Re: Which license am I looking for?
On Sun, 5 Apr 2009 19:00:00 +0200 Mark Weyer we...@informatik.hu-berlin.de wrote: On Sun, Apr 05, 2009 at 09:57:39PM +0930, Karl Goetz wrote: Hi Mark, I was wondering if you found any licences that fit what you were looking for? I didnt see a resolution to the thread [1] the first time around. No, I have not. I am still open to suggestions lest I have to add to license proliferation (which is the current plan but I am not very active on it). Pity, I've been looking around and couldn't seem to find one. Looks like there's going to be a little more proliferation going on ... kk Best regards, Mark Weyer -- Karl Goetz, (Kamping_Kaiser / VK5FOSS) Debian user / gNewSense contributor http://www.kgoetz.id.au No, I won't join your social networking group signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Which license am I looking for?
Hi Mark, I was wondering if you found any licences that fit what you were looking for? I didnt see a resolution to the thread [1] the first time around. [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2009/01/msg00072.html kk -- Karl Goetz, (Kamping_Kaiser / VK5FOSS) Debian user / gNewSense contributor http://www.kgoetz.id.au No, I won't join your social networking group signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Which license am I looking for?
On Sun, Apr 05, 2009 at 09:57:39PM +0930, Karl Goetz wrote: Hi Mark, I was wondering if you found any licences that fit what you were looking for? I didnt see a resolution to the thread [1] the first time around. No, I have not. I am still open to suggestions lest I have to add to license proliferation (which is the current plan but I am not very active on it). Best regards, Mark Weyer -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Which license am I looking for?
On Sun, 25 Jan 2009, MJ Ray wrote: Bad example, but the same warning is on Sainsbury's Shelled Walnuts 300g, which I'm pretty sure are nuts and can be looked up on http://www.sainsburys.com/groceries/ Consider how hard it would be to have the law say products must contain warnings about nuts, unless the presence of nuts is sufficiently obvious anyway. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Which license am I looking for?
On Thu, 29 Jan 2009, Ken Arromdee wrote: On Sun, 25 Jan 2009, MJ Ray wrote: Bad example, but the same warning is on Sainsbury's Shelled Walnuts 300g, which I'm pretty sure are nuts and can be looked up on http://www.sainsburys.com/groceries/ Consider how hard it would be to have the law say products must contain warnings about nuts, unless the presence of nuts is sufficiently obvious anyway. I've no clue about the UK, but in the US, the law actually deals with this problem. See Section 403 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act part w. We're so insanely offtopic now, though, that's it's almost comedic. Don Armstrong -- I was thinking seven figures, he said, but I would have taken a hundred grand. I'm not a greedy person. [All for a moldy bottle of tropicana.] -- Sammi Hadzovic [in Andy Newman's 2003/02/14 NYT article.] http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/14/nyregion/14EYEB.html http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Which license am I looking for?
Adam Sampson a...@offog.org wrote: This warning isn't as silly as it sounds: peanuts are legumes rather than nuts, so if you're allergic to nuts you may still be able to eat Bad example, but the same warning is on Sainsbury's Shelled Walnuts 300g, which I'm pretty sure are nuts and can be looked up on http://www.sainsburys.com/groceries/ Please assume no-one on this list is offering legal advice unless it says otherwise on the email, else we'll all go insane with the mutually-contradictory approaches that exist internationally. Thanks, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Which license am I looking for?
Anthony W. Youngman deb...@thewolery.demon.co.uk wrote: Actually, iiuc, no they are not. It sounds like the LGPL 2 would satisfy your requirements. And while there is no LGPL 3 (and I don't think there will be), the GPL 3 has optional relaxation clauses, one of which makes it a replacement for the LGPL. There most certainly is an LGPL3! See http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html IANAL. IANADD. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Which license am I looking for?
In message 200901201403.48978.skell...@gmail.com, Sean Kellogg skell...@gmail.com writes On Tuesday 20 January 2009 12:49:28 pm Anthony W. Youngman wrote: No it's not a problem at all. What IS the problem is that you are telling me I should abide by American law, when I am not American, have only ever ONCE set foot on American soil, and have no desire to do so again. That's a shame. It's a very lovely country, with lots to see and do. I don't think I've ever been to a country that I could categorically state I would never wish to return. I hesitate to wonder what horrible thing we must have done to earn such hate from you. I hope some day you reconsider and come visit us in all of our many triumphs and failures. You haven't earned any hate. I said I have no desire to set foot on American soil. Why should I want to go there? I'm a European, with a strong socialist streak, and have a far more eastern outlook on life. I have no hate for America (and have family who are naturalised/by birth American), it just has no appeal for me. Given the choice, I'd go east to Central/Eastern Europe, not west to America. That's called extra-territoriality, which is frowned upon in most civilised jurisdictions ... I honestly don't know what you are talking about here... I do know that Germany, for example, has a universal jurisdiction statute for human rights violations, allowing them to bring suit against anyone, anywhere, for violation of that statute. Of course, you've got a problem with enforcement, but you are still certainly breaking the German law if you commit human rights violations beyond their territory. Is Germany not a civilized jurisdiction? Ummm ... I thought the UK was unusual, in that we have only very recently made sex crimes a prosecutable offence in British courts against British nationals, regardless of where the act actually took place. But even there, British sovereignty is only claimed over British nationals. Germany is civilised. But I don't think they're enforcing NATIONAL law (at least, not the way you think). Human Rights is an INTERNATIONAL issue, covered by INTERNATIONAL treaties, and they have simply given their courts the right to enforce INTERNATIONAL law. Certainly from my point of view, living in another (allegedly) civilised society, if I fell foul of the German law, I would have broken British law as well, and the British courts would probably claim jurisdiction too. I am somewhat at a loss... just as Francesco is in Italy, I am in the United States, and if he were to give me legal advice, he would be in violation of California statutes. Perhaps violating other country's laws doesn't bother him... perhaps he can simply declare my laws as irrelevant... but it would not be my advice, as I very much wonder what the controlling law would be when someone gives advice to another with knowledge that they are in a jurisdiction that requires a license even though they don't have one. Certainly if I were to give advice to someone in Utah, even though I live in California, I could be hauled into a Utah court... even though the legal practice law in a State law not a federal one. Even easier, the Utah fellow could sue me in a CA court under their own laws. But surely, in order to do so, you must have broken a Federal statute? Not knowing the American legal system, I find it very odd that you could be sued in Utah, or in California under Utah law, if you've never been anywhere near Utah. Nope, in the federal system a state can enforce the laws of another state if it so chooses. It's not required to, and in practice, most folks would remove the case to federal jurisdiction. But with federal removal, you've got a Federal Court, applying a state law, against a resident of a different state. Happens all the time. So you're saying that, even if you have NO CONNECTIONS WHATSOEVER with Utah, you can be forced to follow Utah state law (of which, not having any contact with Utah, you cannot be expected to know)? That's absurd! (Certainly to my mind!) Mind you, if that's the case, maybe that's why Americans think American law can be enforced outside their own borders, if State law can be enforced outside of a state's borders. We think it if the treaties between the nations allow for it. I know it has happened in the past, I really can't speak with any authority as to how often that happens and what sorts of law it covers. But in the world of torts (which is what we are talking about), I wouldn't be at all surprise to learn that I can bring a tort suit against a foreign national in their own jurisdiction but under *my* law. Understand the very important distinction between a criminal case and a civil case, such as torts. Different concepts, different policy objectives, different enforcement. As I understand it, if it is legal in Britain then you cannot touch me. End of story. Unless there exists a contract between you and me that our
Re: Which license am I looking for?
