Update for CUA Office Public License
Dear all of yours, I've inform all of yours before that I found my mistakes in CUA Office Public License so; this is a no mistakes version and it's for OSI approval too (I don't want to use the mistakes one, it's make me and you confuse.) Regards, Patranun Limudomporn Project Leader CUA Office Project PS. If you want to compare and know what difference between CPL and MPL, just have a look at http://cuaoffice.sourceforge.net/productinfo_cpl_diff.htm -- CUA OFFICE PUBLIC LICENSE Version 1.0 --- 1. Definitions. 1.0.1. Commercial Use means distribution or otherwise making the Covered Code available to a third party. 1.1. Contributor means each entity that creates or contributes to the creation of Modifications. 1.2. Contributor Version means the combination of the Original Code, prior Modifications used by a Contributor, and the Modifications made by that particular Contributor. 1.3. Covered Code means the Original Code or Modifications or the combination of the Original Code and Modifications, in each case including portions thereof. 1.4. Electronic Distribution Mechanism means a mechanism generally accepted in the software development community for the electronic transfer of data. 1.5. Executable means Covered Code in any form other than Source Code. 1.6. Initial Developer means the individual or entity identified as the Initial Developer in the Source Code notice required by Exhibit A. 1.7. Larger Work means a work which combines Covered Code or portions thereof with code not governed by the terms of this License. 1.8. License means this document. 1.8.1. Licensable means having the right to grant, to the maximum extent possible, whether at the time of the initial grant or subsequently acquired, any and all of the rights conveyed herein. 1.9. Modifications means any addition to or deletion from the substance or structure of either the Original Code or any previous Modifications. When Covered Code is released as a series of files, a Modification is: A. Any addition to or deletion from the contents of a file containing Original Code or previous Modifications. B. Any new file that contains any part of the Original Code or previous Modifications. 1.10. Original Code means Source Code of computer software code which is described in the Source Code notice required by Exhibit A as Original Code, and which, at the time of its release under this License is not already Covered Code governed by this License. 1.10.1. Patent Claims means any patent claim(s), now owned or hereafter acquired, including without limitation, method, process, and apparatus claims, in any patent Licensable by grantor. 1.11. Source Code means the preferred form of the Covered Code for making modifications to it, including all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, scripts used to control compilation and installation of an Executable, or source code differential comparisons against either the Original Code or another well known, available Covered Code of the Contributor's choice. The Source Code can be in a compressed or archival form, provided the appropriate decompression or de-archiving software is widely available for no charge. 1.12. You (or Your) means an individual or a legal entity exercising rights under, and complying with all of the terms of, this License or a future version of this License issued under Section 6.1. For legal entities, You includes any entity which controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with You. For purposes of this definition, control means (a) the power, direct or indirect, to cause the direction or management of such entity, whether by contract or otherwise, or (b) ownership of more than fifty percent (50%) of the outstanding shares or beneficial ownership of such entity. 2. Source Code License. 2.1. The Initial Developer Grant. The Initial Developer hereby grants You a world-wide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license, subject to third party intellectual property claims: (a) under intellectual property rights (other than patent or trademark) Licensable by Initial Developer to use, reproduce, modify, display, perform, sublicense and distribute the Original Code (or portions thereof) with or without Modifications, and/or as part of a Larger Work; and (b) under Patents Claims infringed by the making, using or selling of Original Code, to make, have made, use, practice, sell, and offer for sale, and/or otherwise dispose of the Original Code (or portions thereof). (c) the licenses granted in this Section 2.1(a) and (b) are effective on the date Initial Developer first distributes Original Code under the terms of this License. (d) Notwithstanding Section 2.1(b) above, no patent license is granted: 1) for code that You delete from the Original Code; 2) separate from the Original Code; or 3) for infringements caused by: i) the modification of the Original Code or ii) the combination of the Original Code with other software or devices. 2.2.
