Re: Academic Free License version 2.0
Lawrence E. Rosen scripsit: Version 2.0 of the Academic Free License (AFL) is hereby submitted for your review and for the approval of the OSI Board of Directors. It can be found at http://rosenlaw.com/afl2.0.html. This license is obviously open source, a big win, and it's nice that it tracks the OSL. I think with these versions of the OSL and AFL we are in a strong position to respond to corporate types who come to us with their complex licenses Have you checked out the OSL and AFL version 2.0? They probably do everything your lawyers *and* your developers want. -- But you, Wormtongue, you have done what you could for your true master. Some reward you have earned at least. Yet Saruman is apt to overlook his bargains. I should advise you to go quickly and remind him, lest he forget your faithful service. --Gandalf John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: OSPI License 1.0
Christopher D. Coppola scripsit: Thanks for your consideration, IMHO this license is obviously Open Source, consisting of a trivial patch to the JOSL, and should be fast-tracked by OSI. -- John Cowanhttp://www.ccil.org/~cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Any legal document draws most of its meaning from context. A telegram that says 'SELL HUNDRED THOUSAND SHARES IBM SHORT' (only 190 bits in 5-bit Baudot code plus appropriate headers) is as good a legal document as any, even sans digital signature. --me -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Question of basic rights
James Michael DuPont scripsit: My question is, is there a basic right under US law to be able to create dervied works of software? There is indeed such a right, and it is possessed by the author of the original and whomever he licenses and nobody else. Lets say, considering a posting of source code to a mailing list, with no statement of licensing implied or asked, is there any right another person has to read that, edit it, modify it and publish derived works? Read it? Yes. The others? Almost certainly not. (No court has actually ruled that a modified computer program is a derivative work, but I think it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent to that proposition.) Are there any freedoms that can be seen as given unless the person enters an agreement that is designed to take that freedom away? You have the freedom to do anything but make copies, distribute copies, make derivative works, publicly display the work, or publicly perform it. Even then there are certain exceptions: you may make modifications to the work as necessary to adapt it to your own computer, and you may make copies or derivative works within the bounds of fair use, a deliberately undefined term. You may commit the work to memory, or (most scurvily) use its ideas in your own code with no attribution whatsoever. I am not a lawyer; this is not legal advice. -- Business before pleasure, if not too bloomering long before. --Nicholas van Rijn John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ccil.org/~cowan http://www.reutershealth.com -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Can abandonment be irrevocable?
Peter Fairbrother scripsit: Does the author actually lose copyright by abandonment? Lose ownership? Lose the copyright itself? If so, what happens to it? Copyright exists by statute until expiry, so afaict it can't just disappear. Copyright is a legal, as opposed to a natural or equitable right, and every text on rights I have read says that legal rights cannot be abandoned. Say what? Every time I throw a piece of paper in the trash, my property right in the paper, which exists *in perpetuity* at common law, is abandoned, and the paper becomes *res nullius*, which anyone can appropriate. Copyright being a creature of statute and incorporeal, can't be appropriated like a piece of paper. So either abandonment is not possible, or it has the effect of dedicating the work to the public domain. -- Híggledy-pìggledy / XML programmersJohn Cowan Try to escape those / I-eighteen-N woes;http://www.ccil.org/~cowan Incontrovertibly / What we need more of is http://www.reutershealth.com Unicode weenies and / Fran)Bçois Yergeaus.[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: The Wilhelm Svenselius Open Source License version 1.0
Wilhelm Svenselius scripsit: 6. Products derived from or containing any part of the Software must be licensed as a whole at NO CHARGE to all third parties under the terms of this license. The trouble with this clause is that it makes it doubtful whether the software can be put on CD-ROMs that are sold. Otherwise, the license looks fine. But it doesn't seem to do anything that the GPL doesn't do, or (more to the point) the OSL version 2. -- One art / There is John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] No less / No more http://www.reutershealth.com All things / To do http://www.ccil.org/~cowan With sparks / Galore -- Douglas Hofstadter -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Public Security Interrest PSI License
Wolfram Kleff scripsit: S1. You may not violate the security of this software, its ideas, its protocols or structures. Not testable. How do you know whether a change violates the security? The remaining Terms and Conditions are taken and adapted/modified from the GPL to meet the above criteria: What you have here is a derivative work of the GPL, and you need FSF permission to make such a thing, since the license of the GPL does not grant you that right. -- At the end of the Metatarsal Age, the dinosaurs John Cowan abruptly vanished. The theory that a single [EMAIL PROTECTED] catastrophic event may have been responsiblewww.reutershealth.com has been strengthened by the recent discovery ofwww.ccil.org/~cowan a worldwide layer of whipped cream marking the Creosote-Tutelary boundary. --Science Made Stupid -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Corba interfacesand GPL freedom
