Re: [License-discuss] License which requires watermarking? (Attribution Provision)
On Wed, 2 Jan 2013, Lawrence Rosen wrote: Regardless of whether a library is licensed under the GPL or the LGPL, a licensee will have to disclose *source code* of the library and *source code* of derivative works of the library. If you agree with the FSF's position on what a derivative work is, a work that links to a LGPL library is a derivative work but you are not required to release source for it. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] License which requires watermarking? (Attribution Provision)
On Tue, 1 Jan 2013, Lawrence Rosen wrote: Some people use ordinary GPL on libraries with the intent of crippling competing commercial reuse (since any competitors have to release their source and competitors wouldn't want to do that). Really? That's not wise. How would the choice of license affect the *legal* determination of whether the resulting work is or is not a derivative work for which source code must be disclosed? The choice of license affects whether source code must be disclosed at all. If the library was under the LGPL, the competitor would not have to provide source. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] License which requires watermarking? (Attribution Provision)
On Mon, 31 Dec 2012, Rick Moen wrote: I conclude that, in general, the overwhelming majority of such entrepreneurs are thus seeking the crippling of competing commercial reuse -- not just attribution. So, OSI should give them the bum's rush. Some people use ordinary GPL on libraries with the intent of crippling competing commercial reuse (since any competitors have to release their source and competitors wouldn't want to do that). Is the GPL also considered unfree when applied to libraries? ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] License which requires watermarking? (Attribution Provision)
On 1 January 2013 17:08, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote: On Mon, 31 Dec 2012, Rick Moen wrote: I conclude that, in general, the overwhelming majority of such entrepreneurs are thus seeking the crippling of competing commercial reuse -- not just attribution. So, OSI should give them the bum's rush. Is the GPL also considered unfree when applied to libraries? Many would argue, yes. -- Eitan Adler ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] License which requires watermarking? (Attribution Provision)
On 01/01/2013 02:08 PM, Ken Arromdee wrote: Some people use ordinary GPL on libraries with the intent of crippling competing commercial reuse (since any competitors have to release their source and competitors wouldn't want to do that). Is the GPL also considered unfree when applied to libraries? No. Be careful to avoid confusing the creation of derivative works with use, which are two separate rights under copyright law. And although badgeware should in general be rejected, crippling commercial reuse is the wrong reason to reject badgeware. The reason to reject it is that it complicates simple use. We'd really like it to be possible for people to use software without the need for some compliance process. That line is crossed when you create a derivative work. If you have to be sure to put badges on your web site for some set of software you use, possibly a very large set, then you have to keep track of the software and its license terms just to use it, and simple use is no longer simple. There is also no limit to the potential number of badges you might have to display. attachment: bruce.vcf___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] License which requires watermarking? (Attribution Provision)
Ken Arromdee wrote: Some people use ordinary GPL on libraries with the intent of crippling competing commercial reuse (since any competitors have to release their source and competitors wouldn't want to do that). Really? That's not wise. How would the choice of license affect the *legal* determination of whether the resulting work is or is not a derivative work for which source code must be disclosed? /Larry Lawrence Rosen Rosenlaw Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com) 3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482 Office: 707-485-1242 -Original Message- From: Ken Arromdee [mailto:arrom...@rahul.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2013 2:08 PM To: license-discuss@opensource.org Subject: Re: [License-discuss] License which requires watermarking? (Attribution Provision) On Mon, 31 Dec 2012, Rick Moen wrote: I conclude that, in general, the overwhelming majority of such entrepreneurs are thus seeking the crippling of competing commercial reuse -- not just attribution. So, OSI should give them the bum's rush. Some people use ordinary GPL on libraries with the intent of crippling competing commercial reuse (since any competitors have to release their source and competitors wouldn't want to do that). Is the GPL also considered unfree when applied to libraries? ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] License which requires watermarking? (Attribution Provision)