Re: The regrettable use of all in Section 7 of the GPL
Ian Jackson scripsit: Is distribution of R still impossible because Stallman can't use it? Yes, it's impossible. This is exactly what the GPL is designed to do. So it's `regrettable' only if you don't agree with the GPL's goals. I agree with the GPL's authors, who consider this property desirable. Very well. Now I point out that there are various persons who, as a condition of their parole or probation, are not permitted to touch computers. Distribution of GNU software to them is forbidden by law, and if they do happen to have GNU software on any computers they may own, they cannot redistribute it. Note that this disability is legal, not merely physical, short of fleeing the jurisdiction, itself a criminal offense. Therefore, the distribution of all GPLed software is, at least in the U.S., forbidden by the terms of the GPL, and should come to a screeching halt. I have spoken. = Isn't there some way to avoid this daffy butterslide to Hell? -- John Cowan www.ccil.org/~cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.reutershealth.com Monday we watch-a Firefly's house, but he no come out. He wasn't home. Tuesday we go to the ball game, but he fool us. He no show up. Wednesday he go to the ball game, and we fool him. We no show up. Thursday was a double-header. Nobody show up. Friday it rained all day. There was no ball game, so we stayed home and we listened to it on-a the radio. --Chicolini -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Update for CUA Office Public License
Patranun Limudomporn scripsit: PS. If you want to compare and know what difference between CPL and MPL, just have a look at http://cuaoffice.sourceforge.net/productinfo_cpl_diff.htm Thank you for providing this diff. What it amounts to is that your CPL *is* the MPL 1.1 with the name changed and the pointers to Netscape changed to point to you. While this procedure is permitted under the MPL, I wish to strongly discourage you from taking this step, for these reasons: 1) The MPL is well understood by many programmers, who will be able to tell, simply by seeing that your software is licensed under the MPL, exactly what they can and cannot do with it without having to read and understand a new and complex license. 2) The MPL has become widely used outside the Mozilla project, just as the GPL has become widely used outside Project GNU and the BSD license has become widely used outside BSD. Thus, using the MPL does not in any way suggest that you are using Mozilla code or that there is some connection between your group and the Mozilla project. 3) It's in everyone's best interest if there are fewer, rather than more, open source licenses. It has often been difficult to convince corporate lawyers of this, hence the proliferation at opensource.org; nevertheless, standard licenses make for simplicity and uniformity, which encourage the easy use and reuse of open-source software. -- A mosquito cried out in his pain, John Cowan A chemist has poisoned my brain! http://www.ccil.org/~cowan The cause of his sorrow http://www.reutershealth.com Was para-dichloro- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Diphenyltrichloroethane.(aka DDT) -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: The regrettable use of all in Section 7 of the GPL
John Cowan wrote: Now I point out that there are various persons who, as a condition of their parole or probation, are not permitted to touch computers. Does that mean others are forbidden from *giving* them software, or they violate their parole if they _receive_ software? In other words, who goes to jail if those persons end up with software in violation of that condition? Distribution of GNU software to them is forbidden by law, and if they do happen to have GNU software on any computers they may own, they cannot redistribute it. Note that this disability is legal, not merely physical, short of fleeing the jurisdiction, itself a criminal offense. The restriction of distribution would apply to the person on parole, not to the rest of the world. If YOU cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence YOU may not distribute the Program at all. So the rest of the world can keep on distributing. Arnoud -- Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch patent attorney - Speaking only for myself Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/ -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: The regrettable use of all in Section 7 of the GPL
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes (The regrettable use of all in Section 7 of the GPL): Is distribution of R still impossible because Stallman can't use it? Yes, it's impossible. This is exactly what the GPL is designed to do. So it's `regrettable' only if you don't agree with the GPL's goals. I agree with the GPL's authors, who consider this property desirable. Ian. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: The regrettable use of all in Section 7 of the GPL
