Re: the provide, license verbs
Sorry for the late reply. Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. said on Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 06:09:00PM -0400,: private and personal use. Who would bring such a lawsuit, and how would the suit get past a motion to dismiss? How about a dictatorship? Consider a tech-savvy dissident, who modified his legally acquired copy of software. The typical, contractual, acceptance-required _license_ does not allow him to do that though. The dictatorship raids the dissident's den, finds nothing incriminating; his hard disk is clean ... except for this modification prevented by the EULA. The Dictator can hand over the dissident to the BSA (or its equivalent), who will initiate proceedings for infringement of copyright. Rod Do you say the law prevents me from taking a legal copy of a copyrighted work, which is a program, and privately modifying that program for my own use? John Cowan says yes: http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/faq/modifications Dan Bernstein says no: http://cr.yp.to/softwarelaw.html -- Mahesh T. Pai http://paivakil.port5.com Distribute Free Software -- Help stamp out Software Hoarding! -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Dual licensing
Marius Amado Alves said on Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 08:17:56AM +0100,: Why are the other conditions e.g. the requirement to distribute under the same license (GPL) not considered restrictions? So that people do not (mis)use the freedoms to restrict/takeaway/deny freedoms downstream. -- Mahesh T. Pai http://paivakil.port5.com Money can't buy love, but it sure gets you a great bargaining position. - From the Tao of Programming -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: GPL and internal use
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said on Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 05:57:31AM -0500,: modified sources. The general consensus from googling around seems to be: yes, GPL does allow that Yes, it does. For example, Trolltech seems to take a severe view of distribution in GPL, possibly because their old QPL explicitly disallows internal distribution without opening the code. And the old QPL was not considered free by the FSF. -- Mahesh T. Pai http://paivakil.port5.com -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Dual licensing
Marius Amado Alves said on Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 06:14:25PM +0100,: My employer sells commercial open source software. It fully complies with the OSD--in fact, it is under the BSD license. Do you really sell the software (not support, not buy-out)? With BSD and GPL, it is possible to *sell* software. If X is willing to pay Y for s/w written by Z, neither BSD or its variants, nor the GPL prevents it. How have you been keeping people from giving copies of it away gratis (hence invalidating your business)? Probably they provide support free of cost if the customer buys the software from them. But that is not the concern of this list. -- Mahesh T. Pai http://paivakil.port5.com From The Devil's Dictionary (1881-1906) [devil]: LAWYER, n. One skilled in circumvention of the law. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Dual licensing
Marius Amado Alves said on Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 07:13:33PM +0100,: - I'm wrong, in which case I'm honestly interested in being proved You *can* sell free software. - the person who said is selling open source software is wrong, in which case trying (and failing) to answer the questions will get this out of the way (for the 10th time) `Can you sell free software' is not the same as `how long can you sell free software'. First is an issue of license terms. Second question is one of business policy. So, if you properly frame your question, I would have answered, you can sell free software, but to *continue* selling you need to add some bells and whistles to it ... like . -- Mahesh T. Pai http://paivakil.port5.com -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Which license to use for MFC based software?
Lawrence Rosen said on Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 06:23:54PM -0800,: That is unreasonable. No court would enforce that. Why not? We are dealing with license a particular company applied to software used to _develop_ other software, arn't we? And is not the developer running a business here? Does not the doctrine of equals bargaining on equal strength apply? This is Not just a piece of spyware disguised as a p2p app, and intended to be used by the ordinary John L. User. -- Mahesh T. Pai http://paivakil.port5.com Buy Free Software -- It gives you freedom! -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Which license to use for MFC based software?
Carsten Kuckuk said on Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 05:12:22PM +0200,: Robert, I only have the German language versions on my computer. Would that be of any help for you? am Mittwoch, 2. Juni 2004 um 16:27 schrieben Sie: RO Does anybody have a link to the Microsoft SDK EULA's in g Can't help asking - 1. Is this _license_ redistributable? ;) 2. And if you find a means of circumventing the restrictions placed on your copy of the _software_ by the license, will you be violating the DMCA? /g -- Mahesh T. Pai http://paivakil.port5.com . Freedom is my birth right. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Which license to use for MFC based software?
Carsten Kuckuk said on Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 08:46:20PM +0200,: done by a German on German soil, so German copyright laws apply which are different from US laws. And the translator was probably paid by Microsoft Germany GmbH in Munich, not the Seattle one. Enter corporate strategy. Corporates arrange their affairs such that the principal owns all `intellectual property'. Therefore, the German subsidiary is most probably doing only marketing work; and rights in works developed by the subsidiary, if any, will vest in the US parent. That is a matter of contractual corporate arrangement; not law. So, rights would still vest in the US parent. e-mail address @yahoo.co.in I'd guess that you're located in India. Yes. India even a member of WIPO, and does it honor copyrights? Definitely yes. From time immemorial. we'll have a pretty interesting legal situation here with US law, German law, Indian law, and probably some other laws as well applying... More Grin Only that this kind of problem is a bit off topic for this list; but relevant for most members. And do go through Rick's post in this thread. -- Mahesh T. Pai http://paivakil.port5.com Backup: The duplicate copy of crucial data that no one bothered to make; used only in the abstract. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: ATT Source Code Agreement
Stephen C. North said on Wed, May 12, 2004 at 04:10:15PM -0400,: 1. If you are an entity, or an individual other than the person accepting this Agreement, the person accepting this Agreement on your behalf is your legally authorized representative, duly authorized to accept agreements of this type on you U ... AFAIK, some hardware vendors simply duplicate disk images into new machines. Does this amount to acceptance? It the technician who installed the s/w on my machine authorised to bind me. 3. Your Build Materials are either original or do not include any Software obtained under a license that conflicts with the obligations contained in this Agreement; #4.1 specifically deals with distribution of `Build Materials'. So, this apparently deals only with use only. If so, this, and 4 below taints other software. 4. To the best of your knowledge, your Build Materials do not infringe or misappropriate the rights of any person or entity; and, See above. 5. You will regularly monitor the Website for any notices. Ugh. Imposes obligations. 4. Capsule means a computer file containing the exact same contents as the computer file having the name graphviz*.* or gviz*.*, which will be downloaded after accepting, or was opened to access, this Agreement. Fine. Now what happens if the software is modified so that graphviz*.* becomes irrelavant to the software? 5. Derived Product means a Software Product which is a derivative work of the Source Code. Gee. Circular. 11. Source Code means the Software contained in compressed form in the Capsule. Ah. So, changing the dependency of g*viz*.* has drastic impact ... 1. Reproduce and distribute the Capsule; So, if I change the capsule naming scheme ... the license vanishes? good faith manner where the Capsule and Source C There is something with your message. Too many sentences have their last words snipped. 1. Contact ATT, as may be provided on the Website or in a text file included with the Source Code, and describe for ATT such Patch and provide ATT with a copy of such Patch as directed by ATT; or, That is a *pre* condition for distribution. You shall not distribute unless you do X is not the same as saying that `if you distribute, you shall do X also'. 1. You grant to ATT under any IPR owned or licensable by you which in any way relates to your Patches, a non-exclusive, perpetual, worldwide, fully paid-up, unrestricted, irrevocable license, along with the right to sublicense others, to (a) mak Where are (b) (c) etc., if any? 3. Your rights and license (but not any of your obligations) under this Agreement shall terminate automatically in the event that (a) notice of a non-frivolous claim by a third party relating to the Source Code or Capsule is posted on the Website Hunh??? why should a claim by a *third party* terminate *my* right? Appendix A - Minimum Terms I'm not sure if I'm being careless or this is because I missed something, or it may be that body of my copy of this message is mangled, but there is no reference to an Appendix in the main body of the license. IMHO, as whole, it fails OSD 7 and 8. -- Those willing to give up a little liberty for a little security deserve neither security nor liberty -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: [OT?] US CA govt use of PDF fill-in forms
Ihab A.B. Awad said on Sun, Apr 25, 2004 at 07:37:06PM -0700,: Should the government be thereby institutionalizing this format (Adobe Acrobat PDF) to the benefit of the one corporation (Adobe) that provides tools to properly edit it? Or is this okay? Or is there an alternative tool for editing and saving PDFs of which I'm not yet aware? FSF India says the government should not use the portable document format. See http://www.gnu.org.in/philosophy/mitrules.html -- +~+ Mahesh T. Pai, LL.M., 'NANDINI', S. R. M. Road, Ernakulam, Cochin-682018, Kerala, India. http://paivakil.port5.com +~+ -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: [OT?] US CA govt use of PDF fill-in forms
Ernest Prabhakar said on Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 02:02:20PM -0700,: Perhaps what you are really saying - which might be at least slightly relevant to this list - is that you only want governments to use document formats that are supported by open source implementations. Is that your point? Speaking for myself, and not for the original poster. My issue is about this. See below:- http://news.com.com/2030-1046_3-5190097.html?tag=st.lh This is an interview with Bruce Chizen, Exec. VP, Adobe. quote (Q) You've documented a number of your key architectures: PostScript, PDF, and--albeit somewhat reluctantly--the Type 1 font format. But these are not open-source initiatives, nor are they official standards controlled by standards bodies like the World Wide Web Consortium. Although Adobe documents these formats, it alone still controls them. Have you found a profitable middle ground between proprietary architectures and open source? (A)With PostScript and PDF, we found that publishing the specifications--making them open, but not open standards, but not providing open source--is the right path for us. Once something becomes a standard driven by a standards body, it moves at a glacial pace. And innovation slows down significantly because you have to get everybody to agree and there's lots of compromise. If you make it totally open source, you don't get a return on investment. We believe that by opening up the specification, we allow other people to take advantage of it. But because we still own the source, we get to innovate around that standard more quickly than anybody else. We have found that to be a great balance. PDF is the best example of that. We work on Acrobat, we work on PDF, we announce the product, we ship it, and we open up the specification. /quote Note the chronology in the last sentence of the last paragraph above. Which is very bad for *sovereign*, not mere intra-government use. I have no problem with that in *private* use though. Indeed, I do use PDF quite often (with LaTeX, that is). But the criteria is different for the governments. The issue when governments use the portable document format is, what if Adobe refuses to open up the next revision of the specifications? That is a possibility with corporate specs. as always. -- +~+ Mahesh T. Pai, LL.M., 'NANDINI', S. R. M. Road, Ernakulam, Cochin-682018, Kerala, India. http://paivakil.port5.com +~+ -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: License for a document or presentation?
Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. said on Fri, Apr 09, 2004 at 03:22:51PM -0400,: Whether the principles supporting licensing documents differed from software, Appears to depend on what you want to achieve. If you want e-propagation of the document, a copyleft license will be better, IMO. Are we promoting the idea that all text should be licensed? Not quite. You issue a `license' as opposed to merely `giving away' (or selling) a copy to prevent what is achieved by copyright - prevent distribution by a person other than the copyright holder. When the ideas are freely accessible doesn't that reduce (albeit, not eliminate) the benefit of using an open source license? You seem to have overlooked the difference between documents expressing opinion or political thought and technical documents (man pages, guides, etc). -- +~+ Mahesh T. Pai, LL.M., 'NANDINI', S. R. M. Road, Ernakulam, Cochin-682018, Kerala, India. http://paivakil.port5.com +~+ -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: LAB Public License proposal
DJ Anubis said on Thu, Mar 18, 2004 at 08:58:30AM +0100,: French law is somewhat complex, as decisions come over decisions, and we have to comply with some judicial labyrinth whenever we have to write down some contractual documents. Licensing is one of the most complex of them. Hmm. Same situation pervails in the Common Law tradition too. You will be interested to know that in law school, we were taught that the Civil Law tradition (and France was almost always the example) does not rely much on what the Common law tradition calls `judicial precedent'; `precedent' is legalese for earlier decisions by the judiciary. A confusing L.131-3 from French Intellectual Property act tells: transmission of author's rights is subornidated to the condition that each and every transmited right be distinctly mentioned in the session act and thet exploitation domain of each transmited right be delimited for its destination, place and duration. Is this the official translation?? (Will the French ever have `official' translations of their laws?? *g*) Does this translate mean `granted rights have to be specifically enumerated; and the granted rights may be used only for the purpose, time and place for which the grant is made'?? If not, can you please explain the phrase `session act' and `delimited for its destination, place and duration'? According to this text, GNU GPL is silent about this question. As a result a court can invalid this license and licensee will have on programs actions not legal in such a case. Do the French have a doctrine of estoppel?? Is it possible for the French licensee to rely on the statements in the license as a promise made by the owner of copyright?? Or is that all promises relating to (a) enforcement of a right (b) permissions in a copyright work should invariably conform to the Intellectual Property Act you quoted above?? Licensee can rely on law of estoppel if the Copyright Law does not expressly exclude operation of estoppel. A court decision, while not dealing strictly with free or open source software, hits the real problem. A french court decided that I guess that this will still apply to F/L/OSS. The same could be applied if a French author, living in France, decided that applicable law would be Californian courts, which would be considered illegal by law. Will the whole contract / license be invalidated?? Or will the court just ignore only the provisions relating to choice of law?? Here (in India), choice of law provisions are read in a very restricted way. If the facts of the case do not, in any way confer jurisdiction on the courts at the place mentioned in the contract, the court will simply ignore those provisions relating to choice of law. OTOH, if courts at both place X and Y had jurisdiction, and parties decided that proceedings will be brought only at X, the courts will enforce that. Most licenses come from USA entities, without this international legal intricacies. This is why we used CUA model as draft for our work. Why do you need a choice of law clause in the first place?? (sorry if you have already answered this - I have not followed this thread t closely). -- +~+ Mahesh T. Pai, LL.M., 'NANDINI', S. R. M. Road, Ernakulam, Cochin-682018, Kerala, India. http://paivakil.port5.com +~+ -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Source Distribution License
Bernhard Fastenrath said on Sat, Mar 13, 2004 at 12:08:23PM -0500,: html head titleSDL, Source Distribution License 1.0/title /head Posting in html are not a good idea. h3Distribution of Executable Versions/h3 Redistribution in any other form than human readable source code in compressed or uncompressed form (Binary Distribution) is not covered by this license. p General consensus is that binaries are modified/derived versions of sources. So, this will fail OSD. -- +~+ Mahesh T. Pai, LL.M., 'NANDINI', S. R. M. Road, Ernakulam, Cochin-682018, Kerala, India. http://paivakil.port5.com +~+ -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Trademark License
Starting a new thread, since Larry's (belated, if important) reply quoted below reminds me of something important to the community. Seems it is time to have some kind of guidelines on use of Trade/ Service marks in FLOSS projects. All OSI approved licenses permit distribution of the software products, and even while distributing the modified `product' we call the `product' by the original, often trademark name. Most FLOSS projects do not have a problem with this. Some projects, however, seriously object to use of the trademarks to the modified application. Projects adopt disparate policies on allowing the redistributed product to be referred to by the original name. Red Hat, for example does not permit calling unofficial distributions of ISO images from their site as `Red Hat Linux CDs'. Debian has two logos, and use of the official bottle+swirl logo is restricted. Right now, the Debian project is sorting out issue of use of Mozilla -FireFox name in FireFox packages to be included in Debian. The Debian Firefox maintainer has recently written to the FireFox project, pointing out that the Firefox trademarks policy (http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/licensing.html), permits use of the name and the artwork only if the binaries are from unmodified sources. Such policies are not inherently bad since restrictions on use of trademarks and/or service marks does not affect freeness of the software, But having to call packages to which trivial changes have been applied (say, of the kind made by distros) by a different name can splinter the users' perception of FLOSS software, thus proving to be counter productive. Is/should OSI be concerned with this issue? Mahesh T. Pai Lawrence E. Rosen said on Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 10:42:52AM -0800,: A bare trademark license is not allowed under trademark law. This license is the easiest way to lose the DotGNU service mark. /Larry Rosen -Original Message- From: James Michael DuPont [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 11:22 PM --- Norbert Bollow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From Norbert Bollow Tue Aug 5 12:17:30 2003 Subject: [DotGNU]proposal: DotGNU Trademark License A recent discussion with Stephen J. Turnbull has reminded me that it is very important to create some legal protection for the term DotGNU Webservice. Provided that the FSF agrees to this idea, I'd like to include something like the following in the documentation that will be part of the upcoming DotGNU 0.1 release: DotGNU Webservice Servicemark License Version 0.1-alpha1 Copyright 2003 Free Software Foundation, Inc. 59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307, USA Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed. GNU is a registered trademark of the Free Software Foundation, Inc. DotGNU Webservice is a servicemark of the Free Software Foundation, Inc. TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR USING THE DotGNU Webservice SERVICEMARK. 0. This License grants, to businesses which satisfy the conditions that are outlined in sections 1 and 2 below, permission to use the DotGNU Webservice servicemark in the context of their commercial activities. Activities which are not of commercial nature are outside the scope of this license; in particular there are no restrictions on using the term DotGNU Webservice outside the context of making a commercial service offering. Every business which fulfils the conditions that are outlined in sections 1 and 2 below may choose to accept this license, thereby becoming a licensee. Each licensee is addressed as you. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to use the DotGNU Webservice servicemark in the context of making commercial service offerings; that is prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by using the DotGNU Webservice servicemark in such a commercial context, you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions. 1. The DotGNU Webservice servicemark may only be used in connection with services that satisfy DotGNU's definition of webservices, namely the following two conditions must be satisfied: (a) Some functionality is provided, and in addition there is a description of this functionality, namely how the service should be used and what it provides. (b) The service is offered over a computer network (e.g. the internet or an intranet) via
Re: Update for CUA Office Public License
Patranun Limudomporn said on Fri, Feb 20, 2004 at 05:09:15PM +0700,: Well, John just like Sun Public License case. It's same with my case but SPL add more information about documentation. Our project prefer to use our own license. We've been use LGPL before and then we think it is a time to change to our own license now because we have freedom to change it using Open Source Definition but if you use some other license, you don't have a freedom to change it. That's my reason why I need to make this license. Well. If you wish to have others contribute to the code base, the contributing third parties might not like change of license terms. There are other difficulties with this approach, but others have already pointed them out. That apart, I recall a thread on debian-legal that certain clauses relating to patents in MPL and Nokia Public license are not DFSG free, but the debian project has no problem at that moment because all software from these projects are dual-licensed under the GPl and MPL. The conclusion, if I remember correctly was that debian legal will have to re-examine a package which is exclusively under the MPL or Nokia PL. In case you wish that your package is not excluded by the largest (ok - go ahead and flame me) GNU/Linux distro, you may either ask debian-legal *after* finalising your license and *after* reading through the http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/. (Unlike this list, debian-legal list considers licenses only when a query about whether a s/w under a particular license can be distributed or packaged by debian is raised by someody within the debian community. Their answers are confined to simple `yes/no this license does (not)meet(s) the DFSG'.) -- +~+ Mahesh T. Pai, LL.M., 'NANDINI', S. R. M. Road, Ernakulam, Cochin-682018, Kerala, India. http://paivakil.port5.com +~+ -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: The regrettable use of all in Section 7 of the GPL
John Cowan said on Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 08:23:01AM -0500,: Now I point out that there are various persons who, as a condition of their parole or probation, are not permitted to touch computers. Distribution of GNU software to them is forbidden by law, and if they do happen to have GNU software on any computers they may own, they cannot redistribute it. Note that this disability is legal, not merely physical, short of fleeing the jurisdiction, itself a criminal offense. That is a problem with the law, not with the GNU GPL. The GPL ccannot, and does not seek to override the law. You need to clarify what you mean by `distribution of GNU s/w to them is forbidden by law'. Can I still give them non-free (or did you mean non-gnu-but-free?) software? The next part of your question, `... and if they do happen to have GNU s/o on any computers they may own, they cannot redistribute it.' GPL does not really apply in most jurisdictions* if a person does not want to redistribute the software. * I think that in some jurisdictions, the users cannot modify software for their own use. AFAIK. Therefore, the distribution of all GPLed software is, at least in the U.S., forbidden by the terms of the GPL, and should come to a screeching halt. I have spoken. This is a logical fallcay. I fail to recall tht exact term. But the rule is this:- Statement 1:- X implies Y Statement 2:- Y implies Z Statement 1 and 2 does not mean that X implies Z. It would have been different if the statements *both* were *is* instead of implies. It does not help if the 2nd statement alone was `implies'. -- +~+ Mahesh T. Pai, LL.M., 'NANDINI', S. R. M. Road, Ernakulam, Cochin-682018, Kerala, India. http://paivakil.port5.com +~+ -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: making public domain dedication safer
