Re: Plan 9 license
I disagree. (I know, I do that a lot, but I mean well.) It's best if licenses are simply either approved or not approved. There is no list of licenses that have been rejected or withdrawn; that would be punitive. By the same token, there should be no special status given to licenses in limbo. Perhaps OSI would list licenses that have ended in limbo (neither rejected nor approved) and/or list licenses that claim to be open source but which are not (yet) certified by the OSI. -- ralph -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Plan 9 license
Lewis Collard wrote: The Plan 9 license forbids personal modification I agree, but so does the OSL 1.0, which is Open Source (the OSL 1.1 does not have this problem). Then I disagree with the certification of the OSL v1.0 as Open Source. Count me in. If I can't modify the software for which I have the source code, what point would it be in having it? Verifying that it contains bugs I'm not allowed to fix?! By giving someone access to the source code, you have also given them the option of rebuilding the software themselves. If soneone finds an error in named source, why on earth would any sane person want to stop that someone from fixing the bug for his/hers personal binary/binaries? /Mike -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
RE: Plan 9 license
Why on earth does anyone believe that OSL 1.0 forbids personal modification? Is this the way rumors start? Does OSL 1.1 have that problem? (See www.rosenlaw.com/osl1.1.html) /Larry Rosen -Original Message- From: Mike Nordell [mailto:tamlin;algonet.se] Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2002 4:44 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Plan 9 license Lewis Collard wrote: The Plan 9 license forbids personal modification I agree, but so does the OSL 1.0, which is Open Source (the OSL 1.1 does not have this problem). Then I disagree with the certification of the OSL v1.0 as Open Source. Count me in. If I can't modify the software for which I have the source code, what point would it be in having it? Verifying that it contains bugs I'm not allowed to fix?! By giving someone access to the source code, you have also given them the option of rebuilding the software themselves. If soneone finds an error in named source, why on earth would any sane person want to stop that someone from fixing the bug for his/hers personal binary/binaries? /Mike -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3 -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Plan 9 license
Lawrence E. Rosen top-posted: Why on earth does anyone believe that OSL 1.0 forbids personal modification? Beats me. Probably Lewis Collard could answer that (I didn't attribute all individual comments to keep down size of post - an error I'll try to not repeat). Personally I referred to the comments that OSL 1.0 had the same restriction as Plan 9, that personal modification was not allowed. I assumed those comments were true. /Mike -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Plan 9 license
It turns out that this license is still *NOT* OSD compliant, ie. it is not what those running the OSI would label Open Source. Could you please specify wherein the Plan 9 license fails of Open Sourceness in its current incarnation? The complaints of RMS at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/plan-nine.html seem to apply with equal force to the Perl license (which he calls unFree) and the OSL 1.0, with the exception of the termination-on-any-IP-lawsuit provision. For now I'll limit myself to comparing the summary of problems that you wrote August 20 2000 [1], with the current license [2,3]. There may of course be other issues not covered in your summary, though it was in my judgment a good summary of the situation as the license was at that time. 1) Lucent reserves the right to demand source code for your private undistributed modifications; The current (as at Nov 03 2002) license says: Modifications which You create ... must be made available under the terms of this Agreement in at least the same form as the Source Code version of Original Software furnished hereunder. They don't explicitly exclude private changes. But I doubt they really care, so I think this could be fixed easily. You agree to provide the Original Contributor, at its request, with a copy of the complete Source Code version, Object Code version and related documentation for Modifications created or contributed to by You if distributed in any form They don't define distribute or any variant of the word. But again, although with less certainty, I suspect they would not mind about private distribution (within a single entity) and could fix the wording. 2) commercial redistribution can only be for a reasonable price, an undefined term that might lead to trouble later; Distribution ... may ... include a reasonable charge for the cost of any media. You may also, at Your option, charge for any other software, product or service that includes or incorporates the Original Software as a part thereof. I believe the last sentence was added after your summary. Afaict, it mostly fixes the problem. 3) the license conditions are reimposed on your distributees, which suggests that you must have an explicit contract with them (I think RMS is overdoing it here); I'm not sure what this is about so I won't try to review this. 4) the retaliation clause causes you to lose all rights if you sue Lucent on any IP matter whatever, even if it has nothing to do with Plan 9; The licenses and rights granted under this Agreement shall terminate automatically if ... (ii) You initiate or participate in any intellectual property action against Original Contributor. So, this problem remains. Note that, from http://www.linuxworld.com/linuxworld/lw-2000-09/lw-09-expo00-licensing.h tml http://tinyurl.com/2euh [Eric] Raymond favors a Chinese finger trap provision for future licenses: under its terms, if you initiate patent legal action against the copyright holder, you lose your license rights. Ironic, huh? (Although what he actually said or meant may have been less extreme than the above seems to imply.) 5) the license imposes the U.S. export regulations on you if you export the software, even if they would not otherwise apply as a matter of law. You acknowledge that the Licensed Software hereunder is unrestricted encryption source code as the term is defined under the United States Export Administration Regulations and is subject to export control under such laws and regulations. You agree that, if you export or re-export the Licensed Software ... You are responsible for compliance with the United States Export Administration Regulations... I can't tell if this wording creates the problem you describe. The Lucida fonts bundled with Plan 9 are definitely not free, but nothing compels you to use or redistribute them (they cannot be modified or redistributed except as part of Plan 9). 2.2 No right is granted to Licensee to create derivative works of or to redistribute (other than with the Original Software or a derivative thereof) the screen imprinter fonts... Looks Ok to me. = Footnotes: [1] Your summary of issues with Plan 9 license is at: http://tinyurl.com/1ch9 or http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:2173:aankcpfkdbioplpjjacb [2] The current license is supposed to be stored at http://www.cs.bell-labs.com/plan9dist/license.html I include a copy of the version I read from for this email in footnote 3. The md5sum checksum for the version I am using for this email is f8be6752dae66936309f85b457c9f487 This version includes the text Version 1.4 - 09/10/02 at the bottom. However, two posts to comp.os.plan9 suggest that this is misleading: http://tinyurl.com/2etj or http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=enlr=ie=UTF-8oe=UTF-8selm=39e5c4a ebead98720077a2dd482865c3%40plan9.bell-labs.com and http://tinyurl.com/2eth or
Re: Plan 9 license
Mike Nordell r sez: Lawrence E. Rosen top-posted: Why on earth does anyone believe that OSL 1.0 forbids personal modification? Beats me. Probably Lewis Collard could answer that (I didn't attribute all individual comments to keep down size of post - an error I'll try to not repeat). I had assumed that John Cowan wasn't pulling random statements about license restrictions out of a hat. Hm. /Mike lewis -- Lewis Collard [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Plan 9 license
Mike Nordell scripsit: The Plan 9 license forbids personal modification I agree, but so does the OSL 1.0, which is Open Source (the OSL 1.1 does not have this problem). Then I disagree with the certification of the OSL v1.0 as Open Source. Count me in. If I can't modify the software for which I have the source code, what point would it be in having it? Verifying that it contains bugs I'm not allowed to fix?! No, no. The emphasis is on *personal*. The GPL allows you to make mods and keep them to yourself; only if you distribute binary must you also distribute source. The OPL requires distribution of any mods you make unless they are *very* personal indeed. -- And through this revolting graveyard of the universe the muffled, maddening beating of drums, and thin, monotonous whine of blasphemous flutes from inconceivable, unlighted chambers beyond Time; the detestable pounding and piping whereunto dance slowly, awkwardly, and absurdly the gigantic tenebrous ultimate gods -- the blind, voiceless, mindless gargoyles whose soul is Nyarlathotep. (Lovecraft) John Cowan|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|ccil.org/~cowan -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Plan 9 license
Lawrence E. Rosen scripsit: Why on earth does anyone believe that OSL 1.0 forbids personal modification? Is this the way rumors start? Does OSL 1.1 have that problem? (See www.rosenlaw.com/osl1.1.html) /Larry Rosen I was a tad unclear here, which seems to have started the trouble. I meant that it forbids private, undistributed modification unless it is for *purely* personal use. Under the GPL, I can modify a program, and if I don't distribute it in binary form, I need not distribute it in source form either. Not so under the OSL, e.g., if the program is used in the course of business. I don't consider this a problem with the OSL, but it does seem bizarre for OSI to approve the OSL and not the P9L on this ground. There may be other grounds not to approve the P9L. -- Even a refrigerator can conform to the XML John Cowan Infoset, as long as it has a door sticker [EMAIL PROTECTED] saying No information items inside. http://www.reutershealth.com --Eve Maler http://www.ccil.org/~cowan -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Plan 9 license
Ralph Mellor scripsit: It turns out that this license is still *NOT* OSD compliant, ie. it is not what those running the OSI would label Open Source. Could you please specify wherein the Plan 9 license fails of Open Sourceness in its current incarnation? The complaints of RMS at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/plan-nine.html seem to apply with equal force to the Perl license (which he calls unFree) and the OSL 1.0, with the exception of the termination-on-any-IP-lawsuit provision. I assume that the Lucida fonts could be treated as severable. -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ccil.org/~cowan http://www.reutershealth.com Charles li reis, nostre emperesdre magnes, Set anz totz pleinz ad ested in Espagnes. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Plan 9 license