Now this all seems extremely unfortunate to me. Suppose I file for a patent P, the practice of which is required to run program R released under the GPL. Normally, distribution of R would be impossible. But suppose I issue the following public license: Everyone is allowed to practice patent P royalty-free (etc. etc.) except for the notorious Richard Stallman. Is distribution of R still impossible because Stallman can't use it? Yes, it is. The same would be true if John Cowan were substituted for Richard Stallman. Free for everyone except you is not free software and is not allowed by the GPL. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: The regrettable use of all in Section 7 of the GPL
John Cowan said on Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 08:23:01AM -0500,: Now I point out that there are various persons who, as a condition of their parole or probation, are not permitted to touch computers. Distribution of GNU software to them is forbidden by law, and if they do happen to have GNU software on any computers they may own, they cannot redistribute it. Note that this disability is legal, not merely physical, short of fleeing the jurisdiction, itself a criminal offense. That is a problem with the law, not with the GNU GPL. The GPL ccannot, and does not seek to override the law. You need to clarify what you mean by `distribution of GNU s/w to them is forbidden by law'. Can I still give them non-free (or did you mean non-gnu-but-free?) software? The next part of your question, `... and if they do happen to have GNU s/o on any computers they may own, they cannot redistribute it.' GPL does not really apply in most jurisdictions* if a person does not want to redistribute the software. * I think that in some jurisdictions, the users cannot modify software for their own use. AFAIK. Therefore, the distribution of all GPLed software is, at least in the U.S., forbidden by the terms of the GPL, and should come to a screeching halt. I have spoken. This is a logical fallcay. I fail to recall tht exact term. But the rule is this:- Statement 1:- X implies Y Statement 2:- Y implies Z Statement 1 and 2 does not mean that X implies Z. It would have been different if the statements *both* were *is* instead of implies. It does not help if the 2nd statement alone was `implies'. -- +~+ Mahesh T. Pai, LL.M., 'NANDINI', S. R. M. Road, Ernakulam, Cochin-682018, Kerala, India. http://paivakil.port5.com +~+ -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: The regrettable use of all in Section 7 of the GPL
On Thu, 19 Feb 2004, Mahesh T. Pai wrote: Therefore, the distribution of all GPLed software is, at least in the U.S., forbidden by the terms of the GPL, and should come to a screeching halt. I have spoken. This is a logical fallcay. I fail to recall tht exact term. But the rule is this:- Statement 1:- X implies Y Statement 2:- Y implies Z Statement 1 and 2 does not mean that X implies Z. AFAIK, it does under normal/traditional logic laws. Implication is transitive: If X implies Y and Y implies Z, then X implies Z. However, my understanding is that there is no consensus on this list that X implies Y or that Y implies Z. Alex. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: The regrettable use of all in Section 7 of the GPL
Mahesh T. Pai scripsit: That is a problem with the law, not with the GNU GPL. The GPL ccannot, and does not seek to override the law. But the GPL does say: if one person cannot receive and redistribute, no one can, at least within a single country. You need to clarify what you mean by `distribution of GNU s/w to them is forbidden by law'. Can I still give them non-free (or did you mean non-gnu-but-free?) software? No. The next part of your question, `... and if they do happen to have GNU s/o on any computers they may own, they cannot redistribute it.' GPL does not really apply in most jurisdictions* if a person does not want to redistribute the software. But the GPL is intended to guarantee that any recipient has the same rights as any sender. A person thus constrained doesn't have those rights. * I think that in some jurisdictions, the users cannot modify software for their own use. AFAIK. The U.S. right to do so is very narrow: it can be done only (a) in order to make the software to run on a machine of a type other than that it was originally intended for, or (b) for archival purposes. See 17 U.S.C. 117. -- Is a chair finely made tragic or comic? Is the John Cowan portrait of Mona Lisa good if I desire to see [EMAIL PROTECTED] it? Is the bust of Sir Philip Crampton lyrical, www.ccil.org/~cowan epical or dramatic? If a man hacking in fury www.reutershealth.com at a block of wood make there an image of a cow, is that image a work of art? If not, why not? --Stephen Dedalus -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: The regrettable use of all in Section 7 of the GPL
On Thu, 2004-02-19 at 14:23, John Cowan wrote: Therefore, the distribution of all GPLed software is, at least in the U.S., forbidden by the terms of the GPL, and should come to a screeching halt. I have spoken. The probationer is not prevented from distributing the software because of patent restrictions. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Update for CUA Office Public License
