Re: Re: most liberal license
On Sat, Sep 18, 2004 at 10:41:50PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: If you want a public-domain-equivalent license, write something like this: (Some credit goes to Anthony DeRobertis. I've been trying to refine this; it would be nice to have a 'standard' one. Ideally we'd get a 'sounds good' from at least one common-law and at least one civil-law lawyer.) -- I hereby grant to everyone (any person whatsoever) a perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free license to modify, use, copy, distribute, perform, and/or sell this work (modified or unmodified); and to exercise any other rights (present or future) regarding this work which are exclusive to me (or my successors or heirs) under law, to the fullest extent possible under the law. It is my intent that this work be treated as if the work had entered the public domain, or been ineligible for copyright. The license grant above is designed to acheive this goal in as many jurisdictions as possible. If it is possible, I dedicate this work to the public domain. If it is possible, I relinquish my copyright in the work. -- You need a no-warranty clause (and the most interesting thing to check with a lawyer is whether that clause will hold). -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: most liberal license
Consider to put into the license an international private law clause on the type the law apliable to this obligations (the license) is the one of (and you indicate the nation which legal system has the structure of public domain you prefer). I don't like this, 'couse is a way to impose other rules and cultural concept to foregins, and probabily it is dfsg non free, but for the purpose you talk, maybe you find it useful. IMHO,IANAL Tom --- Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Harald Geyer wrote: Joachim Breitner wrote: Harald Geyer wrote: Is there some other as free as public domain license? I don't like to reinvent the wheel, but I haven't found one yet.\ I ususally recommend and use the MIT-Licence for that, it essentially says the same stuff as yours, is the shortest of all on opensource.org, and is well known and widely used. Yes, I know the MIT-License and it is the option if there are any objections against my draft. However there are some things I dislike about the MIT-License: * You are forced to include the original copyright notice, in whatever substantial portions of the Software are. True. * Even worse, you are required to include the permission notice, thus it is half way towards copyleft. (I.e. it doesn't affect other software, but still you can't sell it in a proprietary way.) You must include it; that does not mean it must actually be the license used on the software. It can simply be a note about the original. This requirement is primarily for reasons of credit, I believe. * It is an enumerate style license, which means that - you might forget something - it is water on the mills of those who write wired legal text saying you might do everything, but afterwards try to define what everything is. - it is based upon US copyright law and the rights enumerated therein, but there might exist other juristdictions with additional/other rights. Ideally I would put my software in the public domain, but I've been told, that this isn't possible in all jurisdictions (I don't even know about my own), so I thought to circumwent this by licensing it to give the same rights *as* public domain. First of all, I believe your impression of the MIT license is not accurate. Nevertheless, if you really want to release public domain software, while still dealing with strange jurisdictions in which such a thing does not exist, then I suggest reading http://lists.debian.org/debian-x/2004/05/msg00235.html , in particular the part starting with I refuse to assert copyright in this modification.. - Josh Triplett _ ---o0o--- Aconsegueix [EMAIL PROTECTED] gratuÏtament a http://teatre.com :-))-: signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Re: most liberal license
If you want a public-domain-equivalent license, write something like this: (Some credit goes to Anthony DeRobertis. I've been trying to refine this; it would be nice to have a 'standard' one. Ideally we'd get a 'sounds good' from at least one common-law and at least one civil-law lawyer.) -- I hereby grant to everyone (any person whatsoever) a perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free license to modify, use, copy, distribute, perform, and/or sell this work (modified or unmodified); and to exercise any other rights (present or future) regarding this work which are exclusive to me (or my successors or heirs) under law, to the fullest extent possible under the law. It is my intent that this work be treated as if the work had entered the public domain, or been ineligible for copyright. The license grant above is designed to acheive this goal in as many jurisdictions as possible. If it is possible, I dedicate this work to the public domain. If it is possible, I relinquish my copyright in the work. -- There's additional language in the Creative Commons public domain dedication which might be useful when adapted, because it spells out No, I really know what I'm doing!: A dedicator makes this dedication for the benefit of the public at large and to the detriment of the Dedicator's heirs and successors. Dedicators intend this dedication to be an overt act of relinquishment in perpetuity of all present and future rights under copyright law, whether vested or contingent, in the Work. Dedicator understand that such relinquishment of all rights includes the relinquishment of all rights to enforce (by lawsuit or otherwise) those copyrights in the Work. Dedicator recognizes that, once placed in the public domain, the Work may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, used, modified, built upon, or otherwise exploited by anyone for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial, and in any way, including by methods that have not yet been invented or conceived. -- Anyone else want to work on a 'public domain equivalent license'? Hope this helps, --Nathanael Nerode
