Re: time frame between request for approval and acknowledgement of request?
Russell Nelson scripsit: I'm a volunteer, Bruce, with a TODO list longer than your arm. The problem with license submittals is that I try to pre-vet them, so that the license-discuss people don't have to waste their time with licenses that are obviously unacceptable. With respect, Russ, that's bassackwards. Collectively if not individually, the members of the list have far more free man-hours than you do. You should pass submissions straight on to the list and let one or more of us shoot them down if they are obvious losers. This will make for a slight wastage when one or more list members are typing rejections at the same time, but I think that's better than injecting an extra delay into an already slow and painful process. -- There is / One art John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] No more / No less http://www.reutershealth.com To do / All things http://www.ccil.org/~cowan With art- / Lessness -- Piet Hein -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Modifying licence and licence caos
I see frequently something like this (or in general modified licences): Please discuss this license. Graziano reports that the only change from the Zope license are terms 7 and 8. -russ ] Although I think it is not legal because copyright statement (but IANAL), I can see *sometime* improvements of original licences. But: #1 Can OSI approve possibly (read probably) illegal license? (remember: IANAL!) #2 Should we promote the caos of millions of different licences ? ciao giacomo -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: discuss: Duemetri Public License (DPL) Version 1.0
Hi, Excuse me if this is a silly question.. The QPL uses the same tactic to control distribution of customized versions of Qt. But this creates is a pain for developers and end-users alike. The pain you speak of, is this from a purely legal stand point? If so, in what manner does it hinder or cause pain to an end user? The reason I ask is I am thinking of implementing something similar to this in my soon to be released framework in the hopes that it will provide a higher level of quality for the end users. As most programmers know, moduler applications can become diluted over time with third party plug-ins/addons, some to the point where Module A by company x can not be used with Module B by company z, and it's the end user who gets screwed. I am not a lawyer, just a guy who writes a ton of code so please excuse my ignorance on this point. Thanks to all who contribute to the legal/license stuff, guys like me would be lost without you :) Have a great day! Mike Wattier On Wednesday 20 November 2002 11:50 pm, Bruce Dodson wrote: The QPL uses the same tactic to control distribution of customized versions of Qt. But this creates is a pain for developers and end-users alike. At least your term #8 provides an alternative, changing this requirement to distribute patches into something that's optional. But it's confusing the way 7 and 8 seem to contradict one another. As a licensee, I would be scratching my head, unsure whether I was compliant or not. Please consider dropping term 7, and simply leaving term 8. Given the choice, most developers would choose that option anyway, because distributing patches creates extra burden for the end-user. Even term 8 creates a difficult situation. You have a license whose first line says, The software is called RAINBOW, and then says that for modified works, The software must not be called RAINBOW. If I were you, I would check out the AFL 1.2. That version might not have been approved yet when you made your request. Depending on what business requirement points 7 and 8 of your license are meant to serve, you might find that the AFL's Attribution Rights provision can be leveraged to deliver the same business value in a different way. Then you'd have a professionally written license, you wouldn't have to go through a long drawn out process to try to get your license approved, and you can get on with writing your software. - Original Message - From: Graziano Poretti [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 12:01 AM Subject: discuss: Duemetri Public License (DPL) Version 1.0 [ Please discuss this license. Graziano reports that the only change from the Zope license are terms 7 and 8. -russ ] hi we would like to start an open source project on a product called rainbow. the 1st version of the license is at http://www.duemetri.it/licenza.htm http://www.duemetri.it/licenza.htm the most similar license is the ZOPE public license. the changes occur for the Integrity of The Author's Source Code - point #4 of OSD. according with this point, we prefer that the free distribution of source and binary would be granted with the release of official versions and modifications can be installed using the patch files only. the developers community will check and test all the patches in order to release the new official version including all new features (tested and with a sufficient documentation). thanks for ur time ... sincerely --- Graziano Poretti - DUE METRI http://support.facile.duemetri.net http://support.facile.duemetri.net/ - Per creare e gestire un portale in 20 minuti http://www.duemetri.it http://www.duemetri.it/ tel.: 0039 184 42163 Fax: 0039 184 462673 -- License follows Duemetri Public License (DPL) Version 1.0 1. The software is called ``RAINBOW'' 2. This software is Copyright (c) Duemetri sas (tm) and Contributors. All rights reserved 3. Redistributions in source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions, and the following disclaimer. 4. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions, and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. 5. The name Duemetri sas (tm) must not be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without prior written permission from Duemetri sas 6. If any files are modified, you must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change. Disclaimer THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY DUEMETRI SAS ''AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL DUEMETRI SAS OR ITS CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY
Re: time frame between request for approval and acknowledgement of request?
