RE: Academic Free License version 2.0
Bruce, thanks for your comments. My replies are inserted below. /Larry Rosen > -Original Message- > From: Bruce Dodson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, July 21, 2003 7:26 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Academic Free License version 2.0 > > I think this change is mostly-positive. The only negative > aspect that I see is that it's twice as long as the previous > revision. AFL 1.2 had stricken a nice balance between > brevity and precision. Thanks for the "mostly-positive" comment. :-) I'm sorry you find the license too long. If it takes a certain number of words to be clear about what an academic-style license should do, then that's the breaks. If you can suggest briefer ways of saying things, or fewer things to say, then help me by suggesting them. I point out, however, that the AFL and OSL are already a full page shorter than the GPL. > May I suggest that, alongside AFL 2.0, you publish one last > license in the AFL 1.x series, based on AFL 1.2 but with the > applicable OSL 2.0 revisions merged in, i.e. sublicenseable, > and with the revised, more palatable Termination for Patent > Action clause? Yet one more license? :-) > In addition, considering how different the wording of AFL > 2.0 is from 1.x (even though the effect is similar), and the > fact that there may be projects using 1.x, please do not > withdraw the AFL 1.x when 2.0 is approved. I would like to > see them both in the list of approved licenses. There's no reason earlier versions should be withdrawn. But I strongly encourage using the latest version. It's up to the licensors, really. /Larry Rosen > - Original Message - > From: "Lawrence E. Rosen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Newsgroups: gmane.comp.licenses.open-source.general > Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 10:05 PM > Subject: Academic Free License version 2.0 > > > > To License-Discuss (and others interested persons on BCC): > > > > Version 2.0 of the Academic Free License (AFL) is hereby > submitted for > > your review and for the approval of the OSI Board of > Directors. It can > > be found at http://rosenlaw.com/afl2.0.html. > > > > Most academic-style licenses follow the BSD model -- > short, generous and > > uncomplicated. [See > http://opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php] > > Simply put, academic licenses permit derivative works to > become a part > > of other software, including proprietary software, for any > purpose > > whatsoever. Unfortunately, those licenses often omit many > details, > > leaving to the imagination how certain things are to work > in an open > > source/proprietary world. > > > > The AFL fills in those gaps. It addresses issues of > patent, trademark, > > warranty, jurisdiction and venue, contributor recognition, > etc., in ways > > entirely consistent with the "BSD" philosophy of open > source. > > AFL-licensed software can be used in combination with any > other > > software, open source *or* proprietary, for any purpose wh > atsoever, > > including to create derivative works. > > > > This new version of the AFL also helps eliminate possible > confusion > > between academic-style licenses and reciprocal licenses > [see, for > > example, the GPL, www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl.html, and the > Open Software > > License (OSL), www.rosenlaw.com/osl2.0.html]. Reciprocity > requires that > > any Derivative Works be licensed under the same license as > the Original > > Work. Reciprocal and non-reciprocal open source licenses > ought to be > > the same -- except with respect to provisions dealing with > reciprocity. > > > > > > Therefore, the new AFL is identical to the OSL except that > the AFL does > > not contain a reciprocity provision. A redlined > comparison of AFL2.0 > > and OSL2.0 is at http://rosenlaw.com/afl2.0-redline.pdf. > When you > > suggest changes to the AFL, please consider how that > language would read > > in the OSL, and vice versa. > > > > Suggestions regarding both AFL2.0 and OSL2.0 will be > welcomed. Feel > > free to ask questions or complain here on license-discuss. > The OSI > > board of directors needs your input before they decide > whether to > > approve these licenses. > > > > In the meantime, I encourage you to think about using the > Academic Free > > License version 2.0 instead of the BSD, MIT and Apache > licenses, and > > their variants, that have proliferated on OSI's approved > license list. > > > > /Lawrence Rosen > > Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm > > General counsel, Open Source Initiative > > 3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482 > > 707-485-1242 * fax: 707-485-1243 > > email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > www.rosenlaw.com > > > > -- > > 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: Academic Free License version 2.0
I think this change is mostly-positive. The only negative aspect that I see is that it's twice as long as the previous revision. AFL 1.2 had stricken a nice balance between brevity and precision. May I suggest that, alongside AFL 2.0, you publish one last license in the AFL 1.x series, based on AFL 1.2 but with the applicable OSL 2.0 revisions merged in, i.e. sublicenseable, and with the revised, more palatable Termination for Patent Action clause? In addition, considering how different the wording of AFL 2.0 is from 1.x (even though the effect is similar), and the fact that there may be projects using 1.x, please do not withdraw the AFL 1.x when 2.0 is approved. I would like to see them both in the list of approved licenses. - Original Message - From: "Lawrence E. Rosen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Newsgroups: gmane.comp.licenses.open-source.general Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 10:05 PM Subject: Academic Free License version 2.0 > To License-Discuss (and others interested persons on BCC): > > Version 2.0 of the Academic Free License (AFL) is hereby submitted for > your review and for the approval of the OSI Board of Directors. It can > be found at http://rosenlaw.com/afl2.0.html. > > Most academic-style licenses follow the BSD model -- short, generous and > uncomplicated. [See http://opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php] > Simply put, academic licenses permit derivative works to become a part > of other software, including proprietary software, for any purpose > whatsoever. Unfortunately, those licenses often omit many details, > leaving to the imagination how certain things are to work in an open > source/proprietary world. > > The AFL fills in those