Re: YAPL is bad (was: Re: Backlog assistance?)
begin Steve Lhomme quotation: > Here is my practical case for your pragmatic minds : I'm working (not > alone) on a derivation of the QPL license in order to make it GPL > compatible (and also a few minor changes). Splendid. We will await with interest the cessation of rhetoric and submission of licence terms to scrutinise. > Maybe for you it's not a big change, but for me it IS. As it's "overly > duplicate existing licenses" it would probably not qualify for the OSD > to check it... Judge for yourself. The process is outlined here: http://www.opensource.org/docs/certification_mark.html#approval > But is the OSD here to decide for the developpers what are the license > that "deserve" to be compliant ? Another polemical rhetorical question for my collection. You're really much too kind. > Do you think that's fair to newcomers ? Do you think that encourage > the growth of the Open-Source community ? Do you think it makes > evolution possible (AFAIK evolution is different from revolution > because it's made of small changes here and there) ? Really, I must decline this embarrassment of riches. My closet is overflowing. But thank you. > BTW Rick, was that an invitation to leave this list (my english is > average) ? Negatory, sir. > Why didn't you answer my concern (which IMHO makes sense) instead ? Consider the proposition that I'm simply a cruel and heartless bastard. That might account for it. Or possibly not. -- "Is it not the beauty of an asynchronous form of discussion that one can go and make cups of tea, floss the cat, fluff the geraniums, open the kitchen window and scream out it with operatic force, volume, and decorum, and then return to the vexed glowing letters calmer of mind and soul?" -- The Cube, forum3000.org -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: YAPL is bad (was: Re: Backlog assistance?)
begin Karsten M. Self quotation: > - Apple's Darwin project is under the APSL, which remains quite > controversial. Well, it is and it isn't. I examined this in at least a little bit of detail when Evan Liebovitch was castigating Apple for allegedly leeching (I paraphrase) off the BSDs. Darwin's "xnu" kernel is APSL-licensed -- in part. (Don't forget there's code from CMU and BSD code, there.) Darwin Streaming Server is APSL. Code for the Common Data Security Architecture, and for the OpenPlay and NetSprocket abstraction layers is APSL, as is a small developer tool called HeaderDoc. But just about all the other code in Darwin is under the same mix of sundry open-source licences found in, say, NetBSD. And, as I said to Evan at the time -- contrary to his assertion -- Apple's consistent policy as far as I can tell has always been to contribute changes to the upstream maintainers of those codebases under the upstream licences. (Darwin should not be confused with MacOS X, which is a superset of Darwin adding several proprietary pieces.) -- "Is it not the beauty of an asynchronous form of discussion that one can go and make cups of tea, floss the cat, fluff the geraniums, open the kitchen window and scream out it with operatic force, volume, and decorum, and then return to the vexed glowing letters calmer of mind and soul?" -- The Cube, forum3000.org -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: YAPL is bad (was: Re: Backlog assistance?)
