Re: Discuss: BSD Protection License
On Wednesday 13 March 2002 7:05 pm, John Cowan wrote: > phil hunt scripsit: > > I also notice your word "taint" used to describe the GPL. Here, you > > seem to be implying that you dislike the most popular open source > > license, and by implication, people who choose to write software under > > this license; thus it seems to me therefore that you dislike a large > > part of the OS/FS community. > > Non sequitur. > > Colin does not wish to release *his* software under the GPL, That is fine, I have no complaint with that. > as is his > right. He expresses no view about the use of the GPL by others, Not directly, but he clearly implies that he doesn't have a very high opinion of it. > still > less about the others in question. Ditto. > It's one thing to defend the GPL against people who would breach it. > It's another to "defend" it against people who wish to use something > else. I have no problems with people who wish to use any open source license. What I do have problems with is people who deliberately set out to Balkanise the community by introducing a new license for the purpose of being deliberately incompatible with another widely-used open source license. It doesn't matter that it is the GPL. I would equally be against anyone who sought to introduce an anti-BSD license or and anti-MPL license or and anti-LGPL license. -- <"><"><"> Philip Hunt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <"><"><"> "I would guess that he really believes whatever is politically advantageous for him to believe." -- Alison Brooks, referring to Michael Portillo, on soc.history.what-if -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Discuss: BSD Protection License
On Wednesday 13 March 2002 7:55 pm, Colin Percival wrote: > To save time, can we just agree that I have absolutely > horrible motives, that I'm a Microsoft plant, and that I'm > reporting to the Illuminati, and get back to discussing the > license? You are not interested in defending your motives; others must make of that what they will. -- <"><"><"> Philip Hunt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <"><"><"> "I would guess that he really believes whatever is politically advantageous for him to believe." -- Alison Brooks, referring to Michael Portillo, on soc.history.what-if -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Discuss: BSD Protection License
> To save time, can we just agree that I have absolutely > horrible motives, that I'm a Microsoft plant, and that I'm > reporting to the Illuminati, and get back to discussing the > license? Well, if you had submitted the license without the manifesto attached, people would have considered the license rather than the manifesto. It seems to be your own fault. It looks to me as if 4(c) of the license fails OSD #7 because an open-to-closed transition is _required_ by the license, rather than by the license of the derivative work. If such a transition were to be optional, it might pass, depending on the language you use, but you would be effectively back to the BSD license. Thanks Bruce -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Discuss: BSD Protection License
Quoting Colin Percival ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > To save time, can we just agree that I have absolutely horrible > motives, that I'm a Microsoft plant, and that I'm reporting to the > Illuminati, and get back to discussing the license? Well said. I thought the second-guessing of your motives was both disreputable and (as you suggest) irrelevant to the subject at hand. -- Hi! I'm a .signature virus! Copy me into your ~/.signature to help me spread. Hi!p I'm a .signature spread virus! Copy into your ~/.signature to help me Hilp I'm .sign turepread virus! into your ~/.signature! help me! Copy Help I'm traped in your ~/signature help me! -- Joe Slater -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Discuss: BSD Protection License
To save time, can we just agree that I have absolutely horrible motives, that I'm a Microsoft plant, and that I'm reporting to the Illuminati, and get back to discussing the license? Colin Percival -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Discuss: BSD Protection License
Rick Moen scripsit: > Here, I'm quite certain you're confusing me with another poster. Sorry, yes I was. Too much email, too little time -- 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
Re: Discuss: BSD Protection License
Quoting John Cowan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > With respect (and as a master digressor myself), I think you went beyond > digressing and over to attacking Colin's motives. Here, I'm quite certain you're confusing me with another poster. -- Cheers, We write preciselyWe say exactly Rick Moen Since such is our habit inHow to do a thing or how [EMAIL PROTECTED] Talking to machines; Every detail works. Excerpt from Prof. Touretzky's decss-haiku.txt @ http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/ -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Discuss: BSD Protection License
Rick Moen scripsit: > I'm fully aware of having digressed, and hope to be forgiven, some day. With respect (and as a master digressor myself), I think you went beyond digressing and over to attacking Colin's motives. -- 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