John Cowan r sez: Ralph Mellor scripsit: It turns out that this license is still *NOT* OSD compliant, ie. it is not what those running the OSI would label Open Source. Could you please specify wherein the Plan 9 license fails of Open Sourceness in its current incarnation? The complaints of RMS at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/plan-nine.html seem to apply with equal force to the Perl license (which he calls unFree) and the OSL 1.0, with the exception of the termination-on-any-IP-lawsuit provision. The Plan 9 license forbids personal modification and doesn't permit commercial distribution (the Artistic license allows one to distribute it for profit by claiming the charges are for support, and allows one to aggregate it with other products and then sell it - the latter is in compliance with section 1 of the OSD). Also, RMS also points out on the license list page on the GNU site that the primary problem with the Artistic license is one of wording, not of intent. (I am not commenting on the latest Plan9 license, I haven't read it yet. I am just pointing out that most of RMS's criticisms do not apply to the Artistic license at all.) lewis -- Lewis Collard [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Plan 9 license
Lewis Collard scripsit: The Plan 9 license forbids personal modification I agree, but so does the OSL 1.0, which is Open Source (the OSL 1.1 does not have this problem). and doesn't permit commercial distribution (the Artistic license allows one to distribute it for profit by claiming the charges are for support, and allows one to aggregate it with other products and then sell it - the latter is in compliance with section 1 of the OSD). How is this different from the following language from 2.1 of the P9L? # Distribution of Licensed Software to third parties pursuant to this # grant shall be subject to the same terms and conditions as set forth in # this Agreement, and may, at Your option, include a reasonable charge for # the cost of any media. You may also, at Your option, charge for any other # software, product or service that includes or incorporates the Original # Software as a part thereof. For comparison, clause 5 of the Artistic License says: # 5. You may charge a reasonable copying fee for any distribution of # this Package. You may charge any fee you choose for support of this # Package. You may not charge a fee for this Package itself. However, you # may distribute this Package in aggregate with other (possibly commercial) # programs as part of a larger (possibly commercial) software distribution # provided that you do not advertise this Package as a product of your own. Looks like the same deal to me. -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ccil.org/~cowan http://www.reutershealth.com Unified Gaelic in Cyrillic script! http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Celticonlang -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Plan 9 license
Lewis Collard scripsit: Then I disagree with the certification of the OSL v1.0 as Open Source. (No, I'm not trying to start a flamewar here.) I don't like it either (a judgment which does not apply to the evolving OSL 1.1), but I don't see how it contravenes the OSD. Anyway, this discussion should be about whether the P9L qualifies as open source, and as you pointed out the termination-on-any-IP-lawsuit problem is clearly bad enough to disqualify the license alone. I don't know. I see why RMS thinks it's overkill, but does it contravene the OSD? I'd like to hear from people on that point. On the subject of RMS's article, he considers the Artistic license non-free too and in that he is consistent in dismissing the Plan9 license, which is far more restrictive. (I'd be interested to see his comments on the OSL.) I'd rather he waited for OSL 1.1 to be released. I think he'd accept it as free-incompatible-with-GPL. -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ccil.org/~cowan www.reutershealth.com The competent programmer is fully aware of the strictly limited size of his own skull; therefore he approaches the programming task in full humility, and among other things he avoids clever tricks like the plague. --Edsger Dijkstra -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Plan 9 license
Making "non authorized copies" is slavery! If you don't have power over other people, you are a slave. Boy, that is extreme.
Re: Plan 9 license
Rather like a car wreck, I can't keep myself from watching. I see sloppy thinking on both sides of this debate. Neither John nor David should feel particularly distinguished by my response. On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 02:20:22AM -0400, John Cowan wrote: On Sun, 3 Sep 2000, David Johnson wrote: "right of property" is a dangerous concept, meaning that someone else can be compelled to hand over their property to you, whereas the right to pursue property means that you can use voluntary means to acquire property but cannot coerce it from anyone. Coercion, like property, can only be defined within the context of a specific legal system. It has no natural existence. Extralegal coercion can exist. Cf: mafia protection racket. But another definition of property is that it can be defended and controlled through voluntary means. In terms of land ownership, it can be defended and controlled in the absence of trespass laws through the use of locks, fences and guards. Likewise, information can be defended in the absence of IP laws through encryption, registration and time limitations. Hmp. Just try defending property rights in -- or even the existence of -- stock certificates in the absence of a legal system. Rather than try to develop a new definition of property, how about dicussing the relevance of an accepted legal one: 1. The right to possess, use, and enjoy a determinate thing (either a tract of land or a chattel); the right of ownership. 2. Any external thing over which the rights of possession, use, and enjoyment are exercised. Black's Law Dictionary (Pocket Edition) Since information has been created by the author and can be defended by the author, it counts as a form of property. Rather more specifically, intellectual property, as distinguished from real property. IP rights only become significant when the content *is* publicly known. Secret books aren't that useful or profitable. Disputed. Again, Cf: the mob. Or the CIA. To cite a different authority: Success for some people, depends on becoming well-known; for others, it depends on never being found out. - Ashleigh Brilliant Copyright can and has been used to protect unpublished materials. But even if the copyright laws were repealed tomorrow, software developers can still privately protect their works. Indeed, the copyright license for closed-source software is no problem: "All rights reserved". Since you do not own the software anyway, your other rights don't exist. Review please for class "first sale doctrine". Or if copyright is the only thing holding back software from being free, why isn't my public domain binary considered Free Software? Failing to read the FSF's licenses discussion, we see. PD *is* free software. However, it's not copyleft, which addresses an additional set of concerns. Review please for class. -- Karsten M. Self [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.netcom.com/~kmself Evangelist, Opensales, Inc.http://www.opensales.org What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? Debian GNU/Linux rocks! http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/K5: http://www.kuro5hin.org GPG fingerprint: F932 8B25 5FDD 2528 D595 DC61 3847 889F 55F2 B9B0 PGP signature
What is CMM (was Re: Plan 9 license)
On Sun, Sep 03, 2000 at 10:24:42PM -0400, John Cowan wrote: On Sun, 3 Sep 2000, Angelo Schneider wrote: ... Most propritary software organizations are on CMM level 1. What is "CMM"? What is "CMM level 1"? CMM is an acronym for the Capability Maturity Model, a metric of software development process sophistication applied to an organization as a whole, developed by the Software Engineering Institute at Carnegie Mellon University. CMM level one is roughly equivalant to "Thog invent square wheel. No ask no one for advice. No remember why square wheel no work last time." For a more conventional definition of CMM levels, see: http://www.sei.cmu.edu/cmm/cmm.sum.html -- Karsten M. Self [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.netcom.com/~kmself Evangelist, Opensales, Inc.http://www.opensales.org What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? Debian GNU/Linux rocks! http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/K5: http://www.kuro5hin.org GPG fingerprint: F932 8B25 5FDD 2528 D595 DC61 3847 889F 55F2 B9B0 PGP signature
Re: Plan 9 license
On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 12:40:23PM -0700, David Johnson wrote: On Mon, 04 Sep 2000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Or if copyright is the only thing holding back software from being free, why isn't my public domain binary considered Free Software? Failing to read the FSF's licenses discussion, we see. PD *is* free software. However, it's not copyleft, which addresses an additional set of concerns. Review please for class. I understood the FSF to mean that PD with_source_code is Free Software. It is a requirement for Free Software that the source code be available. My hypothetical case involved a PD binary where the source code had not been disclosed. Ok, you got me, I think. Though, in this case, reverse-engineering the code to produce human-readable sources would be allowable. PD is PD for works and derivatives. The person REing the sources would then have to release these as PD rather than claiming copyright to them, as might be possible. PD binary is a step removed from PD source, but it's still PD, and could possibly meet the FSF's definition, even though source code (a precondition in the FSF's discussion) isn't initially available. Note also that a PD binary is of limited utility w/o the sources anyway. I don't know what the point of the PD binary comment was -- it lacks context (even in the original post). -- Karsten M. Self [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.netcom.com/~kmself Evangelist, Opensales, Inc.http://www.opensales.org What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? Debian GNU/Linux rocks! http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/K5: http://www.kuro5hin.org GPG fingerprint: F932 8B25 5FDD 2528 D595 DC61 3847 889F 55F2 B9B0 PGP signature
Re: Plan 9 license
