Re: EUPL draft
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes In the countries where moral rights apply, the Licensor waives his right to exercise his moral right to the extent allowed by law in order to make effective the licence of the economic rights here above listed. This seems to be a legal no-op, as moral rights are inalienable. But it could be useful in case the law changes... Actually, I didn't read it that way at all ... if moral rights get in the way of this licence, then this licence takes precedence. Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - wol at thewolery dot demon dot co dot uk HEX wondered how much he should tell the Wizards. He felt it would not be a good idea to burden them with too much input. Hex always thought of his reports as Lies-to-People. The Science of Discworld : (c) Terry Pratchett 1999 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: EUPL draft
On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 22:11:35 +0100 Anthony W. Youngman wrote: Actually, I didn't read it that way at all ... if moral rights get in the way of this licence, then this licence takes precedence. AFAIK, this is impossible at the moment. Since moral rights are inalienable, it is my understanding that I cannot make a legally binding commitment to *not* exercise them. I can of course avoid exercising them, but I can still change my mind at any time in the future... That's how the law is now (AIUI). It could change in the future... -- :-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-) .. Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgprm0wZROP5O.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: EUPL draft
OK. Problems found. Please forward these to the appropriate authority, since I couldn't work out how to. Distribution requirements require the provision of way too much information about the licensor. Geographic and electronic address? Come on. Geographic address is a matter of privacy, most certainly. I don't like the jurisdiction requirements, either. They appear biased towards Europeans and against everyone else. The attribution right should be restricted to *accurate* notices, which it isn't. I raised this issue with the Apache License and they fixed it. There's some really odd language in which it seems to imply that distribution makes you a Licensor, which I don't think is right at all. Everything else appears DFSG-free, though I may have missed something. There are some other oddities, though. It requires that in the case of distribution you provide the different technical steps to follow to conclude the License. But the License is accepted upon exercise of otherwise prohibited rights, as with all normal free software licenses, as it says in section 10. What's up with that? The definition of Source Code is substantially worse than the GPL's definition. The use of website in Provision of Source Code is too specific and not future-proof. It's a bad example of license proliferation, because it's a new, GPL-incompatible copyleft license. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: EUPL draft
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 20:23:33 +0100 Rich Walker wrote: Ivo Danihelka [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Fri, 2005-07-22 at 18:35 +0200, Ales Cepek wrote: I would like to ask, if anybody here can say that the EUPL draft would be compatible with the Debian Social Contract. Oh my goodness, another license! :-( Someone should really explain people that license proliferation is a Bad Thing(TM)... Good question. The EUPL draft is available at http://europa.eu.int/idabc/en/document/2623/5585#eupl Now is time to propose changes. Here is the text of the license. I have run it through pdftotext, and then formatted for email reading. Thanks! My comments follow. Short summary: I think this license does *not* comply with the DFSG. Page breaks have been retained. EUPL v.01-EN European Union Public Licence V.01 EUPL © the European Community 2005 [...] The Source Code: the human-readable form of the Work which is required in order to make modifications to it. Very ambiguous: many different forms of the same work may satisfy this definition, which one is to be taken as Source Code? The Executable Code: any code which has generally been compiled and which is meant to be interpreted by a computer as a program. Limited in scope: does a PDF file qualify as Executable Code? I don't think so. It often doesn't qualify as the above-defined Source Code, either. Let's see if this turns up to be problematic... The Licensor: the physical or legal person that distributes and/or communicates the Work under the Licence. Weird: anyone who distributes is a Licensor! This could have 'interesting' consequences: wait and see... [...] © European Community 2005 Whoah! The copyright holder of the license text is the... the whole European Community! 8-| That seems pretty broad... It sounds like Copyright (c) The United States of America! :-/ Are we sure it does make sense? [...] 2. Scope of the rights granted by the Licence The Licensor hereby grants You a world-wide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, sub-licensable licence to do the following, [...] sub-license rights in the Work or copies thereof. This probably addresses my concerns about the Licensor=distributor weirdness... [...] In the countries where moral rights apply, the Licensor waives his right to exercise his moral right to the extent allowed by law in order to make effective the licence of the economic rights here above listed. This seems to be a legal no-op, as moral rights are inalienable. But it could be useful in case the law changes... 