Re: Discuss: BSD Protection License
phil hunt scripsit: > I also notice your word "taint" used to describe the GPL. Here, you > seem to be implying that you dislike the most popular open source license, > and by implication, people who choose to write software under this > license; thus it seems to me therefore that you dislike a large part of > the OS/FS community. Non sequitur. Colin does not wish to release *his* software under the GPL, as is his right. He expresses no view about the use of the GPL by others, still less about the others in question. It's one thing to defend the GPL against people who would breach it. It's another to "defend" it against people who wish to use something else. -- 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
Re: Discuss: BSD Protection License
Quoting John Cowan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > The point of this discussion is not to determine whether this license > is a Good Thing. Its author has declared a desire to release software > under the license; what we need to do is to determine whether there is > any reason why such software cannot be called Open Source according to > the laws and customs of the Medes and the Persians. I'm fully aware of having digressed, and hope to be forgiven, some day. -- Cheers, "Transported to a surreal landscape, a young girl kills the first Rick Moen woman she meets, and then teams up with three complete strangers [EMAIL PROTECTED] to kill again." -- Rick Polito's That TV Guy column, describing the movie _The Wizard of Oz_ -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Discuss: BSD Protection License
Rick Moen scripsit: > What you've written is, at best, a solution in search of a problem. > (My view; yours for a small royalty fee and disclaimer of > reverse-engineering rights.) The point of this discussion is not to determine whether this license is a Good Thing. Its author has declared a desire to release software under the license; what we need to do is to determine whether there is any reason why such software cannot be called Open Source according to the laws and customs of the Medes and the Persians. -- 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
Re: Discuss: BSD Protection License
On Wednesday 13 March 2002 1:55 pm, Colin Percival wrote: > At 14:04 13/03/2002 +, phil hunt wrote: > >I agree. The entire intent behind this license is to be > >deliberately incompatible with the most commonly used open > >source license. > >No, it isn't. The intent is to ensure that a "free for both open and > closed source use" body of code can't be turned into a "free for open > source use only" body of code. Yes, and you're doing that by deliberate GPL-incompatibility. > I mention "GPL-taint" because the GPL is > the most common example of an (from my point of view) overly restrictive > license. So, you admit that it is deliberately incompatible with the GPL. Do you also admit (as can be easily demonstrated by looking at Freshmeat) that the GPL is the most popular open source license? Because, IMO, you must either admit that I am right, or deny something that is blatently obvious. I also notice your word "taint" used to describe the GPL. Here, you seem to be implying that you dislike the most popular open source license, and by implication, people who choose to write software under this license; thus it seems to me therefore that you dislike a large part of the OS/FS community. >There is a tradition that once a project has adopted a given license > (eg, the BSD operating systems and the BSD license), further work is > incorporated under the same license. Indeed so. > This merely formalizes that. That is not true. -- <"><"><"> Philip Hunt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <"><"><"> "I would guess that he really believes whatever is politically advantageous for him to believe." -- Alison Brooks, referring to Michael Portillo, on soc.history.what-if -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Discuss: BSD Protection License
Quoting Colin Percival ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > As I said, there is a *tradition*. Traditions aren't always followed, > and the last thing I want is for a project to fork into two incompatible > versions based on their licenses. If you have mindshare, then the existence of other people's forks based on anything is not a threat. If you don't have mindshare, then maybe you're Darren Reed. ;-> Like Darren, you're trying to control forking potential by adding restrictions. But that will (I predict) prevent gaining and holding mindshare, and thus auto-ghettoising. Success would of course prove me wrong. None of the above has much to do with OSD-compliance, so I'll stop now. -- Cheers, "Open your present" Rick Moen"No, you open your present" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Kaczinski Christmas. -- Unabomber Haiku Contest, CyberLaw mailing list -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Discuss: BSD Protection License