John Cowan writes: With respect, Russ, that's bassackwards. Collectively if not individually, the members of the list have far more free man-hours than you do. You should pass submissions straight on to the list and let one or more of us shoot them down if they are obvious losers. Okay, unless list members have an objection, that's how I'll handle submissions in the future. -- -russ nelson http://russnelson.com | Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | it's better to be free 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | than to be correct. Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
discuss: NauSite Public License
[ Please discuss this license. Chances are 99 to 1 that a name-only change will be approvable. -russ ] Hello, This is a request for approval of NauSite Public License. NauSite is an open source Content Management System for web sites written by Naumen company (www.naumen.ru). The license is a close derivative of OSI-approved Zope Public License, we only had to change company name from Zope Corporation to Naumen. The license text is attached to this message. It is ok to post it to the license-discuss list if neccessary. -- Vladimir Pastukhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] NauSite Public License --- This software is Copyright (c) Naumen (tm) and Contributors. All rights reserved. Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: 1. Redistributions in source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions, and the following disclaimer. 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions, and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. 3. The names Naumen (tm) and NauSite (tm) must not be used to endorse or promote products derived from NauSite without prior written permission from Naumen. 4. The right to distribute this software or to use it for any purpose does not give you the right to use Servicemarks (sm) or Trademarks (tm) of Naumen and NauSite. 5. If any files originating from Naumen are modified, you must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change. Disclaimer: THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY NAUMEN AS IS AND ANY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL NAUMEN OR ITS CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. This software consists of contributions made by Naumen and Contributors. Specific attributions are listed in the accompanying credits file.
Re: discuss: NauSite Public License
Vladimir Pastukhov scripsit: This is a request for approval of NauSite Public License. NauSite is an open source Content Management System for web sites written by Naumen company (www.naumen.ru). This license is obviously Open Source, but Naumen should consider the Academic Free License 1.2 instead, which serves the same purposes but also provides the mutual patent defense (sue for patent infringement, lose your license), which is good for authors, and the warranty of copyright ownership, which is good for end users. http://www.opensource.org/licenses/academic.php -- John Cowanhttp://www.ccil.org/~cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Any legal document draws most of its meaning from context. A telegram that says 'SELL HUNDRED THOUSAND SHARES IBM SHORT' (only 190 bits in 5-bit Baudot code plus appropriate headers) is as good a legal document as any, even sans digital signature. --me -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: time frame between request for approval and acknowledge
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED] John Cowan writes: With respect, Russ, that's bassackwards. Collectively if not individually, the members of the list have far more free man-hours than you do. You should pass submissions straight on to the list and let one or more of us shoot them down if they are obvious losers. Okay, unless list members have an objection, that's how I'll handle submissions in the future. I wondered why the list has only been seeing submissions of high quality licenses. We used to more commonly see all kinds of OSD violations in the submitted licenses. (I thought the world was getting smarter about open source. Ah well.) I agree the list members could function as first-line review for licenses, AS LONG AS THEY REMEMBER THIS: We are ambassadors for open source. We want more open source. And those proposing licenses are newbies, not converts. Be gentle. I think Russ started being first-line contact back when clearly bad licenses were very likely to get flamed. That became a big turn-off to the suits bringing licenses to license-discuss. We don't even need someone volunteering that I would never use such a license. It is adequate to explain the violation if you think there is one, and point them to the rationale at www.opensource.org. If they want to follow-up, then that is the time for continuing a further detailed discussion. Forrest -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: time frame between request for approval and acknowledge
Forrest J. Cavalier III scripsit: I agree the list members could function as first-line review for licenses, AS LONG AS THEY REMEMBER THIS: We are ambassadors for open source. We want more open source. And those proposing licenses are newbies, not converts. Be gentle. Sounds good. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Be yourself. Especially do not feign a working knowledge of RDF where no such knowledge exists. Neither be cynical about RELAX NG; for in the face of all aridity and disenchantment in the world of markup, James Clark is as perennial as the grass. --DeXiderata, Sean McGrath -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