Iain Barker scripsit: A GPL application is modified by a vendor of non-free software, who adds a Corba server API to the application. The vendor releases the source code to the GPL application and modifications per the GPL terms. The improvements *to the program* are freely available. The client is not, but given the free nature of the server, it is possible to reverse engineer a different client. Non-free applications could also be used as Corba servers to a GPL client application in the same manner. The freedom of Mozilla is not reduced by the fact that many useful Web sites run IIS. -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.reutershealth.com www.ccil.org/~cowan Original line from _The Warrior's Apprentice_ by Lois McMaster Bujold: Only on Barrayar would pulling a loaded needler start a stampede toward one. English-to-Russian-to-English mangling thereof: Only on Barrayar you risk to lose support instead of finding it when you threat with the charged weapon. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License
Andy Tai scripsit: This is not your license (made by you). How can you submit other people's license for approval? Anyone can submit a license for approval. The only problem is that if the OSI wants changes, the submitter can't very well make them. -- They do not preach John Cowan that their God will rouse them[EMAIL PROTECTED] A little before the nuts work loose.http://www.ccil.org/~cowan They do not teach http://www.reutershealth.com that His Pity allows them --Rudyard Kipling, to drop their job when they damn-well choose. The Sons of Martha -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
Ian Lance Taylor scripsit: That said, I don't see any reason why your license does not conform to the OSD. I agree. 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software should, in good faith, display the following acknowledgment: This product includes software developed by the AUTHOR and its contributors. Discussion: Non-legally binding clause that asks for recognition, but isn't required. With regard to this clause, your discussion says that it does not require recognition, but a plain reading of the clause is that recognition is required if any features or use of the software are mentioned. Which is it? The former. Note the presence of should rather than must or shall. 4. Redistributions of source code may not be used in conjunction with any software license that requires disclosure of source code (ex: the GNU Public License, hereafter known as the GPL). This is also not entirely clear. Perhaps you mean something like ``this source code may not be relicensed under any software license which requires disclosure of source code.'' Technically, source code is not (cannot be) normally relicensed. What is meant is that derivative works in non-textual form can't be licensed under a copyleft license, for an appropriate definition of copyleft. It would be better to word this must not rather than may not, which latter is subject to misreading. -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.reutershealth.com www.ccil.org/~cowan If a soldier is asked why he kills people who have done him no harm, or a terrorist why he kills innocent people with his bombs, they can always reply that war has been declared, and there are no innocent people in an enemy country in wartime. The answer is psychotic, but it is the answer that humanity has given to every act of aggression in history. --Northrop Frye -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
Sean Chittenden scripsit: Nokia's CheckPoint firewall (often considered the best firewall in the industry) isn't based on Linux for a reason. Doubtless, but the reason can't be the GPL license on the Linux kernel, since there is an explicit exception allowing people to run proprietary drivers with the kernel. I define free along the lines of the way the BSD crowd does, not along the way of the Linux crowd. Free in terms of rights, not free in terms of cost to personal developers. Linux (meaning the whole system, not just the kernel) doesn't have a monolithic position. Both copyleft and copycenter (BSD-type) licensors are interested in freedom, but for different communities. BSD-style licenses maximize the freedom of developers, but copyleft licenses attempt to restrict developers somewhat so as to maximize the freedom of end users. It's useful if you're a business in that if you use OSSAL software in a product, you're never going to have to go back and rewrite that code that you depend on if the module author goes copyleft. If a new version of the module is copyleft, you wouldn't be able to upgrade it, but the previous version would still be available under the BSD or the MIT or the AFL or whatever. -- We call nothing profound[EMAIL PROTECTED] that is not wittily expressed. John Cowan --Northrop Frye (improved) http://www.reutershealth.com -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
