Re: custom license (package: bwctl)
Dear list members, a new bwctl version has been released under the Apache 2 license. A lot of source files do still contain the old license and I do not know what to do about that. Can the source files be left unchanged because there is a LICENSE file in the root directory of the source tar archive that states that the software is released under Apache 2? Or should upstream clean the source from the old license or should I do that for the debian package? I've uploaded the new version to mentors if anyone wants to take a look: http://mentors.debian.net/package/bwctl Thanks very much for your help! On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 09:52:36AM +0200, Raoul Borenius wrote: On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 07:28:37PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: On Fri, 30 Mar 2012 10:40:01 +0200 Raoul Borenius wrote: [...] An update on this one: Upstream is apparently preparing a new release which will be released under the apache license. Which version of the Apache License? I hope it's the Apache License version 2.0 http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt and *not* the obsolete version 1.x (which I personally consider non-free)... I've been assured it will be v2. Best regards, Raoul smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: custom license (package: bwctl)
On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 6:01 PM, Raoul Borenius wrote: a new bwctl version has been released under the Apache 2 license. A lot of source files do still contain the old license and I do not know what to do about that. I would suggest asking upstream to fix those source files. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- 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/CAKTje6Hpng6RPaA296yfab13sf80a32=bcomwmq5qyakqj9...@mail.gmail.com
Re: custom license (package: bwctl)
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 07:28:37PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: On Fri, 30 Mar 2012 10:40:01 +0200 Raoul Borenius wrote: [...] An update on this one: Upstream is apparently preparing a new release which will be released under the apache license. Which version of the Apache License? I hope it's the Apache License version 2.0 http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt and *not* the obsolete version 1.x (which I personally consider non-free)... I've been assured it will be v2. Best regards, Raoul signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: custom license (package: bwctl)
Dear list, On Tue, Feb 07, 2012 at 09:08:40AM +0100, Raoul Borenius wrote: On Sat, Feb 04, 2012 at 05:47:45PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: I reiterate the recommendation (for Raoul or any other volunteer) to get in touch with upstream and to try and persuade them 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 I've contacted upstream, thank you everyone for discussing this! An update on this one: Upstream is apparently preparing a new release which will be released under the apache license. But as it is unclear how long that will take I would like to get the current version into Debian anyway. Just to make sure that it will be included into wheezy. Would the current custom license permit inclusion into the non-free section? I've packaged the software and I did not have to make any source code changes at all, only run ./configure. The package is on mentors if anyone wants to take a look at it: http://mentors.debian.net/package/bwctl Thanks for any help and best regards, Raoul smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: custom license (package: bwctl)
On Fri, 30 Mar 2012 10:40:01 +0200 Raoul Borenius wrote: [...] An update on this one: Upstream is apparently preparing a new release which will be released under the apache license. Which version of the Apache License? I hope it's the Apache License version 2.0 http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt and *not* the obsolete version 1.x (which I personally consider non-free)... -- 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 pgpzbgRAOjtqd.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: custom license (package: bwctl)
On Sat, Feb 04, 2012 at 05:47:45PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: I reiterate the recommendation (for Raoul or any other volunteer) to get in touch with upstream and to try and persuade them 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 I've contacted upstream, thank you everyone for discussing this! Best regards, Raoul signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: custom license (package: bwctl)
Le Sat, Feb 04, 2012 at 09:20:19AM -0500, Clark C. Evans a écrit : | without contemporaneously requiring end users to enter into | a separate written license agreement for such enhancements Ok. So, this language iss the one under debate I guess. Simply putting on a license text isn't sufficient, you need to *require* end users to *enter* into a *written* agreement. Hi, this is exactly the key point. In my understading, “to enter into a written license agreement” can be done by receiveing a license text, reading it and accepting it. If one can read it, it is written. But I am not a native speaker. If it is the meaning of the Internet2 license that both parties must sign a document in order to “enter into a written license agreement”, then it is not a free license. 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/20120207082713.gd24...@merveille.plessy.net
Re: custom license (package: bwctl)
