Re: [License-discuss] a Free Island Public License?
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 01:45:28PM -0500, Clark C. Evans wrote: I'd love your high-level thoughts on a Free Island license or anything that might be similar in nature. I'll see what I can offer. I speak for myself, only, in this. Note that I am not a lawyer, and my comments should not be taken as legal advice. What follows is my interpretations alone. FREE ISLAND PUBLIC LICENSE (v0.2 on 12 DEC 2011) This software is licensed for any purpose excepting the right to make publicly available derived works which depend exclusively upon non-free components. Based on this statement of intent, it seems your intent is to create a license that disallows distribution of any materials covered by its terms as part of a larger proprietary work. This is similar to some part of the intent of the GPL, and much of the reason that many GPL users choose that license, but with the added benefit that this statement of intent suggests you want to allow the licensed materials to be used with other open source licenses without overriding their license terms. Is this a fair assessment? Of course, I wonder if strong copyleft works would still not be able to use such a license, because of the fact that they would legally demand that the work be distributed under the terms of that umbrella license. It might be pretty hairy legal territory, and I am probably not qualified to judge this aspect of the license. So long as this copyright and license are included in all substantial copies of this work you may: The phrase substantial copies here seems imperfect for what I believe to be your wishes. Instead of substantial copies, you may wish to say something like copies in whole or significant part. I say something like because I'm sure that phrasing could be better refined. 1. Publicly copy and use verbatim copies of this work including public distribution and performance. There are some phrasing details here that make me wonder how it might be interpreted in court, though I think it is generally clear to the layman. A copyright lawyer could of course offer more substantial analysis, but I unfortunately do not know of any copyright lawyers prepared to freely offer such advice. 2. Privately deal with this work in any way you wish, including internal usage, copying, and modification of this work. You may also make publicly available via distribution or public performance any Derived Work only if the following conditions are met: 1. the preferred source code for the Derived Work must be made freely available under this license; The use of the term source code here makes this a software-specific license which, while fairly typical of licenses suitable to use in a software context (including notable copyfree licenses, despite their typically simple language), strikes me as an unnecessary limitation on the license whose effects when applied to non-software works has not to my knowledge been tested in court. This condition is essentially a copyleft licensing condition, of course. I am sure you are aware of this, but I figured I would point it out, just in case. 2. the Derived Work must pass the Free Island test. By Derived Work we mean a modified copy or adaptation of this work or a separate work such as a plug-in, protocol adapter, or wrapper which is designed to have intimate interactions with this work's operational details, or interfaces. This seems to make the work strongly copyleft because it implies (or, at least, I infer) that use of the work as a library dependency in any way would also qualify something as a derived work. This would make this more-copyleft than the LGPL at least. A Derived Work passes the Free Island test if it could be prepared, modified, compiled, tested, installed, and operated in a manner advertised or expected using only Commodity Hardware, Free Software, this software, and the Derived Work itself. In particular, the Derived Work fails this test if it depends upon proprietary software, remote services or hardware to provide features that do not have a corresponding Free Software implementation. By Free Software we mean any software which is readily available to the public without fee and with this license, any license approved by the Open Source Initiative or any license considered free by the Free Software Foundation. This places substantial power to determine what does or does not pass your free island test in the hands of third parties that are not in any way answerable to you or the intent of this license. A better approach, for purposes of ensuring the independence and satisfaction of intent of this license, might be to include a list of brief conditions that encompass the qualities of Free Software and open source software you wish to promote, probably inspired by the FSF/GNU Four Freedoms and the Open Source Definition. By Commodity Hardware we mean a computing device which has substitutes in a
Re: [License-discuss] a Free Island Public License?
This software is licensed for any purpose excepting the right to make publicly available derived works which depend exclusively upon non-free components. On Fri, 16 Dec 2011, Chad Perrin wrote: TL;DR Summary: My take would be that this satisfies the conditions of the Open Source Definition, though I may have overlooked something in my first reading. I think it conflicts with criterion #9. It appears to also satisfy the conditions of the FSF/GNU Four Freedoms I think it conflicts with the first freedom. and the Debian Free Software Guidelines, I think it conflicts with description of the first point. but fail to satisfy the conditions of the Copyfree Standard Definition. It appears to qualify as a copyleft license, but a somewhat atypical example of a copyleft license, in that its proliferation mechanism is not tied directly to proliferation of itself. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] a Free Island Public License?
