Re: [License-discuss] Unlicense CC0 and patents
Hi, On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 11:57 PM, Rick Moen r...@linuxmafia.com wrote: CCO contains a well-drafted fallback to permissive terms in the event that its primary intent runs afoul of local law (as is a serious problem with such efforts), while Unlicense is a badly drafted crayon licence, apparently thrown together by software engineers imagining they can handwave away the worldwide copyright regime by grabbing a bit of wording from here, a bit from there, throwing the result out in public, and hoping for the best. My initial comments on Unlicense: http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2012-January/26.html I never bothered getting to patent complications. CC0 explicitly states that it doesn't grant patent rights if there are any. Is this not going against the purpose of putting the work in public domain itself ? Regards. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
[License-discuss] Unlicense CC0 and patents
Hi, http://unlicense.org/ http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode What is the difference between CC0 and unlicense ? CCO clearly specifies that patents are not licensed but I am not sure how patents are treated in unlicense since nothing is specified. CC0 : *4. Limitations and Disclaimers.* 1. No trademark or patent rights held by Affirmer are waived, abandoned, surrendered, licensed or otherwise affected by this document. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Akshar License 1.0 Final Draft
Hi, On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 10:11 PM, Luis Villa l...@lu.is wrote: 1. Submit before final, whenever possible, to allow for revisions based on feedback **2. Clearly state rationale for a new license** **3. Compare to and contrast with the most similar OSI-approved license(s)** 4. Provide results of any legal analysis available **5. Recommend which license proliferation category is appropriate** Sorry, my mistake that I didnt follow the rules of the list. Henceforth I will be more careful. Regards. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Akshar License 1.0 Final Draft
Hi, On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 6:42 AM, John Cowan co...@mercury.ccil.org wrote: Prashant Shah scripsit: Mainly it differs from Apache License 2.0 in sections 3 (patent grants to derivative works) and 4 (more relaxed terms) In detail: In clause 3, the words or derivative works has been struck, so there no patent license on derivative works you make yourself and do not contribute back to the licensor. For historical reasons, the OSD has nothing to say about patent licenses, but I believe this violates OSD #3 by implication, which requires that derivative works be redistributable under the same license as the original. In clause 4: The requirement to redistribute the license with all copies has been removed. The OSD doesn't care. The requirement to propagate any NOTICE file or other third-party notices has been removed. The OSD doesn't care, but people who go to the trouble of adding attribution notices may be rather unhappy if they are stripped. If notices exist, you can add your own copyright, patent, or trademark notices to them, not merely attribution notices. This does not violate any specific OSD provision, but people are not used to looking for notices with legal effects there. In the Apache licenses, such notices are informational only and don't affect the licensing terms. -- Updated the license as per the feedback received. https://github.com/octabrain/akshar/blob/master/LICENSE-1.0.txt https://raw.github.com/octabrain/akshar/master/LICENSE-1.0.txt Regards ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
[License-discuss] Akshar License 1.0 Final Draft
Hi everyone, I am submitting final draft for a software license called Akshar License for review on this list. https://github.com/octabrain/akshar/blob/master/LICENSE-1.0.txt https://raw.github.com/octabrain/akshar/master/LICENSE-1.0.txt Mainly it differs from Apache License 2.0 in sections 3 (patent grants to derivative works) and 4 (more relaxed terms) Regards. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Grant of Patent License - Apache 2
Hi, On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 11:48 PM, Ben Reser b...@reser.org wrote: If you make a modification, do not contribute it back to the Licensor, and do not place it under the ASL 2.0, then there is not patent grant. But you can't avoid the patent grant as long as you use the ASL 2.0. 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, ** modify, reproduce, distribute ** and otherwise transfer the Work... After going through it many times, will making the above changes in the original license (marked by **) provide patent grants to forks ? Regards. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Grant of Patent License - Apache 2
Hi, On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 10:02 PM, John Cowan co...@mercury.ccil.org wrote: Prashant Shah scripsit: You'll note that the text says each Contributor, so any derivative work licensed under the Apache license gets all the specified rights from all the contributors to that work. If the derivative work is not licensed under Apache, you get rights to that part of it which is, and all bets are off for the rest. I read the Apache License again specifically Definitions section - my evaluation was that it is counted as Contribution if the Derivative Work is intentionally submitted to Licensor for inclusion in the original Work. Maybe I am wrong on this :) Contribution shall mean any work of authorship, including the original version of the Work and any modifications or additions to that Work or Derivative Works thereof, that is intentionally submitted to Licensor for inclusion in the Work by the copyright owner or by an individual or Legal Entity authorized to submit on behalf of the copyright owner. Regards. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Changes made by derivative works