En réponse à Rick Moen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > begin Steve Lhomme quotation: > > > Once again, as I wrote : > > "Is the OSI there to judge what a license is worth ? > > Ah, I love polemical rhetorical questions! Thanks for the > contribution > to my collection. > > In the meantime, since you say your concerns are entirely theoretical, > and that you lack time to research specifics, we seem to have from you > no further substantive matters for discussion. En réponse à "Karsten M. Self" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > "Is the OSI there to judge what a license is worth ? If so they > should > > divide the OSI in 2 parts : the neutral/approval part, and the > > political/judging part... I think most people need the 1st part to > > work or use." > > The OSI should allocate its resources wisely. As such, it should > ensure > that: > > - Newly proposed licenses aren't proposed lightly. > - Newly proposed licenses don't overly duplicate existing licenses. > - Newly proposed licenses topcally meet the OSD requirements for > deeper consideration. > > This does call for a acertain discriminating role in judging > applications. > > I believe Rick has stated the situation clearly: you have not > demonstrated your case, and appear to have no practical concerns. I'd > suggest you mediate silently until the situation has changed. > > Peace. OK, since you consider the theoretical aspect of the discussing pointless/useless/whatever. Here is my practical case for your pragmatic minds : I'm working (not alone) on a derivation of the QPL license in order to make it GPL compatible (and also a few minor changes). Maybe for you it's not a big change, but for me it IS. As it's "overly duplicate existing licenses" it would probably not qualify for the OSD to check it... But is the OSD here to decide for the developpers what are the license that "deserve" to be compliant ? If after 6 months of being published a license doesn't appear in the list, people will consider that it's not compliant and will be reluctant to work on something that might not be "open-source enough". Do you think that's fair to newcomers ? Do you think that encourage the growth of the Open-Source community ? Do you think it makes evolution possible (AFAIK evolution is different from revolution because it's made of small changes here and there) ? BTW Rick, was that an invitation to leave this list (my english is average) ? Why didn't you answer my concern (which IMHO makes sense) instead ? -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: YAPL is bad (was: Re: Backlog assistance?)
begin Russell Nelson quotation: > I was being silly, grouping you with RMS on the basis of your > initials. Wasn't that obvious enough?? Perhaps, when I'm trying to > be funny, I should put a smiley at the end of my sentence? :-) But I > figure that true humor doesn't need subtitles. My apologies for being trigger-happy. BOFH instincts, caffeine LD50, and sleep-shortage can do that. This evening, I auto-prescribed a lovely Côtes du Rhône from E. Guigal, and suddenly the world is a notably nicer place. -- Cheers, "You have acquired a scroll entitled 'irk gleknow mizk'(n).--More-- Rick MoenThis is an IBM Manual scroll.--More__ [EMAIL PROTECTED] You are permanently confused." -- ADOM (a roguelike game) -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: YAPL is bad (was: Re: Backlog assistance?)
begin Russell Nelson quotation: > I am skeptical that you can find any existing requirement for > protection of privacy in the OSD. I was stipulating none such being present. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: YAPL is bad (was: Re: Backlog assistance?)
Rick Moen writes: > But, of course, you were being very speculative, and rather jumping the > gun: My assumption that the OSI Board shares my notion that the right > to privacy should be a part of the definition of open source may be > entirely untrue. Russ for one sounded skeptical at best. I am skeptical that you can find any existing requirement for protection of privacy in the OSD. Obviously, if we add one, then it will be there, and we will require it in the future, eh wot? -- -russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | It's a crime, not an act 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | of war. For my take, see: Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | http://quaker.org/crime.html -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: YAPL is bad (was: Re: Backlog assistance?)
Rick Moen writes: > Are you perchance talking to me?[1] If so, you appear to be having some > difficulty distinguishing me from the gentleman who compared me to RMS on > the basis of my initials. > > It is quite bad enough to get that kind of sniping from the person I was > talking with; I was being silly, grouping you with RMS on the basis of your initials. Wasn't that obvious enough?? Perhaps, when I'm trying to be funny, I should put a smiley at the end of my sentence? :-) But I figure that true humor doesn't need subtitles. -- -russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | It's a crime, not an act 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | of war. For my take, see: Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | http://quaker.org/crime.html -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: YAPL is bad (was: Re: Backlog assistance?)
phil hunt writes: > What if, as part of the porcess of approving a new licence, the > proposer of the license had to write a rationale of why a new license > is necessary, and why no existing OSI-certified licence exists > that does the job. Already do. http://opensource.org/docs/certification_mark.html#approval -- -russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | It's a crime, not an act 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | of war. For my take, see: Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | http://quaker.org/crime.html -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: YAPL is bad (was: Re: Backlog assistance?)