At 06:36 13/03/2002 -0800, Rick Moen wrote: >Quoting Colin Percival ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > > There is a tradition that once a project has adopted a given license > > (eg, the BSD operating systems and the BSD license), further work is > > incorporated under the same license. This merely formalizes that. > >You don't _need_ special licence terms to accomplish that. As I said, there is a *tradition*. Traditions aren't always followed, and the last thing I want is for a project to fork into two incompatible versions based on their licenses. Thus my distinction between closed-source and open-source derivatives -- a closed-source derivative does not pose a danger, because it won't attract "open source coders". Incidentally, I see nothing wrong with BSDPL code being incorporated into works distributed under other licenses, as long as the BSDPL is replaced with a notice to the effect of "don't make changes here, contribute them back to the original project instead" -- this would fall under section 3, "modification and redistribution under closed license". (Hmm. I might need to rewrite things to clarify that.) Colin Percival -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Discuss: BSD Protection License
Quoting Colin Percival ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > There is a tradition that once a project has adopted a given license > (eg, the BSD operating systems and the BSD license), further work is > incorporated under the same license. This merely formalizes that. I may regret getting suckered into this discussion, but: You don't _need_ special licence terms to accomplish that. All you need to do is accept only patches and modules contributed under your preferred licence. If you don't like code that's under some other licence, take it out and replace it. That is what the OpenBSD Foundation did with their OpenSSH fork of Ylönen's SSH 1.2.12 (following Björn Grönvall's example with ossh). Send them a GPLed patch and they'll say "Thanks, no." Start maintaining a fork of their codebase with GPLed additions of your own, and they'll ignore it. And everyone's happy. The (perceived) problem is headed off by a consistent "Well, don't do that, then" policy. What you've written is, at best, a solution in search of a problem. (My view; yours for a small royalty fee and disclaimer of reverse-engineering rights.) -- Cheers, Rick Moen Never ask a sysadmin "What's up?" [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Discuss: BSD Protection License
> No, it isn't. The intent is to ensure that a "free for both open and >closed source use" body of code can't be turned into a "free for open >source use only" body of code. I mention "GPL-taint" because the GPL is >the most common example of an (from my point of view) overly restrictive >license. Yes indeed GPL is overly restrictive. Free software under GPL is important because among other things it enforces free competition but... read carefully what the following practices mean: >No. All the software we develop is open source / free >software. The core MySQL[tm] server is under GPL. Some other >modules are under LGPL or some other open source licence. We >DO SELL COMMERCIAL LICENCES OF our own OPEN SOURCE software, >but that does not limit the availability of the same code >under open source. Well it really does not limit the availability under GPL but one single commercial licence introduces unfaircompetition - those under GPL are discriminized compared with those under commercial licence > Handling copyright in this way also allows us to sell commercial >licences to those who do not wish to be bound by the GPL >licence terms, and when doing so, we can afford to hire more >developers. Sure enough but all this is at cost of users under GPL I find this practice to be a worm of lust in free software movement Would not it be fair in case at least one commercial licence comes out to immediatelly and automatically switch from GPL to LGPL -- De Bug mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Discuss: BSD Protection License
At 14:04 13/03/2002 +, phil hunt wrote: >I agree. The entire intent behind this license is to be >deliberately incompatible with the most commonly used open >source license. No, it isn't. The intent is to ensure that a "free for both open and closed source use" body of code can't be turned into a "free for open source use only" body of code. I mention "GPL-taint" because the GPL is the most common example of an (from my point of view) overly restrictive license. There is a tradition that once a project has adopted a given license (eg, the BSD operating systems and the BSD license), further work is incorporated under the same license. This merely formalizes that. Colin Percival -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Discuss: BSD Protection License
On Tuesday 12 March 2002 8:14 pm, Andy Tai wrote: > > The only point in this license seems to be the GPL > incompatibility. And you then blame the GPL? If the > GPL is "guilty" of anything, then you are "guilty" of > the same. > > So this license creates "walls" in open source code > and divides the community, on purpose. Maybe this > license should be discouraged just for this. I agree. The entire intent behind this license is to be deliberately incompatible with the most commonly used open source license. IMO this calls into question whether the proponent is acting in good faith. -- <"><"><"> Philip Hunt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <"><"><"> "I would guess that he really believes whatever is politically advantageous for him to believe." -- Alison Brooks, referring to Michael Portillo, on soc.history.what-if -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Discuss: BSD Protection License
