in question which is meant to be linked to other code by way of providing scripting or otherwise. Such interpreters don't tend to be released under the GPL anyhow (can anyone think of a counterexample?) but under BSD-ish licenses or mixed-status licenses like the LGPL or MPL. The GPLed implementation of the C and C++ languages has served software developers, including those who develop proprietary software, rather well, I think. Unencumbered BSD would hardly be practical without it. Quid pro quo: three single syllable words that can both be said slowly, and do a halfway decent job of summarizing the OSSAL. The BSD/MIT license (which I support enthusiastically), however, can almost be summarized as, quid pro throw (as in thrown into the abyss without any assurance for getting something usable back in return). I don't see how the OSSAL offers you any such assurances for your code in particular: I can tune it up, add amazing new features, and release under a fully proprietary license; you get precisely nothing back. Same story with the BSD, of course. What it does offer you is ecological resistance to a license you perceive as predatory. From a business's point of view, I wish you wouldn't say business to mean proprietary software development business. It's confusing. its ability to provide some form of quid pro quo for its efforts to release code into the wild while still preserving the ability for potential competitors to assimilate the code or any modifications made by the public. But it leaves you utterly unprotected against competition from proprietary improvements. Ironically, it is copyleft licenses that do so best, by the brute force method of making sure there are no proprietary improvements. I don't see how you can have it both ways. -- Do NOT stray from the path! John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] --Gandalf http://www.ccil.org/~cowan -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
Sean Chittenden scripsit: Agreed. Simply trying to point out that there are several different points of views surrounding software development and the two biggest, IMHO, are those who doodle out code for personal or internal consumption, and those who are trying to turn a commercial product. flame I resent and repel this conclusion. I have worked in this industry for more than 25 years providing software for my employers, none of which has had any resale value. I am not doodling out code. In the case of my current employer, the code I wrote is essential to that particular portion of their business, but the only reason I didn't suggest it be open-sourced is that I think it's far too imbued with Reuters-specific ways of doing business, and of no real use to anyone else. Reuters lives or dies by the software it writes, but we don't sell software. What we sell is accurate, fast, and unbiased news and information. *That's* our commercial product. Implying that people who write the software that supports it are doodling is insulting and unwarranted. /flame -- 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 Source Software Alliance License
I have no problems with it...like I said, I'd be happy to have a check from IBM too. Its just time to end the mythology that Linux is something that people who are above money sell. Linux is a business product. It makes money. It makes more money as it is advertised, promoted and sold, etc. Linux salesman are capitalists, not philanthropists. I don't see a difference, nor do I think it is objectionable. Nor do I. Industry consortiums and standards-setting bodies are entirely legitimate. In a commercial sense, I see Linux as an industry standard not unlike the SAE's fastener specifications. Naturally, a company that wants to make bolts or screws that only work with its own proprietary nuts, washers, and tightening tools is going to decry the standards used by other companies in its industry, and if that company is an industry-dominating one, there are going to be conflicts. Think railroad tracks or, as Bob Lefkowitz wrote last year about time standards, railroad schedules and clocks. Railroads all had their own time standards in the 19th century until a standards body called the U.S. government set up uniform times and time zones. The reason we have standardization in screw threads, rail gauges, and clock settings is not philanthropy, but as an aid to commerce and invention. And it is cheaper for many companies to get together and develop a single industry-wide standard in association with academics and government partners than for each company to develop its own. I consider Linux and vertical open source packages (GPL or not) in this same light. There is nothing evil about this. Companies that decide not to follow the standards tend to go away in the long run. And there is nothing evil about this, either. We call it capitalism and rather like the idea of corporate innovation and evolution here in my country, the U.S.A. Aside from all that, you were at the conference when Bruce Perens conceded that the GPL has commercial limitations. *NEWS FLASH* - GPL has commercial limitations! Ken, I advise you and your employers not to release any software you write under the GPL. Instead, use a *BSD-style license or perhaps a dual licensing scheme. I think you will be much happier. And developers who prefer the GPL will use it to license their software, and we will all be happy. Here in the US of A creators of new works get to choose for themselves the terms under which they distribute their creations. We Americans like this kind of freedom. And if you don't like the terms under which Linux is licensed, don't use Linux. Simple as that. Just because I own and like my Jeep Cherokee doesn't mean I want to force you to buy one. I fully support your right not to use Linux or other GPL-licensed software. Robin 'Roblimo' Miller (waving large flag in bright Florida morning sunshine) -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
Sean Chittenden wrote: So I don't really see the difference here. In both cases the modifications are not available without restriction. Why does it matter that in one case they are licensed under a restrictive license? Because I believe that if I provide, as an example, a programming language and someone writes a module for that language, the least that the module author can do is release the module under business friendly terms. The author can release a binary-only module under OSSAL terms. How is that friendly to other software developers or users? If someone writes a module for my lang but releases it under the GPL, if I want to use that module, I have to duplicate that effort. If someone writes a module for your language and releases it under the OSSAL as binary-only, if you want to use that module, you have to duplicate that effort. If people don't like the business consequences of releasing under GPL, why would they release source at all? Arnoud -- Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch patent attorney - Speaking only for myself Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/ -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
Sean Chittenden [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Businesses who create commercial, redistributed products, use (indeed prefer) BSD/MIT licensed software. It would be nice if you could stop using the words ``business'' and ``commercial'' when you really mean ``businesses which use proprietary software.'' As I and others have pointed out, there are many businesses which sell commercial software based on the GPL. I have and do work for such businesses, so for me it is not an abstract issue. Yes, as you said the last time I mentioned this, there are of course very many businesses which do not use the GPL. But that does not excuse your continuing misuse of language. You say that the OSSAL explicitly permits proprietary forks, but the BSD license does that as well. The OSSAL prohibits something very specific: if somebody takes code under license X, and takes GPL code, and links them together, and distributes the result, that is permitted if X is the BSD license, but prohibited if X is the OSSAL license. Correct. If someone needs some code that is only available under the GPL, then there exists the need for that code to be rewritten under a BSD/MIT license. In other words, for your purposes, releasing the code under the GPL is no different from releasing the code without sources. This argument against the GPL is just as strong as an argument against proprietary release. Actually, proprietary release is slightly worse, since at least with a GPL release you can study the algorithms. It's useful if you're a business in that if you use OSSAL software in a product, you're never going to have to go back and rewrite that code that you depend on if the module author goes copyleft. In doing so, more businesses would likely use and contribute to Open Source. When I read that statement it is clear to me that that is true of the BSD license as well. Can you please explain to me, in words of one syllable and taking very slow steps, why it is not? Quid pro quo: three single syllable words that can both be said slowly, and do a halfway decent job of summarizing the OSSAL. The BSD/MIT license (which I support enthusiastically), however, can almost be summarized as, quid pro throw (as in thrown into the abyss without any assurance for getting something usable back in return). That reads nicely and yet completely fails to address my question. Please try again. From a business's point of view, the BSD/MIT license is deficient in its ability to provide some form of quid pro quo for its efforts to release code into the wild while still preserving the ability for potential competitors to assimilate the code or any modifications made by the public. The BSD/MIT licenses do not protect a business' ability to reap any kind of contributions in the form of usable intellectual property. Non-feasance to address these issues by the authors of the BSD or MIT licenses doesn't preclude me from writing a BSD or MIT-like license that satisfies a business's needs. Those opposing the OSSAL are arguing that a BSD or MIT license covers a business's basis, however it does not for the reasons stated above. The real quid pro quo license is, of course, the GPL. The arguments you bring out here are the same arguments that businesses use when they decide to release software under the GPL. I'm starting to think that you are trolling. Instead of answering the questions which are asked, you keep reaching into your philosophy, and into your notion of what businesses need. If you are really trying to communicate, then take a deep breath, sit back, and think about what people are trying to say to you. If you just want to have a ``GPL sucks'' license, then say so. I'm sure you can find plenty of people to support it. Ian -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
A language who's core is BSD/MIT is of use to businesses. A language who's modules are all GPL is a language of little use to a business that doesn't want to have to reinvent the wheel. On the other hand, a language with all of its modules that are available under a BSD/MIT license, is of value. I suppose you mean that you are writing an interpreter for the language in question which is meant to be linked to other code by way of providing scripting or otherwise. Such interpreters don't tend to be released under the GPL anyhow (can anyone think of a counterexample?) but under BSD-ish licenses or mixed-status licenses like the LGPL or MPL. Bah! Who would bother with interpreters? Why should I write something, hack on it for a few days, and pay the price of the inefficient language for when it gets run a billion times? I have a webserver that's topping out at around 60K connections per webserver instance for static content and I'd like to get about 30-40K of dynamic requests/sec... interpreted languages leave me at around 1-2K rps and while C lets me hit my desired numbers, C is too intensive and I'd like a more friendly syntax like Ruby. The core of the language is an actual compiler and the resulting code links to my so. Thanks to shared object prebinding, running programs with my language is nearly as fast as statically compiled binaries. The GPLed implementation of the C and C++ languages has served software developers, including those who develop proprietary software, rather well, I think. Unencumbered BSD would hardly be practical without it. *cheers on TenDRA* Quid pro quo: three single syllable words that can both be said slowly, and do a halfway decent job of summarizing the OSSAL. The BSD/MIT license (which I support enthusiastically), however, can almost be summarized as, quid pro throw (as in thrown into the abyss without any assurance for getting something usable back in return). I don't see how the OSSAL offers you any such assurances for your code in particular: I can tune it up, add amazing new features, and release under a fully proprietary license; you get precisely nothing back. Same story with the BSD, of course. What it does offer you is ecological resistance to a license you perceive as predatory. Yup, but on the long haul, maintaining code is expensive... open sourcing code reduces costs of maintenance and bugs and if a module is a non-core part of a business, (with my Director of Engineering hat on) a business or its engineering managers would foolish to keep the non-core code in house. I fully understand and realize the risks of BSD/MIT code and know that OSSAL doesn't guarantee anything, it just guarantees that open source work that is done, is usable by businesses. Why is that so hard for people to understand the value of this? From a business's point of view, I wish you wouldn't say business to mean proprietary software development business. It's confusing. Fair enough, in my case, business means a a widget producing business that doesn't want to reinvent the wheel nor give away the plans to the kingdom. its ability to provide some form of quid pro quo for its efforts to release code into the wild while still preserving the ability for potential competitors to assimilate the code or any modifications made by the public. But it leaves you utterly unprotected against competition from proprietary improvements. Ironically, it is copyleft licenses that do so best, by the brute force method of making sure there are no proprietary improvements. I don't see how you can have it both ways. But I don't want to stifle competition by handicapping competitors. In truth, I'm hoping that one in ten businesses lend some of their engineering time toward open source modules for this lang and that those are the businesses that understand the cost of software. That said, I also believe that being successful in business shouldn't predicate on handicapping competitors by releasing useful tools in a completely unusable manner. I want to be successful in business because I'm smarter and more nimble than my competition, so by all means, let them improve a bit of code that they're going to have to maintain a fork of. -sc -- Sean Chittenden -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