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012, at 05:27 PM, Charles Plessy wrote: Le Sat, Feb 04, 2012 at 09:20:19AM -0500, Clark C. Evans a écrit : | without contemporaneously requiring end users to enter into | a separate written license agreement for such enhancements Ok. So, this language iss the one under debate I guess. Simply putting on a license text isn't sufficient, you need to *require* end users to *enter* into a *written* agreement. In my understanding, “to enter into a written license agreement” can be done by receiving a license text, reading it and accepting it. Even if it might be readable this manner, this clause still creates a non-free burden for those publishing a derived work: distributions must *require* that the user *enter into* the license agreement. Typical proprietary software vendors use an Accept License Terms dialog with a prominent button saying I ACCEPT to satisfy this requirement. 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/1328622845.27455.140661033308...@webmail.messagingengine.com
Re: custom license (package: bwctl)
Charles, I'm not a lawyer, but this looks like a one-sided consortium assignment agreement disquised as a BSD license. It's not even remotely free software. Let's read the license. | You are under no obligation whatsoever to provide any | enhancements to Internet2 or its contributors. You're not required to send Internet2 your enhancements. That's definately free, but it could be omitted. | If you choose to provide your enhancements, or if you choose | to otherwise publish or distribute your enhancements Ah. So, what's covered by providing enhancements to Internet2 is any sort of publication or distribution. | in source code form This one is interesting, I guess they explicitly don't want to cover binary distributions of your enhancements. So you can keep those to yourself if you wish. | without contemporaneously requiring end users to enter into | a separate written license agreement for such enhancements Ok. So, this language iss the one under debate I guess. Simply putting on a license text isn't sufficient, you need to *require* end users to *enter* into a *written* agreement. I don't think free software licenses are covered by this clause, for two reasons. First, anything that requires _assent_ by an end user has traditionally been seen as non-free. Secondly, enter into a written agreement means that the licensor must co-sign the agreement, and hence, at the very least be notified of the licensee's usage. This has also been seen as non-free. In summary, although you can license your Enhancements to others without triggering the contribution language, you simply can't use a free and open source license to do so. This clause is meant to permit you to use a *non-disclosure* agreement or some other high-level corp-to-corp sharing agreement. | then you thereby grant Internet2 and its contributors a | non-exclusive, royalty-free, perpetual license to 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. So, a one-sided copyleft. So, if you publish your derived work, they can re-license it in any way they wish. However, others can't. On Sat, Feb 4, 2012, at 09:23 AM, Charles Plessy wrote: This license allows to make derivatives under any terms, very similarly to the BSD license. Not any terms, it's absolutely GPL incompatible since your derivative is bound by this extra clause. It makes it impossible to publish derivatives under no terms at all. No it doesn't. Internet2 simply doesn't care since they can use your derivatives without restriction no matter what license you use. Unless, of course, you execute a written agreement with each end-user. | This restriction is much weaker than copyleft licenses, This is in no way a copyleft. Copyleft doesn't require assignment back to the original company, this license effectively does. Thefore, while the validity of this concept of default license may be questionable, I do not think that it is non-free. It is absolutely non-free. But wonderfully disguised. It actively discourages the free publication of course code, by penalizing those that do so with effective assignment of derivatives to Internet2. By contrast, it does exactly what the GPL forbids: permits binary derivative works and encouraging sharing only under under a NDA. IANAL, TINLA 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/1328365219.26607.140661032116...@webmail.messagingengine.com
Re: custom license (package: bwctl)
On Sat, 4 Feb 2012 09:23:29 +0900 Charles Plessy wrote: Le Fri, Feb 03, 2012 at 05:16:26PM +0100, Raoul Borenius a écrit : [...] Dear Raoul, these terms have been discussed earlier on this list, and many commenters quiestionned its freeness. Thank you for searching the archives, Charles: I hadn't found the time to do so yesterday... 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 This is worrying, IMHO. Even though the terms wsdl2python is distributed under are not identical to the clause currently under discussion, I think their effects are similar (but not identical). I think a serious bug should be filed against source package apbs. Any volunteers? 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. I personally disagree: I think this clause is non-free. As I said [1] in one of the above cited threads: [...] | [The clause] says that, when you distribute enhanced source (without doing a | special action), you will automatically grant the *original authors* and | contributors *more* rights than those you received from them. [...] [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2009/09/msg00010.html Josselin Mouette seemed to agree [2] on the violation of DFSG#3, even though with slightly different conclusions [3] on the effects of the clause. [2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2009/09/msg00012.html [3] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2009/09/msg00015.html I reiterate the recommendation (for Raoul or any other volunteer) to get in touch with upstream and to try and persuade them 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 pgpf1vNgRkhDp.pgp Description: PGP signature
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