Angelo Schneider wrote: Making "non authorized copies" is slavery! Wow! 85 lines of question-begging. I believe that's a new record. Don, what prize do we have for today's contestant? -- Cheers, "Teach a man to make fire, and he will be warm Rick Moen for a day. Set a man on fire, and he will be warm [EMAIL PROTECTED] for the rest of his life." -- John A. Hrastar
Re: Plan 9 license
On Sun, 3 Sep 2000, Rick Moen wrote: Angelo Schneider wrote: Making "non authorized copies" is slavery! Wow! 85 lines of question-begging. I believe that's a new record. Don, what prize do we have for today's contestant? Well, we can offer him lots of software for download at the special price, for him only, of 0.00 zlotniks -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] "[O]n the whole I'd rather make love than shoot guns [...]" --Eric Raymond
Re: Plan 9 license
On Sun, 3 Sep 2000, Angelo Schneider wrote: To copy without the authorization of the creator, denies the freedom of the creator. This is incoherent on any known definition of "freedom". If you are going to use terms in nonstandard ways, you need to explain them, not just appeal to them as Yang Worship Words (Star Trek reference). It is moral wrong to make unauthorized copies as it it s moral wrong to denie the physical freedom of one. You're entitled to devise your own moral code, of course. Free Software is a nice idea, but not the solution. It simply floddes the market with so much software that stealing is no longer a reasonable action of one who likes to use the software. Solution to what? Anyway, free software cannot be stolen except by breaching the license. If you invent the one and only intergalactic starship drive, you will make your knowledge free. One will build that ship with that drive. Why only "one"? If you make the information publicly and freely available, *many* can build ships with that drive. This is called "competition" and is generally thought to be a Good Thing for the public, if not for would-be monopolists. You should better think about a world in which the inventor/creator or how ever you call him gets a fair revenue, instead about a world in which a "customer" gets a free(in beer) access to inventions. So we do. See http://www.opensource.org/for-suits.html . The point with most free software promotors is that they only see the US and their strange copyright law and patent law. The rest of the world is very different. Nonsense. The U.S. has been changing its copyright laws since 1976 to come into *conformity* with the rest of the world, specifically including the EU. -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] "[O]n the whole I'd rather make love than shoot guns [...]" --Eric Raymond
Re: Plan 9 license
Well, It seems that I beg for misunderstanding? So I simply delete and skip that part :-) Nonsense. The U.S. has been changing its copyright laws since 1976 to come into *conformity* with the rest of the world, specifically including the EU. In the EU it is not possible to transfer a copyright. QED. Regards, Angelo Please support a software patent free EU, visit http://petition.eurolinux.org/index_html -- Angelo Schneider OOAD/UML [EMAIL PROTECTED] Putlitzstr. 24 Patterns/FrameWorks Fon: +49 721 9812465 76137 Karlsruhe C++/JAVAFax: +49 721 9812467
Re: Plan 9 license
Well, I'm not a native english speaker, first fault. I learned british english in scholl, second fault. On Sun, 3 Sep 2000, Angelo Schneider wrote: To copy without the authorization of the creator, denies the freedom of the creator. This is incoherent on any known definition of "freedom". freedom means to be free to do and to let do what you want. I do not know of any other definition. [...] It is moral wrong to make unauthorized copies as it it s moral wrong to denie the physical freedom of one. You're entitled to devise your own moral code, of course. Sure, do you agree or not, would be more interesting to me. Free Software is a nice idea, but not the solution. It simply floddes the market with so much software that stealing is no longer a reasonable action of one who likes to use the software. Solution to what? To the problems RMS wans to address with the FSF. Anyway, free software cannot be stolen except by breaching the license. I'm not talking about "stealing" free software. I'm talking about stealing any intellectual property from an inventor/autor/creator against his will AND without refunding. This is regardless wether I breach the FSF license or if I copy a CD from a friend. If you invent the one and only intergalactic starship drive, you will make your knowledge free. One will build that ship with that drive. Why only "one"? If you make the information publicly and freely In britisch english one means "some one", "some body" and does not mean 1 person but any person. available, *many* can build ships with that drive. This is called "competition" and is generally thought to be a Good Thing for the public, if not for would-be monopolists. I was not talking about that, strange that you draw this from my simple example ;-) You should better think about a world in which the inventor/creator or how ever you call him gets a fair revenue, instead about a world in which a "customer" gets a free(in beer) access to inventions. So we do. See http://www.opensource.org/for-suits.html . Well, 50% of the arguments on that paper are wrong or very narrow minded. Most propritary software organizations are on CMM level 1. The same is true for open source software and free software. In terms of effort put into the software and return of investment most OS and FS software performs very bad. Much more bad then most a standard priprietary software house. (there are exceptions: namely Apache and ANTLR) Most of the business models mentioned there would not work if OS or FS would not allready exist. They only can work because millions of developer monthes are allready DONE. Most of them unpayd. So the real winners are the compayies which say: "Well, I'm smart, I know linux. Lets go and do some consulting." (substitute linux with your favorite OS/FS work) And all this companies do not pay anything back to anybody. Neither the public nor the creator. (Besides paying sales tax) Of course the real winners are companies which now can sell hardware for linux boxes. Those have a benfit in OS development. (again substitute 'linux box' for any OS/FS work which can be a base for a product on top of it) The point with most free software promotors is that they only see the US and their strange copyright law and patent law. The rest of the world is very different. Nonsense. The U.S. has been changing its copyright laws since 1976 Well, I commented on that but I do again. to come into *conformity* with the rest of the world, specifically including the EU. In the EU it is impossible to transfer a copyright. QED. And it even goes farer, now we are close to a change which makes contracts which want the creator to surrender his rights void. -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] "[O]n the whole I'd rather make love than shoot guns [...]" --Eric Raymond Regards, Angelo P.S. if one would read what I write it would be more fun to discuss ... Please support a software patent free EU, visit http://petition.eurolinux.org/index_html -- Angelo Schneider OOAD/UML [EMAIL PROTECTED] Putlitzstr. 24 Patterns/FrameWorks Fon: +49 721 9812465 76137 Karlsruhe C++/JAVAFax: +49 721 9812467
US, EU, piracy, freedom, control (was Re: Plan 9 license)
On Sun, Sep 03, 2000 at 08:44:42PM +0100, Angelo Schneider wrote: Well, It seems that I beg for misunderstanding? So I simply delete and skip that part :-) Nonsense. The U.S. has been changing its copyright laws since 1976 to come into *conformity* with the rest of the world, specifically including the EU. In the EU it is not possible to transfer a copyright. This is only partially correct, AFAIK. Commercial rights may be transferred. Moral rights cannot. For commercial purposes, EU and US law are highly conformant. The concept of moral rights is somewhat peculiar to the EU, and (IIRC) French tradition in particular -- "Droit d'author". -- Karsten M. Self [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.netcom.com/~kmself Evangelist, Opensales, Inc.http://www.opensales.org What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? Debian GNU/Linux rocks! http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/K5: http://www.kuro5hin.org GPG fingerprint: F932 8B25 5FDD 2528 D595 DC61 3847 889F 55F2 B9B0 PGP signature
Re: Plan 9 license
On Sun, 3 Sep 2000, Angelo Schneider wrote: To copy without the authorization of the creator, denies the freedom of the creator. This is incoherent on any known definition of "freedom". freedom means to be free to do and to let do what you want. I do not know of any other definition. There _are_ other definitions, such as those (common in some political circles) that distinguish between "Negative Freedom" (the kind you describe) and "Positive Freedom" (a nebulous concept involving some level of guaranteed wealth and happiness at the expense of everyone else). They're wrong, but they are definitions. In this case, the Positive Freedom principle would probably say that creators have a right to be compensated (to some unspecified degree) for their creative effort, and therefore that they should be guaranteed a monopoly on distribution of copies. Otherwise, they're being "enslaved". Positive Freedom defines slavery not as _forced_ work but as _uncompensated_ work. Again, they're wrong. I'm not endorsing this definition; I'm just saying that it is a definition we can expect to run into among academics and other professional ignorers of reality, and we should be prepared to answer it. Anyway, free software cannot be stolen except by breaching the license. I'm not talking about "stealing" free software. I'm talking about stealing any intellectual property from an inventor/autor/creator against his will AND without refunding. Here's a simple test to determine if something has been stolen: does the original owner still have it? The "intellectual property" myth was invented for the convenience of a few people who thought "enforced monopoly" sounded too blunt. The purpose of property rights is to settle disputes among parties who want to use an object in different and mutually exclusive ways. For intellectual constructs there is no mutual exclusion. If you write a network driver, and I make a copy and modify it to handle a different protocol, you don't have to use my version. You're still entirely free to do what you want with the driver as you wrote it. As obvious as this seems, some people refuse to believe it because they have a vested interest in perpetuating the false analogy to property. Considering what these emperors have spent on their new clothes, they'd rather die of hypothermia than admit that they're naked. to come into *conformity* with the rest of the world, specifically including the EU. In the EU it is impossible to transfer a copyright. I'm not familiar with EU copyright law, but can't the same thing be accomplished with contracts? "I agree to allow Company X, and no one else, to distribute copies of my software; in return, Company X will pay me amount. This agreement remains in force until the copyright expires."