Would that we all had infinite budgets for going to court :-) But short of having them, many businesses choose, quite sensibly, to err on the conservative side of this sort of issue and will honor the license whether or not a court would make them do so. This will also get them through an MA intellectual property audit in better shape than otherwise. I do know a company that spent money, including on me, to argue just this sort of issue recently. They spent more than most businesses would be able to endure. Thanks Bruce On 01/01/2013 05:23 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote: Really? That's not wise. How would the choice of license affect the *legal* determination of whether the resulting work is or is not a derivative work for which source code must be disclosed? attachment: bruce.vcf___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] License which requires watermarking? (Attribution Provision)
Quoting Ken Arromdee (arrom...@rahul.net): On Mon, 31 Dec 2012, Rick Moen wrote: I conclude that, in general, the overwhelming majority of such entrepreneurs are thus seeking the crippling of competing commercial reuse -- not just attribution. So, OSI should give them the bum's rush. Some people use ordinary GPL on libraries with the intent of crippling competing commercial reuse (since any competitors have to release their source and competitors wouldn't want to do that). Your premise that this in any way cripples commercial reuse -- by which I of course meant _use in commerce_, not proprietising -- is simply not the case. (Moreover, so is your assumption that a competitor would be automatically unwilling to release source, though that's not the main point. E.g., vTiger CRM upon release competed with its parent, the weak-copylefted SugarCRM 1.0. vtiger Systems (India) Private Limited had no problem releasing its source code.) You've gone rather far out of your way to misconstrue my phrase 'crippling of competing commercial reuse'. This wasn't a very good use of your time or mine. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] License which requires watermarking? (Attribution Provision)
Quoting Bruce Perens (br...@perens.com): On 01/01/2013 02:08 PM, Ken Arromdee wrote: Some people use ordinary GPL on libraries with the intent of crippling competing commercial reuse (since any competitors have to release their source and competitors wouldn't want to do that). Is the GPL also considered unfree when applied to libraries? No. Be careful to avoid confusing the creation of derivative works with use, which are two separate rights under copyright law. And although badgeware should in general be rejected, crippling commercial reuse is the wrong reason to reject badgeware. The reason to reject it is that it complicates simple use. Just a brief note: Bruce, _you_ of all people probably are aware that OSD #6 (discrimination against persons or groups), which I cited, does specifically concern _use_. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] License which requires watermarking? (Attribution Provision)
Sorry, I left out a crucial word: As I said, I for one consider such badge-on-every-UI-screen licensing to effectively violate OSD #6 (discrimination against fields of endeavour), in that the every-UI-screen requirement cripples third-party competing use. ^ commercial As I said upthread, I don't think there's any bright line distinguishing the degree and prominence of runtime acknowledgement in SaaS/ASP/whatever code required for attribution (non-concealed authorship credit), on the one hand, from mandatory advertising of one's competitor, on the other: There's a continuum. My point, though, is that a badge-on-every-UI-screen clause lies decidedly at the latter end of that spectrum. If SaaS entrepeneurs were indeed serious about merely seeking attribution, they should be satisfied with CPAL's _much_ more modest but clear requirement of a runtime acknowledgement. The history of the past five years has proven that, by and large, they aren't. I conclude that, in general, the overwhelming majority of such entrepreneurs are thus seeking the crippling of competing commercial reuse -- not just attribution. So, OSI should give them the bum's rush. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] License which requires watermarking? (Attribution Provision)
Therefore should say on all interface screens Foo, a project by Google or, if a fork: Bar, a fork of the Google project Foo with a link back to its github repo. This requirement is just too asymmetric. What about credit to the database glue you use? What about the language? What about the other free software library you use? I believe it is unfair to shuffle those projects under the carpet even if they don't have such a requirement. Your license should be designed such that you'd be very happy if everyone used the provision you propose, and in particular, that your work would comply with respect to others' work. I do think that there's room for an otherwise permissive license to require reasonable acknowledgement in a manner compatible with GPLv3. It would require that any derived work with an interactive interface have a prominent way to display copyrights