3. Communication of the Source Code The Licensor may provide the Work either in its Source Code form, or as Executable Code. Mmmh: may the Licensor (that is: anyone who distributes!) provide the Work in a form that is neither Source Code, nor Executable Code (e.g. a PDF file)? Or is that forbidden? If the Work is provided as Executable Code, the Licensor provides in addition a machine-readable copy of the Source Code of the Work along with each copy of the Work that the Licensor distributes or indicates, in a notice following the copyright notice attached to the Work, a repository where the Source Code is easily and freely accessible for as long as the Licensor continues to distribute and/or communicate the Work. Remember this clause for later discussion... [...] The Licensee must cause any Derivative Work to carry prominent notices stating that he modified the work, OK. indicating the name and contact information of the Contributor. Hey! Cannot a Contributor be anonymous? Does this pass the Dissident Test? [...] Provision of Source Code: When distributing and/or communicating copies of the Work, the Licensee will provide a machine-readable copy of the Source Code or indicates a website where this Source will be easily and freely available for as long as the Licensee continues to distribute and/or communicate the Work. Since anyone who distributes is a Licensor, why repeating something that has already been stated above (the clause I marked as 'remember this')? Moreover, now it speaks about websites and thus is not technology-neutral. When the web is history, Licensees will be unable to indicate a website (I don't know when this will happen, but sooner or later the WWW will be obsoleted by something else...) [...] 10. Acceptance of the Licence The provisions of this Licence can be accepted by clicking on an icon I agree placed under the bottom of a window displaying the text of this Licence or by affirming consent in any other similar way, in accordance with rules of applicable law. Clicking on that icon indicates your clear and irrevocable acceptance of this Licence and all of its terms and conditions. Similarly, the creation by You of a Derivative Work or the Distribution and/or Communication by You of the Work or copies thereof indicates your clear and irrevocable acceptance of this Licence and all of its terms and conditions. A non
Re: EUPL draft
On Fri, 2005-07-22 at 23:32 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: So this license is certainly on the right track. But we really don't need yet another copyleft license which is not GPL-compatible, do we? According the Study and Comments, they have some reasons: quote Several licences, known as “Open Source” are more or less addressing the above considerations although none was completely satisfying. Most use specific American notions, refer to foreign applicable law and jurisdiction, do not consider European culture or requirements and ignore (or even forbid) official translations in EU national languages. Some dispositions are intensively “viral”, whereas massive spreading through linkage to other software is not the aim of the European Commission, or contains less secure liability disclaimer clause. Furthermore, it is the interest of the Commission, as public authority, to keep control of its Licence and to be independent from external author’s authorizations to update or translate dispositions in all EU languages if needed. /quote The Study into Open Source Licensing of software developed by The European Commission: http://europa.eu.int/idabc/en/document/2623/5585#eupl Do you know a contact address to which these concerns can be submitted? IDABC provides online discussion forum http://europa.eu.int/idabc/en/document/4420 But more useful will be to post the well thought collected comments to the officials. Your point about strange click-through license for source-code distribution is very important. Thanks, -- Ivo Danihelka -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: EUPL draft
On 7/23/05, Ivo Danihelka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Do you know a contact address to which these concerns can be submitted? IDABC provides online discussion forum http://europa.eu.int/idabc/en/document/4420 But more useful will be to post the well thought collected comments to the officials. I suggest to directly contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] which is given at IDABC Contact Page (http://europa.eu.int/idabc/en/contact) Here in Czech Republic our Ministry of Informatics (http://www.micr.cz/default_en.htm) asked OSS.cz to collect comments and suggestions from Czech open source community on EUPL draft. There is only one month for comments so there is not much time left. Ales Cepek FFII.cz
Re: EUPL draft
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Copyleft clause: If the Licensee distributes and/or communicates copies of the Original Works or Derivative Works based upon the Original Work, this Distribution and/or Communication will be done under the terms of this EUPL Licence. The Licensee (becoming Licensor) cannot offer or impose any additional terms or conditions on the Work or Derivative Work that alter or restrict the terms of the Licence. Oh, so it's likely you can't relicense under the GPL. Let's see... Actually, I would think it is pretty certain you can't relicense under the GPL. The GPL explicitly forbids sublicensing, while the EUPL mandates it. Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - wol at thewolery dot demon dot co dot uk HEX wondered how much he should tell the Wizards. He felt it would not be a good idea to burden them with too much input. Hex always thought of his reports as Lies-to-People. The Science of Discworld : (c) Terry Pratchett 1999 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
