Re: Submitting a new license or using the current ones
Guilherme C. Hazan scripsit: We now want to change the license from part of the product to another one that states: 1. our software is and will ever be open-source 2. their software can have any license they want 3. they cannot distribute our software to their customers (or anyone else) We're migrating to an annual subscription mode, so that we can raise funds to keep the software open-source (and keep us altogether) Unfortunately, your desires #1 and #3 are mutually contradictory. The principle that open-source software can be freely distributed and redistributed is the very first point of the Open Source Definition. The most you can do is to make further releases of your software proprietary, which does expose you to the risk that a competitor will arise who will make further improvements to the old releases and distribute them under the old license or some other open source license. 1. Which licenses do you think (OSI-approved) that could fit on these clauses? None. 2. In case we want to create a new license, how much time does OSI takes to approve it? We have now a deadline (well, everybody does! ;-)). The delay is very variable, but no open-source license can do what you want. 3. If we take an already-approved license, like (just example) mozilla one, must we keep the license exactly as it is (with all references to mozilla), or can we replace the mozilla one by our product's name? The MPL explicitly provides for you to do that. I am not a lawyer; this is not legal advice. -- You let them out again, Old Man Willow! John Cowan What you be a-thinking of? You should not be waking! [EMAIL PROTECTED] Eat earth! Dig deep! Drink water! Go to sleep! www.reutershealth.com Bombadil is talking.www.ccil.org/~cowan -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Submitting a new license or using the current ones
On Thu, 6 May 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The most you can do is to make further releases of your software proprietary, which does expose you to the risk that a competitor will arise who will make further improvements to the old releases and distribute them under the old license or some other open source license. Just to clarify, since Guilherme may be using different terminology: You can keep the sources of your software open for user review (and modification?) while prohibiting their redistribution. To further reduce the risk of lock up for your users, you can grant them the right to redistribute if you fail to distribute yourself (e.g., your project dies). You will need to write a license with the corresponding terms. That license will never be OSI-approved because OSI requires unlimited redistribution. You can still call your software open source, but OSI folks will not be happy about that. Whether a serious competitor will arise using your LGPLed sources is most likely unrelated to the licensing issue. Since you are going to release the sources of your software (and allow modification?), it seems to me that a competitor would have to do much more to survive the competition than simply apply an OSI-approved license to your old sources... Unless they have a sponsor who is determined to kill your project on the grounds of OSI incompliance. HTH, Alex. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Submitting a new license or using the current ones
Hi Alex and John, Thank you for the feedback. The principle that open-source software can be freely distributed and redistributed is the very first point of the Open Source Definition. Really? I thought that open-source meaned that the guy can see and change the source, but not related to distribution. So, all OSI approved licenses state that the distribution is completely free? And what about different targets, e.g., sources and binary? Can we make the sources open-source but the binaries not? Does this makes sense? I don't understand why there are so many licenses, if the open-source specification is so rigid. Whether a serious competitor will arise using your LGPLed sources is most likely unrelated to the licensing issue. Since you are going to release the sources of your software (and allow modification?), it seems to me that a competitor would have to do much more to survive the competition than simply apply an OSI-approved license to your old sources... Unless they have a sponsor who is determined to kill your project on the grounds of OSI incompliance. Well, all this may happen. In fact, the project that is now LGPL will remain LGPL. The part, that will be covered by the subscription, will be a new product that will aggregate value to the already existing part of the project (they are: a visual form designer, an enhanced version of a product that is currently closed-source, and two vms that will boost performance in 10x). Our idea is to make all these new parts as open-source (i mean, sources are available to use and enhance, but not to distribute) only for people that subscribe, and only during subscription duration (one year that can be renewed). I'm part of the open-source community for many years, and already participated as conferencist on more than 10 open-source conferences. I'm not at the evil side, please understand. The main idea is to keep the sources open-source, but not the binaries. Is this possible with any of the OSI licenses? regards Guilherme -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Submitting a new license or using the current ones