gaps. It addresses issues of patent, trademark, > warranty, jurisdiction and venue, contributor recognition, etc., in ways > entirely consistent with the "BSD" philosophy of open source. > AFL-licensed software can be used in combination with any other > software, open source *or* proprietary, for any purpose wh atsoever, > including to create derivative works. > > This new version of the AFL also helps eliminate possible confusion > between academic-style licenses and reciprocal licenses [see, for > example, the GPL, www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl.html, and the Open Software > License (OSL), www.rosenlaw.com/osl2.0.html]. Reciprocity requires that > any Derivative Works be licensed under the same license as the Original > Work. Reciprocal and non-reciprocal open source licenses ought to be > the same -- except with respect to provisions dealing with reciprocity. > > > Therefore, the new AFL is identical to the OSL except that the AFL does > not contain a reciprocity provision. A redlined comparison of AFL2.0 > and OSL2.0 is at http://rosenlaw.com/afl2.0-redline.pdf. When you > suggest changes to the AFL, please consider how that language would read > in the OSL, and vice versa. > > Suggestions regarding both AFL2.0 and OSL2.0 will be welcomed. Feel > free to ask questions or complain here on license-discuss. The OSI > board of directors needs your input before they decide whether to > approve these licenses. > > In the meantime, I encourage you to think about using the Academic Free > License version 2.0 instead of the BSD, MIT and Apache licenses, and > their variants, that have proliferated on OSI's approved license list. > > /Lawrence Rosen > Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm > General counsel, Open Source Initiative > 3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482 > 707-485-1242 * fax: 707-485-1243 > email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > www.rosenlaw.com > > -- > 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: Academic Free License version 2.0
Lawrence E. Rosen wrote: Therefore, the new AFL is identical to the OSL except that the AFL does not contain a reciprocity provision. A redlined comparison of AFL2.0 and OSL2.0 is at http://rosenlaw.com/afl2.0-redline.pdf. When you suggest changes to the AFL, please consider how that language would read in the OSL, and vice versa. I really appreciate this change to the license. It makes comparing the AFL and OSL very easy. The brief description of its purpose, and a comparison of reciprocity is also welcome. I'll happily use either one, and any agreed modificaitons, in some of my own software. Michel -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Academic Free License version 2.0
Lawrence E. Rosen scripsit: > Version 2.0 of the Academic Free License (AFL) is hereby submitted for > your review and for the approval of the OSI Board of Directors. It can > be found at http://rosenlaw.com/afl2.0.html. This license is obviously open source, a big win, and it's nice that it tracks the OSL. I think with these versions of the OSL and AFL we are in a strong position to respond to corporate types who come to us with their complex licenses "Have you checked out the OSL and AFL version 2.0? They probably do everything your lawyers *and* your developers want." -- But you, Wormtongue, you have done what you could for your true master. Some reward you have earned at least. Yet Saruman is apt to overlook his bargains. I should advise you to go quickly and remind him, lest he forget your faithful service. --Gandalf John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Academic Free License version 2.0
To License-Discuss (and others interested persons on BCC): Version 2.0 of the Academic Free License (AFL) is hereby submitted for your review and for the approval of the OSI Board of Directors. It can be found at http://rosenlaw.com/afl2.0.html. Most academic-style licenses follow the BSD model -- short, generous and uncomplicated. [See http://opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php] Simply put, academic licenses permit derivative works to become a part of other software, including proprietary software, for any purpose whatsoever. Unfortunately, those licenses often omit many details, leaving to the imagination how certain things are to work in an open source/proprietary world. The AFL fills in those gaps. It addresses issues of patent, trademark, warranty, jurisdiction and venue, contributor recognition, etc., in ways entirely consistent with the "BSD" philosophy of open source. AFL-licensed software can be used in combination with any other software, open source *or* proprietary, for any purpose whatsoever, including to create derivative works. This new version of the AFL also helps eliminate possible confusion between academic-style licenses and reciprocal licenses [see, for example, the GPL, www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl.html, and the Open Software License (OSL), www.rosenlaw.com/osl2.0.html]. Reciprocity requires that any Derivative Works be licensed under the same license as the Original Work. Reciprocal and non-reciprocal open source licenses ought to be the same -- except with respect to provisions dealing with reciprocity. Therefore, the new AFL is identical to the OSL except that the AFL does not contain a reciprocity provision. A redlined comparison of AFL2.0 and OSL2.0 is at http://rosenlaw.com/afl2.0-redline.pdf. When you suggest changes to the AFL, please consider how that language would read in the OSL, and vice versa. Suggestions regarding both AFL2.0 and OSL2.0 will be welcomed. Feel free to ask questions or complain here on license-discuss. The OSI board of directors needs your input before they decide whether to approve these licenses. In the meantime, I encourage you to think about using the Academic Free License version 2.0 instead of the BSD, MIT and Apache licenses, and their variants, that have proliferated on OSI's approved license list. /Lawrence Rosen Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm General counsel, Open Source Initiative 3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482 707-485-1242 * fax: 707-485-1243 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.rosenlaw.com -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
RE: Academic Free License questions
> I think I have spotted my source of confusion: "...software > that is licensed under any license..." Does that mean > "software that is licensed by You...", or does it mean > software that Licensor has made available under one of those > licenses? It seems to be open to interpretation, and one of > the interpretations is very far-reaching. I would just like > to know which one Larry intended. The former. /Larry Rosen -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Academic Free License questions