Alex Rousskov said on Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 02:26:11PM -0700,: snip The Authors place this Software is in Public Domain. Creative Commons public domain dedication follows If the above Public Domain dedication is deemed invalid under any theory of law, current or future, this Software can be dealt with under any OSI-approved license, including, without limitation, BSD and MIT licenses. The above is unpolished because I am not sure it makes sense from a legal point of view. After all, the above combination contains contradictory assumptions (public domain versus copyrighted/licensed code). Specifically, If, by contradictory, you mean the document saying that it places work in public domain, and then, it goes on to talk of licenses, then, no. It is not contradictory. The choice is given to you, as a recipient of a work, and you can exercise the that choice if, and *only* if the `dedication' is not valid for some reason. I wracked my meagre brains to find some reason whya court would hold the part coming after `If the above Public Domain ...' invalid for some reason, and I cannot find any. So, what is your problem? - Can PD+license combination be legal? You will be contradicting yourselves. On one hand, you declare your work to be in public domain, and then go on exercise to your rights under the law of copyright, namely grant a license `in rem' as we lawyers would call it. - Can a reference to any OSI-approved license be legal? Why should it not be?? `OSI approved license' are, at any given point of time, finite in number, definite as to identify, and accessible usually from the web. - Is the above approach likely to make PD dedications safer? No. Rather, it will tend to nullify your actions in dedicating to PD, since the courts are likely to say that you contradicted yourselves, and therefore your intent was not clear enough, and most likely, both the dedication and license might fail. -- +~+ Mahesh T. Pai, LL.M., 'NANDINI', S. R. M. Road, Ernakulam, Cochin-682018, Kerala, India. http://paivakil.port5.com +~+ -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: apache license 2.0 for consideration
Russell Nelson said on Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 05:12:21PM -0500,: If nobody else reviews this license, then the license approval snip comply with the OSD (cough, cough). But still, could somebody else take a gander at this? This license was discussed on [EMAIL PROTECTED], and I had seen quite a few regulars on this and debian-legal there; and in one mail, Eben Moglen of FSF wrote:- quote FSF notes that section 5 is the only element of ASL 2.0 that is incompatible with version 2 of the GNU General Public License. FSF continues to believe that the achievement of compatibility between ASL and GPL would be of enormous benefit to the community of free software developers, allowing merger of valuable code bases currently separated by license incompatibilities. FSF is pleased to note the convergence implied by the ASL 2.0 draft. FSF will make efforts, in the development, discussion, and adoption of GPL 3 to further the process of convergence, by carefully considering the Apache Foundation's approach to the patent defense problem. For this reason, we consider the distinction between the approaches contained in the first and second sentences of section 5 to be particularly significant. /quote Sec. 5 referred to by Prof. Moglen was Sec 5 of the original draft as proposed by the Apache Foundation. This seems to have been renumbered as section 3 in the final license. Finally, on January 24th, Roy Fielding of the Apache Foundation stated on the same list:- quote They(*) are compatible. Whether or not they are considered compatible by the FSF is an opinion only they can make, but given that a derivative work consisting of both Apache Licensed code and GPL code can be distributed under the GPL (according to *our* opinion), there really isn't anything to be discussed. /quote Guess that settles the matter. I am not on a `always on' network, so cannot search out the archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED] for exact links to the above messages; the messages are archived by me though. (*) The ASL and GNU GPL. -- +~+ Mahesh T. Pai, LL.M., 'NANDINI', S. R. M. Road, Ernakulam, Cochin-682018, Kerala, India. http://paivakil.port5.com +~+ -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: CUA Office Public License
Patranun Limudomporn said on Sat, Dec 20, 2003 at 02:19:57PM +0700,: (d) Notwithstanding Section 2.1(b) above, no patent license is granted: 1) for code that You delete from the Original Code; 2) separate from the Original Code; or 3) for infringements caused by: i) the modification of the Original Code or ii) the combination of the Original Code with other software or devices. I recall reading on debian legal (2) is considered not free by debian. see the debian-legal archives. The consensus was that this provision prevents code reuse in other applications. The discussion on Debian-legal came up in the context of Nokia Public license. Mozilla, the application is considered free because it is dual licensed under the MPL and GPL. The debian-legal archive is at http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/ If you wish to have your package carried in Debian, you may wihs to cross check on that list too. (d) Notwithstanding Section 2.2(b) above, no patent license is granted: 1) for any code that Contributor has deleted from the Contributor Version; 2) separate from the Contributor Version; Again. See above. -- +~+ 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: Clarification of GPL
Ben Reser said on Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 10:27:35PM -0800,: He may be hired by a commercial software firm who pays him a large sum of money to turn the application closed source and work on it Ah, well. You are right. Bu the loss is not for ever. But, other persons can always take the code which is already available under the GPL, and work on it. The original authors' subsequent modifications are no longer available though. Ditto about the fears about GPL 3 going the GFDL way. If existing software under the present GPL is relicensed under a (unjustifiably feared non free) new GPL, users can continue to use the code base available under the older (present version) -- remember, the GPL vests the option to use a later version of the GPL in the user; not the copyright holder. That is the safety of the GPL. -- +~+ 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: Clarification of GPL
ti EMAIL said on Sat, Dec 13, 2003 at 03:38:59AM -0500,: Each source file is tagged with a header naming him as copyright followed by a GPL header. For anybody to submit a patch to the original distribution, you agree that he gets copyright of it. Requiring assignment of copyright in patches is an issue of project management. Linux, the kernel does not require such assignment. The FSF requires assignment for packages in the GNU project. It is an issue of individual perception. you transfer copyright to somebody after editing source under GPL, or are these two things unrelated? Will you please clarify this?? situations later on where the copyright is split out over a million people, each of which could stop further distribution of his program. Depending on how you look it. See above. For a code module/library I?ve written and released under the GPL, is it possible to be incorporated into this previous program If you do not like assigning copyright to the original author, you are free to create your own fork by adding your modifications, and distribute the whole thing yourselves. People did it to GNU Emacs by creating Xemacs. Can you add requirements to a license in a source file such that your name must always be included as writing the file if anybody decides to use your code? (Questioning if this can be legally binding.) This is what the GPL and several other free/libre licenses do. They go a bit further; and also require that the modifications, if any, made by the (re)distributor also should be mentioned. Regarding legal binding -- In all these years, only the SCO has been silly enough to question its bindingness. -- +~+ 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: Clarification of GPL
Alexander Terekhov said on Sat, Dec 13, 2003 at 07:06:40PM +0100,: Now replace kernel with SysV UNIX and GPL with confidential (OCO or something like that). How nice. I consider this as a bug with the law - silliness of treating programs as analogous to `literary, artistic and dramatic works' as I find from the treaties, and the Indian law. AFAIK, at least few EU countries treat the too treat software as a part of the category `literary, dramatic and artistic' work. The situation is this - I have program X, and you wrote Y which depends on X. `Derivative work' in traditional copyright law was a work which modified X. Here, though Y is depending on X; and will not work without X, (a plug in; kernel loadable module) traditionally, it ought to be treated as an independent work. The nearest analogy from literature I can think of at the moment is X being a grammar text book and Y my essay, which conforms to grammar in that text book. Is my essay a derivative of the grammar book? But, in computer programs, the analogy will not hold good; and therefore, the law is buggy. Why waste bandwidth trying to work within the framework of buggy laws? We should try to change the law. But that is work for another list ... -- +~+ 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: Which License should I pick?
Scott Long said on Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 02:22:54PM -0800,: derived work, then I've just made a binary only distribution of Emacs, therefore violating the GPL. This would mean that in order to exchange such snapshots, people would have to make the source code to Emacs available from the same location, correct? snip instructions from the original binary on disk. My format is different -- it only contains the DIFFERENCES between what is in memory and what is on disk. So I'm wondering if my snapshots are derived works or not. So, your program creates something similar to the diff comand on *nixes, as I gather. It seems to me that Your difference file cannot be used for any purpose. If so, your difference file is neither a work, nor a derived work and the question is a non-issue. -- +~+ 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
OFF-TOPIC - The SCO suit
A bit off topic; but I guess that people on this list have the interest, resources and the capacity, to implement what I have in mind, if it can be done at all. Please see the following extract from the Indian Copyright Act. begin quote 60. Remedy in the case of groundless threat of legal proceedings- Where any person claiming to be the owner of copyright in any work, by circulars, advertisements or otherwise, threatens any other person with any legal proceedings or liability in respect of an alleged infringement of the copyright, any person aggrieved thereby may, notwithstanding anything contained 1[in section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963)] institute a declaratory suit that the alleged infringement to which the threats related was not in fact an infringement of any legal rights of the person making such threats and may in any such suit- (a) Obtain an injunction against the continuance of such threats; and (b) Recover such damages, if any, as he has sustained by reason of such threats. Provided that this section shall not apply if the person making such threats, with due diligence, commences and prosecutes an action for infringement of the copyright claimed by him. end quote Does not the US law have similar provisions?? Could not any of the copyright holders to the Linux Kernel sources (I understand that there are several, since Linus does not seek assignment) initiate appropriate proceedings against SCO's claims against the several Fortune 500 companies?? Surely, there is no claim that _every_ file in the kernel sources is infringing; so far as I can understand the pleadings. But, the claim for royalties ( or whatever against the fortune 500 cos) does not restrict the claim to use of the infringing files. Hence, the last paragraph (the proviso) has no application. There have been enough public statements from SCO's officers to invite such litigation. I am also aware that the owner of copyright in majority of the files making up the kernel sources is at present in the US thus making the job easier ... -- +~+ 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: OSD#5 needs a patch?