Anthony W. Youngman deb...@thewolery.demon.co.uk writes: Dry Roast Peanuts Caution! This product may contain nuts! This warning isn't as silly as it sounds: peanuts are legumes rather than nuts, so if you're allergic to nuts you may still be able to eat peanuts provided they've not been mixed with other nuts during processing. (Contents may be hot after heating is probably a better example...) -- Adam Sampson a...@offog.org http://offog.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Which license am I looking for?
On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 02:14:37 -0800 Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org wrote: On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 11:45:23PM +, Anthony W. Youngman wrote: But surely, in order to do so, you must have broken a Federal statute? Not knowing the American legal system, I find it very odd that you could be sued in Utah, or in California under Utah law, if you've never been anywhere near Utah. Nope, in the federal system a state can enforce the laws of another state if it so chooses. It's not required to, and in practice, most folks would remove the case to federal jurisdiction. But with federal removal, you've got a Federal Court, applying a state law, against a resident of a different state. Happens all the time. So you're saying that, even if you have NO CONNECTIONS WHATSOEVER with Utah, you can be forced to follow Utah state law (of which, not having any contact with Utah, you cannot be expected to know)? That's absurd! (Certainly to my mind!) No, he's saying that if you *commit a tort against someone located in Utah*, you are subject to Utah state law. If you've committed a tort against someone located in Utah, it is absolutely not true that you have no connections with Utah. The question of how *much* of a connection you must have to a state in order to be subject to their law is a fuzzy one that does get debated by courts. We think it if the treaties between the nations allow for it. I know it has happened in the past, I really can't speak with any authority as to how often that happens and what sorts of law it covers. But in the world of torts (which is what we are talking about), I wouldn't be at all surprise to learn that I can bring a tort suit against a foreign national in their own jurisdiction but under *my* law. Understand the very important distinction between a criminal case and a civil case, such as torts. Different concepts, different policy objectives, different enforcement. As I understand it, if it is legal in Britain then you cannot touch me. End of story. Unless there exists a contract between you and me that our dealings are covered by US law, then as a British National resident in Britain, then any claim you make against me must be under English law. Even if this is nominally true under British law, there is certainly no reason for this to be the accepted norm under international law, and therefore not grounds for dismissal of a case brought against you in a US court. Just because you think you can *get away with* committing torts against US citizens doesn't mean the tort does not occur. Jurisdiction and enforceability are two different questions. For comparison with other European countries: it's been discussed on this list in the past (in connection with choice of venue clauses) that French law guarantees its citizens the right to defend themselves in their home court - but it does not say that the claim has to be brought under French law. This thread gets into two separate doctrinal areas that even specialist lawyers can regard as arcane for edge cases: personal jurisdiction and choice of law. I read some postings on this list out of personal interest, but I have little to contribute to most of the discussion. I have done work on these issues, however, so maybe I can add some clarity, even if it wanders further off-topic from the original inquiry. When a court concludes that it has personal jurisdiction over a defendant, it means this court, for this defendant, for this claim, has proper authority to deliver a judgment that may be enforced against the defendant. For non-criminal cases, the court's analysis generally will focus on the defendant's contacts with the residents and territory of the government of which the court is a part. Two variations of a simple hypothetical fact pattern may illustrate this. A New York resident is injured by a product manufactured and sold by a German company in Germany and wants to sue that company in a New York court for negligence in the manufacturing process. In variation 1, the German company gets most of its revenue from export sales and the New York resident bought the product in New York from a store authorized by the German company to sell its products. In variation 2, the German company is small and has no export sales; the New York resident bought the product in Germany while on a visit; and the injury occurred in Germany during that visit. The New York court is more likely to find that it has personal jurisdiction over the German company in variation 1 than in variation 2. (Even though, in both variations, the claimed negligent manufacture took place in Germany.) Take a different case. A New York author writes and a New York publisher distributes, only in the United States, a book that a UK citizen claims to be libelous in a UK court. What threshold facts must be present for the UK court to decide that it has some power over the New York author?
Re: Which license am I looking for?