RE: Approval Request: RPSL 1.0
Hi Larry, We're looking forward to the complete review. In the meantime, here's some comments: On Fri, 2002-11-08 at 17:28, Lawrence E. Rosen wrote: You realize, of course, that the following definition from your license goes way beyond what a derivative work is under copyright law. That's ok to do in a license, but you may surprise licensees who don't take the time to read your license carefully. 1.6 Derivative Work means either the Covered Code or any derivative work under United States copyright law, and including any work containing or including any portion of the Covered Code or Modifications, either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated into another language. Derivative Work also includes any work which combines any portion of Covered Code or Modifications with code not otherwise governed by the terms of this License. We believe that this is a defensible definition of Derivative Work. My understanding based on discussion on this list is that this term can vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, so we felt it was important to define what we mean by this term. At one time I stole your definition of Externally Deploy for the OSL (thanks!), but then I got lots of feedback from the community that it was way overreaching. I ended up narrowing the definition substantially to reflect the concerns of many that they couldn't live under such a broad definition. Some people thought it unduly restricted the *use* of software as opposed to its *distribution*. You might encounter the same resistance in the marketplace. 1.7 Externally Deploy means to Deploy the Covered Code in any way that may be accessed or used by anyone other than You, used to provide any services to anyone other than You, or used in any way to deliver any content to anyone other than You, whether the Covered Code is distributed to those parties, made available as an application intended for use over a computer network, or used to provide services or otherwise deliver content to anyone other than You. We understand the risk here, but we feel that this is an important clause in our license. As mentioned before, this clause was explicitly included to close the ASP loophole as defined in the following article: http://newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=00/11/01/1636202 We wrote this clause in such a way as to circumscribe an ASP as closely as possible, while not opening a loophole to keep ASPs from having asymetric benefit from the work of the community. Rob --Original Message-- From: Rob Lanphier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 10:16 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Approval Request: RPSL 1.0 Hi all, Just a reminder to look at the RPSL. I haven't seen any comments on the 1.0 version, so I guess it must be perfect. :) Rob -- Rob Lanphier, Helix Community Coordinator - RealNetworks http://helixcommunity.org http://rtsp.org http://realnetworks.com On Mon, 2002-10-28 at 19:47, Rob Lanphier wrote: Hi everyone, Here is a link to the RealNetworks Public Source License (RPSL): http://www.helixcommunity.org/content/rpsl We'd like to submit this for consideration as an OSI-certified license. As discussed in the August 1 thread, our intent is to create a license that is similar in goals to the GPL, with the following key differences: * Closing the ASP loophole. We want to ensure that someone who sets up a business as an ASP is subject to the same community obligations as someone who creates a shrinkwrap product. See http://newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=00/11/01/1636202 for more details on this. * Clear language with respect to the scope of patent rights RealNetworks grants to the community. We are offering a patent license to the code we issue. * Right for RealNetworks to relicense. The subgoals for this are as follows: * We want to ensure we can bring changes back into our main development trunk, which is dually licensed under the RPSL and the RealNetworks Community Source License (a community source license modelled after the Java Community Source License) * We want to be able to relicense this under other terms later (perhaps GPL compatibility will become feasible) * We offer licensing under other terms under custom agreement * Compability with most currently-approved OSI licenses (exceptions being licenses that would read on our RPSL'd code) Let us know what you think, and what we can do to ease the process along. Thanks Rob -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3 -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3 -- Rob Lanphier, Helix Community Coordinator - RealNetworks http://helixcommunity.org
Academic Free License questions
Hi, I'm sure these are FAQs but I have a couple of questions about using the AFL. 1. Is the AFL generally considered GPL-compatible as the X license is? i.e. if I release a library under the AFL, can GPL applications use it? Or would I need to dual license under GPL also? 2. What notice should be placed in each individual source file? The entire AFL is quite long to put there... the GPL comes with a suggestion for how to apply this license to your code Thanks for any help. Havoc -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