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 11:03:07AM -0600, Jeremy C. Reed wrote: On Fri, 16 Dec 2011, Chad Perrin wrote: TL;DR Summary: My take would be that this satisfies the conditions of the Open Source Definition, though I may have overlooked something in my first reading. I think it conflicts with criterion #9. I think that's true only to the extent that other copyleft licenses do, as well. If you have some differing insight, please share. I'd like to know what I missed. It appears to also satisfy the conditions of the FSF/GNU Four Freedoms I think it conflicts with the first freedom. I think that, too, is true only to the extent that other copyleft licenses do. Again, I'd like to know what prompts you to think otherwise. and the Debian Free Software Guidelines, I think it conflicts with description of the first point. See my above two responses to your disagreement with my estimation of the license's compliance with various standards. I'm curious about your points of disagreement. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] a Free Island Public License?
On Fri, 16 Dec 2011, Chad Perrin wrote: My take would be that this satisfies the conditions of the Open Source Definition, though I may have overlooked something in my first reading. I think it conflicts with criterion #9. I think that's true only to the extent that other copyleft licenses do, as well. If you have some differing insight, please share. I'd like to know what I missed. It appears to also satisfy the conditions of the FSF/GNU Four Freedoms I think it conflicts with the first freedom. I think that, too, is true only to the extent that other copyleft licenses do. Again, I'd like to know what prompts you to think otherwise. and the Debian Free Software Guidelines, I think it conflicts with description of the first point. See my above two responses to your disagreement with my estimation of the license's compliance with various standards. I'm curious about your points of disagreement. Two vague sentences from the license include: This software is licensed for any purpose excepting the right to make publicly available derived works which depend exclusively upon non-free components. In particular, the Derived Work fails this test if it depends upon proprietary software, remote services or hardware to provide features that do not have a corresponding Free Software implementation. I believe these could be understood to conflict with: - ``The license must not place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be open-source software.'' While I know this is about distribution, it can be said that it is distributed with its dependencies. The license in question doesn't override others licenses, but if used it implies about its dependencies which I'd suggest could be distributed together. This argument is weak. - ``The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).'' How can it be used for any purpose if it can't depend on non-free software implementation? I this think is a strong argument. - ``The license of a Debian component may not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license may not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.'' This is about distribution collections. Maybe this one isn't a good enough argument but it similar to the point above. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] a Free Island Public License?
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 04:33:13PM -0600, Jeremy C. Reed wrote: I believe these could be understood to conflict with: - ``The license must not place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be open-source software.'' While I know this is about distribution, it can be said that it is distributed with its dependencies. The license in question doesn't override others licenses, but if used it implies about its dependencies which I'd suggest could be distributed together. This argument is weak. On the other hand, try distributing software that statically links both a library only available under the GPLv3 and a library you have by way of a proprietary license from Oracle. - ``The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).'' How can it be used for any purpose if it can't depend on non-free software implementation? I this think is a strong argument. My previous statement applies here, too. - ``The license of a Debian component may not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license may not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.'' This is about distribution collections. Maybe this one isn't a good enough argument but it similar to the point above. Yeah, I don't think that really prohibits friendly license interactions on the strength of the Free Island license terms. Basically, the way I see things here, it looks like this license ends up coming to roughly the same kinds of interactions with differently licensed works as the GPL in many cases, but does so in such an unfamiliar way and from such an unfamiliar direction that it looks, at first glance, like its effects are substantially different. In the end, though, it seems to me that the only real differences are in the way this license *can* be combined with certain other works without overriding their license terms. In cases where overriding other (open source) license terms is expressly prohibited, in fact, this license seems less prone to running afoul of restrictions on distribution with other software (e.g., CDDL software). I'm not trying to pick on the GPL in particular, by the way. It's just a handy example. I could have swapped the CDDL and GPL in that example, for instance, or used the MPL and CDDL, or something like that. My point is just that the same arguments that work for other copyleft licenses should, I think, apply to this license. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] a Free Island Public License?