Well, things like this ned a bit of reflecting on; so hope I am not too late with my comments. Lawrence E. Rosen said on Wed, Oct 08, 2003 at 05:50:55PM -0700,: Ignore the fact that this combines several of the existing OSD provisions into a different #6. I think this proposal combines two distinct concepts. OSD#5 is, as I read it, concerned with quality of persons using / redistributing the software. OSD#6 deals with uses to which the software may be put. The topic of rephrasing the OSD came up because a recent license put up for approval did not want software licensed under that license to be used in conjunction with any software license that requires disclosure of source code. I understand '(not) using in conjunction' as not using the software on a box running the Linux Kernel the bash shell, the ext* and reiser filesystems, initscripts, system activity monitoring and logging software or using the GNU C compiler to compile the sources, Therefore, I felt that the license complied with the OSD but defeated the purpose of having the OSD. Because it defeated the purpose of OSD, I suggested that license should not be approved. May be the person who submitted the license did not have such things in mind. But, may be, he did. Or may be, sometime in the future, somebody else might submit another similarly worded license. Now that we have been alerted to the possibility of such 'anti-something' license, it is time to act. I suggest that #5 be left as such; we need to take care of #6. The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research. I suggest that we add A license may not prohibit the software from interacting with software licensed under different terms to the end of OSD #6 I am a bit fuzzy about the alternative for the term interacting. Better suggestions may be considered. battleground on which political or philosophical or business wars are waged. Is not formation of the OSI result of a war against businesses which are anti-people? Business models which are against freedom? Political, philosophical and economic models which seek to establish and perpetuate a legal regime which tends to subjugate governments and the common people to corporations. In many jurisdictions around the world, discrimination on the basis of race, age, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, health status, and other personal characteristics is always illegal. This open source principle is intended to extend that broad list, not to replace it. OSD #5 does that. To be consistent with this open source principle, all terms and conditions of the license must demonstrably encourage rather than discourage software freedom for all licensees. OSD #6 does that. #5 and #6 are entirely distinct. Combining the two will muddle up every thing. -- +~+ 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: Facts please
Rick Moen said on Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 10:01:21PM -0700,: Therefore, the first recorded use of the BSD license that I see is Net/1 [June 1989], and the first use of the BSD license for the whole distribution (rather than just the TCP stack and libraries) is Net/2 [June 1991]. Prior to that, distribution was internal to existing Unix licensees, and kind of lived under the radar of official release and licensing. Good work! I somehow forgot that passage. So, the BSD licence dates to sometime during Keith Bostic's work updating 4.3BSD-Tahoe (1986 on), and went public in June 1989. Thanks. Free as in Freedom by Sam Williams Chapter 9 discusses _both_. quote The arguments eventually took hold, although not in the way Stallman would have liked. In June, 1989, Berkeley separated its networking code from the rest of the ATT-owned operating system and distributed it under a University of California license. /quote The GPL was conceived in 1985, but v. 1.0 was published only in 1989, as has been pinted out. -- +~+ 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 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: [CNI-(C)] Re: Open Source Licensing
Lawrence E. Rosen said on Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 11:31:32AM -0700,: I can see how you meant perpetual to be Dunno if this is relevant to the decision, but I beleive that in some countries, unless the contract specifically states a time period, certain modes of transfer of copyright are deemed by law to be limited to a certain period. In India atleast, an _assignment_ is deemed to be for a period of five years, unless the parties specifiy a period. I think that specifying the duration of the license is a good idea. -- +~+ 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: Antiwar License
Sergey Goldgaber wrote: However, INAL, and was wondering if any of the more experienced people on this list think this is a feasable idea, or perhaps could even suggest some possible wordings that such a license could use. Sorry to disappoint you, but a free license should not restrict the uses to which the s/w is put to. Restrictions not military uses will render the license non-free, an I guess that the OSI would not certify such restrictions. Regards, Mahesh T. Pai -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: The OSD and commercial use
David Johnson wrote: The following is my opinion only, but it may help to explain the why. Software is fundamentally a different class of product than a material product like a chair. Both copyright and the nature of software copying makes this so. Which is why copyright law should not apply to s/w. There is an urgent need to have what the guys out there at WIPO call sui generis classification for software. But the user still wants to be able to treat all products the same. It may be irrational, but that's the way it is. I got the point, but it is not the user, but the cos. and corporates who control the legislative and treaty making process. Do not blame the poor user for the desparate attempts by the well heeled, long pursed and powerful lobbyists out there to retain control over the purse strings. Regards, Mahesh T Pai. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Approval Requested for AFL 1.2 and OSL 1.1
Lawrence E. Rosen wrote: Almost every license on the OSI approved list specifies a US jurisdiction. The OSL is specifically intended to be country neutral in that respect. If it isn't, we should make it so. What changes do you suggest? Simple, leave out references to jurisdiction. The law will operate whether you specify jurisdiction or not. Almost every country specifies that suits for damages should be brought at the place of residence / business of the defendant. You can rarely contract out of that. Regards, Mahesh T Pai. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: W3C Patent Policy
Lawrence E. Rosen wrote: This is a major victory for open source. Yes, thanks to you all. The community now needs to be heard supporting this policy so that it is not undone during the public input and W3C Advisory Council phase. Address your comments to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Will you please explain that? I mean what is likely to happen to 'undo' the achievements. Also, please clarify in what way you expect further support from the community. (may be, you can tell us a point or two we should tell the W3C). Regards, Mahesh T Pai. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: a proposed change to the OSD
, in due courses, the courts will take care of the OSS community's interests; *even* if the statute goes against us (on a/c of undemocratic processess, like lobbying). My question, though: who is UCITA truly designed to serve? The public? Another symptom of the rot, another face of the same danger faced by the public, which goes under the pseudonym, trusted computing means those millions of computers in those several offices, homes and schools around the globe, which can be trusted to force the users to buy the software (not necessarily computer programs) *and* hardware from the 'trustworthless' few. T Cheers, Nathan. Nothing to cheer about that. Mahesh T Pai. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Copyright
(For a few days, I had some hardware problem and could not access the net. Hence, I could not reply earlier. The original came to me off the list, but since the list appears to be very much interested, I am posting the reply to the list also.) Sujita Purushothaman wrote: You are way off topic here. This list is not for discussing things like can I do 'x' if not, 'y' under license 'A' . Such questions are, ideally decided on advice from lawyers. Well then, please accept my apologies. This thread is more than 40 posts in 7 days. That is more than usual load on the entire list. So, the apology is not really required. I thought the authors signed off the copyright to the the FSF? Somebody clarified that already on the list, and RMS too has put in a word. I am trying to make sense of Mandrake or Red Flag taking Red Hat Linux and coming up with their own commercial version. Obviously it is legal; What I don't understand is what kind of credits should the derived works carry. What is mandated by the GPL, what is not necessary but is polite, and what is not necessary at all. Under the GPL, 1. Thou shall, not change the license. 2. Thou shall, at all times, provide the source code (or tell 'em how to get it). 3. Thou shall, not restrict the kinds of uses to which the program is put to. 4. Thou may modify, if you modify, thou shall specify which file in a program you modify, ideally in the commented parts of it. This applies to the sources. If the binary is (a) interactive, and (b) displays some message when run, *then* when it is invoked, thou must display the copyright notice. This copyright notice should not be changed. 5. If the compilation and/ or installation requires any special paramaters, or scripts, thou shall make them available. 6. You make make your modifications to yourself, as long as you do not distribute them. 7. When you distribute the modified binary, you should make available the modifications to the sources also. 4, 5, 6 and 7 are specified, coz. whoever wrote GPL was primarily had the 'source code' in mind when he was referring to 'software'. And yes, under the law, compilated binaries are derived works. 8. Copyright in the originals belong to the original author, copyright in the modifications (not the entire modified work) belong to the person who modified. The difference is between saying :- this was created by X (about a program written by Y and modified by X) and This program uses code written by Y and was modified by X Does the GPL require me to say the seond line? Yes, and it is mandatory - in the sources. the display when run clause is attracted if the program displays when run. In a typical GUI environment, the usual place to say that would be help about Regards, Mahesh T Pai. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: a proposed change to the OSD
David Johnson wrote: A) A requirement for user consent, in my opinion, is immoral, unethical, and just plain rude. Yes. I agree there. I don't need to agree to a license in order to read a book. I don't need to agree to a license in order to listen to music. I should not have to agree to anything in order to use a copy of software which I own. But then, music will not cost you a dime if it 'malfunctions'; and books do not corrupt your hard disks / data. Copyright law is meant to be a compromise between the rights of the author and the rights of the possessor. Requiring user consent places too much control in the hands of the author. But then, in copyleft sense, consent is for the product liability clauses in the licenses, not the copyright grants. Regards, Mahesh T Pai. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Copyright
John Cowan wrote: You insist that you can own something 100% and relinquish 100% control at the same time. There is not a single legal precedent for this anywhere. Tell it to the FSF Marines. What GPL does is to relinquish control over *redistribution* of the material not the material itself. There is no legal precedent on GPL coz. it is clear enough, and coz. it is clear enough, no need for the 'assistance' of a court arose. Regards, Mahesh T Pai. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Copyright
Sujitha, You are way off topic here. This list is not for discussing things like can I do 'x' if not, 'y' under license 'A' . Such questions are, ideally decided on advice from lawyers. Confining myself to GPL, you cannot do what you proposed to do - under any license - not even the GPL. GPL'ed works *are* copyrighted by the authors; and the modifications to a GPL'ed work are copyright of modifiers. Not giving due credits to the person who created the work is immoral - simpliciter; and if you are in India (apparently), the author can invoke section 57 (1)(a) of the Indian Copyright Act against you. But, GPL does not *grant* you rights in trade marks, and people at Red Hat do not like it (coz the GPL does not permit it) when you modify a programe created or modified by them and released under the GPL and then go on to claim that it was written by RH. The GPL does not permit you to attribute *modifications* made by you to the original author. That does not mean that you may appropriate the entire work for yourselves. That is inviting trouble. The difference is between saying :- this was created by X (about a program written by Y and modified by X) and This program uses code written by Y and was modified by X Regards, Mahesh T Pai. Sujita Purushothaman wrote: Hello, Are discussions on the GPL allowed? :-) I'd like to ask, when A writes a program and distributes it under the -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Open Source Licence for my cms?