In message 20090121115624.27b9b...@glh-hp-dv2940se, Greg Harris glhar...@panix.com writes On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 02:14:37 -0800 Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org wrote: No, he's saying that if you *commit a tort against someone located in Utah*, you are subject to Utah state law. If you've committed a tort against someone located in Utah, it is absolutely not true that you have no connections with Utah. The question of how *much* of a connection you must have to a state in order to be subject to their law is a fuzzy one that does get debated by courts. We think it if the treaties between the nations allow for it. I know it has happened in the past, I really can't speak with any authority as to how often that happens and what sorts of law it covers. But in the world of torts (which is what we are talking about), I wouldn't be at all surprise to learn that I can bring a tort suit against a foreign national in their own jurisdiction but under *my* law. Understand the very important distinction between a criminal case and a civil case, such as torts. Different concepts, different policy objectives, different enforcement. As I understand it, if it is legal in Britain then you cannot touch me. End of story. Unless there exists a contract between you and me that our dealings are covered by US law, then as a British National resident in Britain, then any claim you make against me must be under English law. Even if this is nominally true under British law, there is certainly no reason for this to be the accepted norm under international law, and therefore not grounds for dismissal of a case brought against you in a US court. Just because you think you can *get away with* committing torts against US citizens doesn't mean the tort does not occur. Jurisdiction and enforceability are two different questions. For comparison with other European countries: it's been discussed on this list in the past (in connection with choice of venue clauses) that French law guarantees its citizens the right to defend themselves in their home court - but it does not say that the claim has to be brought under French law. This thread gets into two separate doctrinal areas that even specialist lawyers can regard as arcane for edge cases: personal jurisdiction and choice of law. I read some postings on this list out of personal interest, but I have little to contribute to most of the discussion. I have done work on these issues, however, so maybe I can add some clarity, even if it wanders further off-topic from the original inquiry. When a court concludes that it has personal jurisdiction over a defendant, it means this court, for this defendant, for this claim, has proper authority to deliver a judgment that may be enforced against the defendant. For non-criminal cases, the court's analysis generally will focus on the defendant's contacts with the residents and territory of the government of which the court is a part. Put differently, do you mean that the court believes it actually has the ability to enforce a judgement? Two variations of a simple hypothetical fact pattern may illustrate this. A New York resident is injured by a product manufactured and sold by a German company in Germany and wants to sue that company in a New York court for negligence in the manufacturing process. In variation 1, the German company gets most of its revenue from export sales and the New York resident bought the product in New York from a store authorized by the German company to sell its products. In variation 2, the German company is small and has no export sales; the New York resident bought the product in Germany while on a visit; and the injury occurred in Germany during that visit. The New York court is more likely to find that it has personal jurisdiction over the German company in variation 1 than in variation 2. (Even though, in both variations, the claimed negligent manufacture took place in Germany.) Hmmm ... two very interesting examples. Let's look at the German example ... I'd have said that variation 2 was a clear example of jurisdiction belonging in Germany. The only reason that a New York court might have to claim jurisdiction is that the victim is American. imho that's a clear case of extra-territoriality. Variation 1, imho, is also a clear case where New York jurisdiction *over* *the* *german* *company* doesn't apply. The company's agent is liable, and how the liability is split between them and the german company is a matter of contract. Note I'm a brit, so I can't speak for American law, but in both of those variations, for a New York court to claim jurisdiction over the German company seems to me to be a breach of natural/sensible justice. Take a different case. A New York author writes and a New York publisher distributes, only in the United States, a book that a UK citizen claims to be libelous in a UK court. What threshold facts must be present for the UK court to decide that it has
Re: Which license am I looking for?
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 11:25:51PM +, Anthony W. Youngman wrote: At the end of the day, what I do, I do it IN ENGLAND, No, you don't. When you post to this mailing list, you are deliberately engaged in an act that crosses national boundaries (both your interlocutors in this discussion, and the lists.debian.org mailserver, are located outside of England), and any choice of law questions will be adjudicated according to the relevant international treaties. You can't lob bombs across the English Channel and expect the recipients not to press charges in French court, and you can't give Americans legal advice over the Internet and expect not to be held to American standards for the same. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Which license am I looking for?
On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 23:25:51 + Anthony W. Youngman deb...@thewolery.demon.co.uk wrote: In message 20090121115624.27b9b...@glh-hp-dv2940se, Greg Harris glhar...@panix.com writes On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 02:14:37 -0800 Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org wrote: No, he's saying that if you *commit a tort against someone located in Utah*, you are subject to Utah state law. If you've committed a tort against someone located in Utah, it is absolutely not true that you have no connections with Utah. The question of how *much* of a connection you must have to a state in order to be subject to their law is a fuzzy one that does get debated by courts. We think it if the treaties between the nations allow for it. I know it has happened in the past, I really can't speak with any authority as to how often that happens and what sorts of law it covers. But in the world of torts (which is what we are talking about), I wouldn't be at all surprise to learn that I can bring a tort suit against a foreign national in their own jurisdiction but under *my* law. Understand the very important distinction between a criminal case and a civil case, such as torts. Different concepts, different policy objectives, different enforcement. As I understand it, if it is legal in Britain then you cannot touch me. End of story. Unless there exists a contract between you and me that our dealings are covered by US law, then as a British National resident in Britain, then any claim you make against me must be under English law. I'm afraid that you are simply wrong about this. Whether you think this makes sense or not is not terribly relevant. Let me give you an example. In the early 1980's the managers of various Lloyds' syndicates, among others, were claimed to have agreed they would not underwrite certain US reinsurance unless the primary coverage (by US companies to their insureds) was written on certain terms. Various parties in the US claimed that this conduct violated US antitrust laws (as a boycott). The Lloyds' and other UK defendants argued that their conduct (if it actually happened, which never got to a factual determination) was expressly protected by UK law. The US Supreme Court found that the UK defendants were subject to US personal jurisdiction and their conduct was subject to US antitrust laws. The case is ridiculously complicated and not really worth the effort, but if you want to look it up it's available at: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-.ZS.html This is not just some insane US drivel. It's really no different in substance than EU competition law being applied to Microsoft. If you want to derive benefit from doing business somewhere, you are subject to the laws of that place. Even if this is nominally true under British law, there is certainly no reason for this to be the accepted norm under international law, and therefore not grounds for dismissal of a case brought against you in a US court. Just because you think you can *get away with* committing torts against US citizens doesn't mean the tort does not occur. Jurisdiction and enforceability are two different questions. For comparison with other European countries: it's been discussed on this list in the past (in connection with choice of venue clauses) that French law guarantees its citizens the right to defend themselves in their home court - but it does not say that the claim has to be brought under French law. This thread gets into two separate doctrinal areas that even specialist lawyers can regard as arcane for edge cases: personal jurisdiction and choice of law. I read some postings on this list out of personal interest, but I have little to contribute to most of the discussion. I have done work on these issues, however, so maybe I can add some clarity, even if it wanders further off-topic from the original inquiry. When a court concludes that it has personal jurisdiction over a defendant, it means this court, for this defendant, for this claim, has proper authority to deliver a judgment that may be enforced against the defendant. For non-criminal cases, the court's analysis generally will focus on the defendant's contacts with the residents and territory of the government of which the court is a part. Put differently, do you mean that the court believes it actually has the ability to enforce a judgement? No. Judgments are not self-enforcing. It does mean the court believes its judgment is entitled to be enforced. Enforcing a foreign judgment as a practical matter is yet another can of worms, but a UK court, for example, is highly likely to accord great deference to a US judgment as a matter of comity. Two variations of a simple hypothetical fact pattern may illustrate this. A New York resident is injured by a product manufactured and sold by a German company in Germany and wants to sue that company in a New York
Re: Which license am I looking for?