Re: most liberal license
Harald Geyer wrote: * It is an enumerate style license, which means that - you might forget something - it is water on the mills of those who write wired legal text saying you might do everything, but afterwards try to define what everything is. - it is based upon US copyright law and the rights enumerated therein, but there might exist other juristdictions with additional/other rights. Ideally I would put my software in the public domain, but I've been told, that this isn't possible in all jurisdictions (I don't even know about my own), so I thought to circumwent this by licensing it to give the same rights *as* public domain. First of all, I believe your impression of the MIT license is not accurate. Nevertheless, if you really want to release public domain software, while still dealing with strange jurisdictions in which such a thing does not exist, then I suggest reading http://lists.debian.org/debian-x/2004/05/msg00235.html , in particular the part starting with I refuse to assert copyright in this modification.. Thanks for that link! This really is a nice approach. However: Is there no way to say in a legally binding way everything without having to enumerate it? The MIT license states: to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to [...]. The first part of this is the actual permission grant: there are no restrictions on how you may deal in the software (other than those mentioned as conditions at the end of that long sentence) The second part simply gives some examples of rights that you have, to make it obvious that you have all the rights required for Free Software; I think that is why the license says including without limitation: your rights include those in the list, but stating the list does not limit you to the rights in that list. Also, be _very_ careful if you decide to change the license as given in that message; you could easily produce something that is ambiguous or non-free. - Josh Triplett signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: most liberal license
* Even worse, you are required to include the permission notice, thus it is half way towards copyleft. (I.e. it doesn't affect other software, but still you can't sell it in a proprietary way.) You must include it; that does not mean it must actually be the license used on the software. It can simply be a note about the original. This requirement is primarily for reasons of credit, I believe. Perhaps you are right, but on the other hand it says permission notice and not only notice. I wouldn't bet anything on it's actual meaning. However this issue is the easiest to overcome as I could just delete the sentence from my own version. * It is an enumerate style license, which means that - you might forget something - it is water on the mills of those who write wired legal text saying you might do everything, but afterwards try to define what everything i s. - it is based upon US copyright law and the rights enumerated therein, but there might exist other juristdictions with additional/other rights . Ideally I would put my software in the public domain, but I've been told, that this isn't possible in all jurisdictions (I don't even know about my own), so I thought to circumwent this by licensing it to give the same rights *as* public domain. First of all, I believe your impression of the MIT license is not accurate. Nevertheless, if you really want to release public domain software, while still dealing with strange jurisdictions in which such a thing does not exist, then I suggest reading http://lists.debian.org/debian-x/2004/05/msg00235.html , in particular the part starting with I refuse to assert copyright in this modification.. Thanks for that link! This really is a nice approach. However: Is there no way to say in a legally binding way everything without having to enumerate it? Harald
Re: most liberal license
If we need to discuss MIT-License in length, there probably should be a new thread about this. However I'm still looking forward to recieve answers to my initial question. It says you have to include the permission notice in any substantial portions of the Software no matter if source or binary only. I think this make merging the Software into some proprietary product quite difficult. Software under that license is distributed as part of Windows XP. Clearly it's not insurmountable. That permission notice applies only to the code covered by the licensor's copyright, not to other works merged with it. I never said it's insurmountable, but that it is a serious burden. Also Microsoft is not known for respecting others IP very well. Perhaps you can't claim copyright of a copy of something you are not the copyright holder, because simply copying is no intellectual work at all. But proprietary software is often not only restricted by copyright but by an EULA which actually is a contract. By such a contract you can restrict copying of