Re: Plan 9 license
On Sun, 3 Sep 2000, Mark Wells wrote: Here's a simple test to determine if something has been stolen: does the original owner still have it? Doesn't work. "Because my work is copied and the coies are widely spread, I do not have the potential market that I did before. That market has been stolen from me."
Re: Plan 9 license
On Sun, 3 Sep 2000, Angelo Schneider wrote: freedom means to be free to do and to let do what you want. I do not know of any other definition. Freedom is freedom to act, or not to act, in a certain way. What action, or inaction, of the creator is prevented when I make unauthorized copies of his works? You're entitled to devise your own moral code, of course. Sure, do you agree or not, would be more interesting to me. I don't. It is wrong, but it is not *as* wrong. It is wrong to drive at 90 km/hr in a 50 km/hr road, but to claim that this is as wrong as murder strikes me as absurd. I was not talking about that, strange that you draw this from my simple example ;-) You said "If you invent ... [some]one will build a ship ... if *he* does not like you, you will never ride in it " This suggests that there is only one ship-builder. If there are many, *someone* will be willing to take your money. Most propritary software organizations are on CMM level 1. What is "CMM"? What is "CMM level 1"? The same is true for open source software and free software. In terms of effort put into the software and return of investment most OS and FS software performs very bad. Much more bad then most a standard priprietary software house. That's why so matter of the latter fail to survive, no doubt. Most of the business models mentioned there would not work if OS or FS would not allready exist. They only can work because millions of developer monthes are allready DONE. Most of them unpayd. Very true. Most businesses depend to one degree or another on something already available in the environment. Timber companies wouldn't be able to get started if there hadn't been forests that grew by themselves. So the real winners are the compayies which say: "Well, I'm smart, I know linux. Lets go and do some consulting." (substitute linux with your favorite OS/FS work) And all this companies do not pay anything back to anybody. Neither the public nor the creator. (Besides paying sales tax) If we look at pieces of software smaller than a whole operating system, it often turns out to be true that the person who knows them best, and can make the most money consulting, *is* the creator. But in fact companies that make a living consulting on open source often do quite a bit of payback to the public, in the form of explicit or implicit support for software creators. Of course the real winners are companies which now can sell hardware for linux boxes. Those have a benfit in OS development. (again substitute 'linux box' for any OS/FS work which can be a base for a product on top of it) Yes, but the advantage applies equally to all of them. Hardware companies benefit when software is a commodity item, and so do consumers. And it even goes farer, now we are close to a change which makes contracts which want the creator to surrender his rights void. Which rights, exactly? The *droit d'auteur*, or the *droit d'exploitation*? -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] "[O]n the whole I'd rather make love than shoot guns [...]" --Eric Raymond
Re: Plan 9 license
On Sun, 3 Sep 2000, Mark Wells wrote: In this case, the Positive Freedom principle would probably say that creators have a right to be compensated (to some unspecified degree) for their creative effort, and therefore that they should be guaranteed a monopoly on distribution of copies. Otherwise, they're being "enslaved". I think that both you and your putative intellectual opponents need a better schema. Check out the classical Hohfeld schema at http://law.gsu.edu/wedmundson/Syllabi/Hohfeld.htm and come back when you believe you understand it. Here's a simple test to determine if something has been stolen: does the original owner still have it? That won't do: it works only for material objects. In particular, IP rights are the rights to exploit something commercially. The "intellectual property" myth was invented for the convenience of a few people who thought "enforced monopoly" sounded too blunt. IP rights are monopolistic, but so are ordinary property rights: if I own land, I have the exclusive right to make what use of it I like (subject to a few restrictions). If you build a shack on the corner of my farm, you have not "stolen my land", but my property rights are invaded nonetheless. The purpose of property rights is to settle disputes among parties who want to use an object in different and mutually exclusive ways. For intellectual constructs there is no mutual exclusion. If you write a network driver, and I make a copy and modify it to handle a different protocol, you don't have to use my version. You're still entirely free to do what you want with the driver as you wrote it. Except sell it (and its variants) where and how I choose. I'm not familiar with EU copyright law, but can't the same thing be accomplished with contracts? "I agree to allow Company X, and no one else, to distribute copies of my software; in return, Company X will pay me amount. This agreement remains in force until the copyright expires." Yes, that works fine. -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] "[O]n the whole I'd rather make love than shoot guns [...]" --Eric Raymond
IP, theft, markets, morals (was Re: Plan 9 license)
On Sun, Sep 03, 2000 at 05:30:14PM -0700, Ken Arromdee wrote: On Sun, 3 Sep 2000, Mark Wells wrote: Here's a simple test to determine if something has been stolen: does the original owner still have it? Doesn't work. "Because my work is copied and the coies are widely spread, I do not have the potential market that I did before. That market has been stolen from me." But not the work itself. The proper legal term, BTW, is misappropriation, WRT unauthorized publication of a copyrighted work: The act or an instance of applying another's property or money dishonestly to one's own use. Theft is "the felonious taking and removing of anothers personal property with the intent of depriving the true owner of it". Because of the nonrivalrous nature of use of information, theft is both an improper technical term and (for reasons put forth by RMS) not morally appropriate. It's a misused pejorative. There's a whole 'nother can of worms opened when you consider your "market" and just how it's provided you in the first place. -- Karsten M. Self [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.netcom.com/~kmself Evangelist, Opensales, Inc.http://www.opensales.org What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? Debian GNU/Linux rocks! http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/K5: http://www.kuro5hin.org GPG fingerprint: F932 8B25 5FDD 2528 D595 DC61 3847 889F 55F2 B9B0 PGP signature
Re: Plan 9 license
Yes, I agree with RMS here. We should not call it piracy but slavery. Unauthorized copying of intellectual capital/property means denying the freedom of the IP holder. No, it means denying the power of the copyright owner. Control over your own actions is freedom. Control over the actions of others is power. If you don't make this distinction, you will have no compass for thinking about such issues. For instance, I would say that people who copied samizdat in the Soviet Union were denying the power of the Soviet rulers. But you would say they were denything the rulers' freedom. So you would see no basis to take sides between them and the rulers. Using the term "intellectual property" in your thinking is also disregarding important distinctions, between patents, copyrights, trademarks and trade secrets. These are almost entirely different, so trying to talk about all of them at once generally leads to mistaken generalizations. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html for more explanation.