In message 200901191340.03678.skell...@gmail.com, Sean Kellogg skell...@gmail.com writes On Monday 19 January 2009 11:59:13 am Anthony W. Youngman wrote: In message 200901191101.08985.skell...@gmail.com, Sean Kellogg skell...@gmail.com writes Stated a tad more fairly to those who have asked Fancesco to add disclaimers... Francesco has a tendency to state opinions a little too matter-of-factly for some d-l participents, leading those who disagree to accuse him of the cardinal sin of giving legal advice, which is illegal in many jurisdictions (certainly the United States) without proper certification. However, I agree with Ben that the disclaimers are ludicrous... not because they are unecessary, but because they are insufficient. You either are, or are not, giving legal advice, and no amount of disclaimers changes that. One cannot say you should phrase your license X, Y, and Z... but this isn't legal advice. It is, and if someone where to suffer economic harm by following said advice, they would have grounds to bring suit against you for malpractice and praciting without a license. Are you an American? (I think you are) I am... is this a problem? No it's not a problem at all. What IS the problem is that you are telling me I should abide by American law, when I am not American, have only ever ONCE set foot on American soil, and have no desire to do so again. Bearing in mind this mailing list is INTERNATIONAL, and Francesco is posting from a .it address (and I'm posting from a .uk address), me certainly and Francesco too I suspect find this attitude somewhat parochial (and ludicrous). I'm not entirely certain why the fact that the list is international means anything? The individuals who participate live *somewhere* and the laws of those somewheres apply. Everyone who participates on this list subjects themselves, in part, to the laws of those they reply to. Yes, there are jurisdictional issues, but that's different from the law itself. That's called extra-territoriality, which is frowned upon in most civilised jurisdictions ... No offence to you, but it really doesn't go down well when Americans try to enforce their standards (ludicrous, sensible or otherwise) on foreign nations and nationals. I am somewhat at a loss... just as Francesco is in Italy, I am in the United States, and if he were to give me legal advice, he would be in violation of California statutes. Perhaps violating other country's laws doesn't bother him... perhaps he can simply declare my laws as irrelevant... but it would not be my advice, as I very much wonder what the controlling law would be when someone gives advice to another with knowledge that they are in a jurisdiction that requires a license even though they don't have one. Certainly if I were to give advice to someone in Utah, even though I live in California, I could be hauled into a Utah court... even though the legal practice law in a State law not a federal one. Even easier, the Utah fellow could sue me in a CA court under their own laws. But surely, in order to do so, you must have broken a Federal statute? Not knowing the American legal system, I find it very odd that you could be sued in Utah, or in California under Utah law, if you've never been anywhere near Utah. Mind you, if that's the case, maybe that's why Americans think American law can be enforced outside their own borders, if State law can be enforced outside of a state's borders. Not entirely certain what an Italian court would make of the claim of violating U.S. laws on the subject. He might get of free; I don't think it would be pretty. But, by all means, stick your head in the ground and complain about American parochialism, it's realy no skin off my knees. Incedently, as far as I can tell, the UK doesn't have the same sort of blanked practice requirement as the United States does, but it does have some areas of law that require you to certified as one of four different types of legal professionals. I didn't bother to look it up, because I don't honestly care -- whatever it is, it's going to be less strict than the rules I must follow -- but perhaps you might want to look it up, since you are so certain my suggestion about legal advice does not apply to you. As far as I am aware, UK rules basically forbid TRADING as a professional if you are not professionally qualified. To give a simple example, I can instruct anybody how to drive - in the UK we have something called a provisional driving licence which allows people to drive with various restrictions on what they're allowed to do. What I CANNOT do is charge someone for teaching them, unless I'm qualified to do so. With the exception of medicine, I think that's true for pretty much ALL the regulated professions. Actually - the requirements for practising law are less strict than that! My mother is a qualified Secretary (that's not a typist - it's a qualification that allows her to
Re: Which license am I looking for?
On Tuesday 20 January 2009 12:49:28 pm Anthony W. Youngman wrote: In message 200901191340.03678.skell...@gmail.com, Sean Kellogg skell...@gmail.com writes On Monday 19 January 2009 11:59:13 am Anthony W. Youngman wrote: In message 200901191101.08985.skell...@gmail.com, Sean Kellogg skell...@gmail.com writes Stated a tad more fairly to those who have asked Fancesco to add disclaimers... Francesco has a tendency to state opinions a little too matter-of-factly for some d-l participents, leading those who disagree to accuse him of the cardinal sin of giving legal advice, which is illegal in many jurisdictions (certainly the United States) without proper certification. However, I agree with Ben that the disclaimers are ludicrous... not because they are unecessary, but because they are insufficient. You either are, or are not, giving legal advice, and no amount of disclaimers changes that. One cannot say you should phrase your license X, Y, and Z... but this isn't legal advice. It is, and if someone where to suffer economic harm by following said advice, they would have grounds to bring suit against you for malpractice and praciting without a license. Are you an American? (I think you are) I am... is this a problem? No it's not a problem at all. What IS the problem is that you are telling me I should abide by American law, when I am not American, have only ever ONCE set foot on American soil, and have no desire to do so again. That's a shame. It's a very lovely country, with lots to see and do. I don't think I've ever been to a country that I could categorically state I would never wish to return. I hesitate to wonder what horrible thing we must have done to earn such hate from you. I hope some day you reconsider and come visit us in all of our many triumphs and failures. Bearing in mind this mailing list is INTERNATIONAL, and Francesco is posting from a .it address (and I'm posting from a .uk address), me certainly and Francesco too I suspect find this attitude somewhat parochial (and ludicrous). I'm not entirely certain why the fact that the list is international means anything? The individuals who participate live *somewhere* and the laws of those somewheres apply. Everyone who participates on this list subjects themselves, in part, to the laws of those they reply to. Yes, there are jurisdictional issues, but that's different from the law itself. That's called extra-territoriality, which is frowned upon in most civilised jurisdictions ... I honestly don't know what you are talking about here... I do know that Germany, for example, has a universal jurisdiction statute for human rights violations, allowing them to bring suit against anyone, anywhere, for violation of that statute. Of course, you've got a problem with enforcement, but you are still certainly breaking the German law if you commit human rights violations beyond their territory. Is Germany not a civilized jurisdiction? No offence to you, but it really doesn't go down well when Americans try to enforce their standards (ludicrous, sensible or otherwise) on foreign nations and nationals. I am somewhat at a loss... just as Francesco is in Italy, I am in the United States, and if he were to give me legal advice, he would be in violation of California statutes. Perhaps violating other country's laws doesn't bother him... perhaps he can simply declare my laws as irrelevant... but it would not be my advice, as I very much wonder what the controlling law would be when someone gives advice to another with knowledge that they are in a jurisdiction that requires a license even though they don't have one. Certainly if I were to give advice to someone in Utah, even though I live in California, I could be hauled into a Utah court... even though the legal practice law in a State law not a federal one. Even easier, the Utah fellow could sue me in a CA court under their own laws. But surely, in order to do so, you must have broken a Federal statute? Not knowing the American legal system, I find it very odd that you could be sued in Utah, or in California under Utah law, if you've never been anywhere near Utah. Nope, in the federal system a state can enforce the laws of another state if it so chooses. It's not required to, and in practice, most folks would remove the case to federal jurisdiction. But with federal removal, you've got a Federal Court, applying a state law, against a resident of a different state. Happens all the time. Now, I didn't do very much international law during law school (I focused on intellectual property... surprise, surprise). But, I seem to recall there are instances where a foreign court applies the laws of another country. Of course, you've got to have the right sort of treaties in place, but it can happen. There is even a famous case of a Japenese company sueing another Japanese company, under U.S.