R: discuss: Duemetri Public License (DPL) Version 1.1
Hi to all I'm not a lawyer like Mike, just a developer, and english is not my mother language, so, i think that what i wrote may be not so understandable. I will try to fix the points and explain what i meant. Well, points 7 and 8 in DPL derived from the point 4 in the OPEN SOURCE DEFINITION (http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php) and my intention was to be completely compliant with this point. By the way, i think that the point 3 of the Q Public License Version 1.0 is exactly what i need so i'm going to substitute the points 7 and 8 with this point. At this point, original point #6 is part of the new point #6 This means that ALL the part of this license come from osi certificated licenses In this way i'm sure that we have a full professionally written license DPL 1.1 is at http://www.duemetri.it/licenza.htm Special thanx to Bruce and Mike --- Graziano Poretti - DUE METRI http://support.facile.duemetri.net - Per creare e gestire un portale in 20 minuti http://www.duemetri.it tel.: 0039 184 42163 Fax: 0039 184 462673 -Messaggio originale- Da: Bruce Dodson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Inviato: giovedì 21 novembre 2002 8.50 A: Graziano Poretti; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Oggetto: Re: discuss: Duemetri Public License (DPL) Version 1.0 The QPL uses the same tactic to control distribution of customized versions of Qt. But this creates is a pain for developers and end-users alike. At least your term #8 provides an alternative, changing this requirement to distribute patches into something that's optional. But it's confusing the way 7 and 8 seem to contradict one another. As a licensee, I would be scratching my head, unsure whether I was compliant or not. Please consider dropping term 7, and simply leaving term 8. Given the choice, most developers would choose that option anyway, because distributing patches creates extra burden for the end-user. Even term 8 creates a difficult situation. You have a license whose first line says, The software is called RAINBOW, and then says that for modified works, The software must not be called RAINBOW. If I were you, I would check out the AFL 1.2. That version might not have been approved yet when you made your request. Depending on what business requirement points 7 and 8 of your license are meant to serve, you might find that the AFL's Attribution Rights provision can be leveraged to deliver the same business value in a different way. Then you'd have a professionally written license, you wouldn't have to go through a long drawn out process to try to get your license approved, and you can get on with writing your software. - -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Academic Free License questions
Havoc Pennington scripsit: 1. Is the AFL generally considered GPL-compatible as the X license is? i.e. if I release a library under the AFL, can GPL applications use it? Or would I need to dual license under GPL also? You would. RMS says the AFL and the GPL are not compatible; he doesn't say exactly why, beyond noting that there is more than one problem. The patent provision is the obvious candidate, however, based on RMS's review of the IBMPL. Note that RMS reviewed AFL 1.1 and the current release is 1.2, but there is no reason to think he would have changed his mind. 2. What notice should be placed in each individual source file? The entire AFL is quite long to put there... As the AFL's preamble says, just put the line: Licensed under the Academic Free License version 1.2 just after the copyright notice. -- We call nothing profound[EMAIL PROTECTED] that is not wittily expressed. John Cowan --Northrop Frye (improved) http://www.reutershealth.com -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
discuss: DPL 1.1
[ Revised license for discussion. -russ ] following the dscussion in the mailing list, i substituted an article which was originally written by me with an article (the #3) coming from The Q Public License Version 1.0. Now this license derives directly from the Zope Public License (ZPL) Version 2.0 and the point #6 is the original #3 in The Q Public License Version 1.0 i posted all the changes at the original url http://www.duemetri.it/licenza.htm http://www.duemetri.it/licenza.htm --- Graziano Poretti - DUE METRI http://support.facile.duemetri.net http://support.facile.duemetri.net/ - Per creare e gestire un portale in 20 minuti http://www.duemetri.it http://www.duemetri.it/ tel.: 0039 184 42163 Fax: 0039 184 462673 Duemetri Public License (DPL) Version 1.1 1. The software is called RAINBOW 2. This software is Copyright (c) Duemetri sas (tm) and Contributors. All rights reserved. 3. Redistributions in source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions, and the following disclaimer. 4. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions, and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. 5. The name Duemetri sas (tm) must not be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without prior written permission from Duemetri sas 6. You may make modifications to the Software and distribute your modifications, in a form that is separate from the Software, such as patches. The following restrictions apply to modifications: a. Modifications must not alter or remove any copyright notices in the Software. b. When modifications to the Software are released under this license, a non-exclusive royalty-free right is granted to the initial developer of the Software to distribute your modification in future versions of the Software provided such versions remain available under these terms in addition to any other license(s) of the initial developer. Disclaimer THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY DUEMETRI sas AS IS AND ANY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL DUEMETRI sas OR ITS CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