Re: Plan 9 license
There are other equally usable terms that do not carry the same polemical associations with evil and violence. "Bootlegging" comes readily to mind. I recommend "unauthorized copying". It is a neutral, factual description which expresses no opinion.
Re: Plan 9 license
The image of pillaging bucanneers may be an unfortunate association, but it is metaphorically correct. That copyright infringement is illegal is a fact, but "piracy" doesn't just refer to that fact. It makes a moral statement, and it is the moral statement that I say "shame" to. You are mixing a moral question with a legal one--in effect presuming that law makes things right and wrong. If law awards someone a monopoly, you seem to say, then violating the monopoly is as bad as being a thief or a pirate, and the law makes it "correct" to equate them morally. The law does not deserve that kind of moral authority. If the law prohibits sharing software, then shame on the law.
Re: Plan 9 license
Which is way I also dislike the terms "slavery", "subjugation" and "domination" in reference to closed source software. These terms also have polemical associations with evil and violence. If one metaphor is wrong, then so is the other. I have little to say about closed-source software because I do not participate in the Open Source Movement. I have opinions about free software and non-free software. The category of open source overlaps both of them. I use the terms "subjugation" and "domination" to describe non-free software. These are not metaphors; they are descriptions which fit non-free software. I also use metaphors such as "chains". But I do not describe non-free software as "slavery", since that term seems like an exaggeration. The subjugation which non-free software inflicts does not cover all of life, as slavery does, just one aspect of life. All these phrases express an ethical judgement of non-free software. Calling unauthorized copying "piracy" also expresses an ethical judgement: one that supports domination by the owners of software. It is right and proper for people to take positions on ethical issues. It is because of the position ESR stands for that I say "Shame!"
Re: Plan 9 license
But the idea that information can be stolen already has a strong foothold in the public mind, even among the Free Software and Open Source movements. For example, I have often heard that one should use a copyleft rather than an unrestricted license so that "the source code can't be stolen." They are using the term "stolen" in a sense which does not refer to illegality. Quite the reverse--the action they are calling "stealing" would be lawful, and that is precisely the point they are making. So I think that use of "stealing" for this is a misleading analogy, and will lead to unclear thinking. We should discourage it. Legally, making a non-free version of a copylefted program is a violation of the copyright holder's rights. But morally, the wrong is not done to the program's author. It is done to the public.
Re: Plan 9 license
My understanding was that a legal entity can make private modifications to GPL software and is allowed to keep those modifications private, That is our interpretation. In other words, using a copy within the company is not distribution to others. So, since a corporation is allowed to make private changes, I don't see why they could not instruct their employees to keep those changes private to the company. I believe that they can.
Re: Plan 9 license
I am ashamed of Eric Raymond for using the term "piracy" to describe unauthorized copying. That word is a propaganda term, designed to imply that unauthorized copying is the moral equivalent of attacking a ship.
Re: Plan 9 license
Richard Stallman wrote: -- Von: Richard Stallman[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Gesendet: Freitag, 1. September 2000 14:59:11 An: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Betreff: Re: Plan 9 license Diese Nachricht wurde automatisch von einer Regel weitergeleitet. I am ashamed of Eric Raymond for using the term "piracy" to describe unauthorized copying. That word is a propaganda term, designed to imply that unauthorized copying is the moral equivalent of attacking a ship. Yes, I agree with RMS here. We should not call it piracy but slavery. Unauthorized copying of intellectual capital/property means denying the freedom of the IP holder. Just like slavery denied the freedom of man. Regards, Angelo Please support a software patent free EU, visit http://petition.eurolinux.org/index_html -- Angelo Schneider OOAD/UML [EMAIL PROTECTED] Putlitzstr. 24 Patterns/FrameWorks Fon: +49 721 9812465 76137 Karlsruhe C++/JAVAFax: +49 721 9812467
RE: Plan 9 license
I agree that the term "piracy" has taken on an inappropriate connotation when copyright owners use the term as if it meant theft. To be fair to Eric Raymond, it looks as if his use of the term was not along this line. Instead, he was, apparently, responding to the plaintiff's inaccurate characterization that the open source movement supports copyright infringement. In this respect, his use of the term makes sense and is correct. (Merriam Webster's Dictionary: piracy - "the unauthorized use of another's production, invention, or conception esp. in infringement of a copyright") Rod Dixon Visiting Assistant Professor of Law Rutgers University Law School - Camden www.cyberspaces.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Richard Stallman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, September 01, 2000 8:59 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Plan 9 license I am ashamed of Eric Raymond for using the term "piracy" to describe unauthorized copying. That word is a propaganda term, designed to imply that unauthorized copying is the moral equivalent of attacking a ship.
Re: Plan 9 license
begin Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. quotation: ...Instead, [Eric Raymond] was, apparently, responding to the plaintiff's inaccurate characterization that the open source movement supports copyright infringement. In this respect, his use of the term makes sense and is correct. (Merriam Webster's Dictionary: piracy - "the unauthorized use of another's production, invention, or conception esp. in infringement of a copyright") You appear to have ignored Mr. Stallman's point: Citing one numbered item from a dictionary definition disregards the neighbouring numbered items for the same word and, more to the point, the _connotations_ (i.e., Stallman's point about "the moral equivalent of attacking a ship"). There are other equally usable terms that do not carry the same polemical associations with evil and violence. "Bootlegging" comes readily to mind. -- Cheers, "Teach a man to make fire, and he will be warm Rick Moen for a day. Set a man on fire, and he will be warm [EMAIL PROTECTED] for the rest of his life." -- John A. Hrastar
Re: Plan 9 license
On Fri, 01 Sep 2000, Richard Stallman wrote: I am ashamed of Eric Raymond for using the term "piracy" to describe unauthorized copying. That word is a propaganda term, designed to imply that unauthorized copying is the moral equivalent of attacking a ship. The image of pillaging bucanneers may be an unfortunate association, but it is metaphorically correct. If information can indeed be owned, and right or wrong the law says it can be, then violating copyright is akin to theft. Comparing piracy to committing copyright "theft" on the "high seas" of the internet is an apt metaphor. -- David Johnson _ http://www.usermode.org
RE: Plan 9 license
On Fri, 01 Sep 2000, Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote: If someone makes an unauthorized copy of your source code, they may have infringed your copyright, but they have not stolen your source code. You still have possession of that. Of course! I'm not nearly as dense as to believe otherwise :-) No metaphor is perfect, and I hope I didn't give the impression that the piracy metaphor was even close to perfect. But the idea that information can be stolen already has a strong foothold in the public mind, even among the Free Software and Open Source movements. For example, I have often heard that one should use a copyleft rather than an unrestricted license so that "the source code can't be stolen." -- David Johnson _ http://www.usermode.org
RE: Plan 9 license