Hi Everyone With regard to the MPL there is one new element that probably isn't well known.nbsp; There is a section of the MPL that says who can modify the MPL.nbsp; The 1.0 and 1.1 versions specify that entity as netscape (it had to be someone).nbsp; But with the creation of the Mozilla Foundation that entity has been changed to the Mozilla Foundation.nbsp; I plan to create a Mozilla 1.2 version shortly to make just this change.nbsp; (One might consider other changes of the license as well, but that's a long discussion.)nbsp; And I assume that changing the entity from Netscape/AOL to the Mozilla Foundation should be seen as a positive step. Mitchell John Cowan wrote: Patranun Limudomporn scripsit: PS. If you want to compare and know what difference between CPL and MPL, just have a look at http://cuaoffice.sourceforge.net/productinfo_cpl_diff.htm Thank you for providing this diff. What it amounts to is that your CPL *is* the MPL 1.1 with the name changed and the pointers to Netscape changed to point to you. While this procedure is permitted under the MPL, I wish to strongly discourage you from taking this step, for these reasons: 1) The MPL is well understood by many programmers, who will be able to tell, simply by seeing that your software is licensed under the MPL, exactly what they can and cannot do with it without having to read and understand a new and complex license. 2) The MPL has become widely used outside the Mozilla project, just as the GPL has become widely used outside Project GNU and the BSD license has become widely used outside BSD. Thus, using the MPL does not in any way suggest that you are using Mozilla code or that there is some connection between your group and the Mozilla project. 3) It's in everyone's best interest if there are fewer, rather than more, open source licenses. It has often been difficult to convince corporate lawyers of this, hence the proliferation at opensource.org; nevertheless, standard licenses make for simplicity and uniformity, which encourage the easy use and reuse of open-source software. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: apache license 2.0 for consideration
Why, then, is the MIT license compatible with the GPL? Because the MIT license is silent about patents; in and of itself, it can't do anything to require you to breach the GPL's licensing terms. (It may be that the word use provides an implied patent license.) A specific MIT-licensed program may be GPL-incompatible, but MIT-licensed programs as a class are not, because they don't impose any requirements incompatible with the GPL's. Neither does the Apache License. Please read the terms carefully: 3. Grant of Patent License. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable (except as stated in this section) patent license to make, have made, use, offer to sell, sell, import, and otherwise transfer the Work, where such license applies only to those patent claims licensable by such Contributor that are necessarily infringed by their Contribution(s) alone or by combination of their Contribution(s) with the Work to which such Contribution(s) was submitted. If You institute patent litigation against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the Work or a Contribution incorporated within the Work constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, then any patent licenses granted to You under this License for that Work shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed. Under no circumstance does this add a restriction that does not already exist within the GPL. The GPL prohibits distribution of a work that is covered by non-free patents. The Apache License says that any patent licenses granted to you by virtue of it being contributed to Apache go away if you claim there exists a non-free patent in the work. Section 4: You may add Your own copyright statement to Your modifications and may provide additional or different license terms and conditions for use, reproduction, or distribution of Your modifications, or for any such Derivative Works as a whole, provided Your use, reproduction, and distribution of the Work otherwise complies with the conditions stated in this License. In other words, any GPL code that is combined with Apache License code remains under the GPL, which is the sole requirement for compatibility. I have not seen Eben's analysis of the approved version of the Apache License, so I have no idea why the FSF site claims they are incompatible. It is simply claimed on the site that it adds an additional restriction, as if nobody bothered to read the terms. Cheers, Roy T. Fieldinghttp://roy.gbiv.com/ Chief Scientist, Day Software http://www.day.com/ -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: apache license 2.0 for consideration