EUPL draft
Greetings, I searched archive of the debian-legal list and it seems that the proposed European Union Public License (EUPL) has not been discussed here yet. As this is clearly an important subject (and I am sure that it is closely related to the software patents agenda), I would like to ask, if anybody here can say that the EUPL draft would be compatible with the Debian Social Contract. Ales Cepek FFII.cz
Re: EUPL draft
Ales Cepek wrote: I searched archive of the debian-legal list and it seems that the proposed European Union Public License (EUPL) has not been discussed here yet. As this is clearly an important subject (and I am sure that it is closely related to the software patents agenda), I would like to ask, if anybody here can say that the EUPL draft would be compatible with the Debian Social Contract. Ales Cepek FFII.cz There's a PDFs are available at http://europa.eu.int/idabc/en/document/2623/5585#eupl. Unfortunately, DRM in the file prevents ps2ascii from working its magic: This file requires a password for access. Error: /invalidfileaccess in pdf_process_Encrypt An encouraging start. ;) -- Sam Morris http://robots.org.uk/ PGP key id 5EA01078 3412 EA18 1277 354B 991B C869 B219 7FDB 5EA0 1078 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: EUPL draft
On Fri, 2005-07-22 at 18:35 +0200, Ales Cepek wrote: I would like to ask, if anybody here can say that the EUPL draft would be compatible with the Debian Social Contract. Good question. The EUPL draft is available at http://europa.eu.int/idabc/en/document/2623/5585#eupl Now is time to propose changes. -- Ivo Danihelka -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: EUPL draft
Ivo Danihelka [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Fri, 2005-07-22 at 18:35 +0200, Ales Cepek wrote: I would like to ask, if anybody here can say that the EUPL draft would be compatible with the Debian Social Contract. Good question. The EUPL draft is available at http://europa.eu.int/idabc/en/document/2623/5585#eupl Now is time to propose changes. Here is the text of the license. I have run it through pdftotext, and then formatted for email reading. Page breaks have been retained. EUPL v.01-EN European Union Public Licence V.01 EUPL © the European Community 2005 This European Union Public Licence (the EUPL) applies to the Work or Software (as defined below) which is provided under the terms of this Licence. Any use of the Work, other than as authorised under this Licence is prohibited (to the extent such use is covered by a right of the copyright holder of the Work). The Original Work is provided under the terms of this Licence when the Licensor (as defined below) has placed the following notice immediately following the copyright notice for the Original Work: Licensed under the EUPL v.01 or has expressed by any other mean his willingness to license under the EUPL. 1. Definitions In this Licence, the following terms have the following meaning: The Licence: this Licence. The Original Work or the Software: the software distributed and/or communicated by the Licensor under this Licence, available as Source Code and also as Executable Code as the case may be. Derivative Works: the works or software that could be created by the Licensee, based upon the Original Work or modifications thereof. This Licence does not define the extent of modification or dependence on the Original Work required in order to classify a work as a Derivative Work; this extent is determined by copyright law applicable in the country mentioned in article 15. The Work: the Original Work and/or its Derivative Works. The Source Code: the human-readable form of the Work which is required in order to make modifications to it. The Executable Code: any code which has generally been compiled and which is meant to be interpreted by a computer as a program. The Licensor: the physical or legal person that distributes and/or communicates the Work under the Licence. Contributor(s): any physical or legal person who modifies the Work under the Licence, or otherwise contributes to the creation of a Derivative Work. The Licensee or You: any physical or legal person who makes any usage of the Software under the terms of the Licence. page 1 of 6 - © European Community 2005 EUPL v.01-EN - Distribution and/or Communication: any act of selling, giving, lending, renting, distributing, communicating, transmitting, or otherwise making available, on-line or off-line, copies of the Work at the disposal of any other physical or legal person. 2. Scope of the rights granted by the Licence The Licensor hereby grants You a world-wide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, sub-licensable licence to do the following, for the duration of copyright vested in the Original Work: use the Work in any circumstance and for all usage, reproduce the Work, modify the Original Work, and make Derivative Works based upon the Work, communicate to the public, including the right to make available or display the Work or copies thereof to the public and perform publicly, as the case may be, the Work, distribute the Work or copies thereof, lend and rent the Work or copies thereof, sub-license rights in the Work or copies thereof. Those rights can be exercised on any media, supports and formats, whether now known or later invented, as far as the applicable law permits so. In the countries where moral rights apply, the Licensor waives his right to exercise his moral right to the extent allowed by law in order to make effective the licence of the economic rights here above listed. 