Mike Wattier scripsit: yeah.. and IMHO this is the very reason that many who want to support the Open Source community, will not do so. It is slowly becoming a cheerleading section for the GPL. Nonsense. Tell that to Mr. Behlendorf, open and notorious OSI supporter and promulgator of a certain almost-BSD-licensed web server. Guess what, if diversity in your politics is a good thing than why does it seem to be an uphill battle every time someone does something that may not conform to the 'copyleft' side of the debate? If someone comes on the mailing list and spews crap about copycenter licenses, they will get flamed for that too. It's just that they're shorter and simpler and don't confuse people as much. Well..there are those within the community to which the GPL is a hindrance, plain and simple. Those of us who do not work for mega corporations or universities with seemingly unlimited resources from multiple revenue streams and legions of underpaid code slaves. Umm, the universities tend to use copycenter licenses. -- Deshil Holles eamus. Deshil Holles eamus. Deshil Holles eamus. Send us, bright one, light one, Horhorn, quickening, and wombfruit. (3x) Hoopsa, boyaboy, hoopsa! Hoopsa, boyaboy, hoopsa! Hoopsa, boyaboy, hoopsa! -- Joyce, _Ulysses_, Oxen of the Sun [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
David Presotto scripsit: While true, that might be awfully hard to do since the two parts will not be explicitly delineated. A few generations down the line and heredity becomes pretty fuzzy. The viral/inheritive/ freedom-fighting nature of the GPL will always scare some companies from expressly not doing that when creating proprietary forks. They'ld rather go with a version whose ancestry can be defined. Safer to go back to the original BSD-ish code. In the current climate, it's unlikely that any open-source code once released can be lost forever -- too many archives. - finding stolen code in open source a few years down the line and getting into a SCO-IBM like battle The chance of that is nearly nil, IMHO (IANAL, TINLA). Most GPL violations are innocent and/or ignorant, and get resolved early and quietly, according to Eben Moglen, who does most of the enforcing, or enforcing. -- Work hard, John Cowan play hard, [EMAIL PROTECTED] die young, http://www.reutershealth.com rot quickly.http://www.ccil.org/~cowan -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
Ian Lance Taylor scripsit: I define free along the lines of the way the BSD crowd does, not along the way of the Linux crowd. Free in terms of rights, not free in terms of cost to personal developers. Oddly, the Linux crowd defines free the same way. They differ on the relative importance of freedom-to-code vs. freedom-to-use- the-latest-and-greatest, basically. -- Income tax, if I may be pardoned for saying so, John Cowan is a tax on income. --Lord Macnaghten (1901) [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
Brian Behlendorf scripsit: Nonsense. Tell that to Mr. Behlendorf, open and notorious OSI supporter and promulgator of a certain almost-BSD-licensed web server. Notorious! I love it. :-) It was an ironically intended (to be sure) reuse of legalese: we have open and notorious adverse possession of land, open and notorious fornication, and the open notorious evil livers of the Anglican Book of Common Prayer. These last are those who live evil lives, of course, not problematic internal organs. the balance of power in OSI-approved licenses is intentionally weighted in favor of everyone but the authors. Relative to the default situation in which the author has godlike powers over the code, yes. The fact that such a philosophy can't be supported (at least not predictably and directly) by OSI licenses is what causes people to see OSI licenses as cheerleading for the GPL. But BSD-like licenses are the same in this respect: you still don't collect any rents on your secret bits, because you have no secrets. No, the charge of GPL-cheerleading can't be accounted for by something that is true of all open licensing schemes equally. IMHO it results from the relative complexity of copyleft licenses, which makes them harder to understand and lead to more mistaken impressions. (And then there's the Rogue, whose views are sui generis.) -- One art / There is John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] No less / No more http://www.reutershealth.com All things / To do http://www.ccil.org/~cowan With sparks / Galore -- Douglas Hofstadter -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
Ken Brown scripsit: [...] is on a -paid for by IBM- team. [...] is on a -paid for by IBM team-. [...] is -bought and paid for by- IBM. (smile). This is offensive. Please stop it. Publishing private mail is even more offensive. Please don't do it. Ethnic slurs are totally unacceptable. Stop it. I am a Reuters employee, but my opinions are my own. The fact that I work for Reuters, and that Reuters's home base is the U.K., does not mean (as a certain Irish nationalist nutcase told me last year) that I am in the pay of the English. Res Ipse Loquitur. Ipsa. Res is a feminine noun. Priscian's head shrinks, cracks. -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.ccil.org/~cowan Is it not written, That which is written, is written? -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