begin Steve Lhomme quotation: > Once again, as I wrote : > "Is the OSI there to judge what a license is worth ? Ah, I love polemical rhetorical questions! Thanks for the contribution to my collection. In the meantime, since you say your concerns are entirely theoretical, and that you lack time to research specifics, we seem to have from you no further substantive matters for discussion. -- "Is it not the beauty of an asynchronous form of discussion that one can go and make cups of tea, floss the cat, fluff the geraniums, open the kitchen window and scream out it with operatic force, volume, and decorum, and then return to the vexed glowing letters calmer of mind and soul?" -- The Cube, forum3000.org -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: YAPL is bad (was: Re: Backlog assistance?)
| Poster: Licences need to be approved more rapidly to introduce improvements! | Others: What specific examples of improvements are you thinking of? | Poster: Well, never mind that. OSI _committed_ to approving licences. | Others: Why are you in such a flippin' hurry to get lots more licences | for their own sake? Aren't you aware of the licence combinatorial | problem for derivative works? Aren't you aware of the problem | of corporations misreading the OSD as an invitations to write | a new licence for no better reason than to have their own. | Poster: Well, never mind that. Licences need to be approved more | rapidly to introduce improvements! | | One could write a quite simple, yet obnoxious, script to simulate this | behaviour. Once again, as I wrote : "Is the OSI there to judge what a license is worth ? If so they should divide the OSI in 2 parts : the neutral/approval part, and the political/judging part... I think most people need the 1st part to work or use." -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: YAPL is bad (was: Re: Backlog assistance?)
On Monday, September 24, 2001, at 10:08 pm, Matthew C. Weigel wrote: > On Mon, 24 Sep 2001, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > >> This leads to a GPL-related issue which is not clear to me: can >> redistribution of GPL code be constrained by an employment agreement? > > Well, that brings up the question of whether sharing within a > corporation qualfies as "distribution," a question which I can't recall > being answered (although it could just be my memory failing). This was the source of my misunderstanding: The FAQ makes it clear that "Distribution" means "Public Distribution". This should, however, be made absolutely explicit in the license. FAQs aren't binding, and ambiguities in licenses are bad, m'kay? - Rob. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: YAPL is bad (was: Re: Backlog assistance?)
"Karsten M. Self" wrote: > on Mon, Sep 24, 2001 at 08:56:55PM +0100, phil hunt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) >wrote: > > > > > What if, as part of the process of approving a new licence, the > > proposer of the license had to write a rationale of why a new license > > is necessary, and why no existing OSI-certified licence exists > > that does the job. > > > > Is this a good idea? > > I think so. > Doesn't step (2) of http://www.opensource.org/docs/certification_mark.html#approval> already imply this? Chris -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: YAPL is bad (was: Re: Backlog assistance?)
>This leads to a GPL-related issue >which is not clear to me: can >redistribution of GPL code be >constrained by an employment agreement? >That is, if company employees >make changes to GPL code, can the >company forbid all employees from >distributing those changes? I >suspect that it can, as employment >agreements are permitted to >constrain many varieties of free >speech, at least in the U.S. the GPL and NDA's are orthogonal. or, at the very least, they are non-conflicting restrictions. The GPL says 'whoever gets a binary must get the source." it does not restrict *who* can recieve a distribution. It does restrict any redistribution of modified code must be GPL as well, but that is orthogonal to a NDA restriction. A NDA says who can recieve a company's source code. i.e. who can recieve a distrubution or corporate owned software. namely you cannot distribute comany software outside the company (unless you're in Sales, and you're selling it) The OSD prohibits discrimination against people and groups. A NDA is exactly discrimination against anyone who is not an employee. WAITS IANAL TINLA IMHO TLA Greg WAITS ==> Who Am I To Say -- Greg London x7541 -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: YAPL is bad (was: Re: Backlog assistance?)
On Mon, 24 Sep 2001, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > This leads to a GPL-related issue which is not clear to me: can > redistribution of GPL code be constrained by an employment agreement? Well, that brings up the question of whether sharing within a corporation qualfies as "distribution," a question which I can't recall being answered (although it could just be my memory failing). -- Matthew Weigel Research Systems Programmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] ne [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: YAPL is bad (was: Re: Backlog assistance?)
