RE: License for a document or presentation?
Rod, If all that is being taken from an original work are its underlying ideas, then of course copyright doesn't matter. But what if we want to encourage folks to make copies of works, or modify them, or distribute them. Doesn't an open source license make it clear that those things are doable without restriction? /Larry -Original Message- From: Rod Dixon [mailto:Rod Dixon] Sent: Friday, April 09, 2004 12:23 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: License for a document or presentation? I have often wondered whether the principles supporting licensing documents differed from software, and these comments provide me the opportunity to ask that question here. Given that, unlike what is typical of software, access to the underlying ideas in a document are as accessible as the expression and that copyright infringement is not the same as plagiarism, does the use of licenses to distribute text cut against the goals of open source more than it supports it? Compare, for example, the use of a book, newspaper, or magazine article (as a copyrighted work) with software. Are we promoting the idea that all text should be licensed? Isn't this the regretable trend that has captured all software? When the ideas are freely accessible doesn't that reduce (albeit, not eliminate) the benefit of using an open source license? - Rod Dixon -Original Message- From: Lawrence E. Rosen Date: 4/9/04 12:07 am To: 'Steve Thomas', 'License Discussion Open Source' Subj: RE: License for a document or presentation? The Open Software License (OSL) and the Academic Free License (AFL) work perfectly well for documentation. I usually use the AFL for my documents and presentations, or the OSL if I don't want anyone to make proprietary derivative works. By the way, slide presentations are software, not that it matters as far as the license is concerned. :-) /Larry Rosen -Original Message- From: Steve Thomas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2004 10:52 AM To: License Discussion Open Source Subject: License for a document or presentation? Is there an existing OS license that would fit licensing a slide presentation to Open source? I have a slide show I use for making presentations on Open Source around the country, and it occurs to me it should be Open Source! But I don't know how to license it, since it's not a code. =Steve= -- 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 -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Project Public License (OPPL)
Larry Masters writes: May have to put this back on the drawing board. Basically what we are wanting to do with the license is control code created to work with the licensed software, control meaning that any software created to work with it must be released under the same license and source code made avaiable. Yes, back on the drawing board. The control you want is unavailable to OSI Certified Open Source Software. You're trying to control use. -- --My blog is at angry-economist.russnelson.com | Spinach ala mode -- a good Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | way to eat spinach? Or a 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | bad way to eat ice cream? Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | FWD# 404529 via VOIP | -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
License Committee Report
I'm the chair of the license approval committee. This is my report for the current set of licenses under discussion. If anybody disagrees with my assessment of the committee's conclusions, say so promptly. -- Restricts license termination to only if the original work is alleged to infringe a patent. Title: OSL/AFL version 2.1 submitted for approval Submission: http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:msp:8002:fdhkogbdmecjfdifioea License: www.rosenlaw.com/osl2.1.html License: www.rosenlaw.com/afl2.1.html Comments: John Cowan gives it the thumbs up with no comments. The redline is at www.rosenlaw.com/osl2.1-redline.pdf Recommend: approval. -- There is much discussion spent deciding whether NASA can copyright software at all. The license itself says that no copyright is claimed in the United States. Title: NASA Open Source Agreement (NOSA) version 1.3 Original Submission: http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:7698:200402:jfdgbalgdhgblndpmljm Re-Submission: http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:msp:7999:ieccombmcpkdjmpppfil License: http://www.nas.nasa.gov/Research/Software/Open-Source/NASA_Open_Source_Agreement_1.3.txt Comments: John Cowan did a complete re-review of it and found that the previous concerns had been addressed. Recommend: approval. -- The author wants to control software which is merely written to work in conjunction with this software. Title: Open Project Public License (OPPL) Submission: http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:7926:200403:flibooikigifnhkciclb License: http://nextco.net/~matti/awaiting_approval.htm Comments: John Cowan is not enthusiastic about it. http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:7981:200403:flibooikigifnhkciclb Neither is Alex Rousskov. http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:7983:200403:flibooikigifnhkciclb Recommend: turn it down. -- Title: Eclipse Public License - v 1.0 Submission: http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:7933:okcnnifeagbhadopkkoe License: http://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/epl-v10.html Comments: Ernie and Rod both point out that since the only change is removing the patent termination, that that doesn't affect its compliance with OSD. Recommend: approval. -- --My blog is at angry-economist.russnelson.com | Spinach ala mode -- a good Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | way to eat spinach? Or a 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | bad way to eat ice cream? Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | FWD# 404529 via VOIP | -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