Alex Rousskov scripsit: Whether a serious competitor will arise using your LGPLed sources is most likely unrelated to the licensing issue. Since you are going to release the sources of your software (and allow modification?), Release in the sense that they will provide those sources to paying (subscribing) customers only, who are forbidden to pass them along. seems to me that a competitor would have to do much more to survive the competition than simply apply an OSI-approved license to your old sources... An Apache-style effort, a consortium of the customers, would probably be quite successful. This is all assuming that this isn't just beating the air, that there actually is a commercial demand for the VM. -- John Cowan[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.reutershealth.com http://www.ccil.org/~cowan Yakka foob mog. Grug pubbawup zink wattoom gazork. Chumble spuzz. -- Calvin, giving Newton's First Law in his own words -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Submitting a new license or using the current ones
Guilherme C. Hazan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Really? I thought that open-source meaned that the guy can see and change the source, but not related to distribution. So, all OSI approved licenses state that the distribution is completely free? No. All OSI approved licenses state that if you distribute the code to somebody else, you can not put restrictions on what that person does with the code. That is, distribution need not be free--you can charge for a copy. But redistribution must be unrestricted--once somebody buys a copy, that person can give it to the rest of the world. Look at the OSD: http://opensource.org/docs/definition.php Section number 1. And what about different targets, e.g., sources and binary? Can we make the sources open-source but the binaries not? Does this makes sense? No, you can not make that restriction. I don't understand why there are so many licenses, if the open-source specification is so rigid. I don't really understand it either. I mean, I know how we got here step by step, but looking at the situation now it doesn't make much sense. Our idea is to make all these new parts as open-source (i mean, sources are available to use and enhance, but not to distribute) only for people that subscribe, and only during subscription duration (one year that can be renewed). Sources which may not be distributed are not open source. I strongly suggest that you not use that term. The main idea is to keep the sources open-source, but not the binaries. Is this possible with any of the OSI licenses? No. See OSD #3. A binary is a derived work of the sources, and as such may not be specifically restricted. Ian -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Submitting a new license or using the current ones
On Thu, 6 May 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Alex Rousskov scripsit: Whether a serious competitor will arise using your LGPLed sources is most likely unrelated to the licensing issue. Since you are going to release the sources of your software (and allow modification?), Release in the sense that they will provide those sources to paying (subscribing) customers only Indeed. I did not get that additional restriction from the original post. The subscribers-only restriction makes a rival more open source project more likely to succeed, of course. An Apache-style effort, a consortium of the customers, would probably be quite successful. This is all assuming that this isn't just beating the air, that there actually is a commercial demand for the VM. A commercial demand that is not satisfied by the less open source branch of the project. I agree. Alex. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Submitting a new license or using the current ones
Ian Lance Taylor scripsit: I don't understand why there are so many licenses, if the open-source specification is so rigid. I don't really understand it either. I mean, I know how we got here step by step, but looking at the situation now it doesn't make much sense. We have so many licenses because of the Not Invented Here principle: lawyers don't want to adopt the work of other lawyers as is, because how could they justify their fees then? We really need only about two licenses: a reciprocal one and a non-reciprocal one. Perhaps we also need one that is reciprocal as to the code itself, but not as to larger works in which the code is embedded. -- There are three kinds of people in the world: John Cowan those who can count,http://www.reutershealth.com and those who can't.[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Submitting a new license or using the current ones
On Thu, 6 May 2004, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: I don't understand why there are so many licenses, if the open-source specification is so rigid. I don't really understand it either. I mean, I know how we got here step by step, but looking at the situation now it doesn't make much sense. The license is supposed to be a legal document. Legal concepts (e.g., public domain or software license), default warranties (that we have to disclaim), and tricks to get around legal licensing limitations (e.g., patents) change all the time. Thus, the number of licenses submitted for OSI approval will probably continue to grow. One alternative is what Creative Commons are trying to do. They control creation of licenses and, hence, are able to limit their growth (and variety) with a simple, common-sense-based interface. Sources which may not be distributed are not open source. I strongly suggest that you not use that term. ... on this mailing list which is OSI-specific and uses OSI-specific terminology. Alex. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Submitting a new license or using the current ones
