Re: [License-discuss] what would de-listing of licenses look like?
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 12:57 PM, Karl Fogel wrote: > Luis Villa writes: >>What's the state of robots.txt and the wiki? If this page will be >>showing up in search results, I'd like it to slightly clearly identify >>itself as a brainstorm that is not endorsed/approved. > > I modified the page to be clear about that. > > (We don't have a robots.txt for the wiki, but I don't think we need one > either -- pages should be searchable, and they should say their status > accurately). I'm fine with that, as long as we're all clear on it, and the responsibility it places on all of us. :) >>I'd also like to reemphasize that I think this is a can of worms that >>I personally don't think we have the focus/organization to tackle >>effectively yet. I haven't seen anything in this thread that changes >>my mind on that yet. > > Actually, I agree. But no reason not to have the materials in the wiki > -- that way you and I can be wrong without having damaged anything :-). :) Luis ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] what would de-listing of licenses look like?
Luis Villa writes: >What's the state of robots.txt and the wiki? If this page will be >showing up in search results, I'd like it to slightly clearly identify >itself as a brainstorm that is not endorsed/approved. I modified the page to be clear about that. (We don't have a robots.txt for the wiki, but I don't think we need one either -- pages should be searchable, and they should say their status accurately). >I'd also like to reemphasize that I think this is a can of worms that >I personally don't think we have the focus/organization to tackle >effectively yet. I haven't seen anything in this thread that changes >my mind on that yet. Actually, I agree. But no reason not to have the materials in the wiki -- that way you and I can be wrong without having damaged anything :-). ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] what would de-listing of licenses look like?
On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 3:42 PM, Karl Fogel wrote: > Engel Nyst writes: >>Thank you for taking it into account. >>I've put together very roughly a wiki page for a draft proposal of how the >>process could, perhaps, look like. The reason is that an actual >>prototype of what is being discussed might help a constructive >>discussion and give a better view of what is being proposed. >>http://wiki.opensource.org/license_delist_proposal >> >>I apologize if that is an unsuitable action. Please feel free to remove it >>in that case. > > Not at all -- this is *exactly* what the wiki is for! As long as a page > doesn't misrepresent itself as an official position of the OSI (and > yours doesn't), it's fine & indeed welcome. What's the state of robots.txt and the wiki? If this page will be showing up in search results, I'd like it to slightly clearly identify itself as a brainstorm that is not endorsed/approved. I'd also like to reemphasize that I think this is a can of worms that I personally don't think we have the focus/organization to tackle effectively yet. I haven't seen anything in this thread that changes my mind on that yet. Luis >>On 3/7/13, Richard Fontana wrote: >>> >>> In my view, Bruce's justification 2 is the only justification: the >>> license does not comply with the OSD and was accepted in error. >>> >>> I don't believe it is practical for the OSI to assess Bruce's >>> justification 1. As for Bruce's justification 3, I think the OSI does >>> enough here in its efforts to classify already-approved licenses. >>> >>> I certainly agree with Bruce that de-listing cannot be for political >>> reasons. The rationale must be somehow grounded in the OSD, much like >>> approval of licenses. >>> I think you need to have a committee review a proposal to de-list, with arguments from the submitter regarding the problems in the license, >>> >>> I agree with that. >>> >> >>I've intended the draft mostly on the basis of existing approval process, >>and the discussion here, but it surely contains many inappropriate and >>rough points. Please, shut it down or change it, as you see fit. >>___ >>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 ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] what would de-listing of licenses look like?
Engel Nyst writes: >Thank you for taking it into account. >I've put together very roughly a wiki page for a draft proposal of how the >process could, perhaps, look like. The reason is that an actual >prototype of what is being discussed might help a constructive >discussion and give a better view of what is being proposed. >http://wiki.opensource.org/license_delist_proposal > >I apologize if that is an unsuitable action. Please feel free to remove it >in that case. Not at all -- this is *exactly* what the wiki is for! As long as a page doesn't misrepresent itself as an official position of the OSI (and yours doesn't), it's fine & indeed welcome. -K >On 3/7/13, Richard Fontana wrote: >> >> In my view, Bruce's justification 2 is the only justification: the >> license does not comply with the OSD and was accepted in error. >> >> I don't believe it is practical for the OSI to assess Bruce's >> justification 1. As for Bruce's justification 3, I think the OSI does >> enough here in its efforts to classify already-approved licenses. >> >> I certainly agree with Bruce that de-listing cannot be for political >> reasons. The rationale must be somehow grounded in the OSD, much like >> approval of licenses. >> >>> I think you need to have a committee review a proposal to de-list, with >>> arguments from the submitter regarding the problems in the license, >> >> I agree with that. >> > >I've intended the draft mostly on the basis of existing approval process, >and the discussion here, but it surely contains many inappropriate and >rough points. Please, shut it down or change it, as you see fit. >___ >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] what would de-listing of licenses look like?
