Jeff --
These are good questions. I don't know the answers to them. It might
well be that there are too many questions, so we should be considering
some other kind of license. :-)
This will likely not affect the upcoming LAM 6.5 release; we're just
looking into the future for the moment.
I'll pass your questions upward. Thanks for your input!
On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Jeffry Smith wrote:
>
> Just some quick questions:
> > ------- Start of forwarded message -------
> > Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 08:28:28 -0500 (EST)
> > From: Jeff Squyres <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: Anas Nashif - SuSE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Black Lab Linux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Camm Maguire - Debian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Mike Wangsmo - RedHat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Tom Rini - LinuxPPC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > =?X-UNKNOWN?Q?Trond_Eivind_Glomsr=F8d?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Yanick Cote <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Todd Fries <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: New LAM/MPI license
> > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > MIME-Version: 1.0
> > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
> >
> > Greetings.
> >
> > Just wanted to give you a heads up that we will be changing the license of
> > LAM/MPI soon. The goal is still to have a license such that folks like
> > you can still use LAM/MPI any way that you want -- i.e., distribute it,
> > change it, charge support for it, etc., etc.
> >
> > The reason that we are doing this is because our group will be leaving
> > Notre Dame within the next few months and moving to Indiana University.
> > This is public knowledge, but we haven't really announced it yet (so
> > please don't say anything on the list yet, for example).
> >
> > Can you have a look at the license below (it's the "artistic" license) and
> > let me know if this will be suitable for you? From my reading of it, it
> > is, but I wanted to check with you as well. This is one of the possible
> > licenses that we're considering; please let me know if you see any
> > show-stoppers below.
> >
> > ------
> > COPYRIGHT NOTICE:
> >
> > Copyright 1998-2001, .........
> > Authors: ........
> >
> > The LAM/MPI "Artistic License"
> >
> > Preamble
> >
> > The intent of this document is to state the conditions under which a
> > Package may be copied, such that the Copyright Holder maintains some
> > semblance of artistic control over the development of the package,
> > while giving the users of the package the right to use and distribute
> > the Package in a more-or-less free fashion, plus the right to make
> > reasonable modifications.
> >
> > Definitions
> >
> > "Package" refers to the collection of files distributed by the Copyright
> > Holder, and derivatives of that collection of files created through
> > textual modification.
> >
> > "Standard Version" refers to such a Package if it has not been modified,
> > or has been modified in accordance with the wishes of the Copyright Holder
> > as specified below.
> >
> > "Copyright Holder" is whoever is named in the copyright or copyrights for
> > the package.
> >
> > "You" is you, if you're thinking about copying or distributing this
> > Package.
> >
> > "Reasonable copying fee" is whatever you can justify on the basis of media
> > cost, duplication charges, time of people involved, and so on. (You will
> > not be required to justify it to the Copyright Holder, but only to the
> > computing community at large as a market that must bear the fee.)
> >
> > "Freely Available" means that no fee is charged for the item itself,
> > though there may be fees involved in handling the item. It also means that
> > recipients of the item may redistribute it under the same conditions they
> > received it.
> >
> > 1. You may make and give away verbatim copies of the source form of the
> > Standard Version of this Package without restriction, provided that you
> > duplicate all of the original copyright notices and associated
> > disclaimers.
> >
>
> So can I sell binary versions (I realize LAM/MPI is beowulf /clustering stuff,
> it may be seem meaningless, but you need to be careful)
>
> > 2. You may apply bug fixes, portability fixes and other modifications
> > derived from the Public Domain or from the Copyright Holder. A Package
> > modified in such a way shall still be considered the Standard Version.
>
> Does upstream realize that Public Domain has a legal definition - as in there
> is NO COPYRIGHT at all?
> >
> > 3. You may otherwise modify your copy of this Package in any way,
> > provided that you insert a prominent notice in each changed file
> > stating how and when you changed that file, and provided that you do
> > at least ONE of the following:
> >
> > a. place your modifications in the Public Domain or otherwise make
> > them Freely Available, such as by posting said modifications to Usenet
> > or an equivalent medium, or placing the modifications on a major
> > archive site such as uunet.uu.net, or by allowing the Copyright Holder
> > to include your modifications in the Standard Version of the Package.
>
> I find this vague. Also, do they really want everyone to give up all
> copyright on their code?
>
> > b. use the modified Package only within your corporation or organization.
> > c. rename any non-standard types and functions so the names do not
> > conflict with Standard Vibrary, which must also be provided, and
> > provide a separate documentation for each non-standard type of function
> > that clearly documents how it differs from the Standard Version.
> > d. make other distribution arrangements with the Copyright Holder.
>
> But can I redistribute the modified package (You talk about modifying the
> user's copy, but not redistribution of the mods, which I think is what this
> paragraph is really about).
> >
> > 4. You may charge a reasonable copying fee for any distribution of this
> > Package. You may charge any fee you choose for support of this
> > Package. You may not charge a fee for this Package itself. However,
> > you may distribute this Package in aggregate with other (possibly
> > commercial) programs as part of a larger (possibly commercial)
> > software distribution provided that you do not advertise this Package
> > as a product of your own.
> >
> > 5. The name of the Copyright Holder may not be used to endorse or
> > promote products derived from this software without specific prior
> > written permission.
> >
> > DISCLAIMER:
> >
> > LICENSOR MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED.
> > By way of example, but not limitation, Licensor MAKES NO
> > REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY
> > PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR THAT THE USE OF THE LICENSED SOFTWARE COMPONENTS
> > OR DOCUMENTATION WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY PATENTS, COPYRIGHTS, TRADEMARKS
> > OR OTHER RIGHTS.
> >
> > The Authors and .... shall not be held liable for any liability nor for
> > any direct, indirect or consequential damages with respect to any claim by
> > LICENSEE or any third party on account of or arising from this Agreement
> > or use of this software.
> >
> > Any disputes arising out of this Agreement or LICENSEE'S use of the
> > software at any time shall be resolved by the courts of the state of
> > Indiana. LICENSEE hereby consents to the jurisdiction of the Indiana
> > courts and waives the right to challenge the jurisdiction thereof in
> > any dispute arising out of this Agreement or Licensee's use of the
> > software.
> > -----
>
> Hm. What's debian stance on this? What if Indiana becomes a UCITA state?
> How does this conflict (if at all) with Maryland/Virginia (UCITA states)?
>
> >
> > {+} Jeff Squyres
> > {+} [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > {+} Perpetual Obsessive Notre Dame Student Craving Utter Madness
> > {+} "I came to ND for 4 years and ended up staying for a decade"
> >
> >
>
> I agree with others that the Artistic is "problematic." Other alternatives
> to look at are the new BSD and the MIT license, if you don't mind stuff
> becoming proprietary. If you do, LGPL may be an alternative. Personally, I
> think sticking to an existing license reduces all the "legal" questions,
> especially for non-lawyer types.
>
> jeff
>
>
{+} Jeff Squyres
{+} [EMAIL PROTECTED]
{+} Perpetual Obsessive Notre Dame Student Craving Utter Madness
{+} "I came to ND for 4 years and ended up staying for a decade"