Alex Rousskov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sources which may not be distributed are not open source. I strongly suggest that you not use that term. ... on this mailing list which is OSI-specific and uses OSI-specific terminology. I personally think it is to everyone's advantage if the term open source is consistently used to mean software which more or less follows the OSD. I personally think it is to nobody's advantage to permit this term to be twisted to the point where it can be used to describe software which may not be redistributed freely. Or, rather, using the term in that sense is beneficial only for the person who owns the software, and detrimental to everybody else. So I will continue to strongly suggest that people use the term in ways which I think are beneficial for everybody. Clarity of terminology is good for everyone except people who intend to deceive. (In making this general statement I do not mean to imply that anybody on this list is trying to deceive anybody else.) Ian -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Submitting a new license or using the current ones
On May 6, 2004, at 2:16 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: I don't understand why there are so many licenses, if the open-source specification is so rigid. I don't really understand it either. I mean, I know how we got here step by step, but looking at the situation now it doesn't make much sense. The list of OSI-approved licenses includes near-duplicates such as the BSD license versus the SleepyCat license or the University of Illinois/NCSA Open Source License, for one thing. [Or the NetHack license versus the GPLv1...] Others who have suggested that the list of approved licenses is going to continue to grow are very likely right, but is that a problem? If so, efforts to create license templates with a range of choices which result in OSI Open Source-compatible terms, such as the Creative Commons licenses, seem to be a good idea. A similar effort could be made to coalesce BSD-like licenses, GPL-derived licenses, and perhaps others (the MPL?). -- -Chuck -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Submitting a new license or using the current ones
Chuck Swiger scripsit: The list of OSI-approved licenses includes near-duplicates such as the BSD license versus the SleepyCat license or the University of Illinois/NCSA Open Source License, for one thing. A tricky example, actually, since the Sleepycat license is reciprocal: you have to provide freely redistributable source to your applications that use Berkeley DB, unless you buy a commercial license from Sleepycat. It's much more like the GPL, though without the derivatives under GPL only provision. Others who have suggested that the list of approved licenses is going to continue to grow are very likely right, but is that a problem? I see two problems: 1) Developer confusion. With lots of licenses, it's hard to juggle the rules in your head, and especially to know if you can create joint derivatives of software under license A with software under license B. 2) Partition of the commons. The GPL creates a commons of software: programs that make use of GPL software have to stay within the commons. The OSL does the same, but incompatibly with the GPL (in the opinion of the people promulgating the GPL, at any rate). You can't mix'n'match GPL and OSL components. The non-reciprocal licenses don't cause a problem in this case, since they cross all boundaries. If so, efforts to create license templates with a range of choices which result in OSI Open Source-compatible terms, such as the Creative Commons licenses, seem to be a good idea. A similar effort could be made to coalesce BSD-like licenses, GPL-derived licenses, and perhaps others (the MPL?). Alas, you run up against Not Invented Here. -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.reutershealth.com www.ccil.org/~cowan Consider the matter of Analytic Philosophy. Dennett and Bennett are well-known. Dennett rarely or never cites Bennett, so Bennett rarely or never cites Dennett. There is also one Dummett. By their works shall ye know them. However, just as no trinities have fourth persons (Zeppo Marx notwithstanding), Bummett is hardly known by his works. Indeed, Bummett does not exist. It is part of the function of this and other e-mail messages, therefore, to do what they can to create him. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Submitting a new license or using the current ones
On Thu, 6 May 2004, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: I personally think it is to nobody's advantage to permit this term to be twisted to the point where it can be used to describe software which may not be redistributed freely. It is not clear to me whether the term is twisted by adding restrictions to it or by using it directly, in this case to identify software with sources open (as in visible, known to users of the software). If OSI invented the word open, you would be certainly correct. Since OSI is attaching new restrictions to old words, it is less clear who is doing the twisting. So I will continue to strongly suggest that people use the term in ways which I think are beneficial for everybody. Clarity of terminology is good for everyone except people who intend to deceive. It is very appropriate to suggest or even require that OSI forums use OSI terminology! Whether the terminology is good is not really relevant, but I understand your motivation and the desire to spread the terminology you like beyond OSI. I wonder if Creative Commons will soon have to explain what Creative or Commons means in their name! :-) Alex. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Submitting a new license or using the current ones
