Re: The Copyright Act preempts the GPL
Putting aside the issue that a 3 line computer program may lack the minimal indicia of originality to be copyrightible in the first place, strictly speaking, what Bob may do with his derivative work (if that one line code is copyrightible) may depend upon whether Bob wants to distribute the work or use it (internally). In other words, section 117 and section 107 may limit the reach of Alan's right to control the distribution of derivative works. BTW, if you recall the courts' general confusion and disagreement over how far you may take section 107 in the video game cases, it becomes apparent that in some cases fair use is not an insignificant matter. In addition, when you apply judicial interpretations of derivative use, you begin to notice that the language of the Copyright Act is a mere starting point. How judicial doctrine on derivative use will be applied to software or other digital works is often an open question (e.g., Tasini v. New York Times modifications of collective work constituted new work, not derivative [revised] work). Consequently, to prove that a derivative work is infringing, courts have read into section 101 two general requirements: 1) the derivative work must incorporate some of the original copyrighted work, and 2) the infringing derivative work must be substantially similar to the original copyrighted work. To make these determinations, the court uses various tests, including a test one poster mentioned earlier (abstraction etc.). In my opinion, current judicial doctrine on derivative works - - in the proof of infringement context - - lacks practical use for software developers, but, as it stands, you cannot ignore it either. And, you may not want to ignore judicial doctrine if you authored the derivative work since the doctrine generally goes further than the words of the Copyright to render some ostensibly derivative works non-infringing in my opinion. Rod [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Sun, 8 Feb 2004, John Cowan wrote: Peter Fairbrother scripsit: Alan writes an original computer program. It is 3 lines long. It is called Hello world. Bob takes Alan's program and replaces line 2. The new program is called Goodbye asshole. Goodbye asshole is a derivative work. If Bob did not have Alan's permission to create a derivative work then he gets no rights at all. So far so good. If Bob had Alan's permission to create a derivative work then he gets the sole right to distribute line 2. He had that much even without Alan's permission, since line 2 is solely his work. This paragraph belongs to me, though only with your (implied) permission can I use it in this email, which is a derivative work of your email. (That is assuming that my use of your email is not a fair use, which I think it almost certainly is, but that's a different kettle of fish). He does not get any right to distribute lines 1 and 3. He cannot distribute Goodbye asshole including lines 1 and 3 without separate permission from Alan. Once the derivative work is lawfully created, Bob is the copyright owner, and has all the exclusive rights of the copyright owner. And now I'm going to shut up, because obviously we are looping, and I'm not going to convince you nor vice versa. -- And it was said that ever after, if anyJohn Cowan man looked in that Stone, unless he had a [EMAIL PROTECTED] great strength of will to turn it to other www.ccil.org/~cowan purpose, he saw only two aged hands withering www.reutershealth.com in flame. --The Pyre of Denethor -- 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
For Approval: Simple Permissive License
Tell us which existing OSI-approved license is most similar... The Simple Permissive License is most similar to The MIT License. The MIT License does not suffice for my needs because it is too long and complex for the programmers that I work with to read. As one example of this problem, these programmers persist in choosing the questionable public domain declaration for their code over the MIT License, in part because the MIT License is too long and legalistic for their taste. The Simple Permissive License has been simplified from the MIT License by the following changes: 1. omit and associated documentation files 2. replace the Software with this software, and omit the explanation that the Software means this software 3. omit without limitation 4. omit copy, merge, and publish 5. omit ... of the Software 6. replace subject to the following conditions: with provided that 7. omit the contents of the disclaimer of warranty after the first part 8. parenthesize the enumerated rights Explain how software distributed under your license can be used in conjunction with software distributed under other open source licenses. The Simple Permissive License is exactly as permissive as the MIT License. Include the plain text version of your license at the end of the email, either as an insertion or as an attachment. --- Copyright (c) year copyright holders Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software to deal in this software without restriction (including the rights to use, modify, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies) provided that the above copyright notice and this permission notice is included in all copies or substantial portions of this software. THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED AS IS, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED. --- http://zooko.com/simple_permissive_license.html Thank you for your time. Regards, Bryce Zooko Wilcox-O'Hearn -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
