Re: Plan 9 license

[Richard Stallman]

The Free Software Movement has its goals, its philosophy, and its
definition of free software.  You probably have your own goals and
philosophy, and if you want to have a different idea of what free
software means, you can do that too.  But then it isn't the Free
Software Movement.

Re: Status of Vovida VOCAL License?.

[Russell Nelson]

Alexandra White writes:
 > Hello all:  
 > 
 > Just following up to find the response from the OSI to Vovida legal
 > team's answers to the outstanding questions. I submitted these last
 > Wednesday 8/23 (attached below).  Russ had indicated wanting to provide
 > approval within 24 hours.  Thanks again.

Well, we mostly have, but I had to accompany my family down to the New
York State Fair, where my daughter was the state champion at 4-H
public speaking, and horticultural judging!  Woo hoo!  Anyway, you're
a shoo-in, we're just working on crossing the i's and dotting the t's.
Or whatever.

-- 
-russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  http://russnelson.com  | If you think 
Crynwr sells support for free software  | PGPok | health care is expensive now
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | now, wait until you see
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  | +1 315 268 9201 FAX   | what it costs when it's free. 

Status of Vovida VOCAL License?.

[Alexandra White]

Hello all:  

Just following up to find the response from the OSI to Vovida legal
team's answers to the outstanding questions. I submitted these last
Wednesday 8/23 (attached below).  Russ had indicated wanting to provide
approval within 24 hours.  Thanks again.

-Alexandra

Alexandra White wrote:
> 
> Alexandra White wrote:
> >
> > Hello:  Below are the series of outstanding questions for Vovida (raised
> > by Brian, Larry, and Russ) and the responses from the legal team.   Let
> > me know if we need further clarification  from Vovida before OSI
> > approval can be granted.  Thanks again, everyone, for your prompt
> > attention; I appreciate it. -Alexandra
> >
> > > Brian Behlendorf wrote:
> > >
> > > >That's *still* not answering the question of why limiting it to $1000 is
> > > better than limiting it to $0.
> > >
> > > Answer from Vovida legal team:
> > >
> > > >Courts generally disfavor damages limitations.  In some circumstances in
> > > some jursidications they may be entirely unenforceable.  Vovida's rationale
> > > for including a limited remedy in its proposed language in lieu of a total
> > > exclusion of all possible remedies is to increase the liklihood that a court
> > > *when called upon* would enforce the limitation.
> > >
> > > Alexandra White wrote:
> > >
> > > >What effect does the author of those changes hope to achieve?  If you have any 
>further detail you'd like to provide on this issue, please send it onto me.
> > >
> > > Answer from Vovida legal team:
> > >
> > > >The differences from BSD are basically limited to the following:
> > >
> > > (a) We've added language at paragraph number 3 and added a paragraph number
> > > 4.  This language is taken straight from paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Apache
> > > license.  Note, however, that we have not included the language found in
> > > paragraphs 3 and 6 of the Apache license (so often found offensive)
> > > requiring attribution of authorship separate and apart from the copyright
> > > notice itself.
> > >
> > > (b)  We've modified the damages exclusion language to omit "direct" damages
> > > from the list of excluded forms of damages and we've added a dollar
> > > limitation damages.
> > >
> > > The rationale for these changes is as follows (re-stated from above).
> > > Courts generally disfavor damages limitations.  In some circumstances in
> > > some jursidications they may be entirely unenforceable.  Cisco's rationale
> > > for including a limited remedy in its proposed language in lieu of a total
> > > exclusion of all possible remedies is to increase the liklihood that a court
> > > when called upon would enforce the limitation.
> > >
> > > (c) We've included an explicit exclusion of the UCC implied warranties of
> > > title and non-infringement.  Failure to *explicitly* disclaim such implied
> > > warranties is more likely to give a court (especially one applying the
> > > Uniform Commercial Code, Division 2, to the license) reason to treat the
> > > licensor as having implicitly given the warranties, again exposing the
> > > licensor to greater liability.
> 
> --
> Alexandra White
> VA Linux Professional Services
> 408.543.8755 Office
> 408.887.3169 Mobile

-- 
Alexandra White
VA Linux Professional Services
408.543.8755 Office
408.887.3169 Mobile

Re: Plan 9 license

[David Johnson]

On Sun, 27 Aug 2000, Martin Konold wrote:

> I think that this imposes a big thread on free software because it give
> large multinational cooperations an uncompetetive advantage compared to
> small businesses.
> 
> E.g. big multinational companies can make substantial changes and
> improvements to GPL'd software, distribute these to thousands of
> workplaces whithout the requirement to give these changes back to the
> original authors.