other legal notices. Then, it'd require that your software project be mentioned in those notices, in a manner commensurate with other components of the whole work. There are two parts to this. First is community acceptance: finding wording that is reasonably clear, effective, yet short enough to satisfy those who are interested in a permissive license isn't an easy task. Second, and perhaps more importantly, compliance must be quite trivial -- this requires somesort of registry with just about every commonly used open source work included, as well as a convenient mechanism to use this registry to build a compliant legal notice and acknowledgement visual display. So, the outcome of this would be some sort of visual menu that can be easily accessed, where your work would be one of dozens.I do hope to engage in a project like this when I have some time and can find collaborators who agree on an sensible vision. Best, Clark ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] License which requires watermarking? (Attribution Provision)
Eitan Adler wrote: On 24 December 2012 22:10, ldr ldr stackoverflowuse...@gmail.com wrote: John: I'd be happy with proprietary forks, as long as the Attribution provision would hold. E.g.: if they sell it to other people, those other people still are aware of my original project and have a link to it Aren't you looking for something similar to the 4-BSD license? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses#4-clause_license_.28original_.22BSD_License.22.29 And are you aware why no-one uses it any longer? (It makes it difficult to create derivative works based on many different components with advertising clauses. One of the main freedoms in open source is to be able to use parts of someone else's code without reproducing their whole application. A lot of people searching for licences seem to think only in terms of their whole application, or forks that only differ slightly.) -- David Woolley Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want. RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam, that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] License which requires watermarking? (Attribution Provision)
I have noticed that a lot of the discussion occurring is on section 7 of the GPL license; so I feel the need to alleviate those concerns and tell you outright that what I am considering for my SaaS Startup. I.e.: FreeBSD license with two added provisions: 1. Badgeware (as you call it) requirement, i.e.: that every page of the site and mobile-apps' have a copyright area which contains: Powered by [project name](github.com/projectname) or Powered by [new project name]() a fork of [project name](github.com/projectname 2. A carefully worded closure of the: ASP loophole Given these conditions, which license is most aligns to my requirements? - And would it be considered open-source? On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 9:05 AM, Rick Moen r...@linuxmafia.com wrote: Minor correction (proving that I shouldn't post to these subjects in a hurry while working on other things): Getting back to what I was groggily trying to say last night: My sense is that OSI's approval of CPAL back in '07 was motivated in part by a perception that a modest badgeware requirement was one arguably reasonable method for giving reciprocal licensing enforcement power in ASP/SaaS deployment, and that Socialtext's CPAL proposal wasn't so extreme in its requirements as to preemptively kill third-party commercial competition the way badgeware licensing usually does (the OSD #3 concern I cited). ^^ Intended reference was OSD #6 (discrimination against fields of endeavour). Creative steps to cripple commercial reuse rights for others are a recurring theme, I notice. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] License which requires watermarking? (Attribution Provision)
ldr ldr scripsit: 1. Badgeware (as you call it) requirement, i.e.: that every page of the site and mobile-apps' have a copyright area which contains: Powered by [project name](github.com/projectname) or Powered by [new project name]() a fork of [project name](github.com/projectname You have to word this very carefully, so that derivative works which don't have this type of user interface can still be in compliance. 2. A carefully worded closure of the: ASP loophole The Affero GPL requires users who have access to the server to be able to download the source of the server software: see clause 13 of http://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html. Beyond that, we are in unexplored territory. In particular, it's not clear why you'd want to require server operators to provide their users with the freedom to obtain the source, when the BSD license generally permits proprietary forks. -- La mayyitan ma qadirun yatabaqqa sarmadiJohn Cowan Fa idha yaji' al-shudhdhadh fa-l-maut qad yantahi. co...@ccil.org --Abdullah al-Hazred, Al-`Azif http://www.ccil.org/~cowan ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] License which requires watermarking? (Attribution Provision)