Re: Which license am I looking for?
Francesco Poli wrote: On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 20:27:16 +0100 Mark Weyer wrote: Thanks for your reply. You're welcome! :) On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 05:43:05PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: [...] In other words, you want to maximize compatibility with other copyleft licenses and still have a copyleft license... I think these two requirements are _very_ hard to satisfy at the same time; it could be that they are actually incompatible with each other. Maybe something like copyleft-ed BSD license. Eg. standard two clauses, and an additional clause about enforcing source redistribution of your software even if it is part of a larger project (open-sourced or not). [...] The GNU GPL is not far from being such a license: it talks all the way about a Program, but defines this term as any program or other work (GPLv2, Section 0.) or as any copyrightable work (GPLv3, Section 0.). Hence you may think Work whenever you read Program in the GPL text. Didn't know that. I thought the whole push for Artistic and CC licenses were that all the other licenses (including GPL) were all about software. [...] Same disclaimers as before: IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP. Erhhhmm. What do these stand for? I can only guess IANADD from mentors list - does it stand for I am not a Debian Developer? What about the others? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Which license am I looking for?
On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 09:26:20AM +, Дмитрий Ледков wrote: Francesco Poli wrote: In other words, you want to maximize compatibility with other copyleft licenses and still have a copyleft license... I think these two requirements are _very_ hard to satisfy at the same time; it could be that they are actually incompatible with each other. Maybe something like copyleft-ed BSD license. Eg. standard two clauses, and an additional clause about enforcing source redistribution of your software even if it is part of a larger project (open-sourced or not). I would prefer not to add to license proliferation. In case I have to, I currently favor something based on OSL. The reason being, that I am not skilled enough to formulate additional clauses, whereas removing some is not so hard. Same disclaimers as before: IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP. Erhhhmm. What do these stand for? I can only guess IANADD from mentors list - does it stand for I am not a Debian Developer? What about the others? My understanding of Francesco's disclaimers: IANAL: I am not a lawyer TINLA: This is not law advice IANADD: I am not a Debian Developer TINASOTODP: This is not a (something) of the official Debian project I might be wrong, though. Best regards, Mark Weyer -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Which license am I looking for?
Дмитрий Ледков dmitrij.led...@gmail.com writes: Francesco Poli wrote: [...] Same disclaimers as before: IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP. Erhhhmm. What do these stand for? I can only guess IANADD from mentors list - does it stand for I am not a Debian Developer? What about the others? For reasons I've never seen adequately explained, some people feel the need to periodically chastise Francesco for giving opinions and analyses without explicating every single time that “I Am Not A Lawyer”, “This Is Not Legal Advice”, “I Am Not A Debian Developer”, “This Is Not A Statement Of The Official Debian Position”. He apparently finds it best to include these disclaimers to forestall such ire. Which is a perfectly valid position for him to take, given the persistence of said ire, and its peculiar tendency to be directed at him in particular. Myself, I think it's ludicrous for others to expect one's every opinion to be couched in such stuff, and I just say what I have to say, with whatever justification I have for it, and people can judge that on its merits. There are too many disclaimers and warning labels in our lives as it is. -- \ “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his | `\ salary depends upon his not understanding it.” —Upton Sinclair, | _o__) 1935 | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Which license am I looking for?
On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 21:03:32 +1100 Ben Finney wrote: Дмитрий Ледков writes: Francesco Poli wrote: [...] Same disclaimers as before: IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP. Erhhhmm. What do these stand for? I can only guess IANADD from mentors list - does it stand for I am not a Debian Developer? What about the others? For reasons I've never seen adequately explained, some people feel the need to periodically chastise Francesco for giving opinions and analyses without explicating every single time that “I Am Not A Lawyer”, “This Is Not Legal Advice”, “I Am Not A Debian Developer”, “This Is Not A Statement Of The Official Debian Position”. He apparently finds it best to include these disclaimers to forestall such ire. Which is a perfectly valid position for him to take, given the persistence of said ire, and its peculiar tendency to be directed at him in particular. Exactly, I could not explain it better. Thank you very much for clarifying! :-) -- On some search engines, searching for my nickname AND nano-documents may lead you to my website... . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpJlxT4jZ5qK.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Which license am I looking for?
On Monday 19 January 2009 02:03:32 am Ben Finney wrote: Дмитрий Ледков dmitrij.led...@gmail.com writes: Francesco Poli wrote: [...] Same disclaimers as before: IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP. Erhhhmm. What do these stand for? I can only guess IANADD from mentors list - does it stand for I am not a Debian Developer? What about the others? For reasons I've never seen adequately explained, some people feel the need to periodically chastise Francesco for giving opinions and analyses without explicating every single time that “I Am Not A Lawyer”, “This Is Not Legal Advice”, “I Am Not A Debian Developer”, “This Is Not A Statement Of The Official Debian Position”. He apparently finds it best to include these disclaimers to forestall such ire. Which is a perfectly valid position for him to take, given the persistence of said ire, and its peculiar tendency to be directed at him in particular. Stated a tad more fairly to those who have asked Fancesco to add disclaimers... Francesco has a tendency to state opinions a little too matter-of-factly for some d-l participents, leading those who disagree to accuse him of the cardinal sin of giving legal advice, which is illegal in many jurisdictions (certainly the United States) without proper certification. However, I agree with Ben that the disclaimers are ludicrous... not because they are unecessary, but because they are insufficient. You either are, or are not, giving legal advice, and no amount of disclaimers changes that. One cannot say you should phrase your license X, Y, and Z... but this isn't legal advice. It is, and if someone where to suffer economic harm by following said advice, they would have grounds to bring suit against you for malpractice and praciting without a license. The long of the short of it being... be careful how specific you are with legal stuff in all settings. The closer you get to a specific set of facts, the closer you get to giving advice, the more liability you expose yourself to. This has been a public service announcement. Feel free to search on the archives for a lot more, from me, about this very topic, as I make this same little speach everytime someone makes claims about disclaimers :) -Sean -- Sean Kellogg e: skell...@gmail.com w: http://blog.probonogeek.org/ Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Which license am I looking for?