So I don't really see the difference here. In both cases the modifications are not available without restriction. Why does it matter that in one case they are licensed under a restrictive license? Because I believe that if I provide, as an example, a programming language and someone writes a module for that language, the least that the module author can do is release the module under business friendly terms. The author can release a binary-only module under OSSAL terms. How is that friendly to other software developers or users? It's not, but they have to incur the costs of maintaining it, so that's their perogotive. If someone writes a module for my lang but releases it under the GPL, if I want to use that module, I have to duplicate that effort. If someone writes a module for your language and releases it under the OSSAL as binary-only, if you want to use that module, you have to duplicate that effort. Correct. If people don't like the business consequences of releasing under GPL, why would they release source at all? I don't know how else to say this: *) If you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. *) Reciprocity amongst businesses. *) Maintaining souce code is expensive, reducing expenses is good. *) Quid pro quo between two or more businesses. Take your pick of any one of the above. -sc -- Sean Chittenden -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
Businesses who create commercial, redistributed products, use (indeed prefer) BSD/MIT licensed software. It would be nice if you could stop using the words ``business'' and ``commercial'' when you really mean ``businesses which use proprietary software.'' As I and others have pointed out, there are many businesses which sell commercial software based on the GPL. I have and do work for such businesses, so for me it is not an abstract issue. Yes, as you said the last time I mentioned this, there are of course very many businesses which do not use the GPL. But that does not excuse your continuing misuse of language. hrm... good point. I'll use the phrase widget makers, where a widget is a product that is derived from open source software and released as a proprietary piece of goo. I think that'll keep everyone happy and working on the same page, as you're right... this has caused a great deal of confusion. You say that the OSSAL explicitly permits proprietary forks, but the BSD license does that as well. The OSSAL prohibits something very specific: if somebody takes code under license X, and takes GPL code, and links them together, and distributes the result, that is permitted if X is the BSD license, but prohibited if X is the OSSAL license. Correct. If someone needs some code that is only available under the GPL, then there exists the need for that code to be rewritten under a BSD/MIT license. In other words, for your purposes, releasing the code under the GPL is no different from releasing the code without sources. This argument against the GPL is just as strong as an argument against proprietary release. Actually, proprietary release is slightly worse, since at least with a GPL release you can study the algorithms. Why does everyone insist that they're protecting my interests by likening a piece of BSD code that goes closed source as a bad thing or as if it's not what I want? That is precisely what I want people to be able to do! That's a smart business for reusing someone else's wheel design, kinda like a dated patent. The GPL is like the perpetual patent though, it never expires and becomes usable to other businesses. *shudder* [snip] From a business's point of view, the BSD/MIT license is deficient in its ability to provide some form of quid pro quo for its efforts to release code into the wild while still preserving the ability for potential competitors to assimilate the code or any modifications made by the public. The BSD/MIT licenses do not protect a business' ability to reap any kind of contributions in the form of usable intellectual property. Non-feasance to address these issues by the authors of the BSD or MIT licenses doesn't preclude me from writing a BSD or MIT-like license that satisfies a business's needs. Those opposing the OSSAL are arguing that a BSD or MIT license covers a business's basis, however it does not for the reasons stated above. The real quid pro quo license is, of course, the GPL. The arguments you bring out here are the same arguments that businesses use when they decide to release software under the GPL. That's fine, but if a widget maker releases a piece of software under the GPL, other widget makers won't care and won't look at the resulting open sourced code. Under the OSSAL/BSD/MIT license, they would. In releasing code under the OSSAL/BSD/MIT license, I at least have a snowball's chance in a hot place of having a professional engineer who makes widgets look at the code and _possibly_ suggest improvements in the form of patches, bug reports, etc. [snip] If you just want to have a ``GPL sucks'' license, then say so. I'm sure you can find plenty of people to support it. I'm trying to suggest that the GPL and BSD/MIT licenses don't fit my needs as a business and I think the OSSAL is an adequate alternative that suits my needs and the needs of others. I know the risks or possible scenarios for the OSSAL/BSD/MIT licensed code and think that many here are trying to protect me from the very thing that I'm trying to do. I posted the OSSAL to this list/OSI for scrutiny, which it has received, and it has even been improved as a result. Thank you to those who have challenged it, I do appreciate it. -sc -- Sean Chittenden -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
Sean Chittenden scripsit: Bah! Who would bother with interpreters? It depends. Perl is more than satisfactory for what I want to do, because I don't have to serve up stuff at anywhere near your volume, since Reuters's business isn't based on volume. As for the servers running it, the cost of them is sunk cost, so it doesn't matter how inefficiently I use them as long as I don't exceed their limits (which is very unlikely). I'd like a more friendly syntax like Ruby. The core of the language is an actual compiler and the resulting code links to my so. So the license on the compiler is irrelevant, since normal compilers don't encumber compiled code in any way. By GPLing the compiler, you could prevent people from making incompatible changes to the language that you don't get to find out the implementations of. *cheers on TenDRA* We'll see. Fair enough, in my case, business means a a widget producing business that doesn't want to reinvent the wheel nor give away the plans to the kingdom. Where, in turn, widget means not any commodity (as is usual in discussions of economics), but specifically proprietary software product. -- 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 Source Software Alliance License
Sean Chittenden scripsit: That's a smart business for reusing someone else's wheel design, kinda like a dated patent. The GPL is like the perpetual patent though, it never expires and becomes usable to other businesses. *shudder* Well, patents expire after 20 years, the GPL after 95. Either is an effective eternity in the proprietary software business, though the FLOSSers have been able to wait out the RSA patent and are close to waiting out the LZW/GIF patent. That's fine, but if a widget maker releases a piece of software under the GPL, other widget makers won't care and won't look at the resulting open sourced code. In fact they do. People who sell proprietary software are among the heaviest contributors to the open-source community. I'm trying to suggest that the GPL and BSD/MIT licenses don't fit my needs as a business and I think the OSSAL is an adequate alternative that suits my needs and the needs of others. Your license is fine, once the ambiguities are squeezed out, and I recommend that the OSI approve it. I don't believe your advocacy is founded on sound argumentation, which is an entirely independent point. This list discusses both. -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.reutershealth.com ccil.org/~cowan Dievas dave dantis; Dievas duos duonos --Lithuanian proverb Deus dedit dentes; deus dabit panem --Latin version thereof Deity donated dentition; deity'll donate doughnuts --English version by Muke Tever God gave gums; God'll give granary --Version by Mat McVeagh -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
Sean Chittenden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote, in part: Why does everyone insist that they're protecting my interests by likening a piece of BSD code that goes closed source as a bad thing or as if it's not what I want? That is precisely what I want people to be able to do! That's a smart business for reusing someone else's wheel design, kinda like a dated patent. If you are a small software shop, you sell services. So, what is the biggest threat to that line of work? Commoditization and customer lock-in to big-vendor proprietary solutions. GPL tilts the playing field against that. (I am not insisting you adopt GPL, just explaining one reason why GPL helps the small shop and IS a rational decision.) And yes, if you are selling a software library, we can see why BSD-licensed code is more sellable than GPL-licensed code. The market is better. But you haven't made your point as to why a BSD+anti-copyleft is more sellable, unless your customer is MicroSoft, or other company hoping to segment the world of open source software into as many incompatible islands as possible. The GPL is like the perpetual patent though, it never expires and becomes usable to other businesses. *shudder* It only took you two paragraphs to break your promise to maintain the distinction between closed source and commercial. GPL software is extremely usable in business.[1] If you can't keep your promise on the distinction, don't post any more. Forrest [1] Examples abound, but one that comes to mind is an business who would never dream of releasing the code I write for them under the GPL or any OSI certified license, but very happily uses GnuPG and the Windows drag-n-drop program I gave them to send me proprietary data via email. They didn't want to open up their VPN to me and PKZIP encryption isn't very good. Very cool. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
Sean Chittenden wrote: If someone writes a module for my lang but releases it under the GPL, if I want to use that module, I have to duplicate that effort. If someone writes a module for your language and releases it under the OSSAL as binary-only, if you want to use that module, you have to duplicate that effort. Correct. Since you apparently want to reduce duplication of effort, why is this case not a problem? If people don't like the business consequences of releasing under GPL, why would they release source at all? I don't know how else to say this: *) If you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. *) Reciprocity amongst businesses. *) Maintaining souce code is expensive, reducing expenses is good. *) Quid pro quo between two or more businesses. When I started open source licensing work, it seemed logical that the only reasonable license for a proprietary software vendor is BSD and its friends. But once you realize that the GPL's nature is not a threat to _you_, it becomes much more attractive. In fact it helps getting people in your project, because those people know that no one can take their contributions and make them proprietary. Does it surprise you that 8 big CE companies (including the one I work for) have chosen Linux rather than FreeBSD as the basis for future devices? The GPL was an important factor in favor of Linux here. Arnoud -- Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch patent attorney - Speaking only for myself Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/ -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
Sean Chittenden writes: The GPL interferes with the creation of proprietary software. Correct, which is what I object to and why I created the OSSAL. Businesses using OSSAL software would give the business the ability to create proprietary software, even though the non-core parts are most likely open and available to the public. That's really perverse, Sean. Pretend that the GPL is a proprietary license for software distributed by the FSF. Let's say that this business (the FSF) takes a piece of BSD-licensed software, makes even a trivial modification, and licenses it under their proprietary license (the GPL). The software leaves the realm of software modifiable by you, or anyone else who wants to make proprietary changes. You say this is bad, but it's exactly the same thing that happens when any other company does the same thing. Why do you want your license to discriminate against the FSF? -- --My blog is at angry-economist.russnelson.com | Can I recommend python? Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | Just a thought. 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | -Dr. Jamey Hicks Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