Sean Chittenden scripsit: A language who's core is BSD/MIT is of use to businesses. A language who's modules are all GPL is a language of little use to a business that doesn't want to have to reinvent the wheel. On the other hand, a language with all of its modules that are available under a BSD/MIT license, is of value. I suppose you mean that you are writing an interpreter for the language in question which is meant to be linked to other code by way of providing scripting or otherwise. Such interpreters don't tend to be released under the GPL anyhow (can anyone think of a counterexample?) but under BSD-ish licenses or mixed-status licenses like the LGPL or MPL. The GPLed implementation of the C and C++ languages has served software developers, including those who develop proprietary software, rather well, I think. Unencumbered BSD would hardly be practical without it. Quid pro quo: three single syllable words that can both be said slowly, and do a halfway decent job of summarizing the OSSAL. The BSD/MIT license (which I support enthusiastically), however, can almost be summarized as, quid pro throw (as in thrown into the abyss without any assurance for getting something usable back in return). I don't see how the OSSAL offers you any such assurances for your code in particular: I can tune it up, add amazing new features, and release under a fully proprietary license; you get precisely nothing back. Same story with the BSD, of course. What it does offer you is ecological resistance to a license you perceive as predatory. From a business's point of view, I wish you wouldn't say business to mean proprietary software development business. It's confusing. its ability to provide some form of quid pro quo for its efforts to release code into the wild while still preserving the ability for potential competitors to assimilate the code or any modifications made by the public. But it leaves you utterly unprotected against competition from proprietary improvements. Ironically, it is copyleft licenses that do so best, by the brute force method of making sure there are no proprietary improvements. I don't see how you can have it both ways. -- Do NOT stray from the path! John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] --Gandalf http://www.ccil.org/~cowan -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
Sean Chittenden scripsit: Agreed. Simply trying to point out that there are several different points of views surrounding software development and the two biggest, IMHO, are those who doodle out code for personal or internal consumption, and those who are trying to turn a commercial product. flame I resent and repel this conclusion. I have worked in this industry for more than 25 years providing software for my employers, none of which has had any resale value. I am not doodling out code. In the case of my current employer, the code I wrote is essential to that particular portion of their business, but the only reason I didn't suggest it be open-sourced is that I think it's far too imbued with Reuters-specific ways of doing business, and of no real use to anyone else. Reuters lives or dies by the software it writes, but we don't sell software. What we sell is accurate, fast, and unbiased news and information. *That's* our commercial product. Implying that people who write the software that supports it are doodling is insulting and unwarranted. /flame -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.reutershealth.comhttp://www.ccil.org/~cowan .e'osai ko sarji la lojban. Please support Lojban! http://www.lojban.org -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
Sean Chittenden scripsit: Bah! Who would bother with interpreters? It depends. Perl is more than satisfactory for what I want to do, because I don't have to serve up stuff at anywhere near your volume, since Reuters's business isn't based on volume. As for the servers running it, the cost of them is sunk cost, so it doesn't matter how inefficiently I use them as long as I don't exceed their limits (which is very unlikely). I'd like a more friendly syntax like Ruby. The core of the language is an actual compiler and the resulting code links to my so. So the license on the compiler is irrelevant, since normal compilers don't encumber compiled code in any way. By GPLing the compiler, you could prevent people from making incompatible changes to the language that you don't get to find out the implementations of. *cheers on TenDRA* We'll see. Fair enough, in my case, business means a a widget producing business that doesn't want to reinvent the wheel nor give away the plans to the kingdom. Where, in turn, widget means not any commodity (as is usual in discussions of economics), but specifically proprietary software product. -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.reutershealth.com www.ccil.org/~cowan I come from under the hill, and under the hills and over the hills my paths led. And through the air. I am he that walks unseen. I am the clue-finder, the web-cutter, the stinging fly. I was chosen for the lucky number. --Bilbo -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