In message 200901191101.08985.skell...@gmail.com, Sean Kellogg skell...@gmail.com writes Stated a tad more fairly to those who have asked Fancesco to add disclaimers... Francesco has a tendency to state opinions a little too matter-of-factly for some d-l participents, leading those who disagree to accuse him of the cardinal sin of giving legal advice, which is illegal in many jurisdictions (certainly the United States) without proper certification. However, I agree with Ben that the disclaimers are ludicrous... not because they are unecessary, but because they are insufficient. You either are, or are not, giving legal advice, and no amount of disclaimers changes that. One cannot say you should phrase your license X, Y, and Z... but this isn't legal advice. It is, and if someone where to suffer economic harm by following said advice, they would have grounds to bring suit against you for malpractice and praciting without a license. Are you an American? (I think you are) Bearing in mind this mailing list is INTERNATIONAL, and Francesco is posting from a .it address (and I'm posting from a .uk address), me certainly and Francesco too I suspect find this attitude somewhat parochial (and ludicrous). No offence to you, but it really doesn't go down well when Americans try to enforce their standards (ludicrous, sensible or otherwise) on foreign nations and nationals. Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Which license am I looking for?
On Monday 19 January 2009 11:59:13 am Anthony W. Youngman wrote: In message 200901191101.08985.skell...@gmail.com, Sean Kellogg skell...@gmail.com writes Stated a tad more fairly to those who have asked Fancesco to add disclaimers... Francesco has a tendency to state opinions a little too matter-of-factly for some d-l participents, leading those who disagree to accuse him of the cardinal sin of giving legal advice, which is illegal in many jurisdictions (certainly the United States) without proper certification. However, I agree with Ben that the disclaimers are ludicrous... not because they are unecessary, but because they are insufficient. You either are, or are not, giving legal advice, and no amount of disclaimers changes that. One cannot say you should phrase your license X, Y, and Z... but this isn't legal advice. It is, and if someone where to suffer economic harm by following said advice, they would have grounds to bring suit against you for malpractice and praciting without a license. Are you an American? (I think you are) I am... is this a problem? Bearing in mind this mailing list is INTERNATIONAL, and Francesco is posting from a .it address (and I'm posting from a .uk address), me certainly and Francesco too I suspect find this attitude somewhat parochial (and ludicrous). I'm not entirely certain why the fact that the list is international means anything? The individuals who participate live *somewhere* and the laws of those somewheres apply. Everyone who participates on this list subjects themselves, in part, to the laws of those they reply to. Yes, there are jurisdictional issues, but that's different from the law itself. No offence to you, but it really doesn't go down well when Americans try to enforce their standards (ludicrous, sensible or otherwise) on foreign nations and nationals. I am somewhat at a loss... just as Francesco is in Italy, I am in the United States, and if he were to give me legal advice, he would be in violation of California statutes. Perhaps violating other country's laws doesn't bother him... perhaps he can simply declare my laws as irrelevant... but it would not be my advice, as I very much wonder what the controlling law would be when someone gives advice to another with knowledge that they are in a jurisdiction that requires a license even though they don't have one. Certainly if I were to give advice to someone in Utah, even though I live in California, I could be hauled into a Utah court... even though the legal practice law in a State law not a federal one. Even easier, the Utah fellow could sue me in a CA court under their own laws. Not entirely certain what an Italian court would make of the claim of violating U.S. laws on the subject. He might get of free; I don't think it would be pretty. But, by all means, stick your head in the ground and complain about American parochialism, it's realy no skin off my knees. Incedently, as far as I can tell, the UK doesn't have the same sort of blanked practice requirement as the United States does, but it does have some areas of law that require you to certified as one of four different types of legal professionals. I didn't bother to look it up, because I don't honestly care -- whatever it is, it's going to be less strict than the rules I must follow -- but perhaps you might want to look it up, since you are so certain my suggestion about legal advice does not apply to you. -Sean -- Sean Kellogg e: skell...@gmail.com w: http://blog.probonogeek.org/ Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Which license am I looking for?
Sean Kellogg wrote: On Monday 19 January 2009 02:03:32 am Ben Finney wrote: He apparently finds it best to include these disclaimers to forestall such ire. Which is a perfectly valid position for him to take, given the persistence of said ire, and its peculiar tendency to be directed at him in particular. Stated a tad more fairly to those who have asked Fancesco to add disclaimers... Francesco has a tendency to state opinions a little too matter-of-factly for some d-l participents, leading those who disagree to accuse him of the cardinal sin of giving legal advice, which is illegal in many jurisdictions (certainly the United States) without proper certification. That might cover the TINLA, but that's only one of them. AFAICS Francesco has taken to adding his disclaimers after being criticised for posting responses to -legal queries that might otherwise have been mistaken as opinions of a DD, or even the Debian project as a whole. As he is neither, the disclaimers may have a useful effect; they might have even more if they were spelled out fully. It's unfortunate that there is such a disconnect between the the talking heads on -legal and the DDs actually working on Debian. -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com liw everything I know about UK hotels I learned from Fawlty Towers -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Which license am I looking for?
I have a small software project which I intend to release soon. I have already looked at several free (or, in some cases, claimed to be free) licenses, but I have not found one which I found convincing. What I am looking for: - Copyleft with source requirement, but should not contaminate other software. - No additional burden on anyone. In particular no requirements for derivatives to advertize, to not advertize, to follow some naming convention, or to convey source code at runtime. - No distinction between programs, libraries, images, scripts, documentation, or whatever. Formulations should equally apply to all sorts of software. The only distinction should be source vs. non-source. - Oh, and of course it should be DFSG-free. Also, I am very sceptical about patent retaliation clauses. I apologize for this question being off-topic until someone packages my software for Debian. If there is a better place to get an answer, please tell me. Best regards, Mark Weyer -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Which license am I looking for?
Hello, On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 13:49:35 +0100, Mark Weyer wrote: What I am looking for: - Copyleft with source requirement, but should not contaminate other software. - No additional burden on anyone. In particular no requirements for derivatives to advertize, to not advertize, to follow some naming convention, or to convey source code at runtime. - No distinction between programs, libraries, images, scripts, documentation, or whatever. Formulations should equally apply to all sorts of software. The only distinction should be source vs. non-source. - Oh, and of course it should be DFSG-free. Also, I am very sceptical about patent retaliation clauses. What about a BSD-like license [0], or also the MIT/X11 license [1]? [0] /usr/share/common-licenses/BSD -- obviously change The Regents of the University of California (and all references to the University) to your name/company/whatever. [1] http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php Both seem to conform to your requirements, if I'm not mistaken. Kindly, David -- . ''`. Debian maintainer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://snipr.com/qa_page `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Which license am I looking for?