discuss: OpenMap Software License
[ Please discuss this license. -russ ] Good morning, I'd like to submit the OpenMap Software License for approval by OSI. This is a license that we've used for the past few years to cover the use of our software as produced by our company, BBN Technologies in Cambridge, Massachusetts. http://openmap.bbn.com/license.html This license may be posted to the license-discuss mailing list under my name. The OpenMap Software License is most similar to the OSI-approved Artistic license, and has been modified slightly to conform to business requirements of our Contracts and legal departments, mainly to protect our intellectual property and ensure that software submitted to us for inclusion is indeed the property of the submitter. We believe that the license interacts with other licenses like the Artistic license. Thank you very much for your consideration of our license. We believe in participating in the open source process, and would appreciate the opportunity to be OSI-certified. If there are any questions, please feel free to let me know. Bill Mackiewicz -- Bill Mackiewicz[EMAIL PROTECTED] BBN TechnologiesDistributed Systems Logistics 10 Moulton Street(617) 873-4840 Cambridge, MA 02138 http://openmap.bbn.com -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
RE: Royalty-free Patent Policies for Open Source?
I'm aware most Open Source licenses have patent grants. But in all the cases I've seen, those grants are tied to the specific implementation. My impression is that the W3C requires that the patents be royalty-free for all possible implementations, not just your own. Right? Is there anything like that? Anyone who wants it can have a royalty-free license to patents containing Essential Claims for implementing the Recommendation. The patent license is for Essential Claims only. It may also be limited to implementations of the Recommendation, and to what is required by the Recommendation. This so-called field of use limitation was the subject of much debate at W3C. Open source representatives were almost alone in lobbying for a patent license of unlimited scope. In most cases this field of use limitation will have little practical effect. It is unlikely that software patents will have very wide-ranging applications but, if they do, and if you want to implement software other than the Recommendation, you'll have to get a separate license. The patent grants in most open source licenses are fully compatible with the W3C patent policy. The patent grants in the OSL and AFL are *not* tied to specific implementations and are broader than the W3C patent grant. /Larry Rosen -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
RE: Academic Free License questions
1. Is the AFL generally considered GPL-compatible as the X license is? i.e. if I release a library under the AFL, can GPL applications use it? Or would I need to dual license under GPL also? You would. RMS says the AFL and the GPL are not compatible; he doesn't say exactly why, beyond noting that there is more than one problem. The patent provision is the obvious candidate, however, based on RMS's review of the IBMPL. Note that RMS reviewed AFL 1.1 and the current release is 1.2, but there is no reason to think he would have changed his mind. There is no reason I'm aware of why code licensed under the AFL can't be incorporated into GPL-licensed works. I looked at www.fsf.org and found nothing whatsoever about the AFL. What have I missed? /Larry Rosen -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Academic Free License questions
Lawrence E. Rosen scripsit: There is no reason I'm aware of why code licensed under the AFL can't be incorporated into GPL-licensed works. Clause 6 of the GPL says: Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. But if such a work is also derived from AFL-licensed code, it *does* impose further restrictions: in particular, someone who is suing for patent infringement doesn't get to do the copyright-protected things with the program. So the AFL and GPL are incompatible. In RMS's writeup on the IBMPL, he implies that patent poison pills are not Bad Things, but they are incompatible. Looks like my library will have to be dual-licensed AFL+GPL. Annoying. I looked at www.fsf.org and found nothing whatsoever about the AFL. What have I missed? http://www.fsf.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses and scroll down a bit if necessary. -- One art / There is John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] No less / No more http://www.reutershealth.com All things / To do http://www.ccil.org/~cowan With sparks / Galore -- Douglas Hofstadter -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Royalty-free Patent Policies for Open Source?