--- Colin Percival <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 20:07 11/03/2002 -0800, Andy Tai wrote: > >While this license probably is open source, it is > >misnamed (by using the term "BSD" in its name > >Of course this isn't a BSD license; if I wanted a > BSD license, I'd be using the BSD license. Then please don't use "BSD" in the license name. It confuses people. >I maintain, however, that it incorporates the > spirit > of BSD Except with restrictions. That goes against the BSD spirit. The only point in this license seems to be the GPL incompatibility. And you then blame the GPL? If the GPL is "guilty" of anything, then you are "guilty" of the same. So this license creates "walls" in open source code and divides the community, on purpose. Maybe this license should be discouraged just for this. >The fault, IMHO, for this license being > incompatible > with the GPL lies entirely with the GPL, > Colin Percival > > -- > license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3 __ Do You Yahoo!? Try FREE Yahoo! Mail - the world's greatest free email! http://mail.yahoo.com/ -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Discuss: BSD Protection License
On Tuesday 12 March 2002 3:53 pm, Colin Percival wrote: > At 15:37 12/03/2002 +, phil hunt wrote: > >OSD, para 1: The license shall not restrict any party from > >selling or giving away the software [...] > > > >License, 3 (c): The license under which the derivative work > >is distributed must expressly prohibit the distribution of > >further derivative works. > > > >This restricts people from selling or giving away the software, > >because it imposes a restrictive term on how they can give it > >away. > >2. Verbatim copies. >You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program as you > receive it... Good point. It appears I was wrong here. >There are no restrictions on how licensed code can be copied > or distributed; the only restrictions are on how derivative works > are distributed. > >It seems as though there might be some confusion (see David > Johnson's earlier note on this) resulting from the juxtaposition > of sections 2,3, and 4, each of which states that "You may...". > I don't personally see any problem here -- section 2 grants you > some rights, section 3 grants you some rights, section 4 grants > you some rights -- but would people be happier if I explicitly > pointed out that the three sections cover different actions, > and obviously the restrictions attached to each section only > apply to that section? Yes. If the current wording is confusing, it is obviously better to word it in a way people don't find ambiguous. -- <"><"><"> Philip Hunt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <"><"><"> "I would guess that he really believes whatever is politically advantageous for him to believe." -- Alison Brooks, referring to Michael Portillo, on soc.history.what-if -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Discuss: BSD Protection License
> I didn't define "Definitions", either. > I have no legal training, No legal training required for discussion here. And according to Larry, if you have legal training, there is some discussion you should not be doing here. :-) > but I thought it would be clear that > "Modification and redistribution under open license" and "... under > closed license" were simply section headings. Hmmm. Not clear to me. They are worded as selection criteria, in which case the selector must know the definitions. (Someone else also pointed out that the election could be made more clear. I still think it should just be a disjointed license.) Since Clause 3a and 4a are identical. 3b and 4b are similar, Did you consider rewriting so that 3a and 3b/4b are always required, and then have a "must do one of the following" clauses? (BTW, 4b is kind of confusing. The "full details" of a modification ARE the modification. Did you mean "full description"?) >Err, which wording did you want to see adjusted? The GPL 2(b) is in context. The GPL is very carefully worded and concise which indicates to me that the GPL paragraphs after 2(c) are required in the license itself to influence the interpretation of the clauses in that section. The BSDPL does not have the same explanatory text, and 4c is in a slightly different context than GPL 2c. As I said, I understand from the preamble what you meant. But the preamble is not the license. The unintended interpretation of 4c will taint works reasonably considered independent. Here's a test. If I distribute source for software under BSDPL terms that consists of two source files, one BSDPL, and one that was originally under the MIT license. Can the recipient distribute the works separately, and use the MIT license for the second? The GPL is clear and allows it. The BSDPL is not clear. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Discuss: BSD Protection License