On Sep 26, 2003, at 12:46 PM, Russell Nelson wrote: Sean Chittenden writes: The GPL interferes with the creation of proprietary software. Correct, which is what I object to and why I created the OSSAL. Businesses using OSSAL software would give the business the ability to create proprietary software, even though the non-core parts are most likely open and available to the public. That's really perverse, Sean. Pretend that the GPL is a proprietary license for software distributed by the FSF. Let's say that this business (the FSF) takes a piece of BSD-licensed software, makes even a trivial modification, and licenses it under their proprietary license (the GPL). The software leaves the realm of software modifiable by you, or anyone else who wants to make proprietary changes. You say this is bad, but it's exactly the same thing that happens when any other company does the same thing. Why do you want your license to discriminate against the FSF? It sounds to me like Sean really wants to avoid the emergence of a alternative, viable Open Source fork of his project under the GPL. That is, he is less concerned about what happens to the code per se, and more concerned about the -community- being split by having two interesting public code bases under different licenses. Particularly if the interesting stuff starts happening under a GPL license, and ends up obsoleting the original (BSD) codebase. Is that correct, Sean? I don't know if that's a good or bad thing, or even a valid concern in general, but I think it is at least a coherent position. -- Ernie P. -- --My blog is at angry-economist.russnelson.com | Can I recommend python? Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | Just a thought. 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | -Dr. Jamey Hicks Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | -- 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 Source Software Alliance License
Sean Chittenden [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Why does everyone insist that they're protecting my interests by likening a piece of BSD code that goes closed source as a bad thing or as if it's not what I want? That is precisely what I want people to be able to do! That's a smart business for reusing someone else's wheel design, kinda like a dated patent. The GPL is like the perpetual patent though, it never expires and becomes usable to other businesses. *shudder* (Note that this is in the same reply where you promised to stop using the word ``business.'') I'm not saying that incorporating BSD code into a proprietary product is a bad thing, or that it is not what you want. What I'm trying to understand is why you say that incorporating BSD code in a proprietary product is a good thing and simulataneously say that incorporating BSD code in a GPL product is a bad thing. GPL code is nothing like a perpetual patent; it's a copyright on a particular expression. Naturally the GPL doesn't apply to your code; how could it? The GPL only applies to code that somebody else wrote. For your purposes GPL code is unusable. That's fine. For your purposes proprietary code is unusable. That's fine. My question is: what is the difference between the two cases? Why is GPL bad and proprietary good? Why bother to distinguish the GPL case? Ian -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
Ernie Prabhakar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It sounds to me like Sean really wants to avoid the emergence of a alternative, viable Open Source fork of his project under the GPL. That is, he is less concerned about what happens to the code per se, and more concerned about the -community- being split by having two interesting public code bases under different licenses. Particularly if the interesting stuff starts happening under a GPL license, and ends up obsoleting the original (BSD) codebase. That is at least a comprehensible concern, unlike the ones which Sean has posted so far. I would be interested in hearing whether he agrees with it. I wouldn't worry about such a thing myself, mind you--forks against the wishes of the author are very rare in practice, and I can't think of a single succesful fork which changed the licensing conditions. But I can understand how somebody might have this as a theoretical concern. If this is really the problem, I think a more appropriate solution might be something like ``in any derivative work which includes source, the source must be under this license; however there are no restrictions on derivative works which do not include source.'' That would be GPL-incompatible, of course, but I think it would more clearly express the concern and be less divisive. Ian -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
Ian Lance Taylor scripsit: I wouldn't worry about such a thing myself, mind you--forks against the wishes of the author are very rare in practice, and I can't think of a single succesful fork which changed the licensing conditions. The bison/byacc fork was OK with the author but did change the license conditions. Specifically, bison is a fork of an early version of byacc; bison was modified a bit and released under the GPL. -- Clear? Huh! Why a four-year-old childJohn Cowan could understand this report. Run out [EMAIL PROTECTED] and find me a four-year-old child. I http://www.ccil.org/~cowan can't make head or tail out of it. http://www.reutershealth.com --Rufus T. Firefly on government reports -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
Ernie Prabhakar writes: It sounds to me like Sean really wants to avoid the emergence of a alternative, viable Open Source fork of his project under the GPL. That is, he is less concerned about what happens to the code per se, and more concerned about the -community- being split by having two interesting public code bases under different licenses. Particularly if the interesting stuff starts happening under a GPL license, and ends up obsoleting the original (BSD) codebase. Seems to me like the EU DataGrid Software License would have the same effect, with less potential for *causing* forks. -- --My blog is at angry-economist.russnelson.com | Can I recommend python? Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | Just a thought. 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | -Dr. Jamey Hicks Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
I am not concerned about freedom of development to users/consumers (which is the aim of the GPL), I'm concerned about the freedom of development for businesses. Your terminology is strange to somebody like me, who worked for many years at a business which did very well using the GPL (Cygnus). It's difficult for me to understand just who you mean when you use the word ``business.'' It seems to me that your license is Cygnus-unfriendly in more or less the same way that the GPL is Microsoft-unfriendly. ... I really want to respond to this, but this discussion is off topic for the license at hand (determining if it meets the criteria laid out in the OSD) and can be OSI certified. If you would like to discuss this, see below. 5. Redistributions of source code in any non-textual form (i.e. binary or object form, etc.) may not be linked to software that is released with a license that requires disclosure of source code (ex: the GPL). This may preclude running the software on any system which uses glibc, such as GNU/Linux. Perhaps this is your intent. Correct. Most Linux distributions with GPL'ed libc's will be unable to run OSSAL software unless their libc is LGPL'ed (which is unimpaired or affected by OSSAL): a non-issue for BSD or OS-X users. If I understand this correctly, you should clarify point 5 to explain that the disclosure of source code in question is the OSSAL source code, not the source code of the software to which it is linked. When I read clause 5 above, it says that you can not link OSSAL code which LGPL code, because the LGPL does require the release of source code: it requires the release of the source of the code licensed under the LGPL. Hrm, that's not the intent, nor how I read it. Redistributions of source code means the source code in question that is licensed under the OSSAL, not the software that it is linked to. In the same vein, since the LGPL allows closed source applications to be linked with LGPL libraries and the LGPL does not require that the closed source application have its source published (only the the LGPL'ed library's code, which is not the target of the phrase, source code), the LGPL does not meet this requirement, therefore allowing OSSAL programs to link with LGPL libraries. Discussion: As stated above, I wish to preserve the business friendliness of all modules. Man hours and resources are precious and duplication of work by anyone is foolish. This ensures that all open source modules are available to other businesses. And yet if your license is adopted widely it requires the duplication of work by people who prefer the GPL, in precisely the same way that the GPL requires the duplication of work by people who do not prefer the GPL. So I think that your license really does not promote what you say it promotes. Let me clarify some vocabulary: people = home user or developer of applications out side of a commercial entity working on a not for sale piece of software. businesses = commercial developers interested explicitly in the purpose of developing commercial applications and products. In the context of this discussion, the OSSAL is not interested in protecting the work by people, it cares about work by businesses that is usable in its commercial products. The OSSAL guarantees freely available resources to businesses. If people is defined as above, people don't care if businesses use the same code as they're using for their program. In fact, people would probably prefer OSSAL code over non-OSSAL code because it likely means that the OSSAL code has been looked over by someone who programs professionally, or that it has been used more widely and contains fewer bugs/more features. Right now open source works in favor of individuals, but not for businesses. I'm sorry, but this is nonsense. The whole point of open source, as opposed to free software, is to support businesses. Oooh! Good clarification, though I try to avoid most of this semantic open source propaganda mess when possible. I'm not a Linux user and haven't bothered myself with knowing the silly differences between open source and free software. Free software == GPL, right? Regardless, your point is correct, valid, and noted, thank you. Open Source + product == possible. Free software + product == non-viable product. OSSAL is intended for businesses and is just as open source as FreeBSD. OSSAL may be just as open source as FreeBSD in the technical sense that it follows the OSD. However, it is not as open as FreeBSD, nor as free as FreeBSD. It is just as free if you're a FreeBSD user and given that any of the BSD's. In the context of businesses, term 3 is optional, term 4 and 5 are non-issues on any of the BSD's, and term 6 doesn't concern businesses either. In the contexts of individuals, term 3 is meaningless (if anything could lead to possible
Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
Quoting Sean Chittenden ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): Hrm, that's not the intent, nor how I read it. Redistributions of source code means the source code in question that is licensed under the OSSAL, not the software that it is linked to. In the same vein, since the LGPL allows closed source applications to be linked with LGPL libraries and the LGPL does not require that the closed source application have its source published (only the the LGPL'ed library's code, which is not the target of the phrase, source code), the LGPL does not meet this requirement, therefore allowing OSSAL programs to link with LGPL libraries. Your intent might be clearer if you were to add a couple of words (shown in emphasis): 5. Redistributions of source code in any non-textual form (i.e. binary or object form, etc.) may not be linked to software that is released with a license that requires disclosure of _the OSSAL-covered work's_ source code (ex: the GPL). An aside: Linking in object form of (e.g.) an OSSAL-covered work's source code with GPL-covered source code does not and could not require disclosure, for two reasons: (1) GPLv2 imposes no source-access obligation based on mere linkage or other creation of derivative works. That obligation kicks in only upon redistribution of those derivative works. (2) More to the immediate point, the GPLed work's author has no power to compel anything at all concerning access to the other work's source code. It's somebody else's property, after all. A lot of people seem to get easily confused about the latter point, especially in the BSD camp (**cough** Darren Reed **cough**): All GPLv2 does is state (per section 2 and elsewhere) that, _if_ you cannot pass along in your redistributed derivative work access rights to the entire work's source code, then GPLv2 grants you no right to redistribute the GPL-covered portion at all. It doesn't change the licence status of the other portion: It couldn't; that's simply not within its powers. I.e., there is zero risk that GPLv2 could require disclosure of an OSSAL-covered work's source code: It has no authority over such code, so how could it? (I pointed out to Darren Reed that his imposition of a similar provision in one recent licence covering his IP-filtering code was a no-op for this exact reason.) (Please note that nothing in the above is intended as licence advocacy. I don't do that sort of silliness.) Free software == GPL, right? Not right. I'm tempted to do a Venn diagram, but will spare you the ASCII-graphics torture entailed. ;- Free software is a semantic map referring to the same territory as does open source (after you strip ideological emphasis, etc.). It can be broken down into two sub-categories: Copyleft type: conditioned on source-access obligation. E.g., MPL, LGPL, GPL. Non-copyleft type: no such obligations. E.g., old BSD, new BSD, MIT/X. Open Source + product == possible. Free software + product == non-viable product. As you'll see from the above explanation, you're committing a category error. Returning to the earlier point: If the bits are OSSAL, a business can trust on the OSSAL bits always being OSSAL. This would be automatically true by default operation of copyright law, with or without OSSAL clause 6. To reiterate: Licences over other codebases used in combination with the OSSAL-covered code _could not_ affect licence status of the OSSAL-covered portion of the derivative codebase. How could it? Doing so would violate the property rights of the OSSAL codebase's copyright owner. I _think_ I finally got that point across to Darren. But I see that the misconception he suffered from lives on. -- Cheers, Rick MoenThis space for rant. [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