Hi Larry, You wrote: The patent grants in most open source licenses are fully compatible with the W3C patent policy. The patent grants in the OSL and AFL are *not* tied to specific implementations and are broader than the W3C patent grant. I understand they may be compatible, but I'm not clear how they guarantee compliance. Can you help me understand what you mean by that? When I see: 2) Grant of Patent License. Licensor hereby grants You a world-wide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, non-sublicenseable license, under patent claims owned or controlled by the Licensor that are embodied in the Original Work as furnished by the Licensor (Licensed Claims) to make, use, sell and offer for sale the Original Work. Licensor hereby grants You a world-wide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, non-sublicenseable license under the Licensed Claims to make, use, sell and offer for sale Derivative Works. I assume that means a Derivative Works is covered by the patent grant, but an Independent Work, with similar functionality, would not be. That is, just because (say) IBM released a piece of source code covered by the OSL which implemented a patented algorithm in, does that mean I (in a commercial application) could freely write my own code that used that same patent? If not, how does that automatically satisfy the W3C criteria? -- Ernie P. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Academic Free License questions
Hi, This is probably a FAQ too, but regarding the mutual termination for patent action clause: Say I have a proprietary application and want to use someone's patent. Can I implement a small library containing only the patented code, license the library under the AFL, then use that library from my proprietary application, thus preventing the patent owner from filing a lawsuit against me? If the answer is no, is the answer clearly no to anyone reading the license, or could a reasonable lawyer worry about this issue? The reason I want to license code under an X-style license is to be sure no one avoids using the code for licensing reasons. i.e. to maximize usage of the code. Do people think the mutual termination clause runs counter to that goal? I like the idea of the AFL very much, including the mutual termination clause, but am concerned that the classic X license would get the rubber stamp much more quickly from many legal departments - if only because most of the relevant departments have already approved X, Apache, and so on. What's the conventional wisdom on this? Thanks, Havoc -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
RE: Academic Free License questions
I looked at www.fsf.org and found nothing whatsoever about the AFL. What have I missed? http://www.fsf.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses and scroll down a bit if necessary. Thanks for the link. It appears that RMS has spoken (albeit not to us) and I need to respond ;) Perhaps someone on the OSI board will respond concerning the compatibility of the AFL/OSL and the GPL. RMS is giving no reasons whatsoever. /Larry Rosen -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: discuss: Duemetri Public License (DPL) Version 1.0
The pain you speak of, is this from a purely legal stand point? If so, in what manner does it hinder or cause pain to an end user? I'm not a lawyer so I never speak from a legal standpoint, even when I'm talking about licenses. The pain is from a technical standpoint. If I make a modification that I think others would also enjoy, I had better hope the project team accepts it into the core; otherwise it will be not only onerous for me to maintain (just ask Christian Tismer), but also onerous for the end user to build from source. (The same end user who might be quite comfortable following instructions that say type configure; then type make; then type make install, might be deeply mistified by tools like diff and patch.) What this constraint does accomplish is that if deep philosophical differences leave one with no choice but to fork (q.v. XEmacs), it makes it much harder for the forkers to succeed in taking mindshare away from the original developers. But if the original developer abandons the project, it also makes it more difficult for the code to take on a life of its own, and find another owner to care for it. My dislike of QPL does not apply to QT itself, since Troll Tech is kind enough to make that available under GPL as well. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: time frame between request for approval and acknowledgement of request?
On Thursday 21 November 2002 07:18 am, Russell Nelson wrote: John Cowan writes: With respect, Russ, that's bassackwards. Collectively if not individually, the members of the list have far more free man-hours than you do. You should pass submissions straight on to the list and let one or more of us shoot them down if they are obvious losers. Okay, unless list members have an objection, that's how I'll handle submissions in the future. But someone with a legal knowledge should still be looking them over, because a lot of us operate under common sense rather than what a court would say should a license ever be taken before one. -- David Johnson ___ http://www.usermode.org pgp public key on website -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