On 3/7/13, Luis Villa wrote: > On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 11:48 AM, Richard Fontana > wrote: >> The Frameworx license is one of those OSI-approved licenses that I >> believe was approved "in haste". If OSI had such a procedure, I would >> recommend that the Frameworx license be reviewed for de-listing. > > Any recommendations on what such a process would look like, Richard? > I'm not super-enthused about the idea, but don't want to rule out > anything without at least some discussion. > Thank you for taking it into account. I've put together very roughly a wiki page for a draft proposal of how the process could, perhaps, look like. The reason is that an actual prototype of what is being discussed might help a constructive discussion and give a better view of what is being proposed. http://wiki.opensource.org/license_delist_proposal I apologize if that is an unsuitable action. Please feel free to remove it in that case. On 3/7/13, Richard Fontana wrote: > > In my view, Bruce's justification 2 is the only justification: the > license does not comply with the OSD and was accepted in error. > > I don't believe it is practical for the OSI to assess Bruce's > justification 1. As for Bruce's justification 3, I think the OSI does > enough here in its efforts to classify already-approved licenses. > > I certainly agree with Bruce that de-listing cannot be for political > reasons. The rationale must be somehow grounded in the OSD, much like > approval of licenses. > >> I think you need to have a committee review a proposal to de-list, with >> arguments from the submitter regarding the problems in the license, > > I agree with that. > I've intended the draft mostly on the basis of existing approval process, and the discussion here, but it surely contains many inappropriate and rough points. Please, shut it down or change it, as you see fit. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] what would de-listing of licenses look like?
We appreciate what we got. But my point is that maybe with a well written license Victoria Hall would have finished the case on her own in the lower court. Lawrence Rosen wrote: >I note that the plaintiff in the Jacobsen v Katzer case won on appeal >to the >CAFC. So reading the judge's decision in the district court is kind of >irrelevant at this point. -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] what would de-listing of licenses look like?
I note that the plaintiff in the Jacobsen v Katzer case won on appeal to the CAFC. So reading the judge's decision in the district court is kind of irrelevant at this point. /Larry Lawrence Rosen Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com) 3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482 Office: 707-485-1242 Linkedin profile: http://linkd.in/XXpHyu -Original Message- From: Ben Tilly [mailto:bti...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 12:23 PM To: license-discuss@opensource.org Subject: Re: [License-discuss] what would de-listing of licenses look like? One can reasonably hope that seeing the desired legal reasoning clearly spelled out in the license would lead the judge towards the decision that we want. But when I (admittedly as a non-lawyer) read that section of that decision, there is nothing that I see that would have prevented that judge from reaching that conclusion with those presented facts if the license in question was the much more carefully drafted GPL v2. BTW thank you for having been part of the effort to ensure that open source licenses actually can be enforced in US courts under copyright law. It is a critical precedent, and I'm very glad that it was set in the right direction. On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 11:57 AM, Bruce Perens wrote: > Ben, > > Yes, my testimony was to establish the economic interest in > attribution of Open Source software. However, it's going too far to > say that the license terms were not a problem. The judge's finding > starting at "Plaintiff's Claim Sounds in Contract, Not Copyright" is > that the Artistic License 1.0 text is self-invalidating. It's not so > clear that a better drafted license would have reduced us to basing > the appeal on the economic value of attribution alone. > > Thanks > > Bruce > > Ben Tilly wrote: >> >> I do not believe that you are fairly describing the cause of what >> happened. At issue was not the drafting of the license, it was the >> fact that it was the first time that the legal idea of "follow the >> license or we sue for copyright" had ever been tested in a US court >> for software that had been given away to the world on generous terms. >> >> The judge's ruling was based on the fact that software was given >> away, for free, with no expectation of a reward. Therefore there was >> no loss in its being appropriated by a third party. The fact that >> the software was available to everyone on generous terms meant that >> there was no cause under copyright law. The judge ruled that the >> license could be viewed as a contract, but of course the basic >> elements of a valid contract were missing and so you couldn't sue under that either. >> If >> the hobbyist had used the GPL as a license, the same facts would have >> existed, and the judge could easily have ruled the same way. In fact >> the reason why the case was so important is exactly because the >> precedent undermined the enforceability of all open source licenses >> where no contract existed. >> >> For verification, the judge's ruling and reasoning are available at >> http://jmri.sourceforge.net/k/docket/158.pdf. >> >> On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 10:09 PM, Bruce Perens wrote: >>> >>> The license isn't really "standing up" when you have to file a writ >>> of