On Saturday 22 September 2001 11:39 pm, Karsten M. Self wrote: > > Yet Another Public License (YAPL) is a bad trend. > > Ceterus paribus, more licenses are bad. As the number of licenses > increases, the disruption caused by an additional license > increases. > > This is because interaction effects of licenses must be considered > on a combinatorial basis. That is, effects grow in a factorial > manner. The terms of each license must be understood > independently. The interactions of each license pair, *and each > combination of licences*, must be considered. What if, as part of the porcess of approving a new licence, the proposer of the license had to write a rationale of why a new license is necessary, and why no existing OSI-certified licence exists that does the job. Is this a good idea? -- *** Philip Hunt *** [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: YAPL is bad (was: Re: Backlog assistance?)
Rob Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > on 24/9/01 2:15 pm, John Cowan at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > Rob Myers wrote: > > > >> I agree that this is an offer rather than a directive. But the effect of > >> making the source (ultimately) available to anyone is the same as soon as > >> the license is accepted. The GPL has this effect, the APSL makes this effect > >> explicit. Any attempt to control this (by requiring that employees or > >> clients not distribute the source) is in breach of the license. > > > > Right enough, but it still may be contained by voluntary action or > > by sheer inertia. > > A disgruntled programmer can stop voluntarily not distributing code. My > GPL/APSL comparison does (deliberately) exclude inertia, and I agree that in > the real world it is a powerful force, but it is not *certain* to regulate > code distribution. This all leaves something to chance which the APSL does > not, although the APSL resolves it in a manner which is clearly > unsatisfactory to many people. The GPL is perfectly usable to keep code changes private among a group of people who all have an interest in keeping the changes private. This could mean, for example, the software house which made the changes and the set of customers who purchase them. The software house has an interest because of the opportunity to resell the changes. The customers have an interest because they do not want their competitors to benefit from the changes. The APSL is not usable in this way. Maybe good, maybe bad, but clearly different. This leads to a GPL-related issue which is not clear to me: can redistribution of GPL code be constrained by an employment agreement? That is, if company employees make changes to GPL code, can the company forbid all employees from distributing those changes? I suspect that it can, as employment agreements are permitted to constrain many varieties of free speech, at least in the U.S. Ian -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: YAPL is bad (was: Re: Backlog assistance?)
begin Rob Myers quotation: > I de-jump and apologize for sowing confusion: I share that skepticism but am > clearly not best placed to express it. Not a problem. You were certainly being a great deal more coherent than I generally am before 10 AM. -- "Is it not the beauty of an asynchronous form of discussion that one can go and make cups of tea, floss the cat, fluff the geraniums, open the kitchen window and scream out it with operatic force, volume and decorum, and then return to the vexed glowing letters calmer of mind and soul?" -- The Cube, forum3000.org -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: YAPL is bad (was: Re: Backlog assistance?)
on 24/9/01 3:26 pm, Rick Moen at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > But, of course, you were being very speculative, and rather jumping the > gun: My assumption that the OSI Board shares my notion that the right > to privacy should be a part of the definition of open source may be > entirely untrue. Russ for one sounded skeptical at best. I de-jump and apologize for sowing confusion: I share that skepticism but am clearly not best placed to express it. - Rob. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: YAPL is bad (was: Re: Backlog assistance?)
Ah, the Rainbow-Coloured Fruit Company lobby speaketh. begin Rob Myers ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) quotation: > Can people claiming (or wishing) to represent opensource.org please > act like professionals in dealing with issues they regard as annoying. Are you perchance talking to me?[1] If so, you appear to be having some difficulty distinguishing me from the gentleman who compared me to RMS on the basis of my initials. It is quite bad enough to get that kind of sniping from the person I was talking with; subsequently having you casting faux moralism from the sidelines at the wrong party is a bit much. > Well, that's the GPL out for starters. I think you need to re-read the GPL, and comprehend the key point, which I already underlined for the benefit of any laggards, about its "forcing provision" being activated solely by public distribution. [1] In case you are also having a difficult time understanding domain names, I represent linuxmafia.com: We make you an offer you can afford. - Cheers, "Learning Java has been a slow and tortuous process for me. Every Rick Moen few minutes, I start screaming 'No, you fools!" and have to go [EMAIL PROTECTED] read something from _Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs' to de-stress." -- The Cube, www.forum3000.org -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: YAPL is bad (was: Re: Backlog assistance?)