This definitely conflicts with the GPL, and may not qualify as open source. It does remind me of the OSL 3.0 vaguely. I believe in the OSL 3.0 you can specify proprietary use covered by patents that are not granted to anyone with copies of the software. The GPL specifies open patent licensing. Everyone with the software is issued the rights of the patent. It almost seems like the island is a way to avoid patents, while restricting usage. How do you intend to specify what is proprietary in addendum to open source without a patent? Is that the original purpose here? Is it by the method the software is used or an actual piece of a collection of programs that is proprietary? I think the language needs to be more specific concerning other types of software IP, e.g. trademarks. On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 12:03 PM, Jeremy C. Reed r...@reedmedia.net wrote: This software is licensed for any purpose excepting the right to make publicly available derived works which depend exclusively upon non-free components. On Fri, 16 Dec 2011, Chad Perrin wrote: TL;DR Summary: My take would be that this satisfies the conditions of the Open Source Definition, though I may have overlooked something in my first reading. I think it conflicts with criterion #9. It appears to also satisfy the conditions of the FSF/GNU Four Freedoms I think it conflicts with the first freedom. and the Debian Free Software Guidelines, I think it conflicts with description of the first point. but fail to satisfy the conditions of the Copyfree Standard Definition. It appears to qualify as a copyleft license, but a somewhat atypical example of a copyleft license, in that its proliferation mechanism is not tied directly to proliferation of itself. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] a Free Island Public License?
Wouldn't it just be redundant to say you can't use or depend on nonfree components in a derived work of its open source components? I think the better term for the license would be the Nonfree Island. Where, one could obtain all the open source code components and use them surrounding their own proprietary works, but not the original nonfree works. Makes sense to me. On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 5:33 PM, Jeremy C. Reed r...@reedmedia.net wrote: On Fri, 16 Dec 2011, Chad Perrin wrote: My take would be that this satisfies the conditions of the Open Source Definition, though I may have overlooked something in my first reading. I think it conflicts with criterion #9. I think that's true only to the extent that other copyleft licenses do, as well. If you have some differing insight, please share. I'd like to know what I missed. It appears to also satisfy the conditions of the FSF/GNU Four Freedoms I think it conflicts with the first freedom. I think that, too, is true only to the extent that other copyleft licenses do. Again, I'd like to know what prompts you to think otherwise. and the Debian Free Software Guidelines, I think it conflicts with description of the first point. See my above two responses to your disagreement with my estimation of the license's compliance with various standards. I'm curious about your points of disagreement. Two vague sentences from the license include: This software is licensed for any purpose excepting the right to make publicly available derived works which depend exclusively upon non-free components. In particular, the Derived Work fails this test if it depends upon proprietary software, remote services or hardware to provide features that do not have a corresponding Free Software implementation. I believe these could be understood to conflict with: - ``The license must not place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be open-source software.'' While I know this is about distribution, it can be said that it is distributed with its dependencies. The license in question doesn't override others licenses, but if used it implies about its dependencies which I'd suggest could be distributed together. This argument is weak. - ``The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).'' How can it be used for any purpose if it can't depend on non-free software implementation? I this think is a strong argument. - ``The license of a Debian component may not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license may not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.'' This is about distribution collections. Maybe this one isn't a good enough argument but it similar to the point above. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] a Free Island Public License?
OSI should deny certification of this license for the reasons already discussed, and because: It is not the product of a legal professional. I've been calling these crayon licenses, taking a line from an old Monty Python sketch about a dog license with the word dog crossed out and cat written in, in crayon. Crayon, in this case, is a metaphor for the poor legal qualification of the authors. Crayon licenses show a lack of understanding of copyright law, license structure, and most important: what would happen if the license were to be interpreted in court. We had an excuse for writing such things in the early days of Open Source when no lawyer would help us. /We no longer have that excuse./ Crayon licenses harm Open Source developers because they don't do what the developer expects. My most poignant experience with one was working on the appeal of /Jacobsen v. Katzer. /Bob Jacobsen, an innocent Open Source developer, essentially lost his case in the lower court due to the poor drafting of the Artistic License 1.0, one of the initial Open Source licenses, when the judge found it to be tantamount to the public domain. This loss would also have been very damaging to Open Source in general, had it been allowed to stand. Bob suffered /very/ significant damage from this case. We are very fortunate that he persevered, and that we were able to overturn the decision on appeal. OSI should no longer approve crayon licenses, due to the potential they have to damage our own community. Thanks Bruce Perens attachment: bruce.vcf smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] a Free Island Public License?
