Re: BXAPL - request for comments
Larry, Perhaps you're still confusing terms. Those sections of the QPL don't require that copyrights of modifications be passed to the copyright holder. They are simply grant-back licenses, albeit a little awkwardly phrased. -- I still maintain that BXAPL section 12.5 is a nearly exact copy (semantically, that is, not literally) of QPL sections 3b and 6c toghether. If my understanding of English fails me at this point, what is the difference, please? -- Anything that is the author's prerogative under copyright law can be licensed to third parties under certain restrictions. I don't see where contract law comes in. Because many licenses deal with much more than the author's prerogative under copyright law. There are many provisions in these licenses that have no analogue in copyright law at all, including warranty, etc., etc., etc. -- John Cowan's mail cleared some points you're trying to make here. From his mail I conclude that you are right in pointing out that various provisions in the BXAPL will be unenforcible without invoking contract law - in addition to copyright law. I'll reconsider what this means for the BXAPL. Damn, that was my most fervent wish. I haven't been getting enough flames on license-discuss. Why don't you come and see for yourself? Anyway, the English seem to like those wigs, so what? Furthermore, the French legal system and practices are presumably *quite* different from ours - and both will differ from yours and then again from the English. Still, intellectual property laws are sait to be quite comparable due to the international treaties on the subject. So they say. I just practice here in California and the U.S. -- Does 'practicing' imply that you are still in your apprenticeship ;-) (Sorry, couln't resist the bait) Kind Regards, Abe Kornelis. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: BXAPL - request for comments
Larry, See below for comments. Please find my responses inserted in the existing text. Abe. B) Copyrights of Modifications to be passed to Copyright Holder. Found no mention of such a requirement in the OSL. The requirement that downstream licensees who modify the software assign their copyrights to the licensor is entirely unacceptable. Why do you need that? The OSL is fully enforceable by the licensor even if he doesn't own the copyrights. (This is not true for the GPL or LGPL!) -- It was based on QPL, section 2. If it is utterly unacceptable then how did the QPL ever get approved? If it hadn't been approved I never would have used it as a source of inspriation. I'm confused. The QPL doesn't require that copyrights of modifications be passed to copyright holder. Section 2 in the QPL? I still don't see it. Your confusion is understandable. Entirely my mistake - apologies offered. Please check QPL, granted rights, section 3b and 6c. Sorry, I regretted my use of the term hogwash as soon as I sent the email. I just strongly believe that no US judge will enforce anything other than copyright law terms in a copyright license; if the license is subject to contract law, however, then contract law terms can be enforced. -- Anything that is the author's prerogative under copyright law can be licensed to third parties under certain restrictions. I don't see where contract law comes in. What a court will do in Holland or France is a mystery to me. Do the judges there still wear wigs and speak in haughty accents? -- You're asking for a flame, but that won't get us nowhere. Why don't you come and see for yourself? Anyway, the English seem to like those wigs, so what? Furthermore, the French legal system and practices are presumably *quite* different from ours - and both will differ from yours and then again from the English. Still, intellectual property laws are sait to be quite comparable due to the international treaties on the subject. Kind regards, Abe Kornelis. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: BXAPL - request for comments
Larry, thanks for the hint. I've read your license - it is appealing for being short concise, and pretty clear - at least for a lawyer ;-) However, it does not distinguish between software and programming tools, nor does it distinguish between derived software and what we have termed 'dependent software', which is termed in the LGPL as 'software that uses the Software'. In the rationale for the BXAPL we have named 8 requirements that our license would need to fulfill. Since you tried offered your OSL1.1 as an alternative, I'll go over them 1 by 1. A) Programming tools and dependent software versus other software and derivatives. I have found no mention of this distinction in your OSL. B) Copyrights of Modifications to be passed to Copyright Holder. Found no mention of such a requirement in the OSL. C) Copyrights and Patent rights. Ok. D) Disallow object-only distros. I assume section 3 of the OSL settles that. E) Recognizability of modifications. Not mentioned in OSL. F) Dual licensing. Section 4, right? G) Applicable law. Ok, section 11. H) Local langauages. Found no mention of such things. A quick count that the OSL covers 50% of our requirements. So, thanks again, but I will stick with my own license. Kind Regards, Abe. == - Original Message - From: Lawrence E. Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Abe Kornelis' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 8:48 PM Subject: RE: BXAPL - request for comments Did you consider using the Open Software License? The latest version of the OSL is now at www.rosenlaw.com.osl1.1.html. I think it will do what you want. It is an alternative to both the GPL and the LGPL. /Larry Rosen -Original Message- From: Abe Kornelis [mailto:abe;bixoft.nl] Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 12:33 PM To: OSI-list Subject: BXAPL - request for comments Hello all, a few months ago, Steve Lhomme and I have requested approval for the BXAPL license. That request was a bit too rash. We received various comments and have taken our time to create a new and improved version of the BXAPL. For an overview of the differences with the preceding version, please see below. We invite all readers on this list to take a look at the new version of our license and gladly welcome any comments, questions and other remarks you may want to e-mail us. The license text can be found at: http://www.bixoft.nl/english/license.htm One of the primary objectives for creating this license is to make it possible to distribute both programming tools and other software in a single package under a single license. Unfortunately, this requirement has led to a rather lengthy and complicated license. We apologize for this circumstance but at the same time feel we have done our best to make the license text understandable by supplying an explanation and an abridged version by way of quick reference. Thank you all in advance for your time and effort. Kind Regards, Abe Kornelis. == Differences between versions 0.H and 0.J - Added explanation on Programming Tools and Derivatives - Made requirement a in the list of requirements more explicit. - Contributor redefined so as to include only the Copyright Holder and all other parties supplying Modifications etc. Checked all occurrences of Contributor and Distributor and changed accordingly wherever necessary. This change corrects an omission in section 16, where a claim against Copyright Holder was not mentioned as a reason for suspending or withdrawing the licensed rights. - Definition of Source Code redefined to exclude assembler, compiler, linker, etc. - User redefined as anyone who 'possesses' a copy of the Software. The mere act of receiving the Software therefore no longer forces the receiver into a status as User. Also it enables any User to quit being a User, simply by deleting all copies of the Software. I've been thinking to use 'has', 'keeps' or 'owns', but as far as I can see, 'possesses' serves best. - the word paragraph has been changed to section wherever it referred to a numbered section of the license. This was done to make it easier to differentiate between sections and paragraphs within sections. - Defined Licensor in paragraph 2. - Defined Co-licensor in paragraph 2. Note the difference between a Licensor and a Co-licensor. Suggestions for improving on the terminology are very welcome. Added Co-licensors to sections 17 and 18. - Added definition of Licensor to paragraph 2. - Added definition of 'Contribution'. - Added allowance for waiver of entitlement to Source Code of Modifications and/or Derivatives (see section 12.5) because not all Licensors are likely to require such entitlement. - Made it clear that the License is not a contract. - The section numbers
RE: BXAPL - request for comments
Abe Kornelis wrote: However, it does not distinguish between software and programming tools, nor does it distinguish between derived software and what we have termed 'dependent software', which is termed in the LGPL as 'software that uses the Software'. In the rationale for the BXAPL we have named 8 requirements that our license would need to fulfill. Since you tried offered your OSL1.1 as an alternative, I'll go over them 1 by 1. A) Programming tools and dependent software versus other software and derivatives. I have found no mention of this distinction in your OSL. The OSL doesn't need to distinguish among these because it relies on the statutory definition of derivative works. In my view, the OSL has the same effect as both the GPL and the LGPL. One license instead of two! B) Copyrights of Modifications to be passed to Copyright Holder. Found no mention of such a requirement in the OSL. The requirement that downstream licensees who modify the software assign their copyrights to the licensor is entirely unacceptable. Why do you need that? The OSL is fully enforceable by the licensor even if he doesn't own the copyrights. (This is not true for the GPL or LGPL!) C) Copyrights and Patent rights. Ok. D) Disallow object-only distros. I assume section 3 of the OSL settles that. Yes it does. E) Recognizability of modifications. Not mentioned in OSL. Take a look at section 6 in www.rosenlaw.com/osl1.1.html. F) Dual licensing. Section 4, right? Any licensor can license his software under any license (or licenses) he wants. Of course, if he is licensing a derivative work of someone else's software, he must honor the requirements of THAT license. If he is licensing a derivative work of OSL-licensed software, he can only use the OSL. The same is true for the GPL. G) Applicable law. Ok, section 11. H) Local langauages. Found no mention of such things. I'm going to get translations of the OSL. A quick count that the OSL covers 50% of our requirements. So, thanks again, but I will stick with my own license. Entirely up to you. But if you insist on your point B, above, I'll recommend disapproval of your license. I should also note that, although this is not legal advice nor intended to create an attorney-client relationship with you, I believe several sections of your license are probably unenforceable and of dubious legal effect. In particular, your claim that your license is not a contract is legal hogwash. /Larry -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