John Cowan wrote: I suggest the GPL. Although you cannot rewrite the GPL wholesale, you can add exceptions to it, thus: As a special exception to the above license, you may do whatever And then, you should not call it the GPL. Regards, Mahesh T Pai. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Fwd: Re: RPL version 1.1
Randall Burns wrote: We do not get copyright ownership of contributors code. They retain the copyright to their work at all times, however they have to agree as with other open source licenses, to allow their software to be licensed under the terms of the RPL. ' This clause is included to ensure that the Licensor can pursue a dual-licensing strategy, nothing more. If there is terminology that would support that goal better then we're open to it. May I clarify that I do not mean that this provision is contrary to the OSD? Issue is that contributors will think twice before making their contributions. The impression I get from a general reading of the license is that you (TPI) gets rights to redistribute contirbutors' modifications under the RPI. This particular provision enables you to dual license any code you are entitled to distriute under the RPL. The problem is that when somebody contirbute intending to have his / her contribs to be OSS, there is always the danger (well you do not intend _now_, but the thing is there in black and white on a screen / paper, isnt it?) of the contribs going other non OSS way. You can make it clear that you will not put contribs from others under non-rpl license? As I read it, no additional license execution is required by this clause, whose requirement is simply one of providing community notification, preferable through the focal point of the original Licensor, but alternatively through a public news group or other forum a Google search would turn up. The Licensor and Contributors must be able to feel confident however that all Extensions covered under this license are published for the good of the community and that people are not able to keep their extensions private simply by failing to announce them. You have clubbed your answer two distinct issues. and missed the point I am trying to make. Issue 1:- in 5.1 of your license:- As a condition to exercising the rights and licenses granted hereunder, You hereby assume sole responsibility to secure any other intellectual property rights needed, if any. it is Your responsibility to acquire that license before distributing the Licensed Software. Saying this s/w _depends_ on third parties' s/w which is under different license terms, To use this s/w you also need to acquire the license to the s/w on which this s/w depends. is different from:- we do not know whether this s/w _contains_ s/w covered by other licenses. If does, (1) we are not accepting responsibility for it. (2) it is for you to find out, if such third party s/w is actually present in this, and acquire appropriate licenses or face the music from such third parties. From the preamble, I understand you mean the first, but in the license, you say the second. Issue 2:- Your requirement in 6. et al., that the user shall not use or modify the s/wunless he discloses the modifications made. I need to repeat:- These conditions amount to a restriction on further re- distribution. and add, _use_ also. I missed it in my earlier post. I don't see any restrictions on re-distribution here. The clause covering the potential for third-party licenses to be required is in several OSI approved licenses while the notification clause applies only to the first deployment of Extensions (unless the means for aquiring updates over time should change). Neither appears to create a restriction on re-distribution. The GPL has a clause almost identical in intent to this one, which is to provide a clearly defined mechanism for determining how to mix a viral license with other potentially viral licenses etc. GPL (effectively) says, if you want to use portions of GPL'd s/w under a different license, ie., export. You are speaking of 'import' of other licenses into RPL. Yes. Since the license is Copyright Technical Pursuit Inc. nothing other than this clause would allow a party to create a legal derivative license. While the OSI wants to encourage use of existing licenses, that's a decision the OSI makes on a license-by-license basis. Our goal however is to support other vendors who wish to create licenses for their own software, open or otherwise. Such vendors are free to use the RPL as a template thanks to this clause. Well, legal agreements are not the same thing software. And if you propose to permit use as template, it is better that you permit people to know it as the RPL. That they will know what it is they are reading on the screen. Regards, Mahesh T Pai. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: RPL version 1.1
Randall Burns wrote: 5.0 .. Nothing in this License shall be interpreted to prohibit Licensor from licensing under different terms from this License any code that Licensor otherwise would have a right to license. Well, under other provisionsof this license, you get the copyright to contributions to the source code. Then you will distribute other's contributions under your own different license. Well, As a condition to exercising the rights and licenses granted hereunder, You hereby assume sole responsibility to secure any other intellectual property rights needed, if any. it is Your responsibility to acquire that license before distributing the Licensed Software. If licenses from others is required, and if they insist on royalties, how can you call the s/w 'open'? See OSD # 7:- 7. Distribution of License The rights attached to the program must apply to all to whom the program is redistributed without the need for execution of an additional license by those parties. (6,4) b. Source Code Availability. You must notify Licensor within one (1) month of the date You initially Deploy of the availability of Source Code to Your Extensions , Once again, OSD # 7. These conditions amount to a restriction on further re-distribution. 6.6 Conflicts With Other Licenses. this License. Such permission will be granted at the sole discretion of the Licensor. Would not such permission contaminate s/w under this license? 7.1 If You create or use a modified version of this License,.. Does this provision serve any purpose other than adding to the license size? The application of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods is expressly excluded. I am not aware of the US / Colorado law. But, if the US is a party to the convention, my understanding of the law of international obligations is that the courts in the US are bound to enforce the Convention. Regards, Mahesh T Pai. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: discuss: Update for Submitted License
Stefan Wachter wrote: p2. You may use the Package or a Modified Package in any non-commercial project without limitations. Violates OSD #1 #6. p3. You may use the Package or a Modified Package in any non-commercial product (propably another open source development) only if this license is distributed with the non-commercial product. Typo there - you probably meant probably This one too violates OSD #1 #6. p4. You may use the Package, only with the written permission of the Copyright Holder. Once, again, against OSD #1 and #7. p6. You may otherwise modify your copy of the Package in any way, If I modify *my* copy, why should I notify anybody? Issue of telling the world I modified it arises only if I redistribute. Is it not? pa) place your modifications in the Public Domain or otherwise make them Freely Available, Place the modifications in public domain? 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./p I feel that author's objectives should be redefined before the license is re-written. Regards, Mahesh T. Pai. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: discuss: Modified Artistic License (eNetwizard Content ApplicationServer)
Robert Samuel White wrote: I agree that this should be changed; distributors of modified versions should be able to disclaim their liability as well. (some semantic hair splitting first) Rather, it is the disclaimer which should disclaim distributors'/modifiers' liability. Disclaimers which are part of unmodifiable licenses should not require something to be done by the distributor/modify-er. The disclaimer is only necessary because there are people out there that will sue you for anything they can and I really don't have time for frivolous lawsuits; Disclaimers do not protect you from a lawsuit. *Nothing* prevents anybody from filing a suit against you. The disclaimer protects you in the event of a suit. What would you propose? Simply removing the to the standard package part of the sentence? No, remove the first 'Robert Samuel White' from the disclaimer. That way every person who is potentially liable, including Robert Samuel White are are protected. Of course, I am open to other suggestions also ... but they might be more verbose. Re. PHP license, I do not know if that one is OSS certified. Regards, Mahesh T Pai -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: discuss: Modified Artistic License (eNetwizard Content ApplicationServer)
Robert Samuel White wrote: I've been giving much thought to this, because eNetwizard is entirely code-based, there is no installation module, so I cannot very well put it in what has been called on this list as a click-wrap! Umm, I do not think that tis list has considered such kinds of programs in the click-wrap discussion. Pl let me know (off the list) when the package is ready for release. Let me me what exactly the thing is - INASE (i am not a software engineer;) ) Re. disclaimers, I stick to my - no liability without any one of the following:- 1. payment to the person sought to be held liable. 2. you told that person that you intend to rely on his program Both of course, require what we, in law, call privity - in simple English, you can put as a direct relationship between the person sought to be held liable, and the plaintiff. Liability can be fastened on you only when privity, along with any one of the above requirements are established. How about an excerpt from the Common Public License... My opinion - Cut out the words in [square brackets] My additions are in (round brackets) NO WARRANTY [EXCEPT AS EXPRESSLY SET FORTH IN THIS AGREEMENT,] THE PROGRAM IS PROVIDED ON AN AS IS BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF TITLE, NON-INFRINGEMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Each Recipient is solely responsible for (reading the source codes for this program and determine whether this program does what he expects it to do and for) determining the appropriateness of using and distributing the Program and assumes all risks associated with its exercise of rights under this Agreement, including but not limited to the risks and costs of program errors, compliance with applicable laws, damage to or loss of data, programs or equipment, and unavailability or interruption of operations. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: discuss: Modified Artistic License (eNetwizard Content ApplicationServer)
Robert Samuel White wrote: - Redistributions of source code must retain the original copyright notices and ... - 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. Disclaimer THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY ROBERT SAMUEL WHITE AS IS AND ANY . Slight problem here - the disclaimer is capable of being interpreted as if you do not permit the distributor of the modified version to disclaim his liability. Or is that what you actually wanted? Regards, Mahesh T Pai -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Query on a P2P EULA
Seth Johnson wrote: The guts of it is: Can an open source EULA exclude certain parties and uses? There is no such thing as a EULA in OSS. If it is opensource, there is no distinction between End User and a developer. The term End User in a EULA comes from the law of copyrights. The makers of closed source software ( aka 'proprietary' ) provide source code to a select few, like, let us say, developer of a operating system revealing the source code to the guys creating applications for the operating system. Thus, proprietary code is sometimes released under a dual licensing. TO distinguish between the different licencees who receive the software different licensing terms, the industry (rather, its proprietary section) uses the term EULA. Typically, under the EULA, you are prohibited from redistribution, and reverse engineering. There is of course, the disclaimer clause. In the other kind of licensing agreement, which we may call the non-EU LA, probably the source or its parts are provided, under conditions of non-disclosure. It should be therefore clear that the opensource community, which insists on revealing the source code, and zealously protects the right to modify the sources, has no need to include the EU-LA in its dictionary. There is only one kind of license. * Encrypt the source and binary tarballs * Provide a utility which can decrypt the tarballs, given the correct decryption key * Provide another utility which provides the decryption key, upon the user accepting a 'click-wrap' EULA That does not qualify as open source. My question is - would this scheme have any prospects of standing up in court? Could this prove effective in protecting me from personal liability from some people's usage of the software? Get a lawyer. This is no place for free legal advise. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Can you under the GPL distribute executables without full sources?