begin Rob Myers quotation: > It does however clash with many existing licenses that assume > acceptance of the license by usage of the code and give a general > offer of distribution on this basis. I'm sorry, but I don't grasp what you mean. Perhaps you could give an example. > It also requires a fair amount of legalese to clarify "public" and > "non-public" usage, and very careful auditing. I cannot see that this is the case at all, since the OSD is not a licence itself. It is an attempt to specify and explain the sorts of traits the OSI requires in licences it will approve. > Finally, I believe that it requires licenses to build in a back door > for the closing off of open source code, one that unscrupulous > organizations will eagerly exploit. This is the one that really puzzled me. What do you mean by a "back door", and "closing off"? But, of course, you were being very speculative, and rather jumping the gun: My assumption that the OSI Board shares my notion that the right to privacy should be a part of the definition of open source may be entirely untrue. Russ for one sounded skeptical at best. -- "Is it not the beauty of an asynchronous form of discussion that one can go and make cups of tea, floss the cat, fluff the geraniums, open the kitchen window and scream out it with operatic force, volume and decorum, and then return to the vexed glowing letters calmer of mind and soul?" -- The Cube, forum3000.org -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: YAPL is bad (was: Re: Backlog assistance?)
on 24/9/01 2:15 pm, John Cowan at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Rob Myers wrote: > >> I agree that this is an offer rather than a directive. But the effect of >> making the source (ultimately) available to anyone is the same as soon as >> the license is accepted. The GPL has this effect, the APSL makes this effect >> explicit. Any attempt to control this (by requiring that employees or >> clients not distribute the source) is in breach of the license. > > Right enough, but it still may be contained by voluntary action or > by sheer inertia. A disgruntled programmer can stop voluntarily not distributing code. My GPL/APSL comparison does (deliberately) exclude inertia, and I agree that in the real world it is a powerful force, but it is not *certain* to regulate code distribution. This all leaves something to chance which the APSL does not, although the APSL resolves it in a manner which is clearly unsatisfactory to many people. > Just as a practical matter, this may be an impediment to using > modified APSL code in a company that has restrictions about what its > employees may publish. I agree, but I believe that this is a general problem with the *idea* of Open Source rather than Apple's implementation of it. - Rob. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: YAPL is bad (was: Re: Backlog assistance?)
on 24/9/01 7:55 am, Rick Moen at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > One possible addition to the OSD, to deal with this matter, might be > as follows: > > 10. The Licence Must Not Violate Privacy of Individuals or Organisations > > The licence must not attach any obligations to usage of the covered code > that is entirely internal to the non-public affairs of the individual or > organisation using it. To clarify my opinion (IANAL): If this clause was added it would give organizations one less thing (exposure of information regarding private affairs) to worry about in adopting open source licenses, and so seems very desireable. It does however clash with many existing licenses that assume acceptance of the license by usage of the code and give a general offer of distribution on this basis. It also requires a fair amount of legalese to clarify "public" and "non-public" usage, and very careful auditing. Finally, I believe that it requires licenses to build in a back door for the closing off of open source code, one that unscrupulous organizations will eagerly exploit. - Rob. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: YAPL is bad (was: Re: Backlog assistance?)