That's what I thought too. However, that clause is very cleverly written. They might not have accepted AFL or that patent clause for MyCoolApp, instead choosing to license it under ZPL and combine it with some GPL code. However, they are also using YourCoolTool which is licensed under OSL. They did accept that patent clause in the OSL license. When they agreed to that, they agreed that they would lose their rights to YourCoolTool if they ever made a patent claim against MyCoolApp, or any other app that is licensed under OSL or AFL. I think I have spotted my source of confusion: "...software that is licensed under any license..." Does that mean "software that is licensed by You...", or does it mean software that Licensor has made available under one of those licenses? It seems to be open to interpretation, and one of the interpretations is very far-reaching. I would just like to know which one Larry intended. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Academic Free License questions
On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 11:29:14PM -0400, Bruce Dodson wrote: > Or, if you don't want to license under GPL, you could dual-license under > another GPL-compatible license. Dual licensing always confuses me though: > which set of rights am I using? That determines which set of requirements > will apply. > My understanding is that dual licensing means the person accepting the license chooses which license they want to accept. So someone can take the code from you under the AFL, or the ZPL, as they like. > Suppose I have a piece of software which is licensed under the user's choice > between AFL and a tweaked ZPL 2. The Zope licese is GPL-compatible, and > obviously if someone sues me with an allegation that the software breaks > your patent, they can keep using my software by virtue of the rights granted > in the Zope license. But, having made that allegation, are they entitled to > use other software which is published solely under AFL / OSL? So the way I would understand this is that if they chose to use the software under the ZPL, the patent clause would not apply to them. However they would have to be consistent. If they said they were accepting the ZPL, then they would have to comply with all its terms, they could not claim ZPL today and AFL tomorrow. But I could be wrong. Havoc -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Academic Free License questions
Or, if you don't want to license under GPL, you could dual-license under another GPL-compatible license. Dual licensing always confuses me though: which set of rights am I using? That determines which set of requirements will apply. Question: How does the "Mutual Termination for Patent Action" fuse with a dual-licensing situation? I don't know if I'll be able to word by question very coherently, but here's what I'm driving at: Suppose I have a piece of software which is licensed under the user's choice between AFL and a tweaked ZPL 2. The Zope licese is GPL-compatible, and obviously if someone sues me with an allegation that the software breaks your patent, they can keep using my software by virtue of the rights granted in the Zope license. But, having made that allegation, are they entitled to use other software which is published solely under AFL / OSL? Thanks, Bruce - Original Message - From: "John Cowan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Havoc Pennington" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 4:33 PM Subject: Re: Academic Free License questions > Havoc Pennington scripsit: > > > 1. Is the AFL generally considered GPL-compatible as the X license is? > >i.e. if I release a library under the AFL, can GPL applications use > >it? Or would I need to dual license under GPL also? > > You would. RMS says the AFL and the GPL are not compatible; he doesn't say > exactly why, beyond noting that there is more than one problem. The patent > provision is the obvious candidate, however, based on RMS's review of the > IBMPL. Note that RMS reviewed AFL 1.1 and the current release is 1.2, > but there is no reason to think he would have changed his mind. > > > 2. What notice should be placed in each individual source > >file? The entire AFL is quite long to put there... > > As the AFL's preamble says, just put the line: > > Licensed under the Academic Free License version 1.2 > > just after the copyright notice. > > -- > We call nothing profound[EMAIL PROTECTED] > that is not wittily expressed. John Cowan > --Northrop Frye (improved) http://www.reutershealth.com > -- > license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3 > -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
RE: Academic Free License questions
> > I looked at www.fsf.org and found nothing whatsoever about the AFL. > > What have I missed? > http://www.fsf.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses and scroll down a bit if necessary. Thanks for the link. It appears that RMS has spoken (albeit not to us) and I need to respond ;) Perhaps someone on the OSI board will respond concerning the "compatibility" of the AFL/OSL and the GPL. RMS is giving no reasons whatsoever. /Larry Rosen -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Academic Free License questions
Hi, This is probably a FAQ too, but regarding the mutual termination for patent action clause: Say I have a proprietary application and want to use someone's patent. Can I implement a small library containing only the patented code, license the library under the AFL, then use that library from my proprietary application, thus preventing the patent owner from filing a lawsuit against me? If the answer is no, is the answer clearly no to anyone reading the license, or could a reasonable lawyer worry about this issue? The reason I want to license code under an X-style license is to be sure no one avoids using the code for licensing reasons. i.e. to maximize usage of the code. Do people think the mutual termination clause runs counter to that goal? I like the idea of the AFL very much, including the mutual termination clause, but am concerned that the classic X license would get the rubber stamp much more quickly from many legal departments - if only because most of the relevant departments have already approved X, Apache, and so on. What's the conventional wisdom on this? Thanks, Havoc -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Academic Free License questions