James Michael DuPont wrote: Assuming that someone is porting GNU/Gnome libs to windows : Please be clear - Which license applies to these libs? GPL? LGPL? Currently I am trying to re-compile some of the gnome/gnu libs ported to windows. Most probably, that means that the libs are covered by either the GPL or the LGPL.,, Almost non of them compile from the source codes published, there are missing files, missing directories and such. Some people just based their work on these DLLS, and then a whole chain of missing sources gets started up. This can happen for two reasons - (1) because the the source does not correspond to the binaries. (2) Sources were written for one environment and now you are trying to (re)compile them in a different in environment. If the reason is (1) exercise your right under the GPL, contact the guys who created the port and insist on getting the sources to the modifications. If they (the modifiers) do not give you the sources, contact the guys who wrote the original program. Can a user just say what version of the sources he used, but not distribute the patches, shell scripts and environmental variables needed to compile? What if the sources are not available as stated. If you modify a s/w released under the GPL, and *distribute* the modified version, you have to comply with the 3 conditions laid down in Clause 2 and *any one* of 3 conditions in Clause 3 of the GPL. It appears that you have come accross a case of serious violation of the GPL. As far as I can tell from the GPL, all sources that do not belong to the standard system install have to be provided, not just the name of the lib used. Yes. You are correct there. Having said all this, Im afraid that the subject is off-topic for this list. Regards, Mahesh T Pai. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Book of licenses
In view of difficulties in sending the huge files by e-mail, I am putting them at the following url:- http://in.geocities.com/paivakil/downloads/index.htm. Please ensure that:- 1. You visit the site after 21 August, 2002, 00.00 hrs, Indian Standard time. (that is, GMT + 5hrs 30 mins) (It is 21.50 hrs, 20 August, 2002, as I am writing this). 2. You use the above link exactly. I am still building the intermediate pages. Please contact me if there is any difficulty. Regards, Mahesh. Mahesh T Pai wrote: Scott Fenton wrote: [NOTE: this is slightly OT, but I think this is in the spirit of the list. My apologies if anyone is offended.] Hello everyone. I've been working on a project on and off for some time now, and I think it's ready for public consumption. For some time now, I've noticed a lack of a reference set of open source licenses. In order to remedy this, I've begun putting together a LaTeX book of open source licenses and free software licenses. You can get it from http://www.fenton.baltimore.md.us/~scott/open-licenses/open-licenses-0.9.5.tar.gz . Let me know what you think! TIA -Scott Fenton For those do not have tex, I heve converted this file. It is available in following formats:- format size 1. openlicenses.ps.tar.gz 365 Kb 2. openlicenses.pdf.tar.gz861.5 Kb 3. openlicenses.dvi.tar.gz195.311 Kb (created in cygwin environment, opens in my winzip 8.0) 4. open-licenses.ps 981.2 Kb 5. open-licenses.pdf947.3 Kb 6. open-licenses.dvi567.2 Kb These can be had as attachments by email Write to me, indicating your preferred format, and ensure that you mail box is large enough ;). Regards, Mahesh T Pai Want to sell your car? advertise on Yahoo Autos Classifieds. It's Free!! visit http://in.autos.yahoo.com -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3 Want to sell your car? advertise on Yahoo Autos Classifieds. It's Free!! visit http://in.autos.yahoo.com -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Book of licenses
Scott Fenton wrote: [NOTE: this is slightly OT, but I think this is in the spirit of the list. My apologies if anyone is offended.] Hello everyone. I've been working on a project on and off for some time now, and I think it's ready for public consumption. For some time now, I've noticed a lack of a reference set of open source licenses. In order to remedy this, I've begun putting together a LaTeX book of open source licenses and free software licenses. You can get it from http://www.fenton.baltimore.md.us/~scott/open-licenses/open-licenses-0.9.5.tar.gz . Let me know what you think! TIA -Scott Fenton For those do not have tex, I heve converted this file. It is available in following formats:- format size 1. openlicenses.ps.tar.gz 365 Kb 2. openlicenses.pdf.tar.gz861.5 Kb 3. openlicenses.dvi.tar.gz195.311 Kb (created in cygwin environment, opens in my winzip 8.0) 4. open-licenses.ps 981.2 Kb 5. open-licenses.pdf947.3 Kb 6. open-licenses.dvi567.2 Kb These can be had as attachments by email Write to me, indicating your preferred format, and ensure that you mail box is large enough ;). Regards, Mahesh T Pai Want to sell your car? advertise on Yahoo Autos Classifieds. It's Free!! visit http://in.autos.yahoo.com -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: click once, accept all licenses.
Carol A. Kunze wrote: I don't think this can work. A third party - in this case the distributor - cannot cause a contract to be entered into between two parties, one of whom is not present. Yes. This I have pointed out earlier. And how can a person who is not present be saddled with liability? A developer can put a license in a program that will show up on the screen and require clicking on I agree before installation. The developer has created the license, has developed and controlled the execution by the user, and if the software is subsumed within a larger program as long the as license still pops up when you start to install this module, I think a contract can be created. Let us get it clear. What do we want? Is it (1) a contract? Or (2) do we want to make it clear to the user that he has (a) the right to redistribute and modify the program *and* (b) the developer is not liable for the defects in the program? If it is 2 that we want, there is not need for a contract. There is only contractual warranty liability if there is a contract. So this seems to be striving to create the very contract that would give rise to the risk in the first place. Mind, I don't know the law in India. I regard the whole issue of click wrap licenses as a question of product liability, not of contract formation. The difficulty with software licenses is that they would have to be valid all over the world, accross national boundaries. I understand that in most countries, there are specific statutes, whch prohibit the manufacturer from disclaiming certain liabilities with the consumer. In India, we have the Consumer Protection Act, and the liability is only towards consumers who have paid for the product/service. Lawrence E. Rosen wrote: Some licenses are sublicenseable, meaning that the distributor has been given the right to offer licenses directly from the distributor to the licensee. Other licenses are non-sublicenseable, meaning that a license passes directly from the original author/licensor to the licensee, even though the distributor handles the distribution and exchange of the software. On one hand, the recipient is permitted to redistribute, and on the other hand, you say that the license is not sub-licenseable. I feel that the no-sublicensing clause in a license which permits redistribution, (including yours) means that the distributor is directly liable to the user. In a court of law, your intentions are not relevant - only the words used by you are. Otherwise, are not the terms permitting redistribution and the insistence on not changing the license self-contradictory? By excluding sub-licensing, and permitting re-distribution, the developer ensures that there is no privity between himself and the end user. And yes, if the developer permits sub-license, the distributor becomes an agent of the developer, and hence the developer becomes liable to the user, even in absense of direct contact between them. I feel that instead on highlighting issues like contract formation, acceptance of disclaimer notices, etc, like proprietary vendors, we should highlight (a) availability of source code and (b) the user's freedom to modify the source code. I think that it is absence of these two freedoms which created the concept of product liability in the first place. This is what I have in mind:- --- DISCLAIMER:- PLEASE NOTE THAT SOURCE CODE FOR THIS SOFTWARE IS AVAILABLE AT http://www.xxx.tld/directory/subdirectory/SourceCode.zip YOU ARE FREE TO MODIFY IT SUBJECT TO ABOVE CONDITIONS AND IT IS FOR YOU TO ENSURE WHETHER THIS SOFTWARE MEETS YOUR REQUIREMENTS. THE developer IS NOT IN ANY WAY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY LOSS CAUSED TO YOU FROM YOUR USE OF THE SOFTWARE. - This puts the developer in a stronger position when faced with product liability suits. Mahesh T Pai. Want to sell your car? advertise on Yahoo Autos Classifieds. It's Free!! visit http://in.autos.yahoo.com -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Open Source Click-Wrap Notice
Lawrence E. Rosen wrote: 'Forrest J. Cavalier III' wrote: I would want to agree individually, not in bulk. Courts also insist that it should be that way. ... That is why I suggested in the notice that you there be a simple procedure to review all the licenses. Please review and agree to the terms of the Netscape SmartDownload software license agreement before downloading and using the software. (quoted from the quotation in Specht v. Netscape.) The court said that this language is simply an invitation to read the license, and merely because a user saw this text, it cannot be inferred that the license will bind the user. (aside - On strict legal grounds, I feel that the decision in Specht requires reconsideration) The name of each software program on this distribution and its applicable license is listed on the file LICENSE.TXT included with this distribution [, which you can read by clicking on REVIEW THE LICENSES below]. The court will say that this language is simply an invitation to read the licenses, and merely because a user saw this text and clicked on 'I agree, it cannot be inferred that the license will bind the user. Regards, Mahesh T Pai. Want to sell your car? advertise on Yahoo Autos Classifieds. It's Free!! visit http://in.autos.yahoo.com -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
click once, accept all licenses.