Many of you may find this interesting, if you have not read it already. Open Source Initiative President Eric Raymond publicly responded to DVD-CCA's erroneous statements made against the open source community in its recent California legal filings: The DVDCCA states in its brief at http://cryptome.org/dvd-v-521-opq.htm: "Defendant Pavlovich is a leader in the so-called "open source" movement, which is dedicated to the proposition that material, copyrighted or not, should be made available over the Internet for free." This claim is both incorrect and defamatory. The Open Source Initiative, a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization that is the custodian of of the Open Source Definition and widely recognized in the open source community for its educational and advocacy work on behalf of the that community, takes the strongest possible exception to it. We in the open source movement respect copyright; in fact, we use copyright law to underpin the licenses that define the social contract of our community. The basis of Matthew Pavlovich's work, and of our community's opposition to the DVDCCA lawsuit, lies in that social contract; a belief, founded in both engineering pragmatics and ethical conviction, in the *voluntary* sharing of program source code and the *voluntary* renunciation of secrecy. The core principles of open source are transparency, responsibility, and autonomy. As open source developers, we expose our source code to constant scrutiny by expert peers. We stand behind our work with frequent releases and continuing inputs of service and intelligence. And we support the rights of developers and artists to make their own choices about the design and disposition of their creative work. The results of this policy of openness can be seen in the enormous public benefit that has come through the open-source movement's works: the World Wide Web, the core software of the Internet itself, and the Linux operating system. While we advocate the full disclosure of code, and we support Matthew Pavlovich's right to reverse-engineer proprietary technology in order to permit Linux users to play DVDs that they legally own on machines they legally own, we oppose piracy and reject as a prejudicial falsehood the DVDCCA's attempts to tie the open source community to copyright violation." Issued by and for the Board of Directors of OSI by Eric S. Raymond, President 28 August 2000 Rod Dixon Visiting Assistant Professor of Law Rutgers University Law School - Camden www.cyberspaces.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Chris Sloan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2000 7:29 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Martin Konold; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Plan 9 license On Sun, Aug 27, 2000 at 11:45:02AM -0700, David Johnson wrote: [...] First, there is no requirement to give changes back to the orginal authors. If I modify gcc, for example, and give a copy to my friend, I am not required to submit my modifications to anyone else. Second, despite any legal shieldings a corporation may have, they still cannot change the software's license. It doesn't matter if the corporation tells me as an employee not to redistribute their modifications, since it is not their copyright to change. As long as I personally possess a copy, I can redistribute it. Is this really true? My understanding was that a legal entity can make private modifications to GPL software and is allowed to keep those modifications private, but if they choose to distribute the modified version, they are required to distribute the source to the modifications under the GPL. So, since a corporation is allowed to make private changes, I don't see why they could not instruct their employees to keep those changes private to the company. Have I misunderstood something here? Chris -- Chris Sloan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Systems Software Engineer Green Hills Software
Re: Plan 9 license
For the record, that would be the Free Software _Foundation_, wouldn't it? He could come up with his own ideas and call his new organization the Free Software Movement with (I would expect) very little legal difficulty (aside from potential public backlash from potential confusion with the FSF). D At 12:05 AM -0600 8/28/00, Richard Stallman wrote: The Free Software Movement has its goals, its philosophy, and its definition of free software. You probably have your own goals and philosophy, and if you want to have a different idea of what free software means, you can do that too. But then it isn't the Free Software Movement.
Re: Plan 9 license
On Sun, 27 Aug 2000, Richard Stallman wrote: The Free Software Movement has its goals, its philosophy, and its definition of free software. You probably have your own goals and philosophy, and if you want to have a different idea of what free software means, you can do that too. But then it isn't the Free Software Movement. Every movement and cause in history that I am aware of was composed of factions that had slightly dissimilar goals, philosophies and definitions. Examples coming off the top of my head are the civil rights movement, the anti-vietnam war movement, and even political parties. Even in matters of religious faith you have denominations, orders and schisms. Requiring a purity test or catechism for members of the Free Software movement is unnecessary, and maybe even harmful. How can a movement handle external criticism if it cannot tolerate internal dissent? Perhaps the reason why the commercial software world is more enamored of Open Source than it is of Free Software might not be in the differing emphasis, but in that Open Source does not demand adherance to a particular philosophy. I may not be a member of a big-M Movement, but I am certainly a member of that small-m movement that uses, creates and actively promotes software that is free and open. I had previously understood this to be the Free Software movement, and perhaps with it uncapitalized, it still is. -- David Johnson _ http://www.usermode.org
Re: Plan 9 license
On Mon, 28 Aug 2000, Brian Behlendorf wrote: I think I've mentioned it before, but I still find the most effective patent license I've ever heard to be one John Gilmore proposed on the FSB mailing list. It is pretty much a "GPL" for patents; it says You may use this patent for any reason so long as: a) You yourself do not own any patents, or b) You agree to license all your patents under this license This is a very different thing than a "GPL for patents". The GPL "for copyrights" does *not* say you can't have any copyrighted works unless they are also under the GPL. I think it would be a far better tactic to make it much closer to a copyleft (patentleft). You can use the patent freely, but you may not use it in, or combine it with, any software that has differently licensed patents. Including derivatives. It's an unfortunate reality in the technology business that patents have become a kind of medium of exchange. Sometimes businesses file for patents solely so that they can trade it for the use of someone elses. But by making the above license more like copyleft, a business can have a "free" patents, and still get to trade it for another's technology. In essense, the other patent holder would be purchasing rights to use the patent in their non-free-patent product. -- David Johnson _ http://www.usermode.org
Re: Plan 9 license
On Sat, 26 Aug 2000, Richard Stallman wrote: You're right that the definition of free software, like the definition of open source, need to be interpreted by people who are committed to the goals with which those definitions were written. But people other than those sharing your goals need to be able to interpret Free Software and Open Source as well. Limiting their proper interpretations to only the true believer is a very strange stance. There are many goals in the world of software. Some people want to change the world. Some just want to change a small part of it. Some want to share their own personal creations without caring what others do. Some don't like software patents but have no problems with software copyrights. And so on. To say that one person's interpretation of Open Source and Free Software is wrong merely because they don't believe in the right things is absurd. But this is what your statement is implying. ... Neither one is designed to be fiendproof when interpreted by people that don't share the goal. "Fiend" is a pretty strong word. Certainly there are some fiendish types out there. But I would hazard a guess that most who submit licenses or software that don't meet the definitions are far from being fiends. -- David Johnson _ http://www.usermode.org
Re: Plan 9 license
On Sun, 27 Aug 2000, Martin Konold wrote: I think that this imposes a big thread on free software because it give large multinational cooperations an uncompetetive advantage compared to small businesses. E.g. big multinational companies can make substantial changes and improvements to GPL'd software, distribute these to thousands of workplaces whithout the requirement to give these changes back to the original authors. Hmmm, I'll have to disagree just a little bit. Although I am no fan of corporations, and consider the fiction of corporations as legal persons to be just that, fiction, attempts to eliminate this "advantage" cross the line from public into private, and that's not a good thing to do. First, there is no requirement to give changes back to the orginal authors. If I modify gcc, for example, and give a copy to my friend, I am not required to submit my modifications to anyone else. Second, despite any legal shieldings a corporation may have, they still cannot change the software's license. It doesn't matter if the corporation tells me as an employee not to redistribute their modifications, since it is not their copyright to change. As long as I personally possess a copy, I can redistribute it. Finally, the only people affected by the corporation's lack of public distribution affects only the corporation and its employees. The only competitive advantage they can get out of the software is in its use. They will not be able to sell their derivative or otherwise profit off of it. As long as the software remains internal to the corporation, it is the equivalent to a tool. And telling someone what they can or can't do with their own tools in their own shop is one restriction too many. In contrast small companies cooperating with each other would in practise always be forced to make their modifications available. Not really. There is no requirement for them to redistribute the modifications. Taking a two person partnership as a example, if Susan gives her partner John a modified copy of GNUCash to do the business books with, John is not required to go across the street and give it to his competitors as well. Even if the competitors find out about the new and improved GNUCash and demand a copy, neither Susan nor John are required to give it up. Just because one cannot prevent others from redistributing the software in their possession, it does not follow that they must force the others to redistribute them. -- David Johnson _ http://www.usermode.org