RE: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
Sean, You are making some very legitimate points. Last year, Bruce Perens, one of the most active proponents of the GPL, said the exact same thing at an open source conference, the GPL has limited commercial applications. kb -Original Message- From: Sean Chittenden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2003 2:46 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License I am not concerned about freedom of development to users/consumers (which is the aim of the GPL), I'm concerned about the freedom of development for businesses. Your terminology is strange to somebody like me, who worked for many years at a business which did very well using the GPL (Cygnus). It's difficult for me to understand just who you mean when you use the word ``business.'' It seems to me that your license is Cygnus-unfriendly in more or less the same way that the GPL is Microsoft-unfriendly. ... I really want to respond to this, but this discussion is off topic for the license at hand (determining if it meets the criteria laid out in the OSD) and can be OSI certified. If you would like to discuss this, see below. 5. Redistributions of source code in any non-textual form (i.e. binary or object form, etc.) may not be linked to software that is released with a license that requires disclosure of source code (ex: the GPL). This may preclude running the software on any system which uses glibc, such as GNU/Linux. Perhaps this is your intent. Correct. Most Linux distributions with GPL'ed libc's will be unable to run OSSAL software unless their libc is LGPL'ed (which is unimpaired or affected by OSSAL): a non-issue for BSD or OS-X users. If I understand this correctly, you should clarify point 5 to explain that the disclosure of source code in question is the OSSAL source code, not the source code of the software to which it is linked. When I read clause 5 above, it says that you can not link OSSAL code which LGPL code, because the LGPL does require the release of source code: it requires the release of the source of the code licensed under the LGPL. Hrm, that's not the intent, nor how I read it. Redistributions of source code means the source code in question that is licensed under the OSSAL, not the software that it is linked to. In the same vein, since the LGPL allows closed source applications to be linked with LGPL libraries and the LGPL does not require that the closed source application have its source published (only the the LGPL'ed library's code, which is not the target of the phrase, source code), the LGPL does not meet this requirement, therefore allowing OSSAL programs to link with LGPL libraries. Discussion: As stated above, I wish to preserve the business friendliness of all modules. Man hours and resources are precious and duplication of work by anyone is foolish. This ensures that all open source modules are available to other businesses. And yet if your license is adopted widely it requires the duplication of work by people who prefer the GPL, in precisely the same way that the GPL requires the duplication of work by people who do not prefer the GPL. So I think that your license really does not promote what you say it promotes. Let me clarify some vocabulary: people = home user or developer of applications out side of a commercial entity working on a not for sale piece of software. businesses = commercial developers interested explicitly in the purpose of developing commercial applications and products. In the context of this discussion, the OSSAL is not interested in protecting the work by people, it cares about work by businesses that is usable in its commercial products. The OSSAL guarantees freely available resources to businesses. If people is defined as above, people don't care if businesses use the same code as they're using for their program. In fact, people would probably prefer OSSAL code over non-OSSAL code because it likely means that the OSSAL code has been looked over by someone who programs professionally, or that it has been used more widely and contains fewer bugs/more features. Right now open source works in favor of individuals, but not for businesses. I'm sorry, but this is nonsense. The whole point of open source, as opposed to free software, is to support businesses. Oooh! Good clarification, though I try to avoid most of this semantic open source propaganda mess when possible. I'm not a Linux user and haven't bothered myself with knowing the silly differences between open source and free software. Free software == GPL, right? Regardless, your point is correct, valid, and noted, thank you. Open Source + product == possible. Free software + product == non-viable product. OSSAL is intended for businesses and is just as open source as FreeBSD. OSSAL may be just as open source as FreeBSD
Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
Sean Chittenden writes: Let me clarify some vocabulary: people = home user or developer of applications out side of a commercial entity working on a not for sale piece of software. businesses = commercial developers interested explicitly in the purpose of developing commercial applications and products. Unfortunately, Sean, this does not clarify, but instead obscures. The GPL does not interfere with commerce. It interferes with the creation of proprietary software. This makes some business models difficult, but makes others easier. Saying business and commerce obscures this essential distinction. -- --My blog is at angry-economist.russnelson.com | Can I recommend python? Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | Just a thought. 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | -Dr. Jamey Hicks Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
Let me clarify some vocabulary: people = home user or developer of applications out side of a commercial entity working on a not for sale piece of software. businesses = commercial developers interested explicitly in the purpose of developing commercial applications and products. Unfortunately, Sean, this does not clarify, but instead obscures. The GPL does not interfere with commerce. Correct... It interferes with the creation of proprietary software. Correct, which is what I object to and why I created the OSSAL. Businesses using OSSAL software would give the business the ability to create proprietary software, even though the non-core parts are most likely open and available to the public. -sc -- Sean Chittenden -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
Hrm, that's not the intent, nor how I read it. Redistributions of source code means the source code in question that is licensed under the OSSAL, not the software that it is linked to. In the same vein, since the LGPL allows closed source applications to be linked with LGPL libraries and the LGPL does not require that the closed source application have its source published (only the the LGPL'ed library's code, which is not the target of the phrase, source code), the LGPL does not meet this requirement, therefore allowing OSSAL programs to link with LGPL libraries. Your intent might be clearer if you were to add a couple of words (shown in emphasis): 5. Redistributions of source code in any non-textual form (i.e. binary or object form, etc.) may not be linked to software that is released with a license that requires disclosure of _the OSSAL-covered work's_ source code (ex: the GPL). Strictly speaking from a legal sense, it is not needed, however for interpretation's sake, you're probably right. I'll add an FAQ section to the license page to handle this case. An aside: Linking in object form of (e.g.) an OSSAL-covered work's source code with GPL-covered source code does not and could not require disclosure, for two reasons: (1) GPLv2 imposes no source-access obligation based on mere linkage or other creation of derivative works. That obligation kicks in only upon redistribution of those derivative works. I know, which is why the GPL is problematic. If you're writing an in house application, you have within your right the ability to link against the GPL. If you try sell a product, the OSSAL prevents you from shipping that product if it uses GPL'ed code, which is what I want. Means that freshmeat.net or other avenues for software announcements will be venerable gold mines for businesses in terms of software that they can use in products. Free software == GPL, right? Not right. I'm tempted to do a Venn diagram, but will spare you the ASCII-graphics torture entailed. ;- Free software is a semantic map referring to the same territory as does open source (after you strip ideological emphasis, etc.). It can be broken down into two sub-categories: Copyleft type: conditioned on source-access obligation. E.g., MPL, LGPL, GPL. Non-copyleft type: no such obligations. E.g., old BSD, new BSD, MIT/X. Bah, this is exactly why I avoid this kind of semantic propaganda silliness. Open Source + product == possible. Free software + product == non-viable product. As you'll see from the above explanation, you're committing a category error. Fair enough. copyleft + product == !possible; non-copyleft + product == possible; Returning to the earlier point: If the bits are OSSAL, a business can trust on the OSSAL bits always being OSSAL. This would be automatically true by default operation of copyright law, with or without OSSAL clause 6. To reiterate: Licences over other codebases used in combination with the OSSAL-covered code _could not_ affect licence status of the OSSAL-covered portion of the derivative codebase. How could it? Doing so would violate the property rights of the OSSAL codebase's copyright owner. This doesn't mean it hasn't happened, however. Having it explicitly stated doesn't hurt anyone, esp since this isn't the 1st time this has happened. http://slashdot.org/bsd/01/09/24/1432223.shtml -- Sean Chittenden -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
Sean Chittenden [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I won't comment on what other people have already commented on. Let me clarify some vocabulary: people = home user or developer of applications out side of a commercial entity working on a not for sale piece of software. businesses = commercial developers interested explicitly in the purpose of developing commercial applications and products. In the context of this discussion, the OSSAL is not interested in protecting the work by people, it cares about work by businesses that is usable in its commercial products. The OSSAL guarantees freely available resources to businesses. If people is defined as above, people don't care if businesses use the same code as they're using for their program. In fact, people would probably prefer OSSAL code over non-OSSAL code because it likely means that the OSSAL code has been looked over by someone who programs professionally, or that it has been used more widely and contains fewer bugs/more features. I'll assume that when you say ``commercial'' above you mean ``proprietary.'' There is obviously plenty of commercial GPL software, so that can't be what you mean. You argue that ``The OSSAL guarantees freely available resources to businesses.'' I really don't see it offers any such guarantee beyond what the BSD license provides. As far as I can see, the only guarantee which the OSSAL provides, that the BSD license does not, is the guarantee that nobody will ever distribute a binary in which OSSAL code has been linked against GPL code. I don't see how providing that guarantee equates to ``guarantees freely available resources to businesses.'' OSSAL may be just as open source as FreeBSD in the technical sense that it follows the OSD. However, it is not as open as FreeBSD, nor as free as FreeBSD. It is just as free if you're a FreeBSD user and given that any of the BSD's. You write this statement as though you are disagreeing with me, but in fact you seem to be agreeing. Term 6 is intended to keep the GPL zealots from publishing 0.1 versions of code, then changing the license to be GPL'ed, thus diluting the value of OSSAL bits to businesses. Can you explain how this dilutes the value of the OSSAL bits? The original OSSAL bits are still right there, still under the same license they were under before. Their value hasn't gone away at all. If the bits are OSSAL, a business can trust on the OSSAL bits always being OSSAL. This would be just as true if you used the BSD license. Unfortunately, too many people confuse Open Source with the GPL and/or Linux and I think the OSD correctly skirts this very issue and makes OSI more creditable in the process (thus averting the phrase, GNU Source/Linux Source vs. Open Source/Business Source). That fact that some people may have such a confusion is a reason to educate them. It is not a reason to promote a license which weakens the open source community. That's a topic for debate that is outside of the scope of this current discussion. If you, or anyone else would like to entertain such discussions, please let me know and I will either entertain such discussions privately, or if there is enough interest, setup a dedicated list for this topic... but please, it's not appropriate here. The OSI is not a political organization to advocate use of the GPL. -sc The OSI is a political organization ``dedicated to managing and promoting the Open Source Definition for the good of the community.'' So I don't think that debate is off-topic for this list. Ian -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