Hi, Can someone tell me why this product is OSI certified? (see logo at the site) http://www.gluecode.com/website/html/index.html Their license is clearly distribution-limited: http://www.gluecode.com/website/html/prod_licensing.htm thanks guich ps: it would be nice if the mail-list engine put the reply-to as the [EMAIL PROTECTED], not to the guy that sent the e-mail ps2: sorry, Chuck, i sent privately to you by mistake due to this. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Submitting a new license or using the current ones
On Thu, 6 May 2004, Chuck Swiger wrote: Others who have suggested that the list of approved licenses is going to continue to grow are very likely right, but is that a problem? Sure it is. Software writers spend more time selecting among mostly identical licenses and software users spend more time investigating what a given software license really means. The only question is whether this problem can be solved without creating bigger problems. If so, efforts to create license templates with a range of choices which result in OSI Open Source-compatible terms, such as the Creative Commons licenses, seem to be a good idea. A similar effort could be made to coalesce BSD-like licenses, GPL-derived licenses, and perhaps others (the MPL?). Is there any active cooperation between OSI leaders and CC leaders to build a common interface to good software licenses? Or are we going to see yet another fragmentation here? Alex. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Submitting a new license or using the current ones
On Thu, 6 May 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We have so many licenses because of the Not Invented Here principle: lawyers don't want to adopt the work of other lawyers as is, because how could they justify their fees then? I am sure that's a part of the problem. However, I am curious how many OSI-approved licenses were actually written by lawyers, percentage wise? Lay modification of a lawyer-written license does not count! We really need only about two licenses: a reciprocal one and a non-reciprocal one. Yeah, right! Granting patents one and non-granting patents one. Terminating-if-sued one and perpetual one. Attributing one and non-attributing one. Patches-only one and embedded changes one. Viral and not. And I am sure I am missing a few other variations that some people find essential. Alex. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Submitting a new license or using the current ones
Actually, I think there are other reasons beyond the lawyer, and understanding them would be helpful to any hope of progress. Many people have an idea of how they want to run their business or project and want a license that is geared to their plans. Lacking a good understanding of how hard a different license makes things, they wanta license that meets their particular goals. Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ian Lance Taylor scripsit: I don't understand why there are so many licenses, if the open-source specification is so rigid. I don't really understand it either. I mean, I know how we got here step by step, but looking at the situation now it doesn't make much sense. We have so many licenses because of the Not Invented Here principle: lawyers don't want to adopt the work of other lawyers as is, because how could they justify their fees then? We really need only about two licenses: a reciprocal one and a non-reciprocal one. Perhaps we also need one that is reciprocal as to the code itself, but not as to larger works in which the code is embedded. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
RE: Submitting a new license or using the current ones
Alex Rousskov wrote: Is there any active cooperation between OSI leaders and CC leaders to build a common interface to good software licenses? Or are we going to see yet another fragmentation here? What makes you think there isn't already active cooperation? I know from personal experience that Larry Lessig and others involved in Creative Commons are quite familiar with open source licensing, as are we with their creative commons licensing. They've got their tasks and we've got ours. What particular projects would you suggest we work on together? /Larry Rosen -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Submitting a new license or using the current ones
On May 6, 2004, at 3:20 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Chuck Swiger scripsit: The list of OSI-approved licenses includes near-duplicates such as the BSD license versus the SleepyCat license or the University of Illinois/NCSA Open Source License, for one thing. A tricky example, actually, since the Sleepycat license is reciprocal: you have to provide freely redistributable source to your applications that use Berkeley DB, unless you buy a commercial license from Sleepycat. It's much more like the GPL, though without the derivatives under GPL only provision. You're right. I suppose I should have said, the Sleepycat license consists of a 3-clause BSD license (copyrighted to the Regents of CA), a 3-clause BSD license (to Harvard), and a 2-clause BSD-license (to Sleepycat itself), plus the 3rd reciprocal clause which you describe above. :-) Others who have suggested that the list of approved licenses is going to continue to grow are very likely right, but is that a problem? I see two problems: 1) Developer confusion. With lots of licenses, it's hard to juggle the rules in your head, and especially to know if you can create joint derivatives of software under license A with software under license B. Agreed. The OSD would be more