Hmmm, I'll have to disagree just a little bit. Although I am no fan of
corporations, and consider the fiction of corporations as legal persons
to be just that, fiction, attempts to eliminate this "advantage" cross
the line from public into private, and that's not a good thing to do.

First, there is no requirement to give changes back to the orginal
authors. If I modify gcc, for example, and give a copy to my friend, I
am not required to submit my modifications to anyone else. Second,
despite any legal shieldings a corporation may have, they still cannot
change the software's license. It doesn't matter if the corporation
tells me as an employee not to redistribute their modifications, since
it is not their copyright to change. As long as I personally possess a
copy, I can redistribute it. 

Finally, the only people affected by the corporation's lack of public
distribution affects only the corporation and its employees. The only
competitive advantage they can get out of the software is in its use.
They will not be able to sell their derivative or otherwise profit off
of it. As long as the software remains internal to the corporation, it
is the equivalent to a tool. And telling someone what they can or can't
do with their own tools in their own shop is one restriction too many.

> In contrast small companies cooperating with each other would in
> practise always be forced to make their modifications available.

Not really. There is no requirement for them to redistribute the
modifications. Taking a two person partnership as a example, if Susan
gives her partner John a modified copy of GNUCash to do the business
books with, John is not required to go across the street and give it to
his competitors as well. Even if the competitors find out about the new
and improved GNUCash and demand a copy, neither Susan nor John are
required to give it up. Just because one cannot prevent others from
redistributing the software in their possession, it does not follow
that they must force the others to redistribute them.

-- 
David Johnson
_

Re: Plan 9 license

[Martin Konold]

On Sat, 26 Aug 2000, Richard Stallman wrote:

>   You should also have the freedom to make modifications and use them
>   privately in your own work or play, without even mentioning that
>   they exist.
> 
> The use of "should" rather than "must" causes it to appear that this is
> optional, but strongly encouraged.  This freedom would fall under 
> 
> I meant this to be a requirement.  I guess I should clarify the wording.

I think that this imposes a big thread on free software because it give
large multinational cooperations an uncompetetive advantage compared to
small businesses.

E.g. big multinational companies can make substantial changes and
improvements to GPL'd software, distribute these to thousands of
workplaces whithout the requirement to give these changes back to the
original authors.

In contrast small companies cooperating with each other would in practise
always be forced to make their modifications available. (less choice means
less business opportunities)

In other words mergers and aqusitions should not change the effective
conditions for using and modification of free software.

Yours,
-- martin

Re: Plan 9 license

[David Johnson]

On Sat, 26 Aug 2000, Richard Stallman wrote:
> You're right that the definition of free software, like the definition
> of open source, need to be interpreted by people who are committed to
> the goals with which those definitions were written. 

But people other than those sharing your goals need to be able to
interpret Free Software and Open Source as well. Limiting their
proper interpretations to only the true believer is a very strange
stance.

There are many goals in the world of software. Some people want to
change the world. Some just want to change a small part of it. Some
want to share their own personal creations without caring what
others do. Some don't like software patents but have no problems with
software copyrights. And so on.

To say that one person's interpretation of Open Source and Free
Software is wrong merely because they don't believe in the right things
is absurd. But this is what your statement is implying.

> ... Neither one is
> designed to be fiendproof when interpreted by people that don't share
> the goal.

"Fiend" is a pretty strong word. Certainly there are some fiendish
types out there. But I would hazard a guess that most who submit
licenses or software that don't meet the definitions are far from being
fiends.

-- 
David Johnson
_