At 11:19 12/03/2002 -0500, Forrest J. Cavalier III wrote: >2. Except possibly for the copyleft clause 4c, the license >fails to state that the terms apply to everyone receiving >a copy of the software. Is this a problem? I rather assumed that such a statement would be included in the copyright notice on the software -- eg, 'Copyright 2002 by Foo Bar. Permission is granted to distribute this work under the terms of the license found in the adjoining file "LICENSE".' >1. There is no definition of the terms "open license" and "closed >license." (If those terms are not useful in selecting either >clause 3 or 4, then they should not be in the wording.) I didn't define "Definitions", either. I have no legal training, but I thought it would be clear that "Modification and redistribution under open license" and "... under closed license" were simply section headings. >2. I think as worded, you must make the election of Clause 3 or 4 >as an organization, not on a work-by-work basis. Hmm, I'll agree that the wording is a bit unclear there. Since the individual clauses always refer to "the derivative work", would it be sufficient to change "and distribute the resulting derivative works" to "and distribute a resulting derivative work"? >3. When read a certain way, the wording of the copyleft clause 4c >is even more "tainting" than the GPL copyleft (ref GPL section 2). >Such an interpretation of clause 4c doesn't seem to be in the >spirit of the preamble, so I expect the wording can be adjusted >to clarify. BSDPL, clause 4(c): You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License. GPL, clause 2(b): You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License. Err, which wording did you want to see adjusted? Colin Percival -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Discuss: BSD Protection License
OSD-related issues that I see 1. Someone already pointed out the OSD #1 issue. If the license doesn't explicitly permit selling copies, then copyright law reserves the right to the author. 2. Except possibly for the copyleft clause 4c, the license fails to state that the terms apply to everyone receiving a copy of the software. The OSD could word it better, but the license terms must "attach" to the program being distributed. Is there any OSI approved license which relies on a chain of licensees? Look at how OSI-approved licenses are worded and compare. They are grants and attached licenses. (Sometimes you have to read the definition of "you" or "recipient".) The BSD Protection license defines "you" in a way that has a self-reference. There is no way to become a "you" unless you are a licensee, and there is no way to be a licensee unless you get it from Clause 4c. 3. The distribution term of clause 3c is obviously in conflict with the OSD. That clause should not be approved. The OSI approval process has rightly taken a dim view to license clauses which are OSD conflicts, even when there is an alternative clause. The BSD Protection License is two different licenses. If rewritten in the standard way of disjoint licenses, then the version with Clause 4 terms would seem pretty close to OSD compliant to me. - I think the ideas behind this license are somewhat novel. But the wordings leave me a lot of questions. 1. There is no definition of the terms "open license" and "closed license." (If those terms are not useful in selecting either clause 3 or 4, then they should not be in the wording.) 2. I think as worded, you must make the election of Clause 3 or 4 as an organization, not on a work-by-work basis. For example, suppose I distribute two separate derivative works, and I choose the clause 3 for the first work. Later, I make a separate work and choose clause 4. I think that clause 4c says that I cannot continue distributing the other work under the terms of clause 3. 3. When read a certain way, the wording of the copyleft clause 4c is even more "tainting" than the GPL copyleft (ref GPL section 2). Such an interpretation of clause 4c doesn't seem to be in the spirit of the preamble, so I expect the wording can be adjusted to clarify. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Discuss: BSD Protection License
Colin Percival scripsit: > I don't personally see any problem here -- section 2 grants you > some rights, section 3 grants you some rights, section 4 grants > you some rights -- but would people be happier if I explicitly > pointed out that the three sections cover different actions, > and obviously the restrictions attached to each section only > apply to that section? Not only would we be happier, a court who has to construe the license would definitely be happier. -- 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
Re: Discuss: BSD Protection License
At 20:07 11/03/2002 -0800, Andy Tai wrote: >While this license probably is open source, it is >misnamed (by using the term "BSD" in its name). It is >not a BSD license because it does NOT always "permit >improvements to be used wherever they will help, >without idealogical or metallic constraint." For >example, it does not allow the use of such code in >GPLed software. Of course this isn't a BSD license; if I wanted a BSD license, I'd be using the BSD license. I maintain, however, that it incorporates the spirit of BSD: That it permits both infinite chains of derivative works, and that it permits closed-source derivatives. The fault, IMHO, for this license being incompatible with the GPL lies entirely with the GPL, since this license is entirely more liberal than the GPL. Indeed, take the GPL, remove some of the fluff (stuff about patents, etc.), and add a clause permitting closed-source derivative works, and you get this license. Colin Percival -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Discuss: BSD Protection License