Because the MIT license is a blanket grant of permission, almost without restriction: That is completely irrelevant. Unlike copyright, a patent does not move along with the work. The patent may be owned by a completely separate company of which the author is totally unaware at the time of distribution. Aside from that, there are no implied licenses to third parties. Just because a person has received software from one company, indicating that the company wished that person to use the software (an implied grant), does not imply that the person can give the same software to a third person and the implied license along with it. The GPL has a stronger restriction here in order to prevent the first person from receiving the software as GPL in the first place; no such restriction is true of any other license. If you argue that such a restriction is necessary for compatibility with the GPL, then no license is compatible with the GPL (including itself, because the patent may be approved after the initial GPL distributions). The point I am making is that the Apache License does not have any additional restrictions over the GPL. A derivative work that is distributed under only the GPL license does satisfy every single condition or restriction in the Apache License. If a patent does show up and a lawsuit ensues, then for those people the Apache License becomes no more permissive than the GPL. Roy -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: The regrettable use of all in Section 7 of the GPL
Bjorn Reese wrote: On Thu, 2004-02-19 at 14:23, John Cowan wrote: Therefore, the distribution of all GPLed software is, at least in the U.S., forbidden by the terms of the GPL, and should come to a screeching halt. I have spoken. The probationer is not prevented from distributing the software because of patent restrictions. Section 7 of the GPL is not just about patents. The first sentence contains If, ... for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you... But I had always interpreted this clause to only apply to _me_ as licensee. It shouldn't matter to me that there is someone else who cannot satisfy simultaneously [his] obligations under [the GPL]. Bill Gates could contract with Steve Ballmer that he will not ever distribute GPL-licensed software. Surely that couldn't have the consequence that *I* can no longer distribute that software? Arnoud -- Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch patent attorney - Speaking only for myself Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/ -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: License Committee report
On 02/17/04:07/2, Russell Nelson wrote: This must surely be the shortest open source license ever! Still, we should send it back to the author because he uses the hated word utilize. Don't use utilize! Utilize use instead. Means the same thing and avoids a phony formality. Title: Fair License Submission: Original: http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:msp:7623:hhkgifnkgiiejnigaakm Revised: http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:7623:200401:hhkgifnkgiiejnigaakm Comments: none Recommend: remanding. Thanks for the report and the information about utilization. I've sent the remanded version to license-approval, and I've included it in this message as well. ---LICENSE--- Usage of the works is permitted provided that this instrument is retained with the works, so that any entity that uses the works is notified of this instrument. DISCLAIMER: THE WORKS ARE WITHOUT WARRANTY. [2004, Fair License; rhid.com/fair] ---LICENSE--- Regards, James William Pye pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: apache license 2.0 for consideration
On Thu, 2004-02-19 at 16:10, Roy T. Fielding wrote: Because the MIT license is a blanket grant of permission, almost without restriction: That is completely irrelevant. Unlike copyright, a patent does not move along with the work. I may not be following your meaning here. Assuming that a particular section of code incorporating a patent is distributed under the MIT license, and that same particular section exists in a derivative work of that code distributed under the GPL license, I would assume that in most cases that same section of code still incorporates the patent. I'm probably missing something here. (I am ignoring the case where the same code can infringe or not infringe a patent depending on how it's used or what it's used for. I'm guessing that's outside the scope of the argument.) The patent may be owned by a completely separate company of which the author is totally unaware at the time of distribution. That is true. For simplicity I intended to only refer to copyrights and patents that the contributor had rights to license, although I admit I didn't word that in my previous message as clearly as I should have: And I'm assuming of course that the licensor/contributors have full copyrights and patent rights to the code. Aside from that, there are no implied licenses to third parties. Just because a person has received software from one company, indicating that the company wished that person to use the software (an implied grant), does not imply that the person can give the same software to a third person and the implied license along with it. Absolutely incorrect: Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated ^^^ documentation files... ^^^ -- Mark Shewmaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: apache license 2.0 for consideration