Heya David Paleino wrote: Hello, On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 13:49:35 +0100, Mark Weyer wrote: What I am looking for: - Copyleft with source requirement, but should not contaminate other software. - No additional burden on anyone. In particular no requirements for derivatives to advertize, to not advertize, to follow some naming convention, or to convey source code at runtime. - No distinction between programs, libraries, images, scripts, documentation, or whatever. Formulations should equally apply to all sorts of software. The only distinction should be source vs. non-source. - Oh, and of course it should be DFSG-free. Also, I am very sceptical about patent retaliation clauses. What about a BSD-like license [0], or also the MIT/X11 license [1]? [0] /usr/share/common-licenses/BSD -- obviously change The Regents of the University of California (and all references to the University) to your name/company/whatever. [1] http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php Both seem to conform to your requirements, if I'm not mistaken. One of the requirements is copyleft. BSD style licenses are not, eg Mac OS X is BSD-based but still proprietary. Kindly, David signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Which license am I looking for?
Mark Weyer wrote: I have a small software project which I intend to release soon. I have already looked at several free (or, in some cases, claimed to be free) licenses, but I have not found one which I found convincing. What I am looking for: - Copyleft with source requirement, but should not contaminate other software. - No additional burden on anyone. In particular no requirements for derivatives to advertize, to not advertize, to follow some naming convention, or to convey source code at runtime. - No distinction between programs, libraries, images, scripts, documentation, or whatever. Formulations should equally apply to all sorts of software. The only distinction should be source vs. non-source. - Oh, and of course it should be DFSG-free. Also, I am very sceptical about patent retaliation clauses. I apologize for this question being off-topic until someone packages my software for Debian. If there is a better place to get an answer, please tell me. Best regards, Mark Weyer Based on your requirements GPLv3 seems to hit all of your criteria, including patents stuff. For more information visit FSF[1] website. Somewhere around there there is also a GPLv3 compatibility chart, use it if you link libraries or use someone else's code under different license. Don't forget to put correct license preamble in EVERY source file, after you have chosen a license. [1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.html signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Which license am I looking for?
Sorry if this breaks threading. Subscription was not as quick as I thought. On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 01:49:35PM +0100, Mark Weyer wrote: - Copyleft with source requirement, but should not contaminate other software. - No additional burden on anyone. In particular no requirements for derivatives to advertize, to not advertize, to follow some naming convention, or to convey source code at runtime. - No distinction between programs, libraries, images, scripts, documentation, or whatever. Formulations should equally apply to all sorts of software. The only distinction should be source vs. non-source. - Oh, and of course it should be DFSG-free. Maybe I should have been less terse. - With source requirement I meant that source code of derived works must be made available. I think this rules out BSD and MIT licenses. - no contamination of other sofware was meant to imply, that if someone uses (a derived version of) my software as part of hers, she does not have to put her entire work under my license. I have always understood this to rule out all versions of GPL. On a quick glance I cannot find the relevant part of GLPv3, though. - no requirement to advertize was targetted at clauses like 5d of GLPv3: | d) If the work has interactive user interfaces, each must display | Appropriate Legal Notices; however, if the Program has interactive | interfaces that do not display Appropriate Legal Notices, your | work need not make them do so. Anyway, thanks for your replies, David and Dmitri. Best regards, Mark Weyer -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Which license am I looking for?
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 15:58:06 +0100 Mark Weyer wrote: [...] On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 01:49:35PM +0100, Mark Weyer wrote: - Copyleft with source requirement, but should not contaminate other software. [...] Maybe I should have been less terse. - With source requirement I meant that source code of derived works must be made available. This is, IMO, one of the key features of a copyleft license. I think this rules out BSD and MIT licenses. I agree. - no contamination of other sofware was meant to imply, that if someone uses (a derived version of) my software as part of hers, she does not have to put her entire work under my license. I think the opposite of this is another key feature of a copyleft license! E.g.: the GNU GPL imposes that works incorporating a GPL'ed work (or a derivative of a GPL'ed work) may only be distributed under the terms of the GNU GPL itself. The only exception is the case of mere aggregation: see the license text for more details. Hence, I think your desiderata are somewhat inconsistent. I have always understood this to rule out all versions of GPL. On a quick glance I cannot find the relevant part of GLPv3, though. If I understand your desiderata correctly, yes, I think all versions of the GNU GPL are ruled out. - no requirement to advertize was targetted at clauses like 5d of GLPv3: | d) If the work has interactive user interfaces, each must display | Appropriate Legal Notices; however, if the Program has interactive | interfaces that do not display Appropriate Legal Notices, your | work need not make them do so. I personally very dislike this clause: I would have been way much happier, if the GNU GPL v3 didn't have it at all... Hence, I sympathize with your desire for a license that lacks such clauses. Back to your question: I personally think you should revise your desiderata, since you seem to search for a broken copyleft, which is, well... , not what I would really recommend! ;-) My personal suggestions are: * first, decide if you really want a copyleft * in case you really want a copyleft, I _strongly_ recommend a GPLv2-compatible license: for instance - the GNU GPL v2 itself (only v2, or, if you prefer, with the or later phrasing) http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl2.txt - or the GNU LGPL v2.1 http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/lgpl-2.1.txt * in case you conclude you do not want a copyleft, I recommend a simple non-copyleft license: for instance - the Expat/MIT license http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt - or the 2-clause BSD license http://www.debian.org/misc/bsd.license (without clause 3.) - or the zlib license http://www.gzip.org/zlib/zlib_license.html Of course, all the above is my own personal opinion. Disclaimers: IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP. -- On some search engines, searching for my nickname AND nano-documents may lead you to my website... . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpEW0eMVsHuU.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Which license am I looking for?
In message 20090118174305.620e0088@firenze.linux.it, Francesco Poli f...@firenze.linux.it writes On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 01:49:35PM +0100, Mark Weyer wrote: - Copyleft with source requirement, but should not contaminate other software. [...] Maybe I should have been less terse. - With source requirement I meant that source code of derived works must be made available. This is, IMO, one of the key features of a copyleft license. I think this rules out BSD and MIT licenses. I agree. - no contamination of other sofware was meant to imply, that if someone uses (a derived version of) my software as part of hers, she does not have to put her entire work under my license. I think the opposite of this is another key feature of a copyleft license! So if I use a little bit of copyleft code in my program I have to make the whole lot free? And I think RMS is a bit on my side - after all he did write the LGPL... E.g.: the GNU GPL imposes that works incorporating a GPL'ed work (or a derivative of a GPL'ed work) may only be distributed under the terms of the GNU GPL itself. The only exception is the case of mere aggregation: see the license text for more details. Hence, I think your desiderata are somewhat inconsistent. I have always understood this to rule out all versions of GPL. On a quick glance I cannot find the relevant part of GLPv3, though. If I understand your desiderata correctly, yes, I think all versions of the GNU GPL are ruled out. Actually, iiuc, no they are not. It sounds like the LGPL 2 would satisfy your requirements. And while there is no LGPL 3 (and I don't think there will be), the GPL 3 has optional relaxation clauses, one of which makes it a replacement for the LGPL. Basically, the LGPL requires that any code that is *strongly* linked to yours is affected by your licence, but if the person using your code keeps it as a self-contained library, they can link that library into their code without their main code being affected - just any modifications to the library are affected. Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Which license am I looking for?