Hi! all. As I was reviewing the various messages about the click wrap issue, this suddenly dawned upon me. May be the suggestions below may solve the impasse / differences of opinion on the click wrap issue. Any distro will contain several hundreds of packages, from several sources, from several copyright holders. A guesstimate tells me that about 85% of packages will be under the GNU GPL, about 10% under LGPL and rest under their own licenses, mostly template based. In most cases, the 'other' licenses would be open source approved. Even if not open source certified, the license would be a shade of copy left. Since all copy left licenses, whether open source certified or not entitle the recipient of a package to redistribute (of course, subject to conditions), the legal contract is between the distributor and the end user. That being so, is it not enough if (that is, if click wrap is actually indispensable) there be as many click wraps as there are number of different licenses in a distro? Thus, for example, let us say, the installer will display the GPL in a click wrap form for all packages covered by the GPL and list the GPL packages being installed and then, proceed to list the packages covered by LGPL with the LGPL in click wrap form, then list the packages covered by the 'foo' template and display the license, and so on. Use of licenses templates too will simplify the issue to some extent. I believe that most of software forming core of any linux distro is under one of the Open Source approved licenses, so there is no reason to assume that the user will not agree to any one of the licenses. As a matter of caution, we can add a splash screen, with or without a continue button, (this needs to be debated) listing the * licenses * with a notice that the user will have to accept all the licenses in order to complete the installation. Once the splash screen is displayed, the installation should go on to display the actual license and list the packages which would be installed under each license. A variation of this theme would be to divide the packages under each licenses as 'core' and 'non-core'. The user should be given the option of not installing the non-core software, with say, check boxes. This way, the user would still have to accept about five of six click-wrap licenses. This would be a better option than the omnibus click wrap notice we have been debating for some time now. Regards, Mahesh T Pai. Want to sell your car? advertise on Yahoo Autos Classifieds. It's Free!! visit http://in.autos.yahoo.com -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Alternative to click wrap license
Sunnanvind Fenderson wrote: If users disagree with the copyright license they must refrain from distributing the program - lest they are in violation of copyright law. This is being disputed in some courts, accepted in some. It's unclear what law it uses. Contract law? Can I say By reading this sentence, you agree to obey me? To what extent are clickwraps valid? Clickwraps were introduced because those companies wanted to place restrictions on the use of the program, with an EULA. With free, open source software, we want to *reduce* restrictions. We also want to reduce the threat of users suing us. Therefore, click wrap is about product liability. When we tell the courts that we are not liable because we have a contract to which the plaintiff has assented to, according to which we are not liable, the courts will also ask for proof that the user accepted those terms. He cannot accept those terms unless he was told of them. Can he? This is where click wrap comes in. CW has nothing to do with copyright/left. And therefore, neither the replacement dialog suggested by you, nor the click wrap notice suggested by Mr Rosen earlier on this list would be of any help to disclaim product liability. Regarding protection of the programmers' copyrights, unless the user accepts the license, he (the user) cannot distribute the software, anyway. Mahesh T Pai Want to sell your car? advertise on Yahoo Autos Classifieds. It's Free!! visit http://in.autos.yahoo.com -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Open Source Click-Wrap Notice
Lawrence E. Rosen wrote: Mahesh T. Pai wrote: Here, we are presented with a case where one click is intended to indicate assent to license A, B, C, D, E, (ad infinitum; minimum 800 as in a linux distro). No, the click wrap notice will not hold in a court of law. Want to bet? Whose money are you betting with? /Larry I will quote from the suggested Open Source Click Wrap Notice:- a) (Y)our acceptance of the software programs included on this distribution under the terms and conditions of the licenses applicable to each of them. b) You understand and agree that the installation, use, copying, modification, and distribution of this software may be prohibited by law unless you agree to the applicable licenses. c) You acknowledge that some or all of this software... d) The name of each software program on this distribution and its applicable license is listed on the file LICENSE.TXT included with this distribution[, which you can read by clicking on REVIEW THE LICENSES below]. The issue is not whether a click wrap license will be binding or not, (it is) but whether the Open Source Click Wrap Notice will bind the user to the several *other* licenses applicable to each package. (it will not). Mahesh T Pai. Want to sell your car? advertise on Yahoo Autos Classifieds. It's Free!! visit http://in.autos.yahoo.com -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Legal soundness comes to open source distribution
Russell Nelson wrote: ... it looks like a license without click-wrap is weaker at protecting your rights. By definition, Open Source *licenses* permit anybody to re-distribute without any explicit permission from the author. As has already been pointed out, if the user does not accept the (open source) license, he would be governed by the statute, and cannot re-distribute or modify my work. Other licenses attempt to restrict the user from exercising even the small rights available to him under the statutory law. So what do we really mean by my rights under an open source license? Under the Open Source definition, with respect to law of copyright, I permit everyone to re-distribute my work and retain only a small bundle of rights remains with me, called the moral rights. (example - US Code Title 17 Sec 106A). Every thing else excepted by open source licenses do not fall within the realm of copy right and come within the scope of product liability law or law relating to sale of goods. Issues relating to freedoms under the law of copy right apart, what is effectively protected by the software license are not my rights, but my liabilities under the laws relating to product liability and sale of goods. The time is coming when you won't be able to distribute software unless you have presented the license to the user and their assent is necessary to access the software. Even free software. What the law and the courts really say, when they insist on manufacturers producers and dealers ( and other similar entitles) informing the consumer and obtaining their assent about the warrant and its clauses, is that the user / consumer should be aware of the disclaimer, (that is, if the law permits such disclaimers at all). The primary (but often unspoken) reason for imposition of product liability is there is no way the user could find out why a particular product functioned the way it does. Even if he could, various laws relating to intellectual property prevented the user from making modifications to the product. Obviously, this is not the case with Open Source Software. The source code is out there, and it is for the user to access it, and find out whether the software will do what he wants it to do. Or else, I will do it for him, of course, for a fee. No court will impose a liability on creators of software who have no inkling about the use to which the software is being put to, unless either (a) consideration passes between the user and the creator or (b) the doctrine of injurious reliance is attracted (I suffered a loss because I trusted your promised donation and incurred an expense). Even in cases where exceptions to the principles of consideration or privity apply, liability would not be fastened unless the person sought to be held liable knew about the risks to which the user is exposing to himself. In other words, if the consumer intends to hold me liable for use of my software, (a) he should pay me for using it - the principle of consideration (c) he should obtain the software from me - the principle of privity. If he wants to hold me responsible on the basis of injurious reliance, there should be some representation by me to him regarding capabilities of the software. Of course, when law prohibits exclusionary clauses in contracts, nothing - neither click wrap, nor a signature in ink on a paper - can exclude my liability. The question here is whether we should amend the Open Source Definition so that it is clear whether click-wrap licenses are allowable or not. We could go either way, but we want to hear from you first. Your opinions solicited, and engaged! What should be debated is not whether Open Sourced software should be covered by click-wrap or not, but whether open source software should be covered by product liability or not. I feel that the answer is no. Except in countries where statutory provisions exist prohibiting contracts with exclusionary clauses, chances of an author being fastened with product liability for his open sourced work are very remote. What is really necessary is a campaign to take Open Source Software outside the scope of (compulsory) statutory product liability. Mahesh T Pai. Want to sell your car? advertise on Yahoo Autos Classifieds. It's Free!! visit http://in.autos.yahoo.com -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Open Software License
Lawrence E. Rosen wrote: I welcome your feedback. Licensor hereby grants You a world-wide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, non-sublicenseable license to do the following: Does not re-distribution amount to sublicense? Regards, Mahesh T. Pai. Want to sell your car? advertise on Yahoo Autos Classifieds. It's Free!! visit http://in.autos.yahoo.com -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Legal soundness comes to open source distribution
Bruce Perens wrote: http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/courtweb/pdf/D02NYSC/01-07482.PDF . This is the kind of case (the facts disclosed by the case - not the decision in the legal sense) which arises coz. you claim to provide the user with one thing, and take away something else without telling him. No amount of disclaimers will save you from liability in such a situation. When you tell the user that he is getting a word processor, while in fact the program sends you copies of files created by the program, you are going to be faced with such situations. There is no use trying to shield yourselves with some warranty disclaimer, and that the user accepted the disclaimer is no excuse. This is quite different from a situation when you are providing something, let us say, which is capable of handling only ascii files, and call it a word processor while the user is looking for a Unicode aware program, a click through license *and* access to source code *might* help; especially if he (the user) does not tell you what he is looking for. Mahesh T Pai. Want to sell your car? advertise on Yahoo Autos Classifieds. It's Free!! visit http://in.autos.yahoo.com -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Legal soundness comes to open source distribution
Several packages of GPL'ed software for Win 32 come click wrapped. eg:- Bloodshed C++ from www.bloodshed.net and audacity. (any body want more examples?) If you do not click the accept button, the installation aborts. Mahesh T Pai. Russell Nelson wrote: The time is coming when you won't be able to distribute software unless you have presented the license to the user and their assent is necessary to access the software. Even free software. Our industry is maturing and we need to be more legally careful and rigorous. The question here is whether we should amend the Open Source Definition so that it is clear whether click-wrap licenses are allowable or not. We could go either way, but we want to hear from you first. Your opinions solicited, and engaged! Want to sell your car? advertise on Yahoo Autos Classifieds. It's Free!! visit http://in.autos.yahoo.com -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Legal soundness comes to open source distribution
Pretty large amount of s/w is distributed in CDs, especially the open source variety. ( redistribution under the same license terms is one of the rights under the OSD ). In such case, the user would have acquired the media, (eg:- the CD coming with a magazine) and may or may not be aware of the contents. The contents of the same CD can often be distributed under different licenses. Here, the issue of becoming aware of the license terms can arise when the user wants to install the software. In such a situation, only use wrap will work. Therefore, I do not think that we have any option, except to recognize and accept use-wrap. Mahesh T Pai. David Johnson wrote: The first is where the license is presented during installation or first usage. The second is where the license is presented before one can acquire the software. I'll refer to the first as use-wrap and the second as download-wrap to avoid confusion. I have few problems with download-wrap if the only way to aquire the software is to click I agree. The user has no rights with regards to software which they do not possess. The problem is with use-wrap. By the time the user sees the license terms, they have already aquired the right to install and use the software, particularly so if they have aquired the software through a commercial transaction. If the license merely grants additional rights to the user, then use-wrap is no great problem. But if it lessens any rights already possessed by the user, then use-wrap is a serious wrong. I would have no problems with an Open Source license that mandates the use of download-wrap. But the mandate of use-wrap should never be part of an Open Source license. Just because the heathens do it doesn't mean we should as well. Want to sell your car? advertise on Yahoo Autos Classifieds. It's Free!! visit http://in.autos.yahoo.com -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: copyleft lite?