On Thu, 2004-02-19 at 16:30, Roy T. Fielding wrote: The GPL prohibits distribution of a work that is covered by non-free patents. The Apache License says that any patent licenses granted to you by virtue of it being contributed to Apache go away if you claim there exists a non-free patent in the work. I think you're using the term non-free to mean two different things in two different sentences. Let me reword: :-) | The GPL prohibits distribution of a work that is | covered by patents not distributable under GPL terms. The Apache | License says that any patent | licenses granted to you by virtue of it being contributed to Apache | go away if you claim there exists a patent in the work that's not | distributable under Apache license terms. If patents not distributable under GPL terms == patents not distributable under Apache license terms, then I would agree that the Apache license doesn't add a restriction not already in the GPL. However, I claim that if there exist Apache-licensed patents that are not also GPL-licensed, then the Apache license is not universally GPL-compatible. I also claim that since the Apache license can retract Apache-patent-licenses for people making patent infringement claims, that that retraction would have to apply to people using Apache-GPL'd code. Then, since the retraction applies to someone using GPL'd code, it breaks GPL licensing for everyone using that GPL'd code. So, I would then worry that the Apache License's explicit don't-sue-or-you'll-lose-your-patent-license restriction would be a restriction above and beyond what the GPL by itself provides. (By the way, I think we're still making some progress here, but if we end up just repeating ourselves, I'm content to drop things and wait to hear from FSF for more info, or discuss this elsewhere. No sense going back and forth if we get to the point where we're merely repeating ourselves.) In other words, any GPL code that is combined with Apache License code remains under the GPL, which is the sole requirement for compatibility. If someone can pull back a patent license via the Apache license through an Apache-GPL'd work, then..it looks to me like Apache requirements are still holding, and that the work is not just limited by GPL requirements. -- Mark Shewmaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: apache license 2.0 for consideration
Mark Shewmaker scripsit: I also claim that since the Apache license can retract Apache-patent-licenses for people making patent infringement claims, that that retraction would have to apply to people using Apache-GPL'd code. Then, since the retraction applies to someone using GPL'd code, it breaks GPL licensing for everyone using that GPL'd code. So, I would then worry that the Apache License's explicit don't-sue-or-you'll-lose-your-patent-license restriction would be a restriction above and beyond what the GPL by itself provides. I agree, and add: The GPL license crashes only if the patent actually exists and is enforceable. But a mere claim, however non-colorable, of a patent can destroy the Apache license for the claimant. (The same applies to the AFL, the OSL, and various other modern licenses.) -- John Cowan www.ccil.org/~cowan www.reutershealth.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] All isms should be wasms. --Abbie -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: apache license 2.0 for consideration
I think you're using the term non-free to mean two different things in two different sentences. Nope. Let me reword: :-) | The GPL prohibits distribution of a work that is | covered by patents not distributable under GPL terms. The Apache | License says that any patent | licenses granted to you by virtue of it being contributed to Apache | go away if you claim there exists a patent in the work that's not | distributable under Apache license terms. If patents not distributable under GPL terms == patents not distributable under Apache license terms, then I would agree that the Apache license doesn't add a restriction not already in the GPL. Try software not distributable under GPL terms. Talking about distributing the patent doesn't make any sense, which is why you are getting confused over the permissions. However, I claim that if there exist Apache-licensed patents that are not also GPL-licensed, then the Apache license is not universally GPL-compatible. No, that is reversed logic. If there exist GPL-licensed software that would somehow be restricted by the Apache License restrictions, then they would not be compatible. I don't think it is reasonable to invent new definitions of compatibility. I also claim that since the Apache license can retract Apache-patent-licenses for people making patent infringement claims, that that retraction would have to apply to