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Gervase Markham g...@mozilla.org wrote: On 01/02/13 07:28, Ben Reser wrote: No, the license doesn't matter. If you redistribute a modified file, regardless of how you chose to license your modifications you need to specify that you modified the file. Right. And, as you note, this doesn't apply to Apache as they actually aren't using their own license as inbound. Except where they are, and they ignore this requirement anyway. (Which says something about its value and relevance.) So, having a book-keeping clause is no guarantee that one will follow it as it is in case of Apache. Also not having a book-keeping clause doesn't mean that one cannot not follow it - one can if he wants to :) @Ben it will take me sometime to go though your response. Regards. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Changes made by derivative works
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 10:09 PM, Prashant Shah pshah.mum...@gmail.com wrote: @Ben it will take me sometime to go though your response. To make the example simpler : 1. Widget is a software made by Sally 2. Bob fork the code, makes modification without adding the notice in the files and host the code. 3. Greg comes along and uses the modified code from Bob without knowing that Bob has made changes to it and assuming its under APL since that is what the header in the file says. Who is responsible in such a case : Greg or Bob ? Although its fault of Bob of not adding change notice in the file in the first place. Regards. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Changes made by derivative works
Hi, On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 3:33 PM, Gervase Markham g...@mozilla.org wrote: The days of tracking code provenance via in-file comments are gone. And they are not missed IMO. Thats the exact problem with few licenses I know of. Apache - You must cause any modified files to carry prominent notices stating that You changed the files GPL - The work must carry prominent notices stating that you modified it, and giving a relevant date. Is there any license out there that puts it in a better way ? Regards. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Changes made by derivative works
Hi, On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 12:29 AM, Ben Reser b...@reser.org wrote: Still not sure what objective you are trying to serve. By saying the copyright point of view do you mean you just want to keep track of the copyright owners? I'm going to assume that is what you mean for the rest of this email. If it isn't then you probably should be clearer about what your objective is. Main objective is to keep track of the copyright owners / authors of modifications that are made in a work that is _redistributed_ in source form. So those who receive this new redistributed work know what and who made the modifications. Regards. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Changes made by derivative works
Hi, On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 4:07 PM, David Woolley for...@david-woolley.me.uk wrote: You keep repeating the question without explaining what is wrong with the existing clauses. For lots of small modifications made by many developers over a long period of time - it will be really hard to keep that information in a file. Regards. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Changes made by derivative works
Hi, You keep repeating the question without explaining what is wrong with the existing clauses. I get your point. Although there is nothing wrong with it and it works when the modifications are significant. Its just hard to maintain it in source files where there are lots of minor modifications. (eg : linux kernel) Regards. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Changes made by derivative works
Hi, On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Gervase Markham g...@mozilla.org wrote: Unless you collect copyright assignments, you should assume that re-licensing _anything_ will be difficult in the future, in-file comments or not. Even if you have such comments, you cannot assume they are accurate, and you have to do all the due diligence anyway. (Again, I speak as the guy who did what is probably the largest ever relicensing of an open source codebase with heterogenous copyright.) Gerv Even if one ends up keeping track who made the changes by in-file comments - its going to be impossible to figure out what exact changes were made without a version control system in place. Regards. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Changes made by derivative works