Re: Plan 9 license
On Tue, 22 Aug 2000, David Johnson wrote: In case I missed your point, the not charging for the Package itself stuff is okay as well. Everywhere where fee or price is discussed in the "FSD", it is for distribution or copying. The GPL is in agreement on this as well. Since it does not specifically allow charging for the software itself, copyright forbids it. This is part of the "no mention in the license, ergo not allowed" fallacy. It just ain't so. The GPL, whatever may be said for other licenses, restricts only the specific activities mentioned in the copyright act: copying, modifying, distributing. (It could restrict public performance, too, but currently does not.) If I own a book (a physical copy), I have the unlimited right to sell that book for whatever I want. The author (or the publisher) may not impose through copyright any limitation on my right to do so, and to charge whatever I want for the book. (Current books contain a shrink-wrap license somewhere near the copyright notice: does anyone know if this has had a court test?) Plan 9 teeters on the edge of freeness but falls howling into the abyss of doom... The business about Lucent being able to demand your private changes is Evil and Rude also. -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] "[O]n the whole I'd rather make love than shoot guns [...]" --Eric Raymond
Re: Plan 9 license
On Tue, 22 Aug 2000, Rick Moen wrote: As Brian Behlendorf pointed out, this list is concerned with OSD-compliance, not with anyone's definition of free software. All things being equal, I think the community prefers (and should prefer) to see licenses that are both Free (non-TM) and Open Source (non-TM). I therefore feel free to discuss both Freedom and Open-Sourcity here. For that matter, it is better if licenses are not only these things, but Fair (non-TM), too. So I will also discuss points that seem to me un-Fair (i.e. "we can do what we want with your changes, you can't", or "this license is automatically construed in our favor"). The DFSG are of course substantially identical to the OSD -- which I'll mention in some forlorn hope of wrestling us back on-topic. Pending a complaint from the list owners, I think we *are* on topic. -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] "[O]n the whole I'd rather make love than shoot guns [...]" --Eric Raymond
Re: Plan 9 license
begin John Cowan quotation: On Tue, 22 Aug 2000, Rick Moen wrote: As Brian Behlendorf pointed out, this list is concerned with OSD-compliance, not with anyone's definition of free software. All things being equal, I think the community prefers (and should prefer) to see licenses that are both Free (non-TM) and Open Source (non-TM). I therefore feel free to discuss both Freedom and Open-Sourcity here. The above argument is a non-sequitur in the purest sense of the term. -- Cheers, "Open your present" Rick Moen"No, you open your present" rick (at) linuxmafia.com Kaczinski Christmas. -- Unabomber Haiku Contest, CyberLaw mailing list
Re: Plan 9 license
On Wed, 23 Aug 2000, John Cowan wrote: For that matter, it is better if licenses are not only these things, but Fair (non-TM), too. So I will also discuss points that seem to me un-Fair (i.e. "we can do what we want with your changes, you can't", or "this license is automatically construed in our favor"). Dittoes. Although it may have seemed that I was in favor of some of these licenses, I did not actually consider them fair. Businesses want legal licenses while users want fair licenses. And if a license meets the OSD but still manages to fall through the cracks so that it is not free either, then this should be brought up as well. -- David Johnson _ http://www.usermode.org
RE: Plan 9 license
Title: RE: Plan 9 license unsubscribe me Vinodh K Sankar Software Engineer, MindTree Consulting Pvt Ltd , Gandibazar , Bangalore - 560 004 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Home Page : http://www.geocities.com/vinodhksankar Ph (O): +91-80-6528333/6529302/6529125 /6520557/6520535/6520474/6520297/6520298 Extn : 1255 -Original Message- From: David Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2000 8:13 AM To: John Cowan Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Plan 9 license On Wed, 23 Aug 2000, John Cowan wrote: For that matter, it is better if licenses are not only these things, but Fair (non-TM), too. So I will also discuss points that seem to me un-Fair (i.e. we can do what we want with your changes, you can't, or this license is automatically construed in our favor). Dittoes. Although it may have seemed that I was in favor of some of these licenses, I did not actually consider them fair. Businesses want legal licenses while users want fair licenses. And if a license meets the OSD but still manages to fall through the cracks so that it is not free either, then this should be brought up as well. -- David Johnson _ http://www.usermode.org Vinodh Kumar S.vcf
Re: Plan 9 license
On Mon, 21 Aug 2000, David Johnson wrote:
I'm not certain I agree with that, myself. Its requirement that
licensees choose between licensing Plan 9 and being able to protect
their intellectual property is particularly onerous. The right of Bell
Labs to demand private source is also unacceptable.
I don't see anything in the OSD forbidding the demand of private
derivations. This clause is certainly pretty poor, but it doesn't go
against the *letter* of the OSD.
Read what I said again. I'm saying it should be in the OSD, because the
clauses are "particularly onerous" and "unacceptable." I would argue the OSD
was not, is not, and never will be an airtight document whose letter you can
follow, but whose spirit you can ignore; the letter of the definition was
largely thrown together, in an attempt to encapsulate the spirit. Others
can say, "here, approximately, is what Open Source is," but the OSI and the
open source community should focus on the spirit, and when inconsistencies
arise, correct the letter, and not say "oh, we forgot to mention that
freedom, so we'll just roll over and ignore that it was ever important to
us." Yes, that means people submitting new licenses may be caught by
surprise; but OSI Certification should not be an assembly line production,
but a discussion (a discussion including the license's authors, so that
questions and explanations of intent, that might clarify a clause or get a
clause changed, can happen).
To quote from the page in question, "More precisely, it refers to four
kinds of freedom, for the users of the software... A program is free
software if users have all of these freedoms. " This seems to sum it up
for me. The rest is just commentary.
Yes, four *kinds* of freedom -- to be explained further in the document;
think of it as an explanation and statement of intent. The document is not
the four bullet points, and the clarifications and explanations included
discuss those four freedoms as RMS sees them. In order to have those four
kinds of freedom, there are preconditions, clarifications, and explanations
involved as well -- as discussed later in the document.
Later on, he does make some clarifications. One of them (I found two)
is: "but what they can and must do is refuse to impose them [export
control regulations] as conditions of use of the program". This may
apply to the Plan 9 license.
I think it's pretty clear it does ("can and must"). It would also be a part
of freedom #2, the freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your
neighbor. I think it's also pretty clear you were not reading very closely;
In order for these freedoms to be real, they must be irrevocable as
long as you do nothing wrong; if the developer of the software has
the power to revoke the license, even though you have not given
cause, the software is not free.
This goes back to the IP suit clause in the Plan 9 license, and is also
clearly a requirement for being free software -- you must have the four
freedoms, and the four freedoms must be real.
But whether this clarification is part of
the Free Software definition is, in my mind, debatable, as it still
meets the four necessary and sufficient freedoms stated at the top of
the page.
No. If you want to say "necessary and sufficient," then look at it like a
theorem, and you'll see again what I'm saying. Each of those conditions
has, on its own, necessary and sufficient conditions, all of which must be
satisfied for the condition -- the freedom listed in the bullet point -- to
be present. You can't simply wave your hand, say "you have the freedom to
redistribute copies to help your neighbor, except you have to restrict this
freedom according to US export law," and have the statement "you have the
freedom to redistribute copies to help your neighbor" unconditionally.
The only one I can see that is open to interpretation is this clause:
You should also have the freedom to make modifications and use them
privately in your own work or play, without even mentioning that
they exist.
The use of "should" rather than "must" causes it to appear that this is
optional, but strongly encouraged. This freedom would fall under
o The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your
needs
However, if you have "the freedom to study how the program works," should
that not imply that your licensed ability to study how the program works --
which includes modifications as a matter of experimentation -- must not be
limited by notification to third parties? And if no third parties (the
licensor included) need be notified for private copies, how can private
modifications be required to be submitted to a third party?