Sean Chittenden [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Businesses using OSSAL software would give the business the ability to create proprietary software, even though the non-core parts are most likely open and available to the public. The same is true of software under the BSD license. Ian -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
Businesses using OSSAL software would give the business the ability to create proprietary software, even though the non-core parts are most likely open and available to the public. The same is true of software under the BSD license. Correct, but the BSD license does not ensure that all software developed will be available under terms friendly for businesses, which goes back to the point of me writing the OSSAL. -sc -- Sean Chittenden -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
Sean Chittenden [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If the bits are OSSAL, a business can trust on the OSSAL bits always being OSSAL. This would be automatically true by default operation of copyright law, with or without OSSAL clause 6. To reiterate: Licences over other codebases used in combination with the OSSAL-covered code _could not_ affect licence status of the OSSAL-covered portion of the derivative codebase. How could it? Doing so would violate the property rights of the OSSAL codebase's copyright owner. This doesn't mean it hasn't happened, however. Having it explicitly stated doesn't hurt anyone, esp since this isn't the 1st time this has happened. http://slashdot.org/bsd/01/09/24/1432223.shtml Since what happened there was a copyright violation (it has, of course, since been resolved), the OSSAL would not protect against that any more than the current BSD license does. It was already a copyright violation under the BSD license. It would still be a copyright violation under the OSSAL. Your arguments about businesses don't make any sense to me since there are certainly a number of businesses happily making money from GPL software. Here is what my version of what I think you are doing. The reason that some people like the GPL is that it prohibits a proprietary fork. Open source code is always open source; that is true no matter what license you use. What the GPL prohibits is somebody doing work on the GPLed code and distributing the result as proprietary software. The reason that some people like the BSD license is that it permits proprietary forks. They don't usually say it that way. They usually say that the software is maximally free/open. The OSSAL appears designed to prohibit GPL forks. It permits proprietary forks, but prohibits GPL forks. Since the main effect of a GPL fork would be to prohibit proprietary forks of the forked code, the effect of the OSSAL is to prohibit prohibiting proprietary forks. So what you are trying to do is sort of a reverse copyleft (I don't know what that would be called--not a copyright, but maybe a copyup or copydown). Copyleft code tries to prohibit proprietary forks ``to make sure the software is free for all its users'' (quoting the GPL). The OSSAL tries to prohibit prohibiting proprietary forks presumably to make sure the software is always free to be available for use in a proprietary fork. This doesn't seem useful to me, but obviously I don't speak for the OSI. Also obviously you can use your license whether or not the OSI blesses it. Ian -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
If the bits are OSSAL, a business can trust on the OSSAL bits always being OSSAL. This would be automatically true by default operation of copyright law, with or without OSSAL clause 6. To reiterate: Licences over other codebases used in combination with the OSSAL-covered code _could not_ affect licence status of the OSSAL-covered portion of the derivative codebase. How could it? Doing so would violate the property rights of the OSSAL codebase's copyright owner. This doesn't mean it hasn't happened, however. Having it explicitly stated doesn't hurt anyone, esp since this isn't the 1st time this has happened. http://slashdot.org/bsd/01/09/24/1432223.shtml Since what happened there was a copyright violation (it has, of course, since been resolved), the OSSAL would not protect against that any more than the current BSD license does. It was already a copyright violation under the BSD license. It would still be a copyright violation under the OSSAL. Correct, but stating it for the sake of being obvious for those who don't know copyright law (obviously we're talking about people outside of the context of this list), the explicit part of the license doesn't hurt or hinder anyone other than remind them of the obvious. Your arguments about businesses don't make any sense to me since there are certainly a number of businesses happily making money from GPL software. Here is what my version of what I think you are doing. Some, not all. Just to keep the discussion from thinking that open source is copyleft or that the OSSAL wouldn't be useful, let me point out the following: Nokia's CheckPoint firewall (often considered the best firewall in the industry) isn't based on Linux for a reason. Same with Mac OS-X, BSDI/WindRiver, BIG-IP, etc. Businesses using open source doesn't mean businesses using GPL'ed software: there are plenty of examples of the BSDL software being true. The reason that some people like the GPL is that it prohibits a proprietary fork. Open source code is always open source; that is true no matter what license you use. What the GPL prohibits is somebody doing work on the GPLed code and distributing the result as proprietary software. Correct, which I want to be able to do and is what most people who use FreeBSD (points to Apple) or PostgreSQL do (embedded in some of Cisco's products). The reason that some people like the BSD license is that it permits proprietary forks. They don't usually say it that way. They usually say that the software is maximally free/open. I define free along the lines of the way the BSD crowd does, not along the way of the Linux crowd. Free in terms of rights, not free in terms of cost to personal developers. The OSSAL appears designed to prohibit GPL forks. It permits proprietary forks, but prohibits GPL forks. Since the main effect of a GPL fork would be to prohibit proprietary forks of the forked code, the effect of the OSSAL is to prohibit prohibiting proprietary forks. Did you mean to say, prohibit prohibiting proprietary forks? Your wording is rather verbose in the end, but you are correct, the OSSAL is designed to prohibit GPL forks and to explicitly permit proprietary forks. So what you are trying to do is sort of a reverse copyleft (I don't know what that would be called--not a copyright, but maybe a copyup or copydown). Copyleft code tries to prohibit proprietary forks ``to make sure the software is free for all its users'' (quoting the GPL). The OSSAL tries to prohibit prohibiting proprietary forks presumably to make sure the software is always free to be available for use in a proprietary fork. Sure, that works. This doesn't seem useful to me, but obviously I don't speak for the OSI. It's useful if you're a business in that if you use OSSAL software in a product, you're never going to have to go back and rewrite that code that you depend on if the module author goes copyleft. In doing so, more businesses would likely use and contribute to Open Source. Also obviously you can use your license whether or not the OSI blesses it. Correct, though as stated before, Open Source is bigger than copyleft software. -sc -- Sean Chittenden -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
On Thu, 25 Sep 2003, Sean Chittenden wrote: Let me clarify some vocabulary: people = home user or developer of applications out side of a commercial entity working on a not for sale piece of software. businesses = commercial developers interested explicitly in the purpose of developing commercial applications and products. What about commercial entities who work on not-for-sale software for purposes other than developing commercial software products? What about home users who develop software for their own use and later find someone willing to pay for it? The commercial/noncommercial view of splitting the world is pretty useless IMO. Every human being can be a user, developer, and distributor, and the roles change constantly. It interferes with the creation of proprietary software. Not at all! It interferes with transforming free software into proprietary software. Creating new proprietary software is greatly aided by GPL tools. Businesses using OSSAL software would give the business the ability to create proprietary software, even though the non-core parts are most likely open and available to the public. They have this under the GPL (as long as their proprietary software isn't a derived work of the GPL software). They have this under the BSD license even if it IS a derived work. I utterly fail to see how ANYONE benefits from this proposed license over a pure BSD license. It's completely ludicrous to claim that my ability to take a GPL project and make it into a plugin for your product does ANYTHING to reduce someone's freedom to release proprietary software based on your code. Of course they can't make proprietary work derived from my plugin, but they can't if I release a binary-only plugin either (which you allow), or if I don't release it at all (because it's based on GPL code I don't own). Additionally, for those of us that might choose to combine GPL and OSSAL work, all this means is we need to distribute our code seperately and make our users do the actual linking/compiling/combining themselves. It sucks, but you're free to make whatever license terms you like. I suspect you'll see a lot less use of your software under this than you would under a pure BSD license, but again, it's your call. Please, if you want your work to be freely transformable into proprietary work, just use the BSD license. -- Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/ -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
Sean Chittenden wrote: Businesses using OSSAL software would give the business the ability to create proprietary software, even though the non-core parts are most likely open and available to the public. The same is true of software under the BSD license. Correct, but the BSD license does not ensure that all software developed will be available under terms friendly for businesses, which goes back to the point of me writing the OSSAL. If someone takes BSD-licensed code, modifies it and does a binary-only release, the modifications are not available at all. So businesses cannot use these modifications. If someone takes BSD-licensed code, modifies it and releases the result under GPL, the modifications are available but with certain restrictions. Now businesses cannot use the modifications either (unless they accept the restrictions). So I don't really see the difference here. In both cases the modifications are not available without restriction. Why does it matter that in one case they are licensed under a restrictive license? Arnoud -- Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch patent attorney - Speaking only for myself Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/ -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
Sean Chittenden scripsit: Nokia's CheckPoint firewall (often considered the best firewall in the industry) isn't based on Linux for a reason. Doubtless, but the reason can't be the GPL license on the Linux kernel, since there is an explicit exception allowing people to run proprietary drivers with the kernel. I define free along the lines of the way the BSD crowd does, not along the way of the Linux crowd. Free in terms of rights, not free in terms of cost to personal developers. Linux (meaning the whole system, not just the kernel) doesn't have a monolithic position. Both copyleft and copycenter (BSD-type) licensors are interested in freedom, but for different communities. BSD-style licenses maximize the freedom of developers, but copyleft licenses attempt to restrict developers somewhat so as to maximize the freedom of end users. It's useful if you're a business in that if you use OSSAL software in a product, you're never going to have to go back and rewrite that code that you depend on if the module author goes copyleft. If a new version of the module is copyleft, you wouldn't be able to upgrade it, but the previous version would still be available under the BSD or the MIT or the AFL or whatever. -- We call nothing profound[EMAIL PROTECTED] that is not wittily expressed. John Cowan --Northrop Frye (improved) http://www.reutershealth.com -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