useful if one implication of being OSI Open Source meant approved licenses played nice with each other, but even that doesn't seem to be a point that everyone can agree with! 2) Partition of the commons. The GPL creates a commons of software: programs that make use of GPL software have to stay within the commons. The OSL does the same, but incompatibly with the GPL (in the opinion of the people promulgating the GPL, at any rate). So the FSF people say, yes. Well, the OSL is hardly unique in that sense... You can't mix'n'match GPL and OSL components. The non-reciprocal licenses don't cause a problem in this case, since they cross all boundaries. ...as one cannot mix'n'match GPL-licensed software with most of the OSD-approved licenses. Well, to the extent that the current situation reflects what people using the GPL actually want (or what Larry Rosen wants :-), we're all going to have to live with it. I'd imagine the FSF objects to OSL clause #10 and maybe #11? If so, efforts to create license templates with a range of choices which result in OSI Open Source-compatible terms, such as the Creative Commons licenses, seem to be a good idea. A similar effort could be made to coalesce BSD-like licenses, GPL-derived licenses, and perhaps others (the MPL?). Alas, you run up against Not Invented Here. Goodness, yes. Well, problems Not Invented Here are still problems that here has to face. -- -Chuck -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
RE: Submitting a new license or using the current ones
On Thu, 6 May 2004, Lawrence Rosen wrote: Alex Rousskov wrote: Is there any active cooperation between OSI leaders and CC leaders to build a common interface to good software licenses? Or are we going to see yet another fragmentation here? What makes you think there isn't already active cooperation? I did not claim there was not! I asked whether there was. I know from personal experience that Larry Lessig and others involved in Creative Commons are quite familiar with open source licensing, as are we with their creative commons licensing. Sure. They've got their tasks and we've got ours. What particular projects would you suggest we work on together? 1) A software license creation interface that allows one to create an OSI-approved license or public domain designation by answering a few basic questions. CC has that for content, but not for software. This includes user- and lawyer-friendly versions of licenses and designations. 2) Marketing and behind-the-scenes maintenance of the above. CC does that for content licenses (and for Public Domain designations). Alex. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Submitting a new license or using the current ones
: On Thu, 6 May 2004, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: : : I don't understand why there are so many licenses, if the : open-source specification is so rigid. : : I don't really understand it either. I mean, I know how we got here : step by step, but looking at the situation now it doesn't make much : sense. : : The license is supposed to be a legal document. Legal concepts (e.g., : public domain or software license), default warranties (that we have : to disclaim), and tricks to get around legal licensing limitations : (e.g., patents) change all the time. Thus, the number of licenses : submitted for OSI approval will probably continue to grow. : : One alternative is what Creative Commons are trying to do. They : control creation of licenses and, hence, are able to limit their : growth (and variety) with a simple, common-sense-based interface. I agree that CC has an elegant solution to the problem they are trying to fix. I predict that you will see more licenses added to CC's website, but, perhaps, not as many as we see on this list. License proliferation in open source (and free software) is a problem, but in the software context, innovative business models, differing business goals and wide-ranging business values inevitably lead to unique licensing needs. The activities on this very list provide abundant evidence that folks are frequently coming up with interesting and different development goals that often cannot be shoe-horned into a preexisting license. In this light, approved licenses should primarily serve as templates for new drafters. On the other hand, you might say that OSI could crush some of that innovation and force folks to squeeze their business and development objectives not only into conformity with the OSD, but into the language of one license chosen from a limited list of licenses. Is that what some are urging? I think that both the methods used by OSI and the alternative used by CC come with advantages and disadvantages. But, in my opinion, the principle that developers ought to be able to draft their own open source license (within the bounds of the OSD) is too important to throw out. I support what CC is doing, but the method they have chosen and the licenses they produce for users of their website seem a little too close to the practice of law (or, the creation of an attorney-client relationship) - - and all of what that entails. And, I still have significant reservations about the use of text open source licenses online. Having said that, I agree that a common-sense drafter-friendly interface of some of the different TYPES of open source licenses is a good idea. : : Sources which may not be distributed are not open source. I : strongly suggest that you not use that term. : : ... on this mailing list which is OSI-specific and uses OSI-specific : terminology. : : Alex. - Rod Rod Dixon Blog: http://opensource.cyberspaces.org : -- : 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