something you actually are not the copyright holder. But I don't see how you could do this while still including the permission notice. Sure you can. The permission notice is included. But I'll pet this cat here for you if you agree not to exercise it. Well, that might be one interpretation. If one interprets include the permisssion notice in this way, than it's just some strange kind of advertisement clause: Text with no legal effect hast to be included in a derived work. But I think the interpretation that including the permission notice means not restricting the covered rights is as valid as yours. In fact we have seen crazier interpretations of license texts. (pine, dynamic linking, ...) No. It really is just a public license. You're objecting to the parts which make it such -- the fact that the license to the MIT licensed code is extended to anyone who receives it. I've listed several issues, which I dislike about MIT-License. One is discussed no at length. However I don't see how I object to the above. But that's not a copyleft, just your inability to mess with the license granted by MIT. I guess that is true, hence this disussion. Harald
Re: most liberal license
[ Please keep me on cc as I'm not subscribed ] Hi! Thanks, for your response: Is there some other as free as public domain license? I don't like to reinvent the wheel, but I haven't found one yet.\ I ususally recommend and use the MIT-Licence for that, it essentially says the same stuff as yours, is the shortest of all on opensource.org, and is well known and widely used. Yes, I know the MIT-License and it is the option if there are any objections against my draft. However there are some things I dislike about the MIT-License: * You are forced to include the original copyright notice, in whatever substantial portions of the Software are. * Even worse, you are required to include the permission notice, thus it is half way towards copyleft. (I.e. it doesn't affect other software, but still you can't sell it in a proprietary way.) * It is an enumerate style license, which means that - you might forget something - it is water on the mills of those who write wired legal text saying you might do everything, but afterwards try to define what everything is. - it is based upon US copyright law and the rights enumerated therein, but there might exist other juristdictions with additional/other rights. Ideally I would put my software in the public domain, but I've been told, that this isn't possible in all jurisdictions (I don't even know about my own), so I thought to circumwent this by licensing it to give the same rights *as* public domain. Harald -- http://www.unet.univie.ac.at/~a0300802/
Re: most liberal license
[I think we may be saying the same thing here, but I thought some clarification was necessary.] On Wed, 15 Sep 2004, Glenn Maynard wrote: You can never take someone else's work, place restrictions on it and sell it. You can if the license allows it. if a work is in the public domain, nobody can. Again, you can do the same with a public domain work. That being said, nothing is stoping people from returning the work to its previous status (by removing whatever you did, if anything) and redistributing that under the original terms. [If that's what you meant, I'm sorry for being obtuse. ;-)] Don Armstrong -- Three little words. (In decending order of importance.) I love you -- hugh macleod http://www.gapingvoid.com/graphics/batch35.php http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Re: most liberal license
* Even worse, you are required to include the permission notice, thus it is half way towards copyleft. (I.e. it doesn't affect other software, but still you can't sell it in a proprietary way.) You can take MIT-licensed software and sell it to people without providing source, and you don't have to place your modifications under the same license; you can place them under a heavily restrictive EULA. If that's not selling in a proprietary way, could you please explain what you mean by that? It says you have to include the permission notice in any substantial portions of the Software no matter if source or binary only. I think this make merging the Software into some proprietary product quite difficult. But even worse is the issue with your statement below: (You can never take someone else's work, place restrictions on it and sell it. Nobody but the copyright holder has the ability to do that; if a work is in the public domain, nobody can. You can only place restrictions on your modifications, which the MIT license allows you to do.) Perhaps you can't claim copyright of a copy of something you are not the copyright holder, because simply copying is no intellectual work at all. But proprietary software is often not only restricted by copyright but by an EULA which actually is a contract. By such a contract you can restrict copying of something you actually are not the copyright holder. But I don't see how you could do this while still including the permission notice. The MIT license is in no way a copyleft. Half way is no way, isn't it? ;) Harald
Re: most liberal license