Sean Chittenden [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Your arguments about businesses don't make any sense to me since there are certainly a number of businesses happily making money from GPL software. Here is what my version of what I think you are doing. Some, not all. Just to keep the discussion from thinking that open source is copyleft or that the OSSAL wouldn't be useful, let me point out the following: Nokia's CheckPoint firewall (often considered the best firewall in the industry) isn't based on Linux for a reason. Same with Mac OS-X, BSDI/WindRiver, BIG-IP, etc. Businesses using open source doesn't mean businesses using GPL'ed software: there are plenty of examples of the BSDL software being true. You've suggested that some people confuse open source with the GPL, but I don't think anybody on this list has that confusion. Certainly many companies use BSD licensed code, just as many companies use GPL code. I don't see that either point proves that the OSSAL would be useful. The reason that some people like the BSD license is that it permits proprietary forks. They don't usually say it that way. They usually say that the software is maximally free/open. I define free along the lines of the way the BSD crowd does, not along the way of the Linux crowd. Free in terms of rights, not free in terms of cost to personal developers. Oddly, the Linux crowd defines free the same way. But it's easy to get into hair-splitting arguments over the meaning of free, and probably not terribly worthwhile. The OSSAL appears designed to prohibit GPL forks. It permits proprietary forks, but prohibits GPL forks. Since the main effect of a GPL fork would be to prohibit proprietary forks of the forked code, the effect of the OSSAL is to prohibit prohibiting proprietary forks. Did you mean to say, prohibit prohibiting proprietary forks? Your wording is rather verbose in the end, but you are correct, the OSSAL is designed to prohibit GPL forks and to explicitly permit proprietary forks. I did indeed mean to say ``prohibit prohibiting proprietary forks.'' I think it's fairly important to understand that that is the only significant effect of the OSSAL. You say that the OSSAL explicitly permits proprietary forks, but the BSD license does that as well. The OSSAL prohibits something very specific: if somebody takes code under license X, and takes GPL code, and links them together, and distributes the result, that is permitted if X is the BSD license, but prohibited if X is the OSSAL license. Note that if I take BSD code, and link it with GPL code, and distribute the result, the recipient is permitted to extract the BSD code and make a proprietary fork of that. So the BSD license always does permit proprietary forks of the BSD code itself. This doesn't seem useful to me, but obviously I don't speak for the OSI. It's useful if you're a business in that if you use OSSAL software in a product, you're never going to have to go back and rewrite that code that you depend on if the module author goes copyleft. In doing so, more businesses would likely use and contribute to Open Source. When I read that statement it is clear to me that that is true of the BSD license as well. Can you please explain to me, in words of one syllable and taking very slow steps, why it is not? Also obviously you can use your license whether or not the OSI blesses it. Correct, though as stated before, Open Source is bigger than copyleft software. -sc Well, yes, I know you're concerned about that sort of confusion, but the rest of us are not. For that matter, open source is also bigger than the OSI. Ian -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
On Thu Sep 25 15:52:09 EDT 2003, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Note that if I take BSD code, and link it with GPL code, and distribute the result, the recipient is permitted to extract the BSD code and make a proprietary fork of that. So the BSD license always does permit proprietary forks of the BSD code itself. While true, that might be awfully hard to do since the two parts will not be explicitly delineated. A few generations down the line and heredity becomes pretty fuzzy. The viral/inheritive/ freedom-fighting nature of the GPL will always scare some companies from expressly not doing that when creating proprietary forks. They'ld rather go with a version whose ancestry can be defined. It's useful if you're a business in that if you use OSSAL software in a product, you're never going to have to go back and rewrite that code that you depend on if the module author goes copyleft. In doing so, more businesses would likely use and contribute to Open Source. When I read that statement it is clear to me that that is true of the BSD license as well. Can you please explain to me, in words of one syllable and taking very slow steps, why it is not? I've just had to go through all this with Lucent. A good chunk of development here wants to use open source as much as possible, especially as we become a leaner/smaller company; can't do it all ourselves anymore. Both the BSD copy-center and the GPL copy-left models are attractive to us, though often in different venues. There are lots of fears though the module author going copyleft is not one I've heard anyone utter. There are fears of - support disolving - accidentally mixing inheritive copy-left code with proprietary code thereby forcing us to disclose secrets - finding stolen code in open source a few years down the line and getting into a SCO-IBM like battle -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
Personally, the OSSAL is a step in the right direction, once it's finished I am thinking of adopting it myself. It reflects current day needs among small shop developers (eg. self employed programmers/consultants). Which I might add, is a segment of this community who's needs are seemingly never fully addressed, by the OSI or FSF. The OSI is a political organization yeah.. and IMHO this is the very reason that many who want to support the Open Source community, will not do so. It is slowly becoming a cheerleading section for the GPL. Will the supporters of the GPL ever shed the notion that the GPL is the answer to everything. Guess what, if diversity in your politics is a good thing than why does it seem to be an uphill battle every time someone does something that may not conform to the 'copyleft' side of the debate? Why does the non-GPL view have to be seen as dissent ? Why does the opensource community/OSI have to have one view on any given topic? ``dedicated to managing and promoting the Open Source Definition for the good of the community.'' Well..there are those within the community to which the GPL is a hindrance, plain and simple. Those of us who do not work for mega corporations or universities with seemingly unlimited resources from multiple revenue streams and legions of underpaid code slaves. Those of us who own small businesses have needs that are not being met by currently defined OSI approved licenses, and quite honestly open source in general is taking a beating because of it, but the remedy is to submit new licenses, the OSI has provided a process for doing this, however the trend on new license submissions is always use an existing license or use the GPL If a hobbyist, or user, or whomever wants to license under the GPL thats fine, I'm glad they contributed, however, it is narrow minded and arrogant to think that the same rights that protect a user would be an acceptable in all other circumstances. I hope the OSI approves this license in short order. Have a great day! Mike -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
Mike Wattier scripsit: yeah.. and IMHO this is the very reason that many who want to support the Open Source community, will not do so. It is slowly becoming a cheerleading section for the GPL. Nonsense. Tell that to Mr. Behlendorf, open and notorious OSI supporter and promulgator of a certain almost-BSD-licensed web server. Guess what, if diversity in your politics is a good thing than why does it seem to be an uphill battle every time someone does something that may not conform to the 'copyleft' side of the debate? If someone comes on the mailing list and spews crap about copycenter licenses, they will get flamed for that too. It's just that they're shorter and simpler and don't confuse people as much. Well..there are those within the community to which the GPL is a hindrance, plain and simple. Those of us who do not work for mega corporations or universities with seemingly unlimited resources from multiple revenue streams and legions of underpaid code slaves. Umm, the universities tend to use copycenter licenses. -- Deshil Holles eamus. Deshil Holles eamus. Deshil Holles eamus. Send us, bright one, light one, Horhorn, quickening, and wombfruit. (3x) Hoopsa, boyaboy, hoopsa! Hoopsa, boyaboy, hoopsa! Hoopsa, boyaboy, hoopsa! -- Joyce, _Ulysses_, Oxen of the Sun [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
David Presotto scripsit: While true, that might be awfully hard to do since the two parts will not be explicitly delineated. A few generations down the line and heredity becomes pretty fuzzy. The viral/inheritive/ freedom-fighting nature of the GPL will always scare some companies from expressly not doing that when creating proprietary forks. They'ld rather go with a version whose ancestry can be defined. Safer to go back to the original BSD-ish code. In the current climate, it's unlikely that any open-source code once released can be lost forever -- too many archives. - finding stolen code in open source a few years down the line and getting into a SCO-IBM like battle The chance of that is nearly nil, IMHO (IANAL, TINLA). Most GPL violations are innocent and/or ignorant, and get resolved early and quietly, according to Eben Moglen, who does most of the enforcing, or enforcing. -- Work hard, John Cowan play hard, [EMAIL PROTECTED] die young, http://www.reutershealth.com rot quickly.http://www.ccil.org/~cowan -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
Ian Lance Taylor scripsit: I define free along the lines of the way the BSD crowd does, not along the way of the Linux crowd. Free in terms of rights, not free in terms of cost to personal developers. Oddly, the Linux crowd defines free the same way. They differ on the relative importance of freedom-to-code vs. freedom-to-use- the-latest-and-greatest, basically. -- Income tax, if I may be pardoned for saying so, John Cowan is a tax on income. --Lord Macnaghten (1901) [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
Quoting Sean Chittenden ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): Strictly speaking from a legal sense, it is not needed, however for interpretation's sake, you're probably right. I'll add an FAQ section to the license page to handle this case. I strongly recommend that misleading ambiguities in the licence text be remedied _in_ the licence text. [My clarification that GPLv2's source-access provision does _not_ get triggered by linking (contrary to OSSAL's wording), but rather by redistribution, snipped.] I know, which is why the GPL is problematic. If you're writing an in house application, you have within your right the ability to link against the GPL. If you try sell a product, the OSSAL prevents you from shipping that product if it uses GPL'ed code, which is what I want. Means that freshmeat.net or other avenues for software announcements will be venerable gold mines for businesses in terms of software that they can use in products. Why or whether particular licences are problematic is completely irrelevant to this discussion. (Moreover, licence advocacy is infamously tedious, and I try to have nothing to do with it.) My overall point is that your concern (if I understand you correctly) about some other codebase's licence attaching itself to a OSSAL-covered work used with it is misplaced: It can't happen. Basic copyright law guarantees that it cannot. So, I conclude that your licence (like Darren Reed's) attempts to cure (in that particular) a nonexistent problem. [Snip my attempt to explain why your assumption that free software == GPL isn't correct, and that free software is just a synonym for open source, with a different marketing program.] Bah, this is exactly why I avoid this kind of semantic propaganda silliness. On the contrary: I thought it evident that that classification distinction (dividing free aka open-source software into copyleft vs. non-copyleft categories) is devoid of advocacy, and is an aid to clarity. I strongly recommend you heed what is meant by those terms, as otherwise you'll lose a great deal of time dealing with misunderstandings. (As an aside, I'm really boggling at your conclusion that my category explanation was propaganda. That's one huge chip on your shoulder, Sean: It seems to be partially blocking your hearing.) Fair enough. Cool. copyleft + product == !possible; non-copyleft + product == possible; Plainly outside the scope of licence-evaluation discussion. (Moreover, tedious.) This doesn't mean it hasn't happened, however. Having it explicitly stated doesn't hurt anyone, esp since this isn't the 1st time this has happened. http://slashdot.org/bsd/01/09/24/1432223.shtml As Ian Lance Taylor said -- and as I was saying, for that matter -- that's basic copyright violation, and would be so regardless of the code's licence. That's a tort. When someone violates your copyright, send them a stiffly worded demand letter, and expect immediate correction preferably accompanied by an abject apology. If sufficiently incensed, and if you think you can get any, sue for damages. Thus my point that the OSSAL provision discussed -- like Darren Reed's -- is a no-op. Basic copyright law renders it irrelevant: It is flat-out unlawful to relicense someone else's copyrighted property. Persons other than the copyright owner lack title to do so. Therefore, actions purporting to do so have zero effect -- except in committing torts. That's what title _means_. And note that Søren's copyright notice had been simply lopped off: Having had that copyright notice say OSSAL instead of BSD would (obviously) have had zero effect on the situation. People like Darren write such licence provisions because they misapprehend how basic copyright law works. You _do_ know how it works, and so needn't repeat his mistake. -- Cheers, Rick Moen ROMANI, ITE DOMVM! [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