certiorari after a judge throws his hands up at the license text >>> and pronounces it to be tantamount to a dedication to the public >>> domain. That was no easy appeal to win, and the Open S ource >>> developer was seriously damaged by the cost and the 5-year process. >>> It cost me a good deal of time and work too. >>> >>> A license that stands up would, I hope, require much less time to >>> dispute and would be parsed as intended by the court. >>> >>> So, what the Artistic License 1.0 made much more difficult for the >>> poor Open Source developer is exactly what I'd like to fix. And yet >>> the Artistic >>> 1.0 >>> is not the one I thought of first upon seeing this discussion in >>> progress. >>> We have much worse. >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> Bruce >>> >>> >>> John Cowan wrote: >>> >>>> Bruce Perens scripsit: >>>> >>>>> 1. They are ambiguous or likely to perform in court in unexpected >>>>> ways, >>>>> should >>>>> they ever be litigated. And thus they are harmful to their users. >>>>> De-listing is a prompt to the organization that originally created &g
Re: [License-discuss] what would de-listing of licenses look like?
One can reasonably hope that seeing the desired legal reasoning clearly spelled out in the license would lead the judge towards the decision that we want. But when I (admittedly as a non-lawyer) read that section of that decision, there is nothing that I see that would have prevented that judge from reaching that conclusion with those presented facts if the license in question was the much more carefully drafted GPL v2. BTW thank you for having been part of the effort to ensure that open source licenses actually can be enforced in US courts under copyright law. It is a critical precedent, and I'm very glad that it was set in the right direction. On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 11:57 AM, Bruce Perens wrote: > Ben, > > Yes, my testimony was to establish the economic interest in attribution of > Open Source software. However, it's going too far to say that the license > terms were not a problem. The judge's finding starting at "Plaintiff's Claim > Sounds in Contract, Not Copyright" is that the Artistic License 1.0 text is > self-invalidating. It's not so clear that a better drafted license would > have reduced us to basing the appeal on the economic value of attribution > alone. > > Thanks > > Bruce > > Ben Tilly wrote: >> >> I do not believe that you are fairly describing the cause of what >> happened. At issue was not the drafting of the license, it was the >> fact that it was the first time that the legal idea of "follow the >> license or we sue for copyright" had ever been tested in a US court >> for software that had been given away to the world on generous terms. >> >> The judge's ruling was based on the fact that software was given away, >> for free, with no expectation of a reward. Therefore there was no >> loss in its being appropriated by a third party. The fact that the >> software was available to everyone on generous terms meant that there >> was no cause under copyright law. The judge ruled that the license >> could be viewed as a contract, but of course the basic elements of a >> valid contract were missing and so you couldn't sue under that either. >> If >> the hobbyist had used the GPL as a license, the same facts would >> have existed, and the judge could easily have ruled the same way. In >> fact the reason why the case was so important is exactly because the >> precedent undermined the enforceability of all open source licenses >> where no contract existed. >> >> For verification, the judge's ruling and reasoning are available at >> http://jmri.sourceforge.net/k/docket/158.pdf. >> >> On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 10:09 PM, Bruce Perens wrote: >>> >>> The license isn't really "standing up" when you have to file a writ of >>> certiorari after a judge throws his hands up at the license text and >>> pronounces it to be tantamount to a dedication to the public domain. That >>> was no easy appeal to win, and the Open S >>> ource >>> developer was seriously >>> damaged by the cost and the 5-year process. It cost me a good deal of >>> time >>> and work too. >>> >>> A license that stands up would, I hope, require much less time to dispute >>> and would be parsed as intended by the court. >>> >>> So, what the Artistic License 1.0 made much more difficult for the poor >>> Open >>> Source developer is exactly what I'd like to fix. And yet the Artistic >>> 1.0 >>> is not the one I thought of first upon seeing this discussion in >>> progress. >>> We have much worse. >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> Bruce >>> >>> >>> John Cowan wrote: >>> Bruce Perens scripsit: > 1. They are ambiguous or likely to perform in court in unexpected > ways, > should > they ever be litigated. And thus they are harmful to > their users. De-listing is a prompt to the organization that > originally created the license to replace it with an accepted > license or to submit a new version with greater legal competence in > its construction. These would be the "crayon" licenses, mostly, > those written without legal counsel. And yet the Artistic License 1.0, which is riddled with ambiguities and a prototypical crayon license, is one of the few that has been tested in court -- and stood up. >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. >>> >>> >>> >>> 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 > > > -- > Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. > > ___ > License-discuss mailing list > License-discuss@opensource.org > http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss > ___ License-di
Re: [License-discuss] what would de-listing of licenses look like?