Rob Myers wrote: > I agree that this is an offer rather than a directive. But the effect of > making the source (ultimately) available to anyone is the same as soon as > the license is accepted. The GPL has this effect, the APSL makes this effect > explicit. Any attempt to control this (by requiring that employees or > clients not distribute the source) is in breach of the license. Right enough, but it still may be contained by voluntary action or by sheer inertia. Not so the APSL: Apple *requires* you, on pain of breach, to inform the world about the changes you make solely for your own use. Just as a practical matter, this may be an impediment to using modified APSL code in a company that has restrictions about what its employees may publish. -- Not to perambulate || John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> the corridors || http://www.reutershealth.com during the hours of repose || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan in the boots of ascension. \\ Sign in Austrian ski-resort hotel -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: YAPL is bad (was: Re: Backlog assistance?)
on 24/9/01 11:16 am, John Cowan at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > the GPL > imposes no such obligation to the world at large. If you distribute a > derivative work, you are obliged to distribute the original *to the recipients > of the derivative work*; likewise, if you distribute binaries, you are obliged > to distribute source *to the recipients of the binaries*. It is called the "Public" license... This may be a misunderstanding on my part, and if so I apologize in advance. >From the GPL we have the statement: "You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it," I agree that this is an offer rather than a directive. But the effect of making the source (ultimately) available to anyone is the same as soon as the license is accepted. The GPL has this effect, the APSL makes this effect explicit. Any attempt to control this (by requiring that employees or clients not distribute the source) is in breach of the license. This distribution will have copyright dates and file dates in it (and it may be a simple, if annoying, security measure to set the dates to 1970...). It identifies the originator/modifier of the source. The code may have dates, names and other information in comments. People can remember when they received the code. Extra information is given out anyway, but again the APSL makes this an explicit requirement. Explicit requirements are good. IANAL, but from my reading the APSL is specifying the minimum display requirements, not the exact or maximum ones. So if you need to obfuscate the project dates you can take the sources down five years after the project fails and start displaying them six months before it goes live. If it's that important to keep the dates of a project a secret, it probably shouldn't be used under a license with *any* distribution offer/obligation. This is therefore a general FUD concern for Open Source, not a specific problem with the APSL. - Rob. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: YAPL is bad (was: Re: Backlog assistance?)
Rob Myers scripsit: > > ...it introduces a novel obligation to disclose one's private affairs. > >... > > The licence must not attach any obligations to usage of the covered code > > that is entirely internal to the non-public affairs of the individual or > > organisation using it. > > Well, that's the GPL out for starters. :-) I'm not sure what the smiley face means in this connection, but the GPL imposes no such obligation to the world at large. If you distribute a derivative work, you are obliged to distribute the original *to the recipients of the derivative work*; likewise, if you distribute binaries, you are obliged to distribute source *to the recipients of the binaries*. If you distribute only to your partner, or to the people of your organization, or to Bill Gates, then your further obligations involve distributing only to your partner/your people/BillG. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please leave your values| Check your assumptions. In fact, at the front desk. | check your assumptions at the door. --sign in Paris hotel |--Miles Vorkosigan -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: YAPL is bad (was: Re: Backlog assistance?)
on 24/9/01 7:55 am, Rick Moen at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I note that Russ invited my comment on the APSL publication clause. > I am trying to ignore the gratuitous personal gibes, and will keep > doing so, but, on the other hand will accept his invitation. Can people claiming (or wishing) to represent opensource.org please act like professionals in dealing with issues they regard as annoying. I know it's difficult but I've seen people lose perfectly valid arguments on the basis of over-reaction to personality rather than debate. And you'll get quoted on news sites. > ...it introduces a novel obligation to disclose one's private affairs. >... > The licence must not attach any obligations to usage of the covered code > that is entirely internal to the non-public affairs of the individual or > organisation using it. Well, that's the GPL out for starters. :-) Apple's distribution clause is extroadinary in its legalese not its intent, and IMHO robustness and clarity of licenses is good. - Rob. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: YAPL is bad (was: Re: Backlog assistance?)
I note that Russ invited my comment on the APSL publication clause.
I am trying to ignore the gratuitous personal gibes, and will keep
doing so, but, on the other hand will accept his invitation.
(Russ, despite any resemblance of initials, no, I am _not_ Richard M.