Lawrence E. Rosen scripsit: > There is no reason I'm aware of why code licensed under the AFL can't be > incorporated into GPL-licensed works. Clause 6 of the GPL says: Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. But if such a work is also derived from AFL-licensed code, it *does* impose further restrictions: in particular, someone who is suing for patent infringement doesn't get to do the copyright-protected things with the program. So the AFL and GPL are incompatible. In RMS's writeup on the IBMPL, he implies that patent poison pills are not Bad Things, but they are incompatible. Looks like my library will have to be dual-licensed AFL+GPL. Annoying. > I looked at www.fsf.org and found nothing whatsoever about the AFL. > What have I missed? http://www.fsf.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses and scroll down a bit if necessary. -- One art / There is John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> No less / No more http://www.reutershealth.com All things / To do http://www.ccil.org/~cowan With sparks / Galore -- Douglas Hofstadter -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
RE: Academic Free License questions
> > 1. Is the AFL generally considered GPL-compatible as the X > license is? > >i.e. if I release a library under the AFL, can GPL > applications use > >it? Or would I need to dual license under GPL also? > > You would. RMS says the AFL and the GPL are not compatible; > he doesn't say exactly why, beyond noting that there is more > than one problem. The patent provision is the obvious > candidate, however, based on RMS's review of the IBMPL. Note > that RMS reviewed AFL 1.1 and the current release is 1.2, but > there is no reason to think he would have changed his mind. There is no reason I'm aware of why code licensed under the AFL can't be incorporated into GPL-licensed works. I looked at www.fsf.org and found nothing whatsoever about the AFL. What have I missed? /Larry Rosen -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Academic Free License questions
Havoc Pennington scripsit:
> 1. Is the AFL generally considered GPL-compatible as the X license is?
>i.e. if I release a library under the AFL, can GPL applications use
>it? Or would I need to dual license under GPL also?
You would. RMS says the AFL and the GPL are not compatible; he doesn't say
exactly why, beyond noting that there is more than one problem. The patent
provision is the obvious candidate, however, based on RMS's review of the
IBMPL. Note that RMS reviewed AFL 1.1 and the current release is 1.2,
but there is no reason to think he would have changed his mind.
> 2. What notice should be placed in each individual source
>file? The entire AFL is quite long to put there...
As the AFL's preamble says, just put the line:
Licensed under the Academic Free License version 1.2
just after the copyright notice.
--
We call nothing profound[EMAIL PROTECTED]
that is not wittily expressed. John Cowan
--Northrop Frye (improved) http://www.reutershealth.com
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Academic Free License questions
Hi, I'm sure these are FAQs but I have a couple of questions about using the AFL. 1. Is the AFL generally considered GPL-compatible as the X license is? i.e. if I release a library under the AFL, can GPL applications use it? Or would I need to dual license under GPL also? 2. What notice should be placed in each individual source file? The entire AFL is quite long to put there... the GPL comes with a suggestion for "how to apply this license to your code" Thanks for any help. Havoc -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: license name arrogance Re: Academic Free License
Bjorn Reese scripsit: > The only concern I have about the names is that Free and Open seems > to be switched. The OSL is based on reciprocity, which is usually > associated with Free Software, and the AFL is not, which is usually > associated with Open Source (especially when seen in the light of > RMS's rejection of Open Source.) Software licensed under non-reciprocal licenses is still free software. Software licensed under reciprocal licenses is still open-source software. The number of licenses where FSF and OSI disagree is very small, and the proportion of software covered by them is even smaller. -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.reutershealth.com "Mr. Lane, if you ever wish anything that I can do all you will have to do will be to send me a telegram asking and it will be done." "Mr. Hearst, if you ever get a telegram from me asking you to do anything you can put the telegram down as a forgery." -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: license name arrogance Re: Academic Free License
I agree with Reese's response to the original post about Larry. I think that post was particularly ill-mannered. Larry's intent was entirely misunderstood by the poster. The service that Larry is providing is generous, not "grandiose." He is drafting software license templates, which necessarily are not attached to specific projects. In addition, Larry is using names that are general and clear enough so that those who may benefit from the template are aided in their selection of the appropriate license template to use for adoption of their own license. Lastly, it should go without saying on this list, but I'll say so anyway; lawyers who do work in software licensing (many of whom are primarily lawyers specializing in Intellectual Property) do not come cheap, and their services are in high demand these days. Hence, it is actually an understatement to say that the services Larry is providing ought to be appreciated. Occasionally, I am taken aback to see what appears to be reflexive attacks on lawyers on this list. Rod Rod Dixon Visiting Assistant Professor of Law Rutgers University Law School - Camden [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cyberspaces: Words-Not-Deeds: http://www.cyberspaces.org/webzine/ - Original Message - > The other licenses were created for specific projects. The AFL and > OSL are not, so I think that it is perfectly fine to give them > generic names (and yes, they are superior in some way.) > > > OSI should encourage specific license names unless a > > license is a product of wide community consent. Just a > > suggestion. > > How can a license gain such consent prior to having a name, and > if it already had a well-known name would it be wise to change it? > > The only concern I have about the names is that Free and Open seems > to be switched. The OSL is based on reciprocity, which is usually > associated with Free Software, and the AFL is not, which is usually > associated with Open Source (especially when seen in the light of > RMS's rejection of Open Source.) > -- > 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 name arrogance Re: Academic Free License