John: I'd be happy with proprietary forks, as long as the Attribution provision would hold. E.g.: if they sell it to other people, those other people still are aware of my original project and have a link to it On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 3:36 AM, John Cowan co...@mercury.ccil.org wrote: ldr ldr scripsit: 1. Badgeware (as you call it) requirement, i.e.: that every page of the site and mobile-apps' have a copyright area which contains: Powered by [project name](github.com/projectname) or Powered by [new project name]() a fork of [project name](github.com/projectname You have to word this very carefully, so that derivative works which don't have this type of user interface can still be in compliance. 2. A carefully worded closure of the: ASP loophole The Affero GPL requires users who have access to the server to be able to download the source of the server software: see clause 13 of http://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html. Beyond that, we are in unexplored territory. In particular, it's not clear why you'd want to require server operators to provide their users with the freedom to obtain the source, when the BSD license generally permits proprietary forks. -- La mayyitan ma qadirun yatabaqqa sarmadiJohn Cowan Fa idha yaji' al-shudhdhadh fa-l-maut qad yantahi. co...@ccil.org --Abdullah al-Hazred, Al-`Azif http://www.ccil.org/~cowan ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] License which requires watermarking? (Attribution Provision)
On 24 December 2012 22:10, ldr ldr stackoverflowuse...@gmail.com wrote: John: I'd be happy with proprietary forks, as long as the Attribution provision would hold. E.g.: if they sell it to other people, those other people still are aware of my original project and have a link to it Aren't you looking for something similar to the 4-BSD license? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses#4-clause_license_.28original_.22BSD_License.22.29 -- Eitan Adler ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] License which requires watermarking? (Attribution Provision)
You know what, I think I am! Thank you so much, this is the reason I joined the license-discuss mailing-list =D On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 2:52 PM, Eitan Adler li...@eitanadler.com wrote: On 24 December 2012 22:10, ldr ldr stackoverflowuse...@gmail.com wrote: John: I'd be happy with proprietary forks, as long as the Attribution provision would hold. E.g.: if they sell it to other people, those other people still are aware of my original project and have a link to it Aren't you looking for something similar to the 4-BSD license? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses#4-clause_license_.28original_.22BSD_License.22.29 -- Eitan Adler ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] License which requires watermarking? (Attribution Provision)
Quoting John Cowan (co...@mercury.ccil.org): You should add this to the KB; I did check there, but with no success. OK, I'll see about that. http://linuxgazette.net/159/misc/lg/sugarcrm_and_badgeware_licensing_again.html Offline, alas. It's reachable now. I'll soon be mirroring it on my own site, just in case the _Linux Gazette_ Web site disappears -- not that I assert any special merit to it. (Back in 2009, I was, FWIW, trying to follow developments in this area to best ability, with some help from the rest of the magazine staff.) ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] License which requires watermarking? (Attribution Provision)
Quoting Richard Fontana (rfont...@redhat.com): Actually, section 7 of GPLv3 was intended to allow a limited form of badgeware (as well as certain other kinds of restrictions). But the example cited by the original poster: http://www.nopcommerce.com/licensev3.aspx goes well beyond what the FSF intended to authorize. Unfortunately, I have seen a number of such misuses of GPLv3/AGPLv3 7(b). Getting back to what I was groggily trying to say last night: My sense is that OSI's approval of CPAL back in '07 was motivated in part by a perception that a modest badgeware requirement was one arguably reasonable method for giving reciprocal licensing enforcement power in ASP/SaaS deployment, and that Socialtext's CPAL proposal wasn't so extreme in its requirements as to preemptively kill third-party commercial competition the way badgeware licensing usually does (the OSD #3 concern I cited). Maybe FSF felt similiarly (that 'a limited form of badgeware' was sufficiently harmless and worth trying in that sense). By contrast, the _classic_ badgeware we'd seen up to that point was typified by SugarCRM's, which invented (or at least popularised) competition-killing ASP licensing in outraged reaction to Bangalore-based vtigerCRM's emergence as an independent fork of SugarCRM 1.0, in 2004 when the latter was under MPL 1.0. SugarCRM, Inc. designed its new licensing (my interpretation) to cripple any subsequent forks' commercial potential. And a gaggle of imitators then followed them. As the saying goes, that's certainly their legal right, but it just isn't open source. Much of the newer ASP pseudo-open source code we're seeing has eschewed CPAL in favour of far more extreme badgeware