Quoting Ken Brown ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): You are making some very legitimate points. Last year, Bruce Perens, one of the most active proponents of the GPL, said the exact same thing at an open source conference, the GPL has limited commercial applications. Hello again, Mr. Brown! How are things at the Alexis de Tocqueville Institute? (You've moved from Erols to Verizon, I see.) We haven't heard much from you since I explained to the mailing list a year ago which Microsoft-supported institute you're vice-president of.[1] Anyone else who was at the O'Reilly conference: What did Bruce _really_ say, in context? [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg05605.html -- Cheers, Rick Moen Never ask a sysadmin What's up? [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
Mike Wattier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Well..there are those within the community to which the GPL is a hindrance, plain and simple. Sure, I know that. (I've been in the open source business for 13 years now; I really do know something about it. And I do mean business literally, as it's how I earn my living.) I think the question at hand is whether the OSSAL helps those people, or indeed any people, in any meaningful way. In your message you said that it did, but you didn't explain how. I want to understand how. Ian -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
Pulling a Kibo: On Thu, 25 Sep 2003, John Cowan wrote: Mike Wattier scripsit: yeah.. and IMHO this is the very reason that many who want to support the Open Source community, will not do so. It is slowly becoming a cheerleading section for the GPL. Nonsense. Tell that to Mr. Behlendorf, open and notorious OSI supporter and promulgator of a certain almost-BSD-licensed web server. Notorious! I love it. I don't agree with Mike's claim, but I understand completely where it's coming from. It's one thing to talk about a company's preferred licensing model for software created largely outside that company. It's quite another to be a sole or primary author of a piece of software and try to determine which licensing strategy is optimal, especially when you are trying to make a living from it, and especially when you're a small company and can't afford to build all the other associated services you could actually make money from. The essential device of an OSI license - the right to distribute modified works without the copyright holders' consent - does mean there's a whole host of business models the copyright holder simply can't make viable, especially on a startup budget. That's not a defect, or even necessarily a shame - the balance of power in OSI-approved licenses is intentionally weighted in favor of everyone but the authors. This makes it hard to reconcile, though, with the traditional model for small software developers - that you get paid proportionate to the amount of value your product is providing to people, roughly expressed as the number of people using your product. The fact that such a philosophy can't be supported (at least not predictably and directly) by OSI licenses is what causes people to see OSI licenses as cheerleading for the GPL. Brian -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
Quoting Brian Behlendorf ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): The essential device of an OSI license - the right to distribute modified works without the copyright holders' consent - does mean there's a whole host of business models the copyright holder simply can't make viable, especially on a startup budget. That's not a defect, or even necessarily a shame - the balance of power in OSI-approved licenses is intentionally weighted in favor of everyone but the authors. This makes it hard to reconcile, though, with the traditional model for small software developers - that you get paid proportionate to the amount of value your product is providing to people, roughly expressed as the number of people using your product. The fact that such a philosophy can't be supported (at least not predictably and directly) by OSI licenses is what causes people to see OSI licenses as cheerleading for the GPL. I just want to perform a little semantic janitorial duty, here: Surely the allegation discussed at the end of your paragraph is objectively a factual error. In anyone else's hands, I'd have suspected it was intended as flamebait. -- Cheers, Rick Moen ROMANI, ITE DOMVM! [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
On Thu, 25 Sep 2003, Rick Moen wrote: Quoting Brian Behlendorf ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): The essential device of an OSI license - the right to distribute modified works without the copyright holders' consent - does mean there's a whole host of business models the copyright holder simply can't make viable, especially on a startup budget. That's not a defect, or even necessarily a shame - the balance of power in OSI-approved licenses is intentionally weighted in favor of everyone but the authors. This makes it hard to reconcile, though, with the traditional model for small software developers - that you get paid proportionate to the amount of value your product is providing to people, roughly expressed as the number of people using your product. The fact that such a philosophy can't be supported (at least not predictably and directly) by OSI licenses is what causes people to see OSI licenses as cheerleading for the GPL. I just want to perform a little semantic janitorial duty, here: Surely the allegation discussed at the end of your paragraph is objectively a factual error. In anyone else's hands, I'd have suspected it was intended as flamebait. It's not flame bait. Show me an open source license that specifies that each user pay the copyright holder for use. That's the predictable and direct method to compensate a copyright holder based on the number of users of their software that just doesn't exist in open-source licensed software. I'm not saying it's a problem, I'm just saying it's incompatible with the traditional way (and I'd suggest, still the predominant way) software companies sell their goods. Companies used to the old model sometimes have trouble dealing with this, and think we're all about some wacky anticapitalist ideal epitomized in their minds by the GPL. They don't see the shift the software economy is making from being a packaged-goods-like industry to a services industry. Semantically clean? Brian -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
Brian Behlendorf scripsit: Nonsense. Tell that to Mr. Behlendorf, open and notorious OSI supporter and promulgator of a certain almost-BSD-licensed web server. Notorious! I love it. :-) It was an ironically intended (to be sure) reuse of legalese: we have open and notorious adverse possession of land, open and notorious fornication, and the open notorious evil livers of the Anglican Book of Common Prayer. These last are those who live evil lives, of course, not problematic internal organs. the balance of power in OSI-approved licenses is intentionally weighted in favor of everyone but the authors. Relative to the default situation in which the author has godlike powers over the code, yes. The fact that such a philosophy can't be supported (at least not predictably and directly) by OSI licenses is what causes people to see OSI licenses as cheerleading for the GPL. But BSD-like licenses are the same in this respect: you still don't collect any rents on your secret bits, because you have no secrets. No, the charge of GPL-cheerleading can't be accounted for by something that is true of all open licensing schemes equally. IMHO it results from the relative complexity of copyleft licenses, which makes them harder to understand and lead to more mistaken impressions. (And then there's the Rogue, whose views are sui generis.) -- One art / There is John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] No less / No more http://www.reutershealth.com All things / To do http://www.ccil.org/~cowan With sparks / Galore -- Douglas Hofstadter -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
RE: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
Big Rick, Your IBM funded-man Tony Stanco has the tape. You should ask him for a copy. By the way, I see quite of bit of IBM money moving around Washington these (ie. Ed Black, Bruce Schneir et al.) Let them know that I have no problem AdTI would be happy to accept far less money than those guys are getting to support our research. kb -Original Message- From: Rick Moen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2003 6:24 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License Quoting Ken Brown ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): You are making some very legitimate points. Last year, Bruce Perens, one of the most active proponents of the GPL, said the exact same thing at an open source conference, the GPL has limited commercial applications. Hello again, Mr. Brown! How are things at the Alexis de Tocqueville Institute? (You've moved from Erols to Verizon, I see.) We haven't heard much from you since I explained to the mailing list a year ago which Microsoft-supported institute you're vice-president of.[1] Anyone else who was at the O'Reilly conference: What did Bruce _really_ say, in context? [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg05605.html -- Cheers, Rick Moen Never ask a sysadmin What's up? [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: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
I've been waiting for someone to actually go through this, thank you for your time and energy. 4. Redistributions of source code must not be used in conjunction with any software license that requires disclosure of source code (ex: the GNU Public License, hereafter known as the GPL). IMHO, this violates OSD #1:- 'as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing' ^ 1. Free Redistribution The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale. You can sell OSSAL software and you can give OSSAL software away. You can redistribute OSSAL software that uses BSD, MIT, or LGPL licensed bits. You can distribute OSSAL bits along side GPL bits. OSSAL bits can never be used in conjunction with GPL bits, so OSSAL bits can never be apart of an aggregate software product which means that there's no possibility for OSSAL bits to restrict an aggregate software distribution. 5. Redistributions of source code in any non-textual form (i.e. binary or object form, etc.) must not be linked to software that is released with a license that requires disclosure of source code (ex: the GPL). Violates OSD #9 These terms restrict use of other software (here, s/w under GPL) used in conjunction with s/w under terms of this license. 9. The License Must Not Restrict Other Software The license must not place restrictions on other software that is _distributed_ along with the licensed software. For example, the license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be open-source software. OSSAL restricts the use, yes. OSSAL does not, however, restrict distribution. I crafted these words to be very careful to comply with the OSD while preserving the intention of the license. -sc -- Sean Chittenden -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
Nokia's CheckPoint firewall (often considered the best firewall in the industry) isn't based on Linux for a reason. Doubtless, but the reason can't be the GPL license on the Linux kernel, since there is an explicit exception allowing people to run proprietary drivers with the kernel. Nokia's lack of use of Linux has nothing to do with drivers, it has to do with the extensive modifications they made to BSD's IP stack and firewall software, which they redistribute as the product called CheckPoint. OSSAL, BSD, and MIT licenses operate under the notion of take what's existing, modify it in unique and interesting ways, and leverage it to the best of your ability. Writing something from scratch is a silly waste of effort and pointless: OSSAL, BSD, and MIT licenses give businesses or any developer a base to work from. [snip] It's useful if you're a business in that if you use OSSAL software in a product, you're never going to have to go back and rewrite that code that you depend on if the module author goes copyleft. If a new version of the module is copyleft, you wouldn't be able to upgrade it, but the previous version would still be available under the BSD or the MIT or the AFL or whatever. Which means duplicated work/effort, which is what the OSSAL aims to prevent. -sc -- Sean Chittenden -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