Bruce Dodson wrote: All rights not specifically granted in this agreement are reserved to the copyright holder(s). That one line is superfluous. That is what the statute book says. Since it there in the statute book, this is how it will be, whether you say it or not. Your rights to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software will terminate automatically if you fail to comply with the terms and conditions set forth in this license agreement. Your rights under this license will terminate . will save a few words, and serve the purpose. DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTY: How about adding a clause to the effect that source code is available, and it is for the user you to verify whether the software meets his requirements? Definitely, in terms of product liability, the copyright holders of packages released under open source licences have a definite edge in this respect. I feel that this is one clause which ought to be included in the GPL also. Such a clause would be in conformance with, and indeed more relevant in light of open source business strategy of charging support and services rather that the initial down payments. Regards, Mahesh T. Pai. Want to sell your car? advertise on Yahoo Autos Classifieds. It's Free!! visit http://in.autos.yahoo.comm -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Academic Free License
John Cowan wrote: Rod Dixon scripsit: Why copyright the license text? IANL (I Am Not Larry), but it seems to me that the main reason for copyrighting the GNU GPL, for example, Nice. Now, next time my client re-uses a contract drafted by me without my permission, I can sue him for copyright violation. Well.. Regards, Mahesh T Pai _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Uniform terminology (Re: UnitedLinux and open source)
David Johnson wrote: p.s. RMS once remarked on this list that the definition of free software, like the definition of open source, need to be interpreted by people who are committed to the goals with which those definitions were written. This is a very wrong attitude to take, and is rather elitist. People are going to use whatever term and interpretation they like best, regardless of the wishes of RMS, the FSF or the OSI board. It is time for the software community to arrive at a consensus on terminology used in licenses. We should cease to behave like characters in Alice in Wonderland (each word shall mean exactly what I choose it to mean/nothing less, nothing more) There can be serious problems, especially in courts otherwise. What follows are a few reasons, as to why the software community should agree on standard terminology used in licensing terms. A few hundred years back, when international trade was still in its infancy, the merchants and traders used to have separate tailor-made contracts for each transaction; each with its own (and different terms). This may be compared to the the present day practice where a creator of a software package having a separate licensefor each different package, and frequently, different licences for different versions of the same package. (well, almost). Later on, the merchant community realised that tailor made contracts have much in common, and a classification is possible. They agreed on some standard terminology, and the benefits are there for all to see. For example, modern trade refers to a CIF (Cost, Insurance, and Frieght), or FoB (Free on Board), etc. types of contracts. The names may be short, but, the legal systems all over the world attribute to the parties several terms, which, if reduced to writing, may often cover several pages. Standardisation in more complicated scenarios is achieved through organisations like UNCITRAL. I guess that software licences are right now in the midst of a similar process of standardisation. Already, there is some kind of standardisation in software licences. This certification process, and the terms and phraseology used by software developers/vendors like this package is released under the ... and terminology like freeBSD type license, Mozilla type public license, GPL, LGPL, etc are examples of such standardisation. Few years from today, there time will come when the courts will fix liabilities on basis of names of the software license. This means, if it is shown that you knew that you are using software covered by the GPL, then, irrespective of whether you discussed or even actually knew of the actual detailed terms, the court will fix responsibility on the basis of implied terms doctrine. The way terms are implied now, based on names of contracts. (like FoB, CIF, etc). This is possible only if there is a industry-wide agreement on terminology. Therefore, it is time for us to set aside such elitist mentalities, (if it exists at all) and settle on some standard terminology. With Regards, Mahesh T Pai. _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Discuss: The Open-Source Milestone Application Framework Software License
Akil Franklin wrote: Greetings, On behalf of Milestone Technology Group, LLC I am I am submitting the Open-Source Milestone Application Framework Software License, Version 1.0 cut 7. Milestone must be notified of the redistribution and use of this product. Such notification can be made by visiting www.techMilestone.com and filling out the appropriate online form. If you have any questions about this process, please send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] If all restribution should require you be notified, even if such redistribution is of the unmodified product, I believe that it will be against the open source philosophy. 8. Milestone Technology Group, LLC is granted the right to use the name and logos of products derived from this software in communications related to the Milestone Application Framework. Logos and names usually are protected by laws relating to trade marks, and if Cl. 8 is supposed to mean that by creating a derived work from this product, you impliedly licence us your names and logos (in other words, your trademarks), your will have put that in very explicit words. With regards, Mahesh T Pai. _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Off topic question re Export controls
Bernard Nyman wrote: I am acting for a UK-based book publisher that is proposing to publish a book for programmers concerning a particular Adobe design software product and they want to include a tryout version of the software on a CD to be distributed with the book. Adobe have agreed this, and asked the publisher to sign a licence, which includes the following clause: Export Controls. Licensee acknowledges that the laws and regulations of the United States restrict the export and re-export of commodities and technical data of United States origin, including the Tryout Versions. Licensee agrees that it will not export or re-export the Tryout Products, or any portion of the Tryout Versions in any form, without the appropriate United States and foreign licences. Well, what exactly is your client's problem then? The export takes place when Adobe has exported the product to your client, who is based in UK. Compliance with US laws, therefore, is Adobe's problem, not yours. My questions are: 1. What are the export controls to which the above clause refers, and where can I find details of them? As I understand them and as pointed out in some other post, certain types of software, (mostly encryption and security related) cannot be exported into certain countries. The countries have been listed in the said post (by Mattias Hallendorf, but I cannot certify that the list is accurate or complete). Therefore, you should not have any problems, since yours is a design related package. 2. Would such controls be understood to prevent the distribution of the book, bundled with the tryout software on CD, in the USA and Europe? In USA, you should not have any problems, since no 'export' is involved, but, if you export to any country to which export is banned by the US law, and your software is within the banned categories, as per US law, whether you sell your book in the US or not, you will be liable. Any assistance would be welcome and much appreciated. Best regards Bernie Nyman B M Nyman Co Solicitors London UK email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Copyrights and Secrets
Ken Brown wrote: 1) does a copyright of a software cover its underlying source code? yes 2) if the source code is published, is it protected from being copied if it is copyrighted? of course 3) if one views codes without permission and uses it, has that person violated a copyright? You do not violate copyright by reading an unpublished book But, if You break open into the author's table to access the unpublished book, the matter is diffierent Hence, the question really should be, how did you get the code? Code of closed source software is not bundled with the binaries, and decompiling is prohibited by the the EULA Hence, if you get acces to source code, you have obviously broken some law 4) does copyright law correctly deal with software or should it be updated to properly deal with these issues and other open source concerns? Laws relating to copyright were intended to deal only with print media In my opinion, they do not meet the requirements of computer software As qn 3 implies, computer software involves more than one set of information, (as compared to print and audio media, which deal with only one set of info) The program binaries and the source code are independently copyrightable Again, there are several softwares which digitally deliver what used to be contained in pring media (eg:- encyclopediae or and medical software - especialy in homeopathy) In such packages, one will find (1) the content of package, which can be rendered in print and/or audia media also, (2) the user interface which is a program in the software sense, and (3) the source code used to compile/create the user interface Each of this is capable of being copyrighted independently of each other In the traditional sense however, copyright is a right in just one concept - the information contained in some published work I hope you get the Idea Therefore, it is essential that legal systems evolve some mechanism which would protect intellectual property of program (not merely software) developers, which recognise the fact that computer programs are not mere books Where programs contain info, (Like encyclopediae), such info should should be covered by traditional copyright law But, Software itself (ie, the executables should be governed by a different set of rules, if they (the rules that is) are to solve problems like one raised above This would require some further elaboration Average useful life time of any software (the binaries, that is) is a few years, while most information conveyed by the digital packages like encyclopediae are of more enduring character Hence, the information part should be covered by traditional law, especially in the term of duration of protection allowed which is usually life term of the author + N numbers of years, where N can be 40 to 60 years, depending on the country (It used to be forty years in most countries, but in the US, under the Mickey Mouse Act the period is now sixty years) This is too long a time for the digital world That is why a new copyright regime which treats binaries differently from information in the traditional sense is necessary I believe that some stalwarts in the Open/Free software movement have aried their views on the subject more elaborately With Regards, Mahesh T Pai _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free yahoocom address at http://mailyahoocom -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwrcom/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: The Simple Permissive License, v0.1
- begin text of The Simple Permissive License v0.1 - Copyright (c) [YEAR] [AUTHOR NAME] Permission is hereby granted to any person to use this software in any way, including to modify it and redistribute it, subject to the following conditions: The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of this software. THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED AS IS, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND. - end text of The Simple Permissive License v0.1 - why not this way:- Copyright (c) [YEAR] [AUTHOR NAME] Everybody is permitted to use, modify and redistribute this software in in any manner, subject to following (a) This notice should be included in all such copies and substantial portions of this software (b) THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED AS IS, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND. -- nothing much, just simplified it further -- _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