Ben, Yes, my testimony was to establish the economic interest in attribution of Open Source software. However, it's going too far to say that the license terms were not a problem. The judge's finding starting at "Plaintiff's Claim Sounds in Contract, Not Copyright" is that the Artistic License 1.0 text is self-invalidating. It's not so clear that a better drafted license would have reduced us to basing the appeal on the economic value of attribution alone. Thanks Bruce Ben Tilly wrote: >I do not believe that you are fairly describing the cause of what >happened. At issue was not the drafting of the license, it was the >fact that it was the first time that the legal idea of "follow the >license or we sue for copyright" had ever been tested in a US court >for software that had been given away to the world on generous terms. > >The judge's ruling was based on the fact that software was given away, >for free, with no expectation of a reward. Therefore there was no >loss in its being appropriated by a third party. The fact that the >software was available to everyone on generous terms meant that there >was no cause under copyright law. The judge ruled that the license >could be viewed as a contract, but of course the basic elements of a >valid contract were missing and so you couldn't sue under that either. > >If the hobbyist had used the GPL as a license, the same facts would >have existed, and the judge could easily have ruled the same way. In >fact the reason why the case was so important is exactly because the >precedent undermined the enforceability of all open source licenses >where no contract existed. > >For verification, the judge's ruling and reasoning are available at >http://jmri.sourceforge.net/k/docket/158.pdf. > >On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 10:09 PM, Bruce Perens wrote: >> The license isn't really "standing up" when you have to file a writ >of >> certiorari after a judge throws his hands up at the license text and >> pronounces it to be tantamount to a dedication to the public domain. >That >> was no easy appeal to win, and the Open Source developer was >seriously >> damaged by the cost and the 5-year process. It cost me a good deal of >time >> and work too. >> >> A license that stands up would, I hope, require much less time to >dispute >> and would be parsed as intended by the court. >> >> So, what the Artistic License 1.0 made much more difficult for the >poor Open >> Source developer is exactly what I'd like to fix. And yet the >Artistic 1.0 >> is not the one I thought of first upon seeing this discussion in >progress. >> We have much worse. >> >> Thanks >> >> Bruce >> >> >> John Cowan wrote: >>> >>> Bruce Perens scripsit: >>> 1. They are ambiguous or likely to perform in court in unexpected ways, should they ever be litigated. And thus they are harmful to their users. De-listing is a prompt to the organization that originally created the license to replace it with an accepted license or to submit a new version with greater legal competence in its construction. These would be the "crayon" licenses, mostly, those written without legal counsel. >>> >>> >>> And yet the Artistic License 1.0, which is riddled with ambiguities >and >>> a prototypical crayon license, is one of the few that has been >tested >>> in court -- and stood up. >> >> >> -- >> Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. >> >> ___ >> 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 -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] what would de-listing of licenses look like?