of the 'mandatory advertising on every single UI screen' variety. Which, I conclude, shows that proponents are not merely seeking preservation of 'attribution' as they have tended to claim in this forum: If they had been, then CPAL's modest and minimally intrusive requirement would have sufficed even for ASP/SaaS deployments where notices in the source code may not be visible. Thus, it appears what they are really seeking under the guise of 'attribution' is spiking of competitors while still claiming to do open source. So, you say OSI, FSF, and (possibly) Debian's approval of CPAL was wrongly decided, and you might be right -- but my point is that its approval and subsequent non-adoption has at least had the virtue of making clear that the assertion about merely wanting 'attribution' fails the sniff test. Also, a larger point: OSI-approved licence Foo modified by a bunch of restrictions dangled from it is pretty much reliably NOT open source. -- Cheers, Nothing's hotter than having a copyeditor correct your sex scenes. Rick Moen -- Max Barry r...@linuxmafia.com McQ! (4x80) ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] License which requires watermarking? (Attribution Provision)
Minor correction (proving that I shouldn't post to these subjects in a hurry while working on other things): Getting back to what I was groggily trying to say last night: My sense is that OSI's approval of CPAL back in '07 was motivated in part by a perception that a modest badgeware requirement was one arguably reasonable method for giving reciprocal licensing enforcement power in ASP/SaaS deployment, and that Socialtext's CPAL proposal wasn't so extreme in its requirements as to preemptively kill third-party commercial competition the way badgeware licensing usually does (the OSD #3 concern I cited). ^^ Intended reference was OSD #6 (discrimination against fields of endeavour). Creative steps to cripple commercial reuse rights for others are a recurring theme, I notice. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] License which requires watermarking? (Attribution Provision)
On Monday 17. December 2012 02.14, ldr ldr wrote: Can you recommend such a license? There is the BSD 2-Clause License. It says in part in the first paragraph «... provided that the following conditions are met:» Then add your special attribution requirements as part of the license conditions. I'm not sure if the license would still be a BSD licence, but I think it'll at least be a BSD-like license. You can also look at the various «Creative Commons» licenses. If I'm not mistaken, all of them require attribution. -- Johnny A. Solbu web site, http://www.solbu.net PGP key ID: 0xFA687324 Kom Arbeidslyst og treng deg på, her skal du motstand finne. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] License which requires watermarking? (Attribution Provision)
ldr ldr stackoverflowuse...@gmail.com writes: E.g.: This project was created by Google therefore should say on all interface screens Foo, a project by Google or if a fork: Bar, a fork of the Google project Foo with a link from Foo back to its github repo. I'm not sure a license that has such onerous attribution requirements (every interface screen) could be open source. Open source license have various attribution requirements, but usually they apply in only two places: - At the source code level - In the UI on a designated credits screen or wherever credits notices typically appear (i.e., not on every UI screen!) There have been licenses that came closer to what you want to require, but they've been very controversial. I know that if someone proposed a license now with the requirement you describe, I -- speaking only for myself, not the OSI -- would argue that it cannot be open source. -K ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] License which requires watermarking? (Attribution Provision)
Quoting Johnny Solbu (joh...@solbu.net): You can also look at the various «Creative Commons» licenses. If I'm not mistaken, all of them require attribution. They require keeping copyright notices intact and provide the name of the original author, etc., which credit may be 'implemented in any reasonable manner', etc. Details for SA-BY 3.0 here: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode (4a, 4b). However, I would hope that any work with elaborate copyright notices on every UI screen would be regarded as noxious and widely ignored. We've seen that sort of tactic before. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] License which requires watermarking? (Attribution Provision)
Thanks, I've seen it in a few open-source projects, such as: http://www.nopcommerce.com/licensev3.aspx http://www.mvcforum.com/license But this isn't well received by the open-source community, and would not be OSI approved? On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 8:02 AM, Rick Moen r...@linuxmafia.com wrote: Quoting Johnny Solbu (joh...@solbu.net): You can also look at the various «Creative Commons» licenses. If I'm not mistaken, all of them require attribution. They require keeping copyright notices intact and provide the name of the original author, etc., which credit may be 'implemented in any reasonable manner', etc. Details for SA-BY 3.0 here: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode (4a, 4b). However, I would hope that any work with elaborate copyright notices on every UI screen would be regarded as noxious and widely ignored. We've seen that sort of tactic before. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] License which requires watermarking? (Attribution Provision)