Andy Tai wrote: > Now, Mr. Rosen prefers to name his licenses in a > grandiose fashion. "Academic Free License" and "Open > Software License." These give the impression that > such licenses are official or superior in some way, as > endorsed officially by the OSI. These licenses are > better named (for example) "Rosenlaw Academic Free > License" and "Rosenlaw Open Software License." The The other licenses were created for specific projects. The AFL and OSL are not, so I think that it is perfectly fine to give them generic names (and yes, they are superior in some way.) > OSI should encourage specific license names unless a > license is a product of wide community consent. Just a > suggestion. How can a license gain such consent prior to having a name, and if it already had a well-known name would it be wise to change it? The only concern I have about the names is that Free and Open seems to be switched. The OSL is based on reciprocity, which is usually associated with Free Software, and the AFL is not, which is usually associated with Open Source (especially when seen in the light of RMS's rejection of Open Source.) -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
license name arrogance Re: Academic Free License
Common Free Software/Open Source license names are generally specific or unofficially named. BSD and MIT licenses are named (customarily) from the school or project names. GPL is commonly referred to as such but RMS/GNU always insisted the official name is GNU GPL. Now, Mr. Rosen prefers to name his licenses in a grandiose fashion. "Academic Free License" and "Open Software License." These give the impression that such licenses are official or superior in some way, as endorsed officially by the OSI. These licenses are better named (for example) "Rosenlaw Academic Free License" and "Rosenlaw Open Software License." The OSI should encourage specific license names unless a license is a product of wide community consent. Just a suggestion. --- "Lawrence E. Rosen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have modified the Academic Free License to remove > the word > "sublicense" from the copyright grant. The new > version, numbered as > version 1.1, is now posted to > www.rosenlaw.com/afl.html. > > It is best for open source licenses not to be > sublicenseable > > I request the OSI board to approve that revised > version. > > /Larry Rosen > > -- > license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3 __ Do You Yahoo!? HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs http://www.hotjobs.com -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Academic Free License
Lawrence E. Rosen scripsit: > I request the OSI board to approve that revised version. Which it should promptly do. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan[EMAIL PROTECTED] To say that Bilbo's breath was taken away is no description at all. There are no words left to express his staggerment, since Men changed the language that they learned of elves in the days when all the world was wonderful. --The Hobbit -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Academic Free License
I have modified the Academic Free License to remove the word "sublicense" from the copyright grant. The new version, numbered as version 1.1, is now posted to www.rosenlaw.com/afl.html. It is best for open source licenses not to be sublicenseable I request the OSI board to approve that revised version. /Larry Rosen -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Academic Free License
> Just as a side note - not important enough IMHO to send to the list - > Larry, you hold the copyright whether or not you include a copyright > notice. In legalese, copyright 'arises', it is not claimed or granted. I believe the notice requirement was largely technical formalism in the sense that a work could have been pushed into the public domain, if the notice was missing. I am unaware of any past or present legal significance for "arise," "claim," or "grant" with regard to the previous notice requirement or the present notice practice. > The notice is no longer required under law, although it has definite > utility in informing others of *who* believes that they have the rights > to the work, as well as reminding people that the creation of derivative > works or copies are not permitted (or in your case Larry, not > encouraged, to reduce confusion surrounding multiple extant copies). > Perhaps it might serve the same utility to include a clause pointing to > the canonical copy? I fully acknowledge the concerns over the validity > of a copyright on a software license, but in all actuality, the only > real hurdle the courts tend to impose for most instances for > copyrightability is a modicum of expression. This very dicussion > surrounding the license would indicate to me that you are 'expressing' > yourself. > > Respectfully, > Ryan Ismert > Sure, regarding a run-of-the-mill software license (open source or otherwise), the text of the license is certainly "expressive," but the expressive quality does not tell us very much about the context I mentioned. The originality requirement of copyrightability is what I would consider a more determinative matter. Theoretically, the originality requirement imposes a low threshold upon the copyrightability analysis, but in practice courts vary widely on determining whether the originality requirement is met. I think the application of the originality requirement to license templates is not a simple matter, but probably would result in thin copyright protection, if any, for those works. Lawyers do not want to be too original in drafting legal instruments. A careful lawyer drafts licenses and contracts by using: legal terms-of-art, common phrases (expressed with a string of words that have ostensibly merged with the underlying ideas) (merger doctrine), and reliably interpreted clauses. In this light, the text created is likely to receive only thin protection under copyright. Rod Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.cyberspaces.org/dixon/ My papers on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) are available through the following url: http://papers.ssrn.com/author=240132 > > -Original Message- > > From: Lawrence E. Rosen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 11:37 PM > > To: 'Rod Dixon'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: RE: Academic Free License > > > > > > Hi Rod, > > > > Thanks as always for your cogent questions and comments. > > Well