Stallman. In fact, I happen to be the only person I know who has
tangled with RMS on application of the GPL's source-access provision to
business and won, but the details are none of your business. Still, I
thank you for your clarification about the APSL 1.0 patent clause, which
I had quite forgotten.)
Here is the clause I was speaking of in APSL v. 1.2
(http://www.publicsource.apple.com/apsl/):
2.2 You may use, reproduce, display, perform, modify and Deploy
Covered Code, provided that in each instance:
[...]
(c) You must make Source Code of all Your Deployed Modifications
publicly available under the terms of this License, including the
license grants set forth in Section 3 below, for as long as you Deploy
the Covered Code or twelve (12) months from the date of initial
Deployment, whichever is longer.
("Deploy" is defined separately as using covered code for any purpose
other than R&D or personal use. 2.2(d) imposes an overlapping
obligation on binary-only "deployments".)
Again, Russ's argument from formalism is correct: The OSD raises no
bar to such terms. But I would think the clause violates -- not
greatly, but somewhat -- the intent of what people consider open source
to mean. Why? Because it introduces a novel obligation to disclose
one's private affairs. The only "forcing clauses" previously considered
compatible with the concept of open source were those triggered by
public distribution of modified source code. Now, APSL-covered code
will oblige organisations to, in effect, disclose internal projects.
Now, that is certainly not the worst thing in the world. But I was
calling it, and would continue to call it, "objectionable". I'd say
the licence is flawed, OSI-approved or not. It's lucky that Apple
contributes back to BSD codebases under the upstream licence.
One possible addition to the OSD, to deal with this matter, might be
as follows:
10. The Licence Must Not Violate Privacy of Individuals or Organisations
The licence must not attach any obligations to usage of the covered code
that is entirely internal to the non-public affairs of the individual or
organisation using it.
I'm sure that can be better stated, but should illustrate the concept.
I'd be glad to try for a better rendition, if the Board has any interest.
--
Cheers, "A Discordian is a Taoist with a very strange sense of humour
Rick Moen and the inability to sit still."
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Rabbi Kwan Chi Sun Lieberwitz, _Jews for Buddha Cabal_
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: YAPL is bad (was: Re: Backlog assistance?)
begin Russell Nelson quotation: > There's nothing in the OSD which talks about privacy You are of course quite correct in this; I had forgotten. And it is disposative of the issue, unless the OSD were changed. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: YAPL is bad (was: Re: Backlog assistance?)
Rick Moen writes: > begin Karsten M. Self quotation: > > > As well it should be. OSI blundered horribly with the APSL. > > I think the Board should mull decertification, and privately suggest that > Apple Computer amend the licence to remove the objectionable publication > clause, to avert that step. I don't think that is what Karsten is talking about. He's talking about APSL 1.0, which required that every licensee, whether subject to U.S. law or not, abide by U.S. patent law. This applied even to sub-licensees distributing code from one non-US country to another non-US country. And yeah, we screwed up badly, which is one of the reasons why we created this mailing list. RMS doesn't like APSL 1.2 for reasons extraneous to free software concerns. He gets to do that, because he has no written definition for "free software". He can make it up as he goes along, and in this case he's created a privacy requirement from whole cloth. There's nothing in the OSD which talks about privacy, so we cannot consider it as a requirement, no matter how much Rick Moen, RMS, or anybody else with initials containing "R" and "M" objects to it. Now, if you think we should include a privacy requirement, propose changes to the OSD, or figure out how we can use existing language to make it happen. For good legal reasons and for obvious reasons of fairness, and to comply with the rule of law, we have to treat everybody the same, and we have to judge everybody under the law they understood to be current. Personally, I don't see what's so horrible about the publication step. You've already published the software internal to your organization. Unless you're the NSA or CIA, what's the problem with having to tell the licensor how to get the modifications? Doesn't that increase the amount of open source software available to people? -- -russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | It's a crime, not an act 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | of war. For my take, see: Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | http://quaker.org/crime.html -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: YAPL is bad (was: Re: Backlog assistance?)