Quoting ldr ldr (stackoverflowuse...@gmail.com): Thanks, I've seen it in a few open-source projects, such as: http://www.nopcommerce.com/licensev3.aspx http://www.mvcforum.com/license Those are not open source. Moreover: But this isn't well received by the open-source community, and would not be OSI approved? Badgeware' licensing was heavily lobbied for by a little incestuous^W group of Web 2.0 startups for a while, several years back. One watered-down example was eventually approved mostly because -- my interpretation -- the amount of intrusion onto the user experience had been cut back to a modest mandatory notice on one screen only. As you have noticed, some firms have now adopted the clever if sleazy -- my interpretation -- ploy of purporting to use GPLv3 but sliding a mandatory badgeware notice requirement for every single UI page by claiming those are Additional Terms within the meaning of GPLv3 clause 7. I personally think that is a total crock, and hope it gives rise to litigation at some point: Clause 7 is a mechanism for adding _exceptions_ to the conditions GPLv3 would otherwise require. The dodge of claiming you can add _restrictions_ via that clause or similar methods such as hanging a restriction off GPLv2 -- and the sheer dishonesty of pretending that is still open source -- almost certainly doesn't fool anyone. I respect the publishers of outright proprietary software in many cases a great deal, e.g., Opera Software ASA, my second-favourite set of crazy Norwegians. By contrast, companies that try to pull the above sort of stunt, well: not so much. -- Cheers,He who hesitates is frost. Rick Moen -- Inuit proverb r...@linuxmafia.com McQ! (4x80) ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] License which requires watermarking? (Attribution Provision)
Quoting John Cowan (co...@mercury.ccil.org): It all hangs on the word reasonable in the definition of permitted restrictions of type 7b: Requiring preservation of specified reasonable legal notices or author attributions in that material or in the Appropriate Legal Notices displayed by works containing it. As you know, what is or is not reasonable is always going to be a tricky area.. Such litigation would be not only a dubious battle but an expensive one. Clark C. Evans brought that up in February. Rather than recap the entire thing, I'll just repost my reply to him on that point. Quoting Clark C. Evans (c...@clarkevans.com): As an update to this thread, I've revived my interest in trying to keep GPLv3 compatibility with this approach; a reasonable, attribution terms for a MIT derived license or the GPLv3 itself (under 7b). The term 'attribution' tends to be used for a variety of different things, so you may wish to start there. Classically in software, it refers to copyright notices, e.g., in source code. In the last decade, the aforementioned group of Web 2.0 / SaaS hucksters started referring to mandatory runtime advertising as 'attribution', too -- a rather propagandistic sleight of tongue, in my view -- an approach that reached the pinnacle of absurdity with SugarCRM Community Edition 5.x's perversion of GPLv3, using clause 7b to re-implement the same obnoxious name-and-graphical-logo on every page requirement widely rejected in the openly badgeware licences that they claimed were open source. One of my analyses: http://linuxgazette.net/159/misc/lg/sugarcrm_and_badgeware_licensing_again.html Quoting: GPLv3 section 7 is _not_ about attribution provisions. It is about required legal notices (e.g., trademark) and other permitted supplementary terms. Clause 7b says that Requiring preservation of specified reasonable legal notices or author attributions in that material or in the Appropriate Legal Notices displayed by works containing it are permitted, but I very much doubt that FSF had in mind required, immutable runtime display of trademarked logos and advertising on every user interface screen of the program and all derivatives -- which has the obvious effect of severely impairing freedom of third-party commercial use. An FSF author involved with the GPLv3 draft speaks to FSF's intent (FWIW): http://gplv3.fsf.org/additional-terms-dd2.html A GPL licensee may place an additional requirement on code for which the licensee has or can give appropriate copyright permission, but only if that requirement falls within the list given in subsection 7b. Placement of any other kind of additional requirement continues to be a violation of the license. Additional requirements that are in the 7b list may not be removed, but if a user receives GPL'd code that purports to include an additional requirement not in the 7b list, the user may remove that requirement. The literal wording of 7b is exactly as quoted above. Getting back to Clark's initiative: 1. Create a set of open source components that can be used for the visual display of OSS attributions in a manner that satisfies both the GPLv3 requirements as well as being broadly useful enough for projects to incorporate. 