apache license 2.0 for consideration
i don't think anyone has submitted it yet. the apache software foundation approved version 2.0 of its licence, and would like to submit it for osi approval. it's online at http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 and i'm attaching the text version to this message. it is our belief that this new licence is just as osi-compliant as the 1.1 version, and is more clearly compatible with the gpl to boot. -- #kenP-)} Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Golux.Com/coar/ Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/ Millennium hand and shrimp! Apache License Version 2.0, January 2004 http://www.apache.org/licenses/ TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR USE, REPRODUCTION, AND DISTRIBUTION 1. Definitions. License shall mean the terms and conditions for use, reproduction, and distribution as defined by Sections 1 through 9 of this document. Licensor shall mean the copyright owner or entity authorized by the copyright owner that is granting the License. Legal Entity shall mean the union of the acting entity and all other entities that control, are controlled by, or are under common control with that entity. For the purposes of this definition, control means (i) the power, direct or indirect, to cause the direction or management of such entity, whether by contract or otherwise, or (ii) ownership of fifty percent (50%) or more of the outstanding shares, or (iii) beneficial ownership of such entity. You (or Your) shall mean an individual or Legal Entity exercising permissions granted by this License. Source form shall mean the preferred form for making modifications, including but not limited to software source code, documentation source, and configuration files. Object form shall mean any form resulting from mechanical transformation or translation of a Source form, including but not limited to compiled object code, generated documentation, and conversions to other media types. Work shall mean the work of authorship, whether in Source or Object form, made available under the License, as indicated by a copyright notice that is included in or attached to the work (an example is provided in the Appendix below). Derivative Works shall mean any work, whether in Source or Object form, that is based on (or derived from) the Work and for which the editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications represent, as a whole, an original work of authorship. For the purposes of this License, Derivative Works shall not include works that remain separable from, or merely link (or bind by name) to the interfaces of, the Work and Derivative Works thereof. Contribution shall mean any work of authorship, including the original version of the Work and any modifications or additions to that Work or Derivative Works thereof, that is intentionally submitted to Licensor for inclusion in the Work by the copyright owner or by an individual or Legal Entity authorized to submit on behalf of the copyright owner. For the purposes of this definition, submitted means any form of electronic, verbal, or written communication sent to the Licensor or its representatives, including but not limited to communication on electronic mailing lists, source code control systems, and issue tracking systems that are managed by, or on behalf of, the Licensor for the purpose of discussing and improving the Work, but excluding communication that is conspicuously marked or otherwise designated in writing by the copyright owner as Not a Contribution. Contributor shall mean Licensor and any individual or Legal Entity on behalf of whom a Contribution has been received by Licensor and subsequently incorporated within the Work. 2. Grant of Copyright License. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable copyright license to reproduce, prepare Derivative Works of, publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute the Work and such Derivative Works in Source or Object form. 3. Grant of Patent License. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable (except as stated in this section) patent license to make, have made, use, offer to sell, sell, import, and otherwise transfer the Work, where such license applies only to those patent claims licensable by such Contributor that are necessarily infringed by their Contribution(s) alone or by
Re: For Approval: Simple Permissive License
Zooko O'Whielacronx [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The Simple Permissive License is most similar to The MIT License. The MIT License does not suffice for my needs because it is too long and complex for the programmers that I work with to read. Personally, I recommend that you tell your programmers to either learn to read, or to trust you or the OSI. I don't see how it serves the purposes of the OSI to approve a license which is intended to be identical to an existing license merely because programmers can't read. This is a small benefit for your programmers right now, and increased confusion for all people in the future who tries to understand when and whether they should use your new license. For that matter, for people who want something like the MIT license, I recommend the Academic Free License, which is rather more likely to be legally sound. However, for that very reason, it is much longer. Ian -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