people using Apache-GPL'd code. Then, since the retraction applies to someone using GPL'd code, it breaks GPL licensing for everyone using that GPL'd code. As it would if the code was entirely GPL'd. The GPL says that you cannot redistribute software that is covered by a patent wherein the patent is not licensed free for everyone. The Apache License says that if you claim the Apache software contains something that is not licensed free for everyone (i.e., specifically, you accuse someone of infringing your patent which implies that your patent is not free for everyone), then you can't use the Apache License as a defense against your own infringements. In contrast, the GPL says you cannot redistribute the software at all. Therefore, the Apache License is less restrictive than the GPL. Furthermore, since the Apache License's patent grant does not apply to the GPL'd code in any way (only the Work which is licensed under the Apache License) and has no impact on distribution whatsoever, whether or not such licenses disappear has no influence on the code covered by the GPL. In other words, any GPL code that is combined with Apache License code remains under the GPL, which is the sole requirement for compatibility. If someone can pull back a patent license via the Apache license through an Apache-GPL'd work, then..it looks to me like Apache requirements are still holding, and that the work is not just limited by GPL requirements. GPL is a copyright license. It cannot prevent the possibility of a patent, and does not try to. It merely states that, if a patent is being enforced, then the code cannot be distributed as GPL. That is true regardless of what license covers the original code that was later combined with the GPL work. The Apache License does not state, or even imply, that a non-GPL-compliant patent exists on the code. Nor does a GPL Derived Work have to be free of any patents (such is impossible if you look at what has been patented in the US); it merely has to be free of patents that restrict distribution to anything other than GPL terms. If such a patent exists, the GPL's own restrictions override any patent license granted by the Apache License -- whether or not you are the one suing someone is not relevant to the GPL. Roy -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: License Committee report
Just to precede my statements with a warning that they are as it seems to me. I am not a lawyer, so my opinions could use any [dis|]qualifications. On 02/17/04:07/2, Zooko O'Whielacronx wrote: Does the Fair License require the software developer who uses such licensed source code to inform his users (i.e. at runtime or in documentation) about the existence of the Fair License? Yes, but the choice of method is ultimately left to the author and later forwarded to the user. So not specifically at runtime or in documentation. I had concerns with that wording. I felt that 'notify' was a fine term to help enforce a goal of Due Credit(attribution). Although, my purpose was not so much as to require a user to force the instrument in another user's face, but rather to keep the creator of a derivative work from hiding the instrument to obfuscate the origins of the original works to help his/her profits. Of course, intention doesn't quite always map to effect, so I plan to give this more thought in the future. Another concern would be from the other side. For instance, a litigious developer that claims works based on his/her works did not provide a proper method of instrument notification. The license does not specify the method of instrument notification, so I think that leaving that ambiguity *might* imply that the method of notification should be similarly conspicuous to the method that the author implemented in his/her original works. Well, I think that would be the safest way for the user. --- I was thinking about this while I was writing this response, perhaps something along the lines of: ...any entity that uses the works is notified of this instrument by a method that is leastwise conspicuous as the method implemented within the original works... I think such an addition may help clarity, but is probably unnecessary from both views, and potentially harmful in a case where an odd developer deems it necessary to smother his users with copyright/license notifications. Such a case would be more like advertising than mere notification. --- Another thing I don't understand is if the let's not proliferate substantially similar licenses reasoning should not also apply to the approval of the Fair License. I was unsure of this myself. I think the main distinction between my license and most open source licenses is that most open source license specify the license as covering source, source code or distribution, which I felt may be too specific for my some of my usage. 'Works' seems more appropriate to me; although, I'm not sure if it would make a significant difference if it were ever brought under serious scrutiny. Regards, James William Pye pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
