custom license (package: bwctl)
Dear debian-legal readers, upstream (http://www.internet2.edu/performance/bwctl/license.html) provides the following custom license in their software that I'd like to see in Debian: Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: * Redistributions of source code must retain the following copyright notice, this list of conditions and the disclaimer below. Copyright (c) 2003-2008, Internet2 All rights reserved. * Redistribution 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. * Neither the name of Internet2 nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without explicit prior written permission. You are under no obligation whatsoever to provide any enhancements to Internet2, or its contributors. If you choose to provide your enhancements, or if you choose to otherwise publish or distribute your enhancement, in source code form without contemporaneously requiring end users to enter into a separate written license agreement for such enhancements, then you thereby grant Internet2, its contributors, and its members a non-exclusive, royalty-free, perpetual license to copy, display, install, use, modify, prepare derivative works, incorporate into the software or other computer software, distribute, and sublicense your enhancements or derivative works thereof, in binary and source code form. DISCLAIMER - THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS “AS IS” AND WITH ALL FAULTS. THE UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE, INTERNET2, ITS CONTRI- BUTORS, AND ITS MEMBERS DO NOT IN ANY WAY WARRANT, GUARANTEE, OR ASSUME ANY RES- PONSIBILITY, LIABILITY OR OTHER UNDERTAKING WITH RESPECT TO THE SOFTWARE. ANY E- XPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRAN- TIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, AND NON-INFRINGEMENT ARE HEREBY DISCLAIMED AND THE ENTIRE RISK OF SATISFACTORY QUALITY, PERFORMANCE, ACCURACY, AND EFFORT IS WITH THE USER THEREOF. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT OWNER, CONTRIBUTORS, OR THE UNIVERSITY CORPORATION FOR ADVANCED INTERNET DEVELO- PMENT, INC. BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTIT- UTE GOODS OR SERVICES; REMOVAL OR REINSTALLATION LOSS OF USE, DATA, SAVINGS OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILIT- Y, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHE- RWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OR DISTRUBUTION OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. Most of it should be ok but I'm not sure about the enhancements paragraph. Does anyone know if this would be ok for inclusion into Debian? Thanks for any help! Raoul smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: custom license (package: bwctl)
Raoul, This looks like a non-symmetric copyleft-like attempt: then you thereby grant Internet2, its contributors, and its members for that reason, I don't think it's free Clark -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1328291062.12201.140661031821...@webmail.messagingengine.com
Re: custom license (package: bwctl)
Clark C. Evans c...@clarkevans.com wrote: Raoul, This looks like a non-symmetric copyleft-like attempt: then you thereby grant Internet2, its contributors, and its members for that reason, I don't think it's free I am not so sure. It is not required to give them back the changes. It is just the default. It seems like, if you modify a file, you could add a copyright notice like Modifications Copyright (c) 2012, J. Random see license.mit for terms then the modifications would be under the MIT license. Or you could reuse the bwctl license and replace Internet2 with J. Random. Cheers, Walter Landry wlan...@caltech.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120203.115647.1906689101038995781.wal...@geodynamics.org
Re: custom license (package: bwctl)
I am not so sure. It is not required to give them back the changes. Although you are not required to provide them your enhancements, you are required to provide Internet2 licensing rights that are not granted to others should you wish to make the source code for your derivative work generally available. To me, and I'm not a lawyer, this license seems to discriminate against those who are not members of Internet2. For example, I'm not granted those extra permissions on derivative works. This is truly a clever license... perhaps it is an anti-free license? or the perpetually-permissive-for-consoritum-members license? Best, Clark -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1328301740.24052.140661031878...@webmail.messagingengine.com
Re: custom license (package: bwctl)
On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 11:56:47 -0800 (PST) Walter Landry wrote: Clark C. Evans c...@clarkevans.com wrote: Raoul, This looks like a non-symmetric copyleft-like attempt: then you thereby grant Internet2, its contributors, and its members for that reason, I don't think it's free I am not so sure. It is not required to give them back the changes. It is just the default. It seems like, if you modify a file, you could add a copyright notice like Modifications Copyright (c) 2012, J. Random see license.mit for terms then the modifications would be under the MIT license. Why? Just because the license states without contemporaneously requiring end users to enter into a separate written license agreement for such enhancements? I am under the impression that the actual possibility of publicly distributing enhancements under the Expat/MIT license will depend on how requiring end users to enter into a separate written license agreement is interpreted. Perhaps it could be interpreted as forcing end users to sign an agreement written on dead-tree paper. If this is the case, then I *don't* think that just attaching a copyright notice for enhancements with the Expat/MIT permission notice would qualify as requiring end users to enter into a separate written license agreement... In summary, I don't like this bwctl license at all. It smells non-free, at least one clause looks like a lawyer-bomb, and it seeks to create a significantly asymmetrical relation between copyright holders and recipients... I would recommend trying to persuade upstream to switch to a well-known and widely-used Free Software license, such as the 3-clause BSD license: http://www.debian.org/misc/bsd.license -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt New GnuPG key, see the transition document! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgpWHpjHwvzCs.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: custom license (package: bwctl)
Le Fri, Feb 03, 2012 at 05:16:26PM +0100, Raoul Borenius a écrit : You are under no obligation whatsoever to provide any enhancements to Internet2, or its contributors. If you choose to provide your enhancements, or if you choose to otherwise publish or distribute your enhancement, in source code form without contemporaneously requiring end users to enter into a separate written license agreement for such enhancements, then you thereby grant Internet2, its contributors, and its members a non-exclusive, royalty-free, perpetual license to copy, display, install, use, modify, prepare derivative works, incorporate into the software or other computer software, distribute, and sublicense your enhancements or derivative works thereof, in binary and source code form. Dear Raoul, these terms have been discussed earlier on this list, and many commenters quiestionned its freeness. Nevertheless, our archive contains works distributed under very similar terms. http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/a/apbs/apbs_1.2.1b-1/copyright http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2009/08/msg00028.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2009/09/msg1.html This license allows to make derivatives under any terms, very similarly to the BSD license. It makes it impossible to publish derivatives under no terms at all. This restriction is much weaker than copyleft licenses, which forbid this as they also forbid to redistribute derivatives under non-copyleft terms. Thefore, while the validity of this concept of default license may be questionable, I do not think that it is non-free. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120204002329.ga1...@merveille.plessy.net