Harald Geyer wrote: there are some things I dislike about the MIT-License: * It is an enumerate style license, which means that - you might forget something - it is water on the mills of those who write wired legal text saying you might do everything, but afterwards try to define what everything is. - it is based upon US copyright law and the rights enumerated therein, but there might exist other juristdictions with additional/other rights. Are you sure? I thought the text to deal in the Software without restriction, including *without limitation* the rights to... (my emphasis) meant that it explicitly granted the rights to do anything with the software, and that the terms following it (use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so,) were just examples of what could be done with the right to deal in the Software without restriction? -- Lewis Jardine IANAL IANADD
Re: most liberal license
Harald Geyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: * Even worse, you are required to include the permission notice, thus it is half way towards copyleft. (I.e. it doesn't affect other software, but still you can't sell it in a proprietary way.) You can take MIT-licensed software and sell it to people without providing source, and you don't have to place your modifications under the same license; you can place them under a heavily restrictive EULA. If that's not selling in a proprietary way, could you please explain what you mean by that? It says you have to include the permission notice in any substantial portions of the Software no matter if source or binary only. I think this make merging the Software into some proprietary product quite difficult. Software under that license is distributed as part of Windows XP. Clearly it's not insurmountable. That permission notice applies only to the code covered by the licensor's copyright, not to other works merged with it. But even worse is the issue with your statement below: (You can never take someone else's work, place restrictions on it and sell it. Nobody but the copyright holder has the ability to do that; if a work is in the public domain, nobody can. You can only place restrictions on your modifications, which the MIT license allows you to do.) Perhaps you can't claim copyright of a copy of something you are not the copyright holder, because simply copying is no intellectual work at all. But proprietary software is often not only restricted by copyright but by an EULA which actually is a contract. By such a contract you can restrict copying of something you actually are not the copyright holder. But I don't see how you could do this while still including the permission notice. Sure you can. The permission notice is included. But I'll pet this cat here for you if you agree not to exercise it. The MIT license is in no way a copyleft. Half way is no way, isn't it? ;) No. It really is just a public license. You're objecting to the parts which make it such -- the fact that the license to the MIT licensed code is extended to anyone who receives it. But that's not a copyleft, just your inability to mess with the license granted by MIT. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: most liberal license
On Wed, Sep 15, 2004 at 09:32:27AM +0200, Harald Geyer wrote: [ Please keep me on cc as I'm not subscribed ] Please set your Mail-Followup-To mail header. * Even worse, you are required to include the permission notice, thus it is half way towards copyleft. (I.e. it doesn't affect other software, but still you can't sell it in a proprietary way.) You can take MIT-licensed software and sell it to people without providing source, and you don't have to place your modifications under the same license; you can place them under a heavily restrictive EULA. If that's not selling in a proprietary way, could you please explain what you mean by that? (You can never take someone else's work, place restrictions on it and sell it. Nobody but the copyright holder has the ability to do that; if a work is in the public domain, nobody can. You can only place restrictions on your modifications, which the MIT license allows you to do.) The MIT license is in no way a copyleft. -- Glenn Maynard
Re: most liberal license
Hi Harald, Is there some other as free as public domain license? I don't like to reinvent the wheel, but I haven't found one yet.\ I ususally recommend and use the MIT-Licence for that, it essentially says the same stuff as yours, is the shortest of all on opensource.org, and is well known and widely used. (Like you, I was looking for a shortest licence once, and after consulting d-legal, I stuck to the MIT-Licence.) Link: http://opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php Gruesse, nomeata
most liberal license
Please cc me, I'm not subscribed. Hi! I wonder if the following is a valid license, if it is found in a tarball in some file LICENSE? Is it necessary to refer to this file from every other file or is it's existance enough? | You may deal with the stuff in this package in any way you want, the | same way as if it was public domain. | | However you are totally at your own risk. I happen to use this software | but I don't claim that it is useful for anything at all. | | Note: Although you are at your own risk, I still give limited support | (such as fixing bugs) if I want to. As I'm not native speaker of english, all spelling corrections, better wordings, etc. are welcome. Is there any way to write a more liberal license? (I guess not, as public domain should be most liberal and this license tries to give you the same rights.) Is there some other as free as public domain license? I don't like to reinvent the wheel, but I haven't found one yet. Also I wonder whether this license would allow you to put the (still copyrighted) work in the public domain, as it might be allowed but clueless to put something from the public domain to the public domain. Well I wouldn't mind anyway. Harald -- http://www.unet.univie.ac.at/~a0300802/