Hi, I didn't mention this previously but Apache license has a clause if the work is submitted back to inclusion it has to be under the same license. Submission of Contributions. Unless You explicitly state otherwise, any Contribution intentionally submitted for inclusion in the Work by You to the Licensor shall be under the terms and conditions of this License, without any additional terms or conditions. Notwithstanding the above, nothing herein shall supersede or modify the terms of any separate license agreement you may have executed with Licensor regarding such Contributions. If the distributor of the modified Works chooses a different license for his modifications then it is his/new license responsibility to take care of the book keeping clause. Resulting in the need to know if someone has modified the file for copyright purposes. Sorry I didnt quite understand this point. I feel quite lost now :( but learnt a lot of new things also in this process :) Coming back to the original question that I had. I can now put it in a much better way... It is the responsibility of who is accepting/distributing modifications to keep track of from whom he is accepting code - either by using a version control system or in the file itself or a changelog. As far as the license of the code is concerned - it already in the same license as original because of the above point. Only issue remains is tracking the copyright owners - Does it make sense to enforce such a book-keeing clause in a license or rather leave it at the discretion of distributor of the Work to take the necessary steps to keep track of the copyright owners to protect himself. You must cause any modified files to carry prominent notices stating that You changed the files Regards. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Changes made by derivative works
Hi, On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 1:30 PM, David Woolley for...@david-woolley.me.uk wrote: On the other hand, from a copyright point of view, unless it is clear who the copyright owners are, it can be risky to use any piece of software. I am looking towards the copyright point of view. In majority of cases the version control system used has the log of who submitted the code. Only if there are major changes then it might be necessary to include that in the file itself. How does one put that point across. Regards. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Permissive but anti-patent license
Hi, On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 2:38 AM, Chad Perrin per...@apotheon.com wrote: I'll give this Notache License a closer look. I'm pretty unhappy with section 4 (redistribution) of the Apache License 2.0 myself. I have rename the license to Akshar License 1.0 Development Repo : https://github.com/octabrain/akshar Akshar License 1.0 : https://github.com/octabrain/akshar/blob/master/LICENSE-1.0.txt Difference from Apache : https://github.com/octabrain/akshar/commit/f7485e9a60a11b8c89606f3020e833d968130baa Also any improvements / feedback will be welcomed. I am looking for someone who is willing to host the license :) Regards. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
[License-discuss] Introducing Akshar License 1.0
Hi, Submitting a draft for a new software license called Akshar License 1.0 based on Apache License 2.0 with the redistribution clause modified to : - Not explicitly requiring to distribute copy of License to every recipient (even those who receive it in object form). Although still require to maintain it in the source form. - Not explicitly requiring to carry prominent notices stating the changes made. Although looking for a better way to handle it :) Its still under development and all suggestions are welcomed. Development is done openly on github. Development Repo : https://github.com/octabrain/akshar Akshar License 1.0 : https://github.com/octabrain/akshar/blob/master/LICENSE-1.0.txt Difference from Apache : https://github.com/octabrain/akshar/commit/f7485e9a60a11b8c89606f3020e833d968130baa Regards. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
[License-discuss] Changes made by derivative works
Hi, Is there any better way to handle changes made by any derivative works rather than using the following sentence. You must cause any modified files to carry prominent notices stating that You changed the files Regards. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Permissive but anti-patent license
Hi, On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 7:48 AM, Chad Perrin per...@apotheon.com wrote: I would like to take this one step further so that the anti-patent clause covers use as well as distribution. I propose the license below, a BSD derivative. I'm afraid I'm a month late here, but . . . http://copyfree.org/licenses/coil/license.txt Apache License 2.0 is better when it comes to legal wordings. http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 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. Even golang is better : http://golang.org/PATENTS IMHO, if you want to base something on then go with Apache 2 rather than BSD/MIT since Apache is most bullet proof license when it comes to legal wordings. Even Google uses it for most of its projects. I had some minor issues with Apache license - Redistribution clause - sections 1, 2 4. So I went ahead and modified the Apache license to suite my needs. Its just a template right now - nothing serious. https://github.com/octabrain/notache/blob/master/LICENSE-1.0.txt Regards. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Permissive but anti-patent license
Hi, I had some minor issues with Apache license - Redistribution clause - sections 1, 2 4. So I went ahead and modified the Apache license to suite my needs. Its just a template right now - nothing serious. https://github.com/octabrain/notache/blob/master/LICENSE-1.0.txt Here is the diff of what I have changed. https://github.com/octabrain/notache/commit/b2c29ac4ee4a792f36f3c709e3e58cd2357d5e76 Regards. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