Again, it should mention license recognition terms for the nonfree software. In a collection, how is it determined which is nonfree? Must some IP rights be obtained? How would I know which is nonfree? This becomes arguable with free proprietary software available having free open source components. Is this an all-in-one solution? I could make free open source software proprietary to my business, and not place restrictions on use. Placing restrictions on the use is conflicting with open source unless there are IP rights or a separate nonfree license, as far as I know. It's tricky because commercial software can be open source, and that is what the Island appears to represent in some cases. There is more ground to be covered with it. I still think it's a bit redundant if there are separate components already having nonfree restrictions. On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 6:17 PM, Stephie King stephie.ma...@gmail.comwrote: Wouldn't it just be redundant to say you can't use or depend on nonfree components in a derived work of its open source components? I think the better term for the license would be the Nonfree Island. Where, one could obtain all the open source code components and use them surrounding their own proprietary works, but not the original nonfree works. Makes sense to me. On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 5:33 PM, Jeremy C. Reed r...@reedmedia.netwrote: On Fri, 16 Dec 2011, Chad Perrin wrote: My take would be that this satisfies the conditions of the Open Source Definition, though I may have overlooked something in my first reading. I think it conflicts with criterion #9. I think that's true only to the extent that other copyleft licenses do, as well. If you have some differing insight, please share. I'd like to know what I missed. It appears to also satisfy the conditions of the FSF/GNU Four Freedoms I think it conflicts with the first freedom. I think that, too, is true only to the extent that other copyleft licenses do. Again, I'd like to know what prompts you to think otherwise. and the Debian Free Software Guidelines, I think it conflicts with description of the first point. See my above two responses to your disagreement with my estimation of the license's compliance with various standards. I'm curious about your points of disagreement. Two vague sentences from the license include: This software is licensed for any purpose excepting the right to make publicly available derived works which depend exclusively upon non-free components. In particular, the Derived Work fails this test if it depends upon proprietary software, remote services or hardware to provide features that do not have a corresponding Free Software implementation. I believe these could be understood to conflict with: - ``The license must not place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be open-source software.'' While I know this is about distribution, it can be said that it is distributed with its dependencies. The license in question doesn't override others licenses, but if used it implies about its dependencies which I'd suggest could be distributed together. This argument is weak. - ``The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).'' How can it be used for any purpose if it can't depend on non-free software implementation? I this think is a strong argument. - ``The license of a Debian component may not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license may not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.'' This is about distribution collections. Maybe this one isn't a good enough argument but it similar to the point above. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] a Free Island Public License?
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011, at 04:33 PM, Jeremy C. Reed wrote: | This software is licensed for any purpose excepting the right to | make publicly available derived works which depend exclusively | upon non-free components. I believe these could be understood to conflict with: - ``The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).'' How can it be used for any purpose if it can't depend on non-free software implementation? I this think is a strong argument. Like the GPL, this license imposes a condition on the distribution of modifications, it doesn't restrict use. If you're looking for a free software principle it might conflict with, it is: - ``The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3)`` Of course, the GPL also conflicts with this freedom since one's modifications might include linking with non-free software. The difference between the GPL and this license proposal is that the GPL requires that the whole of the work, and all of its parts be under the GPL. While this license instead requires that the modification be functional on a free island. ... For example, if you made significant modifications to a C program such that it would now use the ::MessageBox() function, you're welcome to compile it (on Windows) and use it yourself. However, if you wish the privilege to distribute your derived work, it should be compilable and your changes should operate as you would intend using only free software. Luckily, the MessageBox Win32 System call is implemented under Wine so there's no problem meeting the Free Island test. This is a different approach than the GPL and I'm hopeful that we might have a fruitful discussion about its merits. I'm not a lawyer so I'm sure there are lots and lots of details that are poorly constructed. It matters little to talk about the details if the general direction doesn't stand up on examination. Kind Regards, Clark ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] a Free Island Public License?
Bruce Perens br...@perens.com writes: OSI should deny certification of this license for the reasons already discussed, and because: It was never submitted -- I don't think Clark intended to, in fact. pgp1e4kmeV3a1.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