worthy of a reply > > > > > Larry, I like the simplicity of the AFL, but there are two > > > general issues I would like to raise as questions more than > > > an expression of an opinion. > > > > > 1) Why copyright the license > > > text? Assuming that the text of a license is copyrightable, > > > does the accompanying notice introduce confusion? Aside from > > > the well-intentioned insistence on the adoption of the "list > > > of conditions," for distribution of software with the AFL, is > > > it consistent with the objectives of open source to constrain > > > (withhold permission for) modifications of the license? I > > > have always puzzled over whether a suit for copyright > > > infringement of the license text accomplishes anything that a > > > software license does not accomplish in the context of open > > source??? > > > > I personally have no intention of ultimately holding > > copyright in that license. Perhaps an organization like > > Creative Commons, or an academic licensing organization, > > might accept copyright assignment from me of the Academic > > Free License (or an improved version of it). What I am > > concerned about is having multiple versions circulating > > around the web while we discuss and improve upon this draft. > > There is no effective means other than the copyright law to > > prevent people from circulating non-redlined modifications of > > my draft license that otherwise might become > > self-effectuating by a simple notice in software. So, which > > draft of the Academic Free License is currently the > > "offic
RE: Academic Free License
Just as a side note - not important enough IMHO to send to the list - Larry, you hold the copyright whether or not you include a copyright notice. In legalese, copyright 'arises', it is not claimed or granted. The notice is no longer required under law, although it has definite utility in informing others of *who* believes that they have the rights to the work, as well as reminding people that the creation of derivative works or copies are not permitted (or in your case Larry, not encouraged, to reduce confusion surrounding multiple extant copies). Perhaps it might serve the same utility to include a clause pointing to the canonical copy? I fully acknowledge the concerns over the validity of a copyright on a software license, but in all actuality, the only real hurdle the courts tend to impose for most instances for copyrightability is a modicum of expression. This very dicussion surrounding the license would indicate to me that you are 'expressing' yourself. Respectfully, Ryan Ismert > -Original Message- > From: Lawrence E. Rosen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 11:37 PM > To: 'Rod Dixon'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Academic Free License > > > Hi Rod, > > Thanks as always for your cogent questions and comments. > Well worthy of a reply > > > Larry, I like the simplicity of the AFL, but there are two > > general issues I would like to raise as questions more than > > an expression of an opinion. > > > 1) Why copyright the license > > text? Assuming that the text of a license is copyrightable, > > does the accompanying notice introduce confusion? Aside from > > the well-intentioned insistence on the adoption of the "list > > of conditions," for distribution of software with the AFL, is > > it consistent with the objectives of open source to constrain > > (withhold permission for) modifications of the license? I > > have always puzzled over whether a suit for copyright > > infringement of the license text accomplishes anything that a > > software license does not accomplish in the context of open > source??? > > I personally have no intention of ultimately holding > copyright in that license. Perhaps an organization like > Creative Commons, or an academic licensing organization, > might accept copyright assignment from me of the Academic > Free License (or an improved version of it). What I am > concerned about is having multiple versions circulating > around the web while we discuss and improve upon this draft. > There is no effective means other than the copyright law to > prevent people from circulating non-redlined modifications of > my draft license that otherwise might become > self-effectuating by a simple notice in software. So, which > draft of the Academic Free License is currently the > "official" one? "Mine!" under the authority of the Copyright Act. > > "Assuming that the text of a license is copyrightable" > You may well raise that important issue. Copyrightability is > a problem for any document that purports to both have utility > (and legal effects) and is expressive. Can a software > license be copyrighted? Can a set of rules for calculating > your income tax? Can a specification for software be > copyrighted if the only purpose of the document is to permit > implementation of that specification? Can a published > technical standard be copyrighted so as to prevent > implementers from modifying their programs? Can a standard > that is adopted as a statute by reference be copyrighted? > (See the important Veeck case.) Why don't we take these > questions to the cni-copyright list where attorneys can > debate this to their hearts' content? In the meantime, I > elected to claim copyright in the Academic Free License to > guarantee some semblance of version control while people > suggest improvements. > > > 2) The AFL seems to be targeted for those licensors who need > > an open source license from Original Licensor > > ->to>licensee, but not necessarily subsequent > > end-users. Is this correct or, does the 2 "list of > > conditions" clauses ostensibly impose a copyleft constraint? > > The Academic Free License is not intended to impose copyleft. > I make no political statement here. I would personally > probably prefer a license that imposed source code > reciprocity for all derivative works. What I was trying to > do in the Academic Free License was merely to clean up some > problems I perceived to exist in the BSD, MIT, UoI/NCSA and > Apache licenses. > > Under the AFL, Software
Re: Academic Free License
To OSI License Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> subscribers, > From: Lawrence E. Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > I am submitting the accompanying Academic Free License for your review > and for OSI approval. The online copy of the license is at > http://www.rosenlaw.com/afl.html. I have read the Academic Free License v1.0 and have concluded that it meets the requirements for OSI certification. I also agree with the author's stated reasons regarding why this license as opposed to other existing all-permissive licenses. At a time when open source is becoming more common and more academic and commercial ventures are involving such, having properly structured licenses is essential to ensuring that open software stays open. Cheers, Nathan. Nathan "Phyax" Kelley email | [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] icq | 4618849 yahoo | phyax -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