I do not believe that you are fairly describing the cause of what happened. At issue was not the drafting of the license, it was the fact that it was the first time that the legal idea of "follow the license or we sue for copyright" had ever been tested in a US court for software that had been given away to the world on generous terms. The judge's ruling was based on the fact that software was given away, for free, with no expectation of a reward. Therefore there was no loss in its being appropriated by a third party. The fact that the software was available to everyone on generous terms meant that there was no cause under copyright law. The judge ruled that the license could be viewed as a contract, but of course the basic elements of a valid contract were missing and so you couldn't sue under that either. If the hobbyist had used the GPL as a license, the same facts would have existed, and the judge could easily have ruled the same way. In fact the reason why the case was so important is exactly because the precedent undermined the enforceability of all open source licenses where no contract existed. For verification, the judge's ruling and reasoning are available at http://jmri.sourceforge.net/k/docket/158.pdf. On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 10:09 PM, Bruce Perens wrote: > The license isn't really "standing up" when you have to file a writ of > certiorari after a judge throws his hands up at the license text and > pronounces it to be tantamount to a dedication to the public domain. That > was no easy appeal to win, and the Open Source developer was seriously > damaged by the cost and the 5-year process. It cost me a good deal of time > and work too. > > A license that stands up would, I hope, require much less time to dispute > and would be parsed as intended by the court. > > So, what the Artistic License 1.0 made much more difficult for the poor Open > Source developer is exactly what I'd like to fix. And yet the Artistic 1.0 > is not the one I thought of first upon seeing this discussion in progress. > We have much worse. > > Thanks > > Bruce > > > John Cowan wrote: >> >> Bruce Perens scripsit: >> >>> 1. They are ambiguous or likely to perform in court in unexpected >>> ways, should they ever be litigated. And thus they are harmful to >>> their users. De-listing is a prompt to the organization that >>> originally created the license to replace it with an accepted >>> license or to submit a new version with greater legal competence in >>> its construction. These would be the "crayon" licenses, mostly, >>> those written without legal counsel. >> >> >> And yet the Artistic License 1.0, which is riddled with ambiguities and >> a prototypical crayon license, is one of the few that has been tested >> in court -- and stood up. > > > -- > Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. > > ___ > 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] what would de-listing of licenses look like?
It isn't the least bit difficult to diagnose when no lawyer was involved in drafting a license. At the start we had an excuse because no lawyer would help us. The only excuse those licenses have today is disinterest in fixing the problem. Luis Villa wrote: >On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 10:15 PM, John Cowan >wrote: >> Bruce Perens scripsit: >> >>> So, what the Artistic License 1.0 made much more difficult for the >>> poor Open Source developer is exactly what I'd like to fix. And yet >>> the Artistic 1.0 is not the one I thought of first upon seeing this >>> discussion in progress. We have much worse. >> >> Please itemize. > >I don't think we do anyone any favors by having extensive public >discussions of the legal/drafting weaknesses of existing licenses, so >please don't. > >The point stands that some licenses are poorly drafted, and that in a >perfect world where we could easily identify and evaluate such >licenses, we would probably no longer publicize/endorse them. > >That said, as Richard pointed out, this is an extremely difficult >issue to evaluate. It is inherently subjective, and a matter requiring >expertise. Given that, I see no evidence that OSI (or anyone) could >perform it in a reasonable, objective, efficient manner, so I'm not >very interested in pursuing it. > >Luis >___ >License-discuss mailing list >License-discuss@opensource.org >http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] what would de-listing of licenses look like?
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 10:15 PM, John Cowan wrote: > Bruce Perens scripsit: > >> So, what the Artistic License 1.0 made much more difficult for the >> poor Open Source developer is exactly what I'd like to fix. And yet >> the Artistic 1.0 is not the one I thought of first upon seeing this >> discussion in progress. We have much worse. > > Please itemize. I don't think we do anyone any favors by having extensive public discussions of the legal/drafting weaknesses of existing licenses, so please don't. The point stands that some licenses are poorly drafted, and that in a perfect world where we could easily identify and evaluate such licenses, we would probably no longer publicize/endorse them. That said, as Richard pointed out, this is an extremely difficult issue to evaluate. It is inherently subjective, and a matter requiring expertise. Given that, I see no evidence that OSI (or anyone) could perform it in a reasonable, objective, efficient manner, so I'm not very interested in pursuing it. Luis ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] what would de-listing of licenses look like?
Bruce Perens scripsit: > So, what the Artistic License 1.0 made much more difficult for the > poor Open Source developer is exactly what I'd like to fix. And yet > the Artistic 1.0 is not the one I thought of first upon seeing this > discussion in progress. We have much worse. Please itemize. -- John Cowan http://ccil.org/~cowanco...@ccil.org There are books that are at once excellent and boring. Those that at once leap to the mind are Thoreau's Walden, Emerson's Essays, George Eliot's Adam Bede, and Landor's Dialogues. --Somerset Maugham ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] what would de-listing of licenses look like?
The license isn't really "standing up" when you have to file a writ of certiorari after a judge throws his hands up at the license text and pronounces it to be tantamount to a dedication to the public domain. That was no easy appeal to win, and the Open Source developer was seriously damaged by the cost and the 5-year process. It cost me a good deal of time and work too. A license that stands up would, I hope, require much less time to dispute and would be parsed as intended by the court. So, what the Artistic License 1.0 made much more difficult for the poor Open Source developer is exactly what I'd like to fix. And yet the Artistic 1.0 is not the one I thought of first upon seeing this discussion in progress. We have much worse. Thanks Bruce John Cowan wrote: >Bruce Perens scripsit: > >And yet the Artistic License 1.0, which is riddled with ambiguities and >a prototypical crayon license, is one of the few that has been tested >in court -- and stood up. -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] what would de-listing of licenses look like?