I'll say it one last time, and then I'll try not argue this point with you
again. Without reading the entire document, you are not grasping what the
four kinds of freedom described are and
Re: Plan 9 license
On Tue, 22 Aug 2000, David Johnson wrote: RMS claims that the Artistic License is not free. His reasoning seems to be that it is vague. If vagueness disqualifies a license from being free, then people should know it right up front. It's not unfree (according to RMS) because it's vague per se. It's unfree (according to RMS) because it is too vague to *tell* whether it meets the requirements of a free license. Specifically, clause 5 says you can charge a "reasonable" fee for distributing the software (an undefined term), but not for the software itself. That could be interpreted to infringe the freedom 2. By suing Lucent over IP, you *have* given cause for revocation. This clause is better applied to other licenses, like the APSL, where a license can be revoked through no action on the user's part. It isn't just Lucent, it's *any* contributor to Plan 9, and the IP suit can be about anything whatever. If somebody abuses your GPLed software, and you sue, and the perpetrator turns out to be a Plan 9 contribute, *pip* goes your right to modify or distribute Plan 9. -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] "[O]n the whole I'd rather make love than shoot guns [...]" --Eric Raymond
Re: Plan 9 license
On Sun, 20 Aug 2000, David Johnson wrote: The questioner was asking whether it was Open Source. It is not yet "official" Open Source, but it seems to follow the letter of the OSD even if it strays from the general spirit several times. I'm not certain I agree with that, myself. Its requirement that licensees choose between licensing Plan 9 and being able to protect their intellectual property is particularly onerous. The right of Bell Labs to demand private source is also unacceptable. I should think that it may be approved at some point, although I have no doubt that they will be asked to change parts of it. Actually, it follows the four RMS definitions of Free Software as well... Look more carefully. The page that lists the four freedoms does not declare those four freedoms "absolutely what makes free software." Rather, those freedoms, combined with the explanations, discussion, and ideas below, make free software. The right to private, undistributed copies is discussed below. So is the right to maintain your license to the software so long as you have not given cause for it to be terminated; with the Plan 9 license, your license can be terminated if you file an IP suit against *some random other company who has contributed to Plan 9 any code*. A clause in the OSD regarding the "locality" of the license might be in order -- that is, that the license should not effect legal issues outside the domain of the software being licensed itself. Perhaps a clarification that all "fair use" such as annotations, or undistributed, personal modifications should also be held sacred explicitly. Matthew Weigel Programmer/Student [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Plan 9 license
On Sun, 20 Aug 2000, Kenneth Stephen wrote: Has this list already discussed the Plan 9 license ( http://www.cs.bell-labs.com/plan9dist/license.html )? If so, could someone tell me whether it is considered open-sources or point me to the relevent messages in the archives (is there an web interface to the archives?). We have. I don't know where the archives may be, so I'll summarize. RMS has opined that the Plan 9 license is unfree, and it does contain several rather dodgy provisions. In my personal opinion, these are a matter of sloppy drafting rather than pernicious intent: 1) Lucent reserves the right to demand source code for your private undistributed modifications; 2) commercial redistribution can only be for a "reasonable" price, an undefined term that might lead to trouble later; 3) the license conditions are reimposed on your distributees, which suggests that you must have an explicit contract with them (I think RMS is overdoing it here); 4) the retaliation clause causes you to lose all rights if you sue Lucent on any IP matter whatever, even if it has nothing to do with Plan 9; 5) the license imposes the U.S. export regulations on you if you export the software, even if they would not otherwise apply as a matter of law. The Lucida fonts bundled with Plan 9 are definitely not free, but nothing compels you to use or redistribute them (they cannot be modified or redistributed except as part of Plan 9). -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] C'est la` pourtant que se livre le sens du dire, de ce que, s'y conjuguant le nyania qui bruit des sexes en compagnie, il supplee a ce qu'entre eux, de rapport nyait pas. -- Jacques Lacan, "L'Etourdit"
Re: Plan 9 license
On Sun, 20 Aug 2000, John Cowan wrote: On Sun, 20 Aug 2000, Kenneth Stephen wrote: Has this list already discussed the Plan 9 license ( http://www.cs.bell-labs.com/plan9dist/license.html )? If so, could someone tell me whether it is considered open-sources or point me to the relevent messages in the archives (is there an web interface to the archives?). We have. I don't know where the archives may be, so I'll summarize. RMS has opined that the Plan 9 license is unfree, and it does contain several rather dodgy provisions. In my personal opinion, these are a matter of sloppy drafting rather than pernicious intent: The questioner was asking whether it was Open Source. It is not yet "official" Open Source, but it seems to follow the letter of the OSD even if it strays from the general spirit several times. I should think that it may be approved at some point, although I have no doubt that they will be asked to change parts of it. Actually, it follows the four RMS definitions of Free Software as well... -- David Johnson _ http://www.usermode.org
Re: Plan 9 license
On Sun, 20 Aug 2000, Kenneth Stephen wrote: Has this list already discussed the Plan 9 license ( http://www.cs.bell-labs.com/plan9dist/license.html )? If so, could someone tell me whether it is considered open-sources or point me to the relevent messages in the archives (is there an web interface to the archives?). There is an archive at "http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi/3 ". After a quick check, it is still there, but is a month behind. Ironically, the archive leaves off in the midst of the Plan 9 discussion :-) -- David Johnson _ http://www.usermode.org
RE: Plan 9 license
-Original Message- From: pgmr [mailto:pgmr]On Behalf Of Kenneth Stephen Has this list already discussed the Plan 9 license ( http://www.cs.bell-labs.com/plan9dist/license.html )? If so, could someone tell me whether it is considered open-sources or point me to the relevent messages in the archives (is there an web interface to the archives?). The most important thing to note is that there is no official word yet. This list is just for unofficial peer-review, and there are only a few small gripes over Plan 9 (as people have discussed), so I expect that the OSI Board will request a few changes and then approve it, if Lucent are flexible. IANAL IANA OSI Board Member SamBC
RE: Plan 9 license
On Sat, 22 Jul 2000, Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote: [snip] I do think David makes a very good point. Although provisions like sections 6.1(i) and 6.1(ii) are not unusual for non-mass market software licenses, they do not seem to meet the spirit of an open source license. (Of course, it would not be in the spririt of open source to bring such a lawsuit either, but the restriction is what we may be concerned about, here). Ummm, what? Suing someone for violating the terms of an open source license is 'not in the spirit of open source'? Then what's the point of doing anything but sticking the code in the public domain, with a _request_ that a particular license be followed? It's certainly reasonable to try to work things out first, but then also you get into a situation where companies now feel free to violate licenses until someone calls them -- because if they change as soon as someone calls it, then nothing bad happens, but they possibly reap benefits from before. Be, for example, was able to have a boot loader before they'd gotten around to writing one themselves this way. Even if section 6.1 did not really bother anyone as a general matter, David's point is correct that the language is so broad that it does not limit its reach to the subject matter of the license. I would recommend that Lucent consider making their intent more clear under section 6.1. I've followed a little discussion on comp.os.plan9 on the subject (I really *do* like Plan 9, I wasn't trolling for licensing discussions), and Rob Pike seemed clear that the license as it stands is a reflection of what Bell Labs wants, rather than legalese thrown in by a lawyer. I'm not certain I disagree with their reasoning, but I think that unless their intent changes the license won't be OSI Certified. Matthew Weigel Programmer/Student [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Plan 9 license
On Fri, 21 Jul 2000, David Johnson wrote: I can understand where they're coming from with the clause, but it would have been nice if they limited it to copyright infringements. The way it is now, if I goof up and misuse the Lucent trademark as it relates to telephones, I lose the license to use Plan9. I'm not sure that's an "...intellectual property action against Original Contributor" But then, I don't know -- perhaps a lawyer can clear that up. What it definitely means is that if anyone else *contributes* to Plan 9, and you (as a licensee) are involved in (whether you initiate or not) an IP action against that contributor, you (and, AFAICT, the contributor) violate the license. So if your stake in Plan 9 is too high, all of your intellectual property is up for grabs by other contributors, including any other free software you contribute to the community. As I've heard others say: that would be fine, except that everything that goes into Plan 9 continues to be available to Bell Labs -- so everybody plays fair, and Bell Labs gets to play a little more fair. Not that I'm painting Bell Labs as a bad guy; it's just too much licensees have to give up to be free software, IMO. As I see it, this license is focused on software research -- if you make private modifications, Bell Labs can ask to see it; if you have other IP, but rely on Plan 9 for your money, Bell Labs can get it, modulo the business decisions you make as to whether you'll give up your license to Plan 9 to pursue them. Frankly, I'm willing to toy with Plan 9 anyways. But the license is not a free software license, I don't think it's a Debian Free Software License, and I don't think it should be an OSI Certified license. I also wish they wouldn't call it an "open source agreement" http://plan9.bell-labs.com/sys/doc/release3.html until and if it is OSI Certified, out of respect for the fact that it's a term the founders of the OSI brought into use. Matthew Weigel Programmer/Student [EMAIL PROTECTED]