phil hunt scripsit: > My reading of the license and the OSD suggests to me that it > isn't. > > OSD, para 1: The license shall not restrict any party from > selling or giving away the software [...] > > License, 3 (c): The license under which the derivative work > is distributed must expressly prohibit the distribution of > further derivative works. > > This restricts people from selling or giving away the software, > because it imposes a restrictive term on how they can give it > away. No, 3 (c) applies only to derivative works, not to the software released under the license. -- 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
Re: Discuss: BSD Protection License
At 15:56 12/03/2002 +, phil hunt wrote: >On Tuesday 12 March 2002 1:16 am, Colin Percival wrote: > >To start with, the LGPL only applies to libraries. > >That's not true, you can license any code with it. Allow me to rephrase: The LGPL is intended for application to libraries. (And defines "the Library" to mean any licensed code.) Colin Percival -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Discuss: BSD Protection License
At 15:37 12/03/2002 +, phil hunt wrote: >OSD, para 1: The license shall not restrict any party from >selling or giving away the software [...] > >License, 3 (c): The license under which the derivative work >is distributed must expressly prohibit the distribution of >further derivative works. > >This restricts people from selling or giving away the software, >because it imposes a restrictive term on how they can give it >away. 2. Verbatim copies. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program as you receive it... There are no restrictions on how licensed code can be copied or distributed; the only restrictions are on how derivative works are distributed. It seems as though there might be some confusion (see David Johnson's earlier note on this) resulting from the juxtaposition of sections 2,3, and 4, each of which states that "You may...". I don't personally see any problem here -- section 2 grants you some rights, section 3 grants you some rights, section 4 grants you some rights -- but would people be happier if I explicitly pointed out that the three sections cover different actions, and obviously the restrictions attached to each section only apply to that section? Colin Percival -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Discuss: BSD Protection License
On Tuesday 12 March 2002 1:16 am, Colin Percival wrote: > At 11 Mar 2002 20:57:24 -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] resent my email to this > > mailing list and added the line: > >[ Please discuss this license. Is he reinventing the LGPL? ] > >No, I'm not. > >To start with, the LGPL only applies to libraries. That's not true, you can license any code with it. -- <"><"><"> Philip Hunt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <"><"><"> "I would guess that he really believes whatever is politically advantageous for him to believe." -- Alison Brooks, referring to Michael Portillo, on soc.history.what-if -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Discuss: BSD Protection License
On Tuesday 12 March 2002 4:07 am, Andy Tai wrote: > While this license probably is open source, My reading of the license and the OSD suggests to me that it isn't. OSD, para 1: The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software [...] License, 3 (c): The license under which the derivative work is distributed must expressly prohibit the distribution of further derivative works. This restricts people from selling or giving away the software, because it imposes a restrictive term on how they can give it away. > (One could even say this license is not open source > because it discriminates against people doing GPL > development, but this argument may not be very > strong.) You could equally argue that the GPL discriminates against people writing proprietary software. That clause isn't intended to be read that way. -- <"><"><"> Philip Hunt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <"><"><"> "I would guess that he really believes whatever is politically advantageous for him to believe." -- Alison Brooks, referring to Michael Portillo, on soc.history.what-if -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Discuss: BSD Protection License