3. Communication of the Source Code The Licensor may provide the Work either in its Source Code form, or as Executable Code. If the Work is provided as Executable Code, the Licensor provides in addition a machine-readable copy of the Source Code of the Work along with each copy of the Work that the Licensor distributes or indicates, in a notice following the copyright notice attached to the Work, a repository where the Source Code is easily and freely accessible for as long as the Licensor continues to distribute and/or communicate the Work. 4. Limitations to copyright Nothing in this Licence is intended to deprive the Licensee of the benefits from any exception or limitation to the exclusive rights of the rights owners in the Original Work or Software, of the exhaustion of those rights or of other applicable limitations thereto. © European Community 2005 page 2 of 6 EUPL v.01-EN 5. Obligations of the Licensee The grant of the rights mentioned above is subject to some restrictions and obligations imposed on the Licensee. Those obligations are the following
Re: EUPL draft
Derivative Works: the works or software that could be created by the Licensee, based upon the Original Work or modifications thereof. This Licence does not define the extent of modification or dependence on the Original Work required in order to classify a work as a Derivative Work; this extent is determined by copyright law applicable in the country mentioned in article 15. This definition should be left to the copyright law. Distribution and/or Communication: any act of selling, giving, lending, renting, distributing, communicating, transmitting, or otherwise making available, on-line or off-line, copies of the Work at the disposal of any other physical or legal person. This appears to include public performance (eg, using the software to drive a website), which will cause problems and be non-free IMHO. 5. Obligations of the Licensee The grant of the rights mentioned above is subject to some restrictions and obligations imposed on the Licensee. Those obligations are the following: ... Provision of Source Code: When distributing and/or communicating copies of the Work, the Licensee will provide a machine-readable copy of the Source Code or indicates a website where this Source will be easily and freely available for as long as the Licensee continues to distribute and/or communicate the Work. This is the if you drive a website using this, then you have to distribute the source, when combined with #1. non-free IMHO. 10. Acceptance of the Licence The provisions of this Licence can be accepted by clicking on an icon I agree placed under the bottom of a window displaying the text of this Licence or by affirming consent in any other similar way, in accordance with rules of applicable law. Clicking on that icon indicates your clear and irrevocable acceptance of this Licence and all of its terms and conditions. Similarly, the creation by You of a Derivative Work or the Distribution and/or Communication by You of the Work or copies thereof indicates your clear and irrevocable acceptance of this Licence and all of its terms and conditions. This, together with the preamble's any use of this work, may be non-free. 11. Information to the public In case of any Distribution and/or Communication of the Work by You (for example, by offering to download the Work from a website) the distribution channel or media (for example, the website) must provide the following information to the public: your name, as new Licensor providing the Work, your geographic and electronic address, Whoa... dissident test alert! where the Licensor is registered in a trade or similar public register, the trade register in which the Licensor is entered and his registration number, the different technical steps to follow to conclude the Licence, prior to the Distribution and/or the Communication of the Work, what is to conclude the License? where the Licence contract will be accessible, the languages which can be used for the conclusion of the Licence. The Licence terms provided to the Licensee must be made available in a way that allows him to store and reproduce them. 14. Jurisdiction Any litigation resulting from the interpretation of this license, arising between the European Commission, as a Licensor, and any Licensee, will be subject to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, as laid down in article 238 of the Treaty establishing the European Community. Any litigation arising between parties other than the European Commission, and resulting from the interpretation of this license, will be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the competent court: Whoa... discrimination: differentiates the EC amongst all licensors. · where the Licensor resides or conducts its primary business, if Licensor resides or conducts its primary business inside the European Union; · where the Licensee resides or conducts its primary business if Licensor resides or conducts its primary business outside the European Union; · where the Licensor resides or conducts its primary business, if both the Licensor and the Licensee reside or conduct their primary business outside the European Union. Discrimination: this is best left to each copyright law. 15. Applicable Law This License shall be governed by the law of the European Union country where the Licensor resides or has his registered office. This License shall be governed by the Belgian Law if a litigation arises between the European Commission, as a Licensor, and any Licensee. This License shall also be governed by the Belgian Law if the Licensor has no residence or registered office inside a European Union country. Ditto. -- HTH, Massa -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