begin Karsten M. Self quotation: > As well it should be. OSI blundered horribly with the APSL. Current > thinking is that certification, once granted, cannot be undone. Why? I doubt the licence gods will descend in wrath. I think the Board should mull decertification, and privately suggest that Apple Computer amend the licence to remove the objectionable publication clause, to avert that step. But I am tired of this small crew of posters who incessantly whine about OSI failing its "job" of approving new licences, rapidly shifting the basis of their appeal when challenged. One such person recently objected to my word "tactic" to describe this lobbying. (Perhaps he would prefer "ploy"?) The characteristic alternation of arguments goes like this: Poster: Licences need to be approved more rapidly to introduce improvements! Others: What specific examples of improvements are you thinking of? Poster: Well, never mind that. OSI _committed_ to approving licences. Others: Why are you in such a flippin' hurry to get lots more licences for their own sake? Aren't you aware of the licence combinatorial problem for derivative works? Aren't you aware of the problem of corporations misreading the OSD as an invitations to write a new licence for no better reason than to have their own. Poster: Well, never mind that. Licences need to be approved more rapidly to introduce improvements! One could write a quite simple, yet obnoxious, script to simulate this behaviour. > In recent cases presented to this list, there have been multiple > proposals for licensing schemes which do not meet the OSI Open Source > Definition or FSF Free Software definition. Blatantly so -- and accompanied by protracted attempts to wear down the OSI with rhetoric, when that was failing. The European lawyer (representing some CD-ROM-oriented firm?) was particularly cheeky about that, you may recall. - Cheers, "Learning Java has been a slow and tortuous process for me. Every Rick Moen few minutes, I start screaming 'No, you fools!" and have to go [EMAIL PROTECTED] read something from _Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs' to de-stress." -- The Cube, www.forum3000.org -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: YAPL is bad (was: Re: Backlog assistance?)
>> So people should come with newer licenses based on years of >> experience. That's why it would be VERY bad if the OSI never certified >> a new license anymore. >I'm not suggesting that, and I hope you're not insinuating that I am. Nope, but in a more generalisation that could mean that. (it's the mathematical way of thinking at the extremes) >However, the OSI should approve new licenses only with extreme prejudice >and deliberation. A slow, cumbersome, inefficient, deliberative process >that drives most comers to abandon their attempts at novel license >authoring is fine by me. So it's still unclear what is the OSI for in this case. Are they here to say license A is fully compliant but since it's too close to license B, we don't dare to certify it ? Maybe the "commitee" (is there something like that ?) don't see the point of having something close but having one difference, while other people might consider it as a big improvement... Is the OSI there to judge what a license is worth ? If so they should divide the OSI in 2 parts : the neutral/approval part, and the political/judging part... I think most people need the 1st part to work or use. (btw, why are you email contents MIME txt attachements ?) -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: YAPL is bad (was: Re: Backlog assistance?)
>Yet Another Public License (YAPL) is a bad trend. > >Ceterus paribus, more licenses are bad. As the number of licenses >increases, the disruption caused by an additional license increases. Why do we need processors when we already have the transistor ? Why create C++ when we already have C ? Why create Java when we already have C++ ? That's what I called the evolution. People working with the already-established-and-certified licenses may face some drawbacks or express some needs that are not met by these licenses. So people should come with newer licenses based on years of experience. That's why it would be VERY bad if the OSI never certified a new license anymore. >This is because interaction effects of licenses must be considered on a >combinatorial basis. That is, effects grow in a factorial manner. The >terms of each license must be understood independently. The >interactions of each license pair, *and each combination of licences*, >must be considered. I don't think the OSI has anything to do with that. >> written from scratch, no reuse, no inheritance, no nothing. > >Law is not OOP. Still, some of your concerns may be addressable. I think the whole world can be expressed as an object. The law included. Once you have a word for something, it's an object. So law is an object made of objects called rights. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