Sean Chittenden [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The OSSAL is the most similar to the BSD license. This is a derivative license in that it is modeled after the BSD license, however it prevents code or objects from being used by GPL'ed bits. The reason for these addions being that as a language author, I don't want any of the modules written by the open source community to be GPL'ed as GPL'ed modules are of no use to businesses and the language is centered around businesses that use and contribute open source code. I'm sure you've heard it before, but I would encourage you to not use such a license. People generally choose a BSD-type license in order to make the code as free as possible without actually disclaiming copyright. Making code as free as possible ought to include permission to link it with GPL code. Linking with GPL code does not make the code any less free than linking with proprietary code and distributing only binaries. Your stated goal can be achieved simply by not accepting contributions which are under the GPL. As far as I can see, permitting other people to distribute GPL contributions to your software does not reduce the freedom of your end users in any way, since anybody is already permitted to distribute contributions to your software without providing source code at all. That said, I don't see any reason why your license does not conform to the OSD. 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software should, in good faith, display the following acknowledgment: This product includes software developed by the AUTHOR and its contributors. Discussion: Non-legally binding clause that asks for recognition, but isn't required. With regard to this clause, your discussion says that it does not require recognition, but a plain reading of the clause is that recognition is required if any features or use of the software are mentioned. Which is it? 4. Redistributions of source code may not be used in conjunction with any software license that requires disclosure of source code (ex: the GNU Public License, hereafter known as the GPL). This is also not entirely clear. Perhaps you mean something like ``this source code may not be relicensed under any software license which requires disclosure of source code.'' 5. Redistributions of source code in any non-textual form (i.e. binary or object form, etc.) may not be linked to software that is released with a license that requires disclosure of source code (ex: the GPL). This may preclude running the software on any system which uses glibc, such as GNU/Linux. Perhaps this is your intent. This license raises the question of whether the OSI should mechanically approve any license which meets the OSD, or whether the OSI should apply other considerations as well. If the OSI does not approve licenses mechanically, then I would vote against approving this license, as I believe it could tend to balkanize the open source community rather than build it up. Ian -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
For your purpose, the BSD or the MIT license is better than the OSSAL, which impose on businesses the burden of not being able to use GPL code for their purposes. Hopefully you will not force the FreeBSD project to adapt your license. --- Sean Chittenden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: DISCUSSION: The Open Source Software Alliance (hereafter known as OSSAL), is designed to be a business friendly Open Source Software license that encourages businesses to release or make use of OSSAL software (OSSAL is a BSDL-like license). The intent of OSSAL is akin to the phrase, if you scratch my back, I'll scratch your back. ... -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
Ian Lance Taylor scripsit: That said, I don't see any reason why your license does not conform to the OSD. I agree. 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software should, in good faith, display the following acknowledgment: This product includes software developed by the AUTHOR and its contributors. Discussion: Non-legally binding clause that asks for recognition, but isn't required. With regard to this clause, your discussion says that it does not require recognition, but a plain reading of the clause is that recognition is required if any features or use of the software are mentioned. Which is it? The former. Note the presence of should rather than must or shall. 4. Redistributions of source code may not be used in conjunction with any software license that requires disclosure of source code (ex: the GNU Public License, hereafter known as the GPL). This is also not entirely clear. Perhaps you mean something like ``this source code may not be relicensed under any software license which requires disclosure of source code.'' Technically, source code is not (cannot be) normally relicensed. What is meant is that derivative works in non-textual form can't be licensed under a copyleft license, for an appropriate definition of copyleft. It would be better to word this must not rather than may not, which latter is subject to misreading. -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.reutershealth.com www.ccil.org/~cowan If a soldier is asked why he kills people who have done him no harm, or a terrorist why he kills innocent people with his bombs, they can always reply that war has been declared, and there are no innocent people in an enemy country in wartime. The answer is psychotic, but it is the answer that humanity has given to every act of aggression in history. --Northrop Frye -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
The OSSAL is the most similar to the BSD license. This is a derivative license in that it is modeled after the BSD license, however it prevents code or objects from being used by GPL'ed bits. The reason for these addions being that as a language author, I don't want any of the modules written by the open source community to be GPL'ed as GPL'ed modules are of no use to businesses and the language is centered around businesses that use and contribute open source code. I'm sure you've heard it before, but I would encourage you to not use such a license. People generally choose a BSD-type license in order to make the code as free as possible without actually disclaiming copyright. Making code as free as possible ought to include permission to link it with GPL code. Linking with GPL code does not make the code any less free than linking with proprietary code and distributing only binaries. Correct. Your stated goal can be achieved simply by not accepting contributions which are under the GPL. My intent is to have people who do contribute, to not use the GPL. I want all of the modules in this language to be accessible under the business friendly terms of the OSSAL. As far as I can see, permitting other people to distribute GPL contributions to your software does not reduce the freedom of your end users in any way, since anybody is already permitted to distribute contributions to your software without providing source code at all. I am not concerned about freedom of development to users/consumers (which is the aim of the GPL), I'm concerned about the freedom of development for businesses. That said, I don't see any reason why your license does not conform to the OSD. *nods* I have chosen much of my wording to be in compliance with OSD as I think it is a very good criteria for Open Source. You can redistribute, you can modify, you can compile, you can patch, you can distribute... you just can't compile in GPL'ed bits and can't run the resulting library with GPL'ed bits, etc. 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software should, in good faith, display the following acknowledgment: This product includes software developed by the AUTHOR and its contributors. Discussion: Non-legally binding clause that asks for recognition, but isn't required. With regard to this clause, your discussion says that it does not require recognition, but a plain reading of the clause is that recognition is required if any features or use of the software are mentioned. Which is it? It isn't required, it says, ...this software should, in good faith, display the following..., which doesn't preclude people from omitting it if they have a reason for omitting it, but it also does place favor on people including notice in advertising. In legalese, this is basically a nudge/reminder to include it in the manual wherever you list off a zillion names and no one really pays attention, but the author gets to point out to his/her name to their significant other/kids/students, etc. and have a moment in the spotlight. 4. Redistributions of source code may not be used in conjunction with any software license that requires disclosure of source code (ex: the GNU Public License, hereafter known as the GPL). This is also not entirely clear. Perhaps you mean something like ``this source code may not be relicensed under any software license which requires disclosure of source code.'' Actually, it's meant to prevent this: #include stdio.h Where sdtio.h is GPL'ed. Though you bring up two points here that I hadn't thought about: 1) Dually licensed bits that are OSSAL and GPL'ed is just fine by me so long as the bits are available via OSSAL. 2) Relicensed source code - I think I may add a clause to prevent this, but still allowing multiply licensed source code. 5. Redistributions of source code in any non-textual form (i.e. binary or object form, etc.) may not be linked to software that is released with a license that requires disclosure of source code (ex: the GPL). This may preclude running the software on any system which uses glibc, such as GNU/Linux. Perhaps this is your intent. Correct. Most Linux distributions with GPL'ed libc's will be unable to run OSSAL software unless their libc is LGPL'ed (which is unimpaired or affected by OSSAL): a non-issue for BSD or OS-X users. As for the newly added item 6 of the OSSAL, here is the addition: 6. Redistributions of source code may be licensed under more than one license and may not have the terms of the OSSAL removed. Discussion: As stated above, I wish to preserve the business friendliness of all modules. Man hours and resources are precious and duplication of work by anyone is foolish. This ensures that all open source modules are available to other businesses. This license raises the question of
Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
4. Redistributions of source code may not be used in conjunction with any software license that requires disclosure of source code (ex: the GNU Public License, hereafter known as the GPL). This is also not entirely clear. Perhaps you mean something like ``this source code may not be relicensed under any software license which requires disclosure of source code.'' Technically, source code is not (cannot be) normally relicensed. What is meant is that derivative works in non-textual form can't be licensed under a copyleft license, for an appropriate definition of copyleft. It would be better to word this must not rather than may not, which latter is subject to misreading. This is good advice, thank you. I have updated the wording accordingly in the various places where appropriate and have attached an updated text version of the license. -sck -- Sean Chittenden OSSAL - Open Source Software Alliance License Table of Contents: Key Template Discussion Footnotes Download Comments, Questions, and Discussion KEY: Below is an OSSAL template. To generate your own license, change the values of AUTHOR, RELEASE, SOFTWARE, and YEARS from their original values as given here, and substitute your own. AUTHOR = The Regents of the University of California. (ex: The Regents of the University of California., PostgreSQL Global Development Group, Joe Schmoe) RELEASE = FreeBSD 5.3 (ex: FreeBSD 5.3, PostgreSQL 7.4) SOFTWARE = FreeBSD (ex: FreeBSD, PostgreSQL, Apache webserver) YEARS = 2003 (ex: 2003, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2001-2003, 2000-2002,2004) TEMPLATE: Here is the license template: ### BEGIN LICENSE TEMPLATE ### All of the documentation and software included in the RELEASE and SOFTWARE Releases is copyrighted by AUTHOR. Copyright YEARS AUTHOR. All rights reserved. Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software should, in good faith, display the following acknowledgment: This product includes software developed by the AUTHOR and its contributors. 4. Redistributions of source code must not be used in conjunction with any software license that requires disclosure of source code (ex: the GNU Public License, hereafter known as the GPL). 5. Redistributions of source code in any non-textual form (i.e. binary or object form, etc.) must not be linked to software that is released with a license that requires disclosure of source code (ex: the GPL). 6. Redistributions of source code must be licensed under more than one license and must not have the terms of the OSSAL removed. THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY AUTHOR AND CONTRIBUTORS ``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL AUTHOR OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. ### END TEMPLATE ### DISCUSSION: The Open Source Software Alliance (hereafter known as OSSAL), is designed to be a business friendly Open Source Software license that encourages businesses to release or make use of OSSAL software (OSSAL is a BSDL-like license). The intent of OSSAL is akin to the phrase, if you scratch my back, I'll scratch your back. With OSSAL software, a business is able to use and incorporate existing software that is licensed under the OSSAL or other BSDL-like licenses. The incorporated software can be sold. A business can lend resources to an OSSAL project and not waive its right to make money from the software. By allowing other businesses to have access to non-trade secret software under the terms of the OSSAL, other businesses can invest in improving the software. Both businesses win by collaborating. If a business keeps the changes in house and does not contribute them back to the project, the business incurs a reoccurring cost for maintaining that software. The joint nature of OSSAL software reduces maintenance costs of software. The extra engineers and eyes inspecting the code will increase the