RE: Academic Free License
Thanks Larry, in light of your responses, I think the AFL achieves the goals you set out to accomplish. - Rod On Tue, 25 Jun 2002, Lawrence E. Rosen wrote: > Hi Rod, > > Thanks as always for your cogent questions and comments. Well worthy of > a reply > > > Larry, I like the simplicity of the AFL, but there are two > > general issues I would like to raise as questions more than > > an expression of an opinion. > > > 1) Why copyright the license > > text? Assuming that the text of a license is copyrightable, > > does the accompanying notice introduce confusion? Aside from > > the well-intentioned insistence on the adoption of the "list > > of conditions," for distribution of software with the AFL, is > > it consistent with the objectives of open source to constrain > > (withhold permission for) modifications of the license? I > > have always puzzled over whether a suit for copyright > > infringement of the license text accomplishes anything that a > > software license does not accomplish in the context of open source??? > > I personally have no intention of ultimately holding copyright in that > license. Perhaps an organization like Creative Commons, or an academic > licensing organization, might accept copyright assignment from me of the > Academic Free License (or an improved version of it). What I am > concerned about is having multiple versions circulating around the web > while we discuss and improve upon this draft. There is no effective > means other than the copyright law to prevent people from circulating > non-redlined modifications of my draft license that otherwise might > become self-effectuating by a simple notice in software. So, which > draft of the Academic Free License is currently the "official" one? > "Mine!" under the authority of the Copyright Act. > > "Assuming that the text of a license is copyrightable" You may well > raise that important issue. Copyrightability is a problem for any > document that purports to both have utility (and legal effects) and is > expressive. Can a software license be copyrighted? Can a set of rules > for calculating your income tax? Can a specification for software be > copyrighted if the only purpose of the document is to permit > implementation of that specification? Can a published technical > standard be copyrighted so as to prevent implementers from modifying > their programs? Can a standard that is adopted as a statute by > reference be copyrighted? (See the important Veeck case.) Why don't we > take these questions to the cni-copyright list where attorneys can > debate this to their hearts' content? In the meantime, I elected to > claim copyright in the Academic Free License to guarantee some semblance > of version control while people suggest improvements. > > > 2) The AFL seems to be targeted for those licensors who need > > an open source license from Original Licensor > > ->to>licensee, but not necessarily subsequent > > end-users. Is this correct or, does the 2 "list of > > conditions" clauses ostensibly impose a copyleft constraint? > > The Academic Free License is not intended to impose copyleft. I make no > political statement here. I would personally probably prefer a license > that imposed source code reciprocity for all derivative works. What I > was trying to do in the Academic Free License was merely to clean up > some problems I perceived to exist in the BSD, MIT, UoI/NCSA and Apache > licenses. > > Under the AFL, Software is fully licensed for the creation of derivative > works that may be either proprietary or open source. The original > copyright notices in the Software must be displayed on all copies and > derivative works. Other than that, there is no requirement to publish > source code of derivative works (or of copies). > > The license is intended to be available directly from the licensor to > anyone who obtains a copy of the Software. A sublicense is not > required. > > /Larry Rosen > > -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
RE: Academic Free License
Dave Woolley wrote: > The requirement to include the whole disclaimer, and the > fact that the dsclaimer seems to relate to the sub-licensor, > rather than the original licensor, seems to prevent a > business model in which the sub-licensor sells warranty services. > > That would seem to rule out the most typical cases of the > inclusion of BSD licensed software in commercial products. > > My understanding is that the disclaimer is normally trying to > protect the original licensor. Dave, thanks for your input. The goal is not to require any sublicensing. All persons who obtain a copy of the Software receive a license directly from the Licensor. The disclaimer is the original Licensor's disclaimer. There are otherwise no restrictions in the license to prevent anyone from offering additional warranty terms for the original Software or for any proprietary or open source derivative works made therefrom. /Larry > -Original Message- > From: Dave J Woolley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 3:21 AM > To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > Subject: RE: Academic Free License > ---DISCLAIMER--- > This e-mail is confidential and intended solely for the use of the > individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions presented > are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those > of the company. If you are not the intended recipient, be > advised that > you have received this e-mail in error and that any use, > dissemination, > forwarding, printing or copying of this e-mail is strictly > prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error please > contact the sender. > > -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Academic Free License
John Cowan wrote: >Rod Dixon scripsit: > > > >>Why copyright the license text? >> >> > >IANL (I Am Not Larry), but it seems to me that the main reason for >copyrighting the GNU GPL, for example, > Nice. Now, next time my client re-uses a contract drafted by me without my permission, I can sue him for copyright violation. Well.. Regards, Mahesh T Pai _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Academic Free License
Rod Dixon scripsit:
> Why copyright the license text?