'Visual display of OSS attributions' required via GPLv3 clause 7b sounds a whole lot like the aforementioned Web 2.0 / SaaS notion of 'attribution' and difficult to distinguish from what SugarCRM did in its 5.x series. CPAL is also generically in the same category, but its specific requirements are IMO orders of magnitude less burdensome, enough to constitute a difference in kind. (What's the difference between 'specified reasonable legal notices or author attributions in that material' and required, immutable runtime display of trademarked logos and advertising on every user interface screen of the program and all derivatives? Degree, I suspect. If reality is messy and lacks sharp distinctions sometimes, so be it.) I know Clark was also talking about a 'registry of OSS works and dependencies with pretty logos, license terms, and others', and encouraging crediting such works in public deployments, which sounds useful, I guess, but I'm not enthusiastic about 'an emergent consensus on acceptable attribution practices for those who might otherwise wish to not play along', as it is highly prone to abuse, and I doubt any such 'emergent consensus' is likely. And, really, how about we call runtime advertising by its real name, and cease this subterfuge of mislabeling it as 'attribution'? ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] License which requires watermarking? (Attribution Provision)
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 08:58:16PM -0800, Rick Moen wrote: As you have noticed, some firms have now adopted the clever if sleazy -- my interpretation -- ploy of purporting to use GPLv3 but sliding a mandatory badgeware notice requirement for every single UI page by claiming those are Additional Terms within the meaning of GPLv3 clause 7. I personally think that is a total crock, and hope it gives rise to litigation at some point: Clause 7 is a mechanism for adding _exceptions_ to the conditions GPLv3 would otherwise require. The dodge of claiming you can add _restrictions_ via that clause or similar methods such as hanging a restriction off GPLv2 -- and the sheer dishonesty of pretending that is still open source -- almost certainly doesn't fool anyone. Actually, section 7 of GPLv3 was intended to allow a limited form of badgeware (as well as certain other kinds of restrictions). But the example cited by the original poster: http://www.nopcommerce.com/licensev3.aspx goes well beyond what the FSF intended to authorize. Unfortunately, I have seen a number of such misuses of GPLv3/AGPLv3 7(b). As for adding a similarly-broad badgeware requirement on top of GPLv2, it would be enough of a stretch to argue that limited GPLv3-acceptable badgeware provisions are acceptable under GPLv2. I believe that the OSI's approval of CPAL (the license you may be intentionally not naming) was, in retrospect, wrongly decided. - RF ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] License which requires watermarking? (Attribution Provision)
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 09:17:11PM -0800, Rick Moen wrote: An FSF author involved with the GPLv3 draft speaks to FSF's intent (FWIW): http://gplv3.fsf.org/additional-terms-dd2.html A GPL licensee may place an additional requirement on code for which the licensee has or can give appropriate copyright permission, but only if that requirement falls within the list given in subsection 7b. Placement of any other kind of additional requirement continues to be a violation of the license. Additional requirements that are in the 7b list may not be removed, but if a user receives GPL'd code that purports to include an additional requirement not in the 7b list, the user may remove that requirement. The literal wording of 7b is exactly as quoted above. This 7b refers to the 7b of GPLv3 Discussion Draft 2, which contained the whole 'additional requirements' portion of section 7. In later drafts of GPLv3, and in the final version, there were no subsections of section 7, and 7b is one of the enumerated list of allowable additional requirements. - RF ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] License which requires watermarking? (Attribution Provision)
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 12:34:33AM -0500, Richard Fontana wrote: I believe that the OSI's approval of CPAL (the license you may be intentionally not naming) was, in retrospect, wrongly decided. To be fair, and to spread the blame around, the FSF's decision that CPAL is a free software license was also wrongly decided, as was the Fedora Project's decision that CPAL was free for purposes of Fedora (which appears to be my fault -- sorry Tom!). I believe Debian treats CPAL as DFSG-free but whether this was a wrong decision depends on whether a decision was actually made, I suppose. - RF ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