RE: License Committee Report
For the record, I may have inadvertently submitted my comments and recommendation for approval of the OSL/AFL version 2.1 only to Larry offlist. Sorry. -Rod -Original Message- From: Russell Nelson Date: 4/14/04 5:47 pm To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subj: License Committee Report I'm the chair of the license approval committee. This is my report for the current set of licenses under discussion. If anybody disagrees with my assessment of the committee's conclusions, say so promptly. -- Restricts license termination to only if the original work is alleged to infringe a patent. Title: OSL/AFL version 2.1 submitted for approval Submission: http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:msp:8002:fdhkogbdmecjfdifioea License: www.rosenlaw.com/osl2.1.html License: www.rosenlaw.com/afl2.1.html Comments: John Cowan gives it the thumbs up with no comments. The redline is at www.rosenlaw.com/osl2.1-redline.pdf Recommend: approval. -- There is much discussion spent deciding whether NASA can copyright software at all. The license itself says that no copyright is claimed in the United States. Title: NASA Open Source Agreement (NOSA) version 1.3 Original Submission: http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:7698:200402:jfdgbalgdhgblndpmljjm Re-Submission: http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:msp:7999:ieccombmcpkdjmpppfil License: http://www.nas.nasa.gov/Research/Software/Open-Source/NASA_Open_Source_Aggreement_1.3.txt Comments: John Cowan did a complete re-review of it and found that the previous concerns had been addressed. Recommend: approval. -- The author wants to control software which is merely written to work in conjunction with this software. Title: Open Project Public License (OPPL) Submission: http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:7926:200403:flibooikigifnhkcicllb License: http://nextco.net/~matti/awaiting_approval.htm Comments: John Cowan is not enthusiastic about it. http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:7981:200403:flibooikigifnhkcicllb Neither is Alex Rousskov. http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:7983:200403:flibooikigifnhkcicllb Recommend: turn it down. -- Title: Eclipse Public License - v 1.0 Submission: http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:7933:okcnnifeagbhadopkkoe License: http://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/epl-v10.html Comments: Ernie and Rod both point out that since the only change is removing the patent termination, that that doesn't affect its compliance with OSD. Recommend: approval. -- --My blog is at angry-economist.russnelson.com | Spinach ala mode -- a good Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | way to eat spinach? Or a 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | bad way to eat ice cream? Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | FWD# 404529 via VOIP | -- 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
Re: License Committee Report
Hi Russell. I am still hoping to get approval for the Adaptive Public License. I have attached our follow-up from the last License Committee Report. --Carmen Leeming Carmen Leeming writes: Title: Adaptive Public License Submission: http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:6913:200305:bogcdnbbhnfbgpdeahob License: http://www.mamook.net/APL.html This license was submitted in May 2003. I checked in June to make sure that the license had entered the submission process, and received a reply indicating that it was received and was currently under review. I wrote again in November and never heard back. Sorry, your license fell through the cracks. I have no automated system for tracking license approvals. On a quick reading, I don't see any problem with it. May I suggest that the CUA Public License use a particular form of the Adaptive Public License instead? -- --My blog is at angry-economist.russnelson.com | Coding in Python Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | is like 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | sucking on sugar. Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | Sweet! -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3 Russell Nelson wrote: I'm the chair of the license approval committee. This is my report for the current set of licenses under discussion. If anybody disagrees with my assessment of the committee's conclusions, say so promptly. -- Restricts license termination to only if the original work is alleged to infringe a patent. Title: OSL/AFL version 2.1 submitted for approval Submission: http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:msp:8002:fdhkogbdmecjfdifioea License: www.rosenlaw.com/osl2.1.html License: www.rosenlaw.com/afl2.1.html Comments: John Cowan gives it the thumbs up with no comments. The redline is at www.rosenlaw.com/osl2.1-redline.pdf Recommend: approval. -- There is much discussion spent deciding whether NASA can copyright software at all. The license itself says that no copyright is claimed in the United States. Title: NASA Open Source Agreement (NOSA) version 1.3 Original Submission: http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:7698:200402:jfdgbalgdhgblndpmljm Re-Submission: http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:msp:7999:ieccombmcpkdjmpppfil License: http://www.nas.nasa.gov/Research/Software/Open-Source/NASA_Open_Source_Agreement_1.3.txt Comments: John Cowan did a complete re-review of it and found that the previous concerns had been addressed. Recommend: approval. -- The author wants to control software which is merely written to work in conjunction with this software. Title: Open Project Public License (OPPL) Submission: http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:7926:200403:flibooikigifnhkciclb License: http://nextco.net/~matti/awaiting_approval.htm Comments: John Cowan is not enthusiastic about it. http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:7981:200403:flibooikigifnhkciclb Neither is Alex Rousskov. http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:7983:200403:flibooikigifnhkciclb Recommend: turn it down. -- Title: Eclipse Public License - v 1.0 Submission: http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:7933:okcnnifeagbhadopkkoe License: http://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/epl-v10.html Comments: Ernie and Rod both point out that since the only change is removing the patent termination, that that doesn't affect its compliance with OSD. Recommend: approval. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
License Committee Report v2
[ note the addition of the Adaptive Public License at the end. There have STILL not been sufficient comments on the Adaptive Public License. -russ ] I'm the chair of the license approval committee. This is my report for the current set of licenses under discussion. If anybody disagrees with my assessment of the committee's conclusions, say so promptly. -- Restricts license termination to only if the original work is alleged to infringe a patent. Title: OSL/AFL version 2.1 submitted for approval Submission: http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:msp:8002:fdhkogbdmecjfdifioea License: www.rosenlaw.com/osl2.1.html License: www.rosenlaw.com/afl2.1.html Comments: John Cowan gives it the thumbs up with no comments. The redline is at www.rosenlaw.com/osl2.1-redline.pdf Recommend: approval. -- There is much discussion spent deciding whether NASA can copyright software at all. The license itself says that no copyright is claimed in the United States. Title: NASA Open Source Agreement (NOSA) version 1.3 Original Submission: http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:7698:200402:jfdgbalgdhgblndpmljm Re-Submission: http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:msp:7999:ieccombmcpkdjmpppfil License: http://www.nas.nasa.gov/Research/Software/Open-Source/NASA_Open_Source_Agreement_1.3.txt Comments: John Cowan did a complete re-review of it and found that the previous concerns had been addressed. Recommend: approval. -- The author wants to control software which is merely written to work in conjunction with this software. Title: Open Project Public License (OPPL) Submission: http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:7926:200403:flibooikigifnhkciclb License: http://nextco.net/~matti/awaiting_approval.htm Comments: John Cowan is not enthusiastic about it. http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:7981:200403:flibooikigifnhkciclb Neither is Alex Rousskov. http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:7983:200403:flibooikigifnhkciclb Recommend: turn it down. -- Title: Eclipse Public License - v 1.0 Submission: http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:7933:okcnnifeagbhadopkkoe License: http://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/epl-v10.html Comments: Ernie and Rod both point out that since the only change is removing the patent termination, that that doesn't affect its compliance with OSD. Recommend: approval. -- Unfortunately, even after two tries there have been insufficient comments on the Adaptive Public License. Maybe the third's the charm? Title: Adaptive Public License Submission: http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:6913:200305:bogcdnbbhnfbgpdeahob License: http://www.mamook.net/APL.html -- --My blog is at angry-economist.russnelson.com | Spinach ala mode -- a good Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | way to eat spinach? Or a 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | bad way to eat ice cream? Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | FWD# 404529 via VOIP | -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