IANL (I Am Not Larry), but it seems to me that the main reason for
copyrighting the GNU GPL, for example, is to prevent the creation of
variant GNU GPLs that would inevitably confuse people. Right now, if
an experienced user sees the familiar "The GNU General Public License (GPL)
Version 2, June 1991" at the top of a license, he need read no further.
Of course, it would be possible to create a faux GNU GPL that was
infringing only de minimis, but copyright protection insures that
a *subtly* different GNU GPL cannot exist.
> 2) The AFL seems to be targeted for those licensors who need an open source
> license from Original Licensor ->to>licensee, but not necessarily
> subsequent end-users.
Yes, the AFL looks to me like a BSD-ish "copycenter" license.
("Take it down to the copy center and do whatever you like with the results.")
--
John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.reutershealth.com
I amar prestar aen, han mathon ne nen,http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
han mathon ne chae, a han noston ne 'wilith. --Galadriel, _LOTR:FOTR_
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Academic Free License
I am submitting the accompanying Academic Free License for your review and for OSI approval. The online copy of the license is at http://www.rosenlaw.com/afl.html. The text version is below. The Academic Free License (AFL) is similar to the BSD, MIT, UoI/NCSA and Apache licenses in many respects but it is intended to solve a few problems with those licenses. * The AFL is written so as to make it clear what software is being licensed (by the inclusion of a statement following the copyright notice in the software). This way, the license functions better than a template license. The BSD, MIT and UoI/NCSA licenses apply to unidentified software. * The AFL contains a complete copyright grant to the software. The BSD and Apache licenses are vague and incomplete in that respect. * The AFL contains a complete patent grant to the software. The BSD, MIT, UoI/NCSA and Apache licenses rely on an implied patent license and contain no explicit patent grant. * The AFL makes it clear that no trademark rights are granted to the licensor's trademarks. The Apache license contains such a provision, but the BSD, MIT and UoI/NCSA licenses do not. * The AFL includes the warranty by the licensor that it either owns the copyright or that it is distributing the software under a license. None of the other licenses contain that warranty. All other warranties are disclaimed, as is the case for the other licenses. (My article for an upcoming issue of Linux Journal, explaining why I included that warranty, is attached in PDF format to this email.) * The AFL is itself copyrighted (with the right granted to copy and distribute without modification). This ensures that the owner of the copyright to the license will control changes. The Apache license contains a copyright notice, but the BSD, MIT and UoI/NCSA licenses do not. /Larry Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] 707-485-1242 fax: 707-485-1243 The text version of the AFL appears below: *** Academic Free License Version 1.0 dated 6/24/2002 This Academic Free License applies to any software and associated documentation (the "Software") whose owner (the "Licensor") has placed the statement "Licensed under the Academic Free License" immediately after the copyright notice that applies to the Software. Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of the Software (1) to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, perform, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, and (2) under patent claims owned or controlled by the Licensor that are embodied in the Software as furnished by the Licensor, to make, use, sell and offer for sale the Software and derivative works thereof, subject to the following conditions: . Redistributions of the Software in source code form must retain all copyright notices in the Software as furnished by the Licensor, this list of conditions, and the following disclaimers. . Redistributions of the Software in executable form must reproduce all copyright notices in the Software as furnished by the Licensor, this list of conditions, and the following disclaimers in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. . Neither the names of Licensor, nor the names of any contributors to the Software, nor any of their trademarks or service marks, may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this Software without express prior written permission of the Licensor. DISCLAIMERS: LICENSOR WARRANTS THAT THE COPYRIGHT IN AND TO THE SOFTWARE IS OWNED BY THE LICENSOR OR THAT THE SOFTWARE IS DISTRIBUTED BY LICENSOR UNDER A VALID CURRENT LICENSE. EXCEPT AS EXPRESSLY STATED IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING SENTENCE, THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE LICENSOR, CONTRIBUTORS AND COPYRIGHT OWNERS "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NON-INFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE LICENSOR, CONTRIBUTORS OR COPYRIGHT OWNERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE. This license is Copyright (C) 2002 Lawrence E. Rosen. All rights reserved. Permission is hereby granted to copy and distribute this license without modification. This license may not be modified without the express written permission of its copyright owner. Geek Law #14.pdf Description: Adobe PDF document