While this license probably is open source, it is misnamed (by using the term "BSD" in its name). It is not a BSD license because it does NOT always "permit improvements to be used wherever they will help, without idealogical or metallic constraint." For example, it does not allow the use of such code in GPLed software. The spirit of BSD is to allow the code to be used by anyone, for virtually any purpose. For example, Bill Gates can use the code in proprietary software, and Linus Torvalds can use the code in GPLed software. This BSD Protection license carries extra constraints that limit the freedom of other people to use such code. It is not BSD, although Craig Mundie would love it. "Anti-GPL" is not the spirit of BSD. (One could even say this license is not open source because it discriminates against people doing GPL development, but this argument may not be very strong.) --- Colin Percival <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [ Please discuss this license. Is he reinventing > the LGPL? ] > >I submit for your consideration the "BSD > Protection License", as found > at > http://web.comlab.ox.ac.uk/oucl/work/colin.percival/source/BSDPL.html >(A plaintext version can be found by s/html/txt/ > on the URL.) > >Feel free to redistribute this as relevant (eg to > license-discuss); I > have no desire to remain anonymous (and the URL > would identify me anyway). > >The included preamble should clarify the purpose > of this license, but to > summarize briefly, this license has a GPL flavour > and a BSD spirit, and > exists in order to allow closed source use of > licensed code, while > "protecting" the code from having that freedom > removed. > > Colin Percival > > -- > license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3 __ Do You Yahoo!? Try FREE Yahoo! Mail - the world's greatest free email! http://mail.yahoo.com/ -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Discuss: BSD Protection License
On Monday 11 March 2002 10:38 am, Colin Percival wrote: > [ Please discuss this license. Is he reinventing the LGPL? ] > >I submit for your consideration the "BSD Protection License", as found > at http://web.comlab.ox.ac.uk/oucl/work/colin.percival/source/BSDPL.html >(A plaintext version can be found by s/html/txt/ on the URL.) > >Feel free to redistribute this as relevant (eg to license-discuss); I > have no desire to remain anonymous (and the URL would identify me anyway). > >The included preamble should clarify the purpose of this license, but to > summarize briefly, this license has a GPL flavour and a BSD spirit, and > exists in order to allow closed source use of licensed code, while > "protecting" the code from having that freedom removed. The juxtoposition of sections 3 and 4 is somewhat interesting. It's like a dual license, with the recipient choosing the set of terms they wish. But I would make sure that this point is clarified. This license can easily, even commonly, be interpreted as null and void since section 3 and 4 contradict each other, with no explicit explanation that one chooses one section or another. It's not a reinvention of the LGPL. It achieves many of the same goals, but does so through a completely different mechanism. I would, however, change the name. It would be all too easy to confuse the name with another well known license. It also detours considerably from the BSD spirit. -- David Johnson ___ http://www.usermode.org pgp public key on website -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Discuss: BSD Protection License
Colin Percival scripsit: > > [ Please discuss this license. Is he reinventing the LGPL? ] By no means. It seems to me a very innovative license: the software can be used either in proprietary products, or in free software *which is also gratuit*. I think it would require a clause which explicitly allows bundling on CD-ROMs and such, to avoid running afoul of OSD #1. Otherwise, it looks Open Source to me. -- 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
Re: Discuss: BSD Protection License
At 11 Mar 2002 20:57:24 -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] resent my email to this mailing list and added the line: >[ Please discuss this license. Is he reinventing the LGPL? ] No, I'm not. To start with, the LGPL only applies to libraries. The license I am proposing applies to any code (and in fact when I wrote it I wasn't thinking in terms of applying it to libraries). Somewhat related to that is the difference that this license does not prohibit the closed-sourcing of derivative works; where LGPL permits the existance of closed-source works which use a library, my license would permit the existance of closed-source improvements upon said library. Colin Percival -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Discuss: BSD Protection License
Colin Percival scripsit: > > [ Please discuss this license. Is he reinventing the LGPL? ] By no means. It seems to me a very innovative license: the software can be used either in proprietary products, or in free software *which is also gratuit*. I think it would require a clause which explicitly allows bundling on CD-ROMs and such, to avoid running afoul of OSD #1. Otherwise, it looks Open Source to me. -- 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
Discuss: BSD Protection License
[ Please discuss this license. Is he reinventing the LGPL? ] I submit for your consideration the "BSD Protection License", as found at http://web.comlab.ox.ac.uk/oucl/work/colin.percival/source/BSDPL.html (A plaintext version can be found by s/html/txt/ on the URL.) Feel free to redistribute this as relevant (eg to license-discuss); I have no desire to remain anonymous (and the URL would identify me anyway). The included preamble should clarify the purpose of this license, but to summarize briefly, this license has a GPL flavour and a BSD spirit, and exists in order to allow closed source use of licensed code, while "protecting" the code from having that freedom removed. Colin Percival -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