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009, Anthony W. Youngman wrote: So if I use a little bit of copyleft code in my program I have to make the whole lot free? If you don't want to require this, you don't want copyleft. There's no license that I'm aware of that distinguishes between little bit, but still copyrightable and entire thing. [And it'd be one of those things that you'd almost be asking for litigation to decide, so not terribly useful.] Plus, it's not like you couldn't use GPL and advertise that you'd license smaller bits under different licences for people who couldn't comply with the GPL. And I think RMS is a bit on my side - after all he did write the LGPL... For libraries so that they would be widely used, not for general copyleft usage. Don Armstrong -- Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing, after they have exhausted all other possibilities. -- W. Churchill http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Which license am I looking for?
Thanks for your reply. On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 05:43:05PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 15:58:06 +0100 Mark Weyer wrote: [...] On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 01:49:35PM +0100, Mark Weyer wrote: - Copyleft with source requirement, but should not contaminate other software. [...] Maybe I should have been less terse. - With source requirement I meant that source code of derived works must be made available. This is, IMO, one of the key features of a copyleft license. Well, according to Wikipedia, copyleft just says that redistribution is allowed under the same terms, nothing about source. So I mentioned source requirement separately, just to make sure. - no contamination of other sofware was meant to imply, that if someone uses (a derived version of) my software as part of hers, she does not have to put her entire work under my license. I think the opposite of this is another key feature of a copyleft license! E.g.: the GNU GPL imposes that works incorporating a GPL'ed work (or a derivative of a GPL'ed work) may only be distributed under the terms of the GNU GPL itself. The only exception is the case of mere aggregation: see the license text for more details. Hence, I think your desiderata are somewhat inconsistent. I think what you refer to, is what GNU calls strong copyleft. What I want is more close to weak copyleft. I want, that in the event of my software becoming part of some larger software, that all recipients have access to my software in its best form, that is in source. Hence copyleft with source. While I would also prefer that recipients have access to the sources of the other parts of the larger software, I think it unwise to require that the other parts are put under the same license. The reason being, that if some other part of the larger software does the same, albeit with a different license, the larger software becomes undistributable, which is the worst possible outcome. I do not see that this is inconsistent. Or maybe I just understand mere aggregation much broader than you. Or than the GPL does. In particular, if my software becomes a library, I do not want a mere include to imply that the whole program is derived work. Back to your question: I personally think you should revise your desiderata, since you seem to search for a broken copyleft, which is, well... , not what I would really recommend! ;-) I have given arguments for my desiderata above, and I would be happy to provide more. But this leads away from my initial question. My personal suggestions are: * first, decide if you really want a copyleft * in case you really want a copyleft, I _strongly_ recommend a GPLv2-compatible license: for instance - the GNU GPL v2 itself (only v2, or, if you prefer, with the or later phrasing) http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl2.txt Among other shortcomings, GPL contaminates other software. - or the GNU LGPL v2.1 http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/lgpl-2.1.txt LGPL 2.1 distinguishes all sorts of software right in the definitions: | A library means a collection of software functions and/or data | prepared so as to be conveniently linked with application programs | (which use some of those functions and data) to form executables. Similar LGPL 3.0: | The object code form of an Application may incorporate material from | a header file that is part of the Library. You may convey such object | code under terms of your choice, provided that, if the incorporated | material is not limited to numerical parameters, data structure | layouts and accessors, or small macros, inline functions and templates | (ten or fewer lines in length), you do both of the following: I do not want to distinguish between different kinds of software. The reason is, that while at this time my software is best described as program, I acknowledge, that through a sufficient number of mutations (in the process of deriving works) it might as well become a picture, a library, documentation, or whatnot. (More likely, it will first become something which does not fall into any category.) I do not want the semantics of the license to depend on such. In particular, I want to understand, for myself, what the semantics are in any such case. * in case you conclude you do not want a copyleft, I recommend a simple non-copyleft license: for instance - the Expat/MIT license http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt - or the 2-clause BSD license http://www.debian.org/misc/bsd.license (without clause 3.) - or the zlib license http://www.gzip.org/zlib/zlib_license.html I do want copyleft. Best regards, Mark Weyer -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Which license am I looking for?
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 20:27:16 +0100 Mark Weyer wrote: Thanks for your reply. You're welcome! :) On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 05:43:05PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: [...] Hence, I think your desiderata are somewhat inconsistent. I think what you refer to, is what GNU calls strong copyleft. What I want is more close to weak copyleft. I want, that in the event of my software becoming part of some larger software, that all recipients have access to my software in its best form, that is in source. Hence copyleft with source. While I would also prefer that recipients have access to the sources of the other parts of the larger software, I think it unwise to require that the other parts are put under the same license. IMHO, the problem with this form of weak copyleft is: what if your code is incorporated as part of the larger work so that the boundaries are not so well defined? I mean: your code could, for instance, be included inside one source file of the larger work, blended with other parts of the larger work. At that point, having access to the source for your code under its original license terms (and nothing else) would be of little or no use, in order to have freedom on the larger work. Of course, it would provide freedom on your original code, but that would be guaranteed (almost) equivalently by a simple non-copyleft license (such as the Expat/MIT license), as long as your original code remains available from other places under these non-copyleft free terms. The reason being, that if some other part of the larger software does the same, albeit with a different license, the larger software becomes undistributable, which is the worst possible outcome. In other words, you want to maximize compatibility with other copyleft licenses and still have a copyleft license... I think these two requirements are _very_ hard to satisfy at the same time; it could be that they are actually incompatible with each other. [...] I do not want to distinguish between different kinds of software. The reason is, that while at this time my software is best described as program, I acknowledge, that through a sufficient number of mutations (in the process of deriving works) it might as well become a picture, a library, documentation, or whatnot. I share this desire for a license written without distinguishing between different kinds of software. The GNU GPL is not far from being such a license: it talks all the way about a Program, but defines this term as any program or other work (GPLv2, Section 0.) or as any copyrightable work (GPLv3, Section 0.). Hence you may think Work whenever you read Program in the GPL text. Same disclaimers as before: IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP. -- On some search engines, searching for my nickname AND nano-documents may lead you to my website... . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpDGsf3h4N99.pgp Description: PGP signature