Bruce Perens scripsit: > 1. They are ambiguous or likely to perform in court in unexpected > ways, should they ever be litigated. And thus they are harmful to > their users. De-listing is a prompt to the organization that > originally created the license to replace it with an accepted > license or to submit a new version with greater legal competence in > its construction. These would be the "crayon" licenses, mostly, > those written without legal counsel. And yet the Artistic License 1.0, which is riddled with ambiguities and a prototypical crayon license, is one of the few that has been tested in court -- and stood up. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan The internet is a web of tiny tyrannies giving an illusion of anarchy. --David Rush ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] what would de-listing of licenses look like?
On Wed, Mar 06, 2013 at 08:49:37PM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote: > The justification for de-listing presently accepted licenses is that: > > 1. They are ambiguous or likely to perform in court in unexpected ways, should > they ever be litigated. And thus they are harmful to their users. De-listing > is > a prompt to the organization that originally created the license to replace it > with an accepted license or to submit a new version with greater legal > competence in its construction. These would be the "crayon" licenses, mostly, > those written without legal counsel. > > 2. They don't comply with the OSD and were accepted in error. > > 3. They are both redundant and rarely used. > > Those are the only justifications. You don't get to de-list something because > you don't like its politics. In my view, Bruce's justification 2 is the only justification: the license does not comply with the OSD and was accepted in error. I don't believe it is practical for the OSI to assess Bruce's justification 1. As for Bruce's justification 3, I think the OSI does enough here in its efforts to classify already-approved licenses. I certainly agree with Bruce that de-listing cannot be for political reasons. The rationale must be somehow grounded in the OSD, much like approval of licenses. > I think you need to have a committee review a proposal to de-list, with > arguments from the submitter regarding the problems in the license, I agree with that. > and with > advice from an attorney on whether the suggested problems are really problems. I don't agree with this, since my view is that the OSD should be the basis for an argument for delisting, and you don't need to be, or to get, a lawyer to interpret the OSD (more precisely, lawyers and non-lawyers are equally competent to interpret the OSD). - Richard > > Thanks > > Bruce > > On 03/06/2013 08:23 PM, Luis Villa wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 11:48 AM, Richard Fontana > wrote: > > The Frameworx license is one of those OSI-approved licenses that I > believe was approved "in haste". If OSI had such a procedure, I would > recommend that the Frameworx license be reviewed for de-listing. > > Any recommendations on what such a process would look like, Richard? > I'm not super-enthused about the idea, but don't want to rule out > anything without at least some discussion. > > Luis > ___ > License-discuss mailing list > License-discuss@opensource.org > http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss > > > begin:vcard > fn:Bruce Perens > n:Perens;Bruce > org:Perens LLC > adr:1563 Solano Ave.;;PMB 549;Berkeley;CA;94707;USA > email;internet:br...@perens.com > title:Strategic Consultant > tel;work:+1-510-4PERENS (510-473-7367) > url:http://perens.com/ > version:2.1 > end:vcard > > ___ > 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] what would de-listing of licenses look like?
The justification for de-listing presently accepted licenses is that: 1. They are ambiguous or likely to perform in court in unexpected ways, should they ever be litigated. And thus they are harmful to their users. De-listing is a prompt to the organization that originally created the license to replace it with an accepted license or to submit a new version with greater legal competence in its construction. These would be the "crayon" licenses, mostly, those written without legal counsel. 2. They don't comply with the OSD and were accepted in error. 3. They are both redundant /and /rarely used. Those are the only justifications. You don't get to de-list something because you don't like its politics. I think you need to have a committee review a proposal to de-list, with arguments from the submitter regarding the problems in the license, and with advice from an attorney on whether the suggested problems are really problems. Thanks Bruce On 03/06/2013 08:23 PM, Luis Villa wrote: On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 11:48 AM, Richard Fontana wrote: The Frameworx license is one of those OSI-approved licenses that I believe was approved "in haste". If OSI had such a procedure, I would recommend that the Frameworx license be reviewed for de-listing. Any recommendations on what such a process would look like, Richard? I'm not super-enthused about the idea, but don't want to rule out anything without at least some discussion. Luis ___ 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