Sean Chittenden scripsit: That's a smart business for reusing someone else's wheel design, kinda like a dated patent. The GPL is like the perpetual patent though, it never expires and becomes usable to other businesses. *shudder* Well, patents expire after 20 years, the GPL after 95. Either is an effective eternity in the proprietary software business, though the FLOSSers have been able to wait out the RSA patent and are close to waiting out the LZW/GIF patent. That's fine, but if a widget maker releases a piece of software under the GPL, other widget makers won't care and won't look at the resulting open sourced code. In fact they do. People who sell proprietary software are among the heaviest contributors to the open-source community. I'm trying to suggest that the GPL and BSD/MIT licenses don't fit my needs as a business and I think the OSSAL is an adequate alternative that suits my needs and the needs of others. Your license is fine, once the ambiguities are squeezed out, and I recommend that the OSI approve it. I don't believe your advocacy is founded on sound argumentation, which is an entirely independent point. This list discusses both. -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.reutershealth.com ccil.org/~cowan Dievas dave dantis; Dievas duos duonos --Lithuanian proverb Deus dedit dentes; deus dabit panem --Latin version thereof Deity donated dentition; deity'll donate doughnuts --English version by Muke Tever God gave gums; God'll give granary --Version by Mat McVeagh -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: please discuss EU DataGrid
Russell Nelson scripsit: It's actually a fairly interesting license. It's very like the modified BSD license in that you can do anything you want including relicense. Where it gets interesting is that if you publish changes and DON'T require a written license for your derivative work, you are granting a license back to the original licensor. This is a neat variant on the original APSL's intent of If you deploy, you must publish and tell us. It says If you publish without instructions to the contrary, we get a license. I think the FSF will consider this a free software license as well. At first I was not sure if this license infringed OSD #5, but I conclude that it does not; it privileges certain people over others (it is FSF-unfair), but it does not actually disadvantage anyone. I believe it is also FSF-free. Thumbs up. -- All Gaul is divided into three parts: the part John Cowan that cooks with lard and goose fat, the partwww.ccil.org/~cowan that cooks with olive oil, and the part thatwww.reutershealth.com cooks with butter. -- David Chessler[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
Ian Lance Taylor scripsit: I wouldn't worry about such a thing myself, mind you--forks against the wishes of the author are very rare in practice, and I can't think of a single succesful fork which changed the licensing conditions. The bison/byacc fork was OK with the author but did change the license conditions. Specifically, bison is a fork of an early version of byacc; bison was modified a bit and released under the GPL. -- Clear? Huh! Why a four-year-old childJohn Cowan could understand this report. Run out [EMAIL PROTECTED] and find me a four-year-old child. I http://www.ccil.org/~cowan can't make head or tail out of it. http://www.reutershealth.com --Rufus T. Firefly on government reports -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
Sean Chittenden scripsit: It so happens that my latest piece of free software was issued under the Academic Free License. I wound up dual-licensing it under the GPL because the AFL's patent poison-pill is GPL-incompatible. AFL patent poison-pill? -sc The AFL says that if you sue the author of an AFL-licensed piece of software under a software patent claim (related or not), you lose all rights to that software. This is an additional restriction beyond what the GPL allows, so the FSF labels it free but GPL-incompatible. http://www.opensource.org/licenses/afl-2.0.php http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses -- My confusion is rapidly waxing John Cowan For XML Schema's too taxing:[EMAIL PROTECTED] I'd use DTDshttp://www.reutershealth.com If they had local trees -- http://www.ccil.org/~cowan I think I best switch to RELAX NG. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
Lawrence E. Rosen scripsit: The latest version of the AFL has a different patent termination clause. Sorry, I forgot that. I suggested to a client recently that they get around any issue of GPL incompatibility by simply waiving any such incompatibility as an additional licensing statement. Licensor intends this license to be compatible with the GPL, and hereby waives any claim that the license is incompatible with the GPL. Umm, IANAL, but I don't see how that could possibly work. Surely it's the *GPL* author who has to waive the claim. Otherwise, you could get a license like this: This is the Eating Improbable Objects License. In order to create derivative works from the software to which this license applies, you must Eat Improbable Objects. In public. Any claim of incompatibility with the GPL is hereby waived. Surely you couldn't create a derivative work from two works, one under the GPL and the other under the EIOL! The GPL licensor would claim (rightly IMHO) that the derivative work was unlicensed. TINLA (obviously). /Larry -- After fixing the Y2K bug in an application: John Cowan WELCOME TO censored [EMAIL PROTECTED] DATE: MONDAK, JANUARK 1, 1900 http://www.ccil.org/~cowan -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
Lawrence E. Rosen scripsit: Is that a distinction without a difference? Or should we assert that licenses of the form don't use that license are contrary to the OSD because they discriminate? I think that it is a distinction without a difference. You could as well say that the GPL discriminates against people who write proprietary software by denying them the right to use valuable GPLed modules in their products. -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ccil.org/~cowan Does anybody want any flotsam? / I've gotsam. Does anybody want any jetsam? / I can getsam. --Ogden Nash, _No Doctors Today, Thank You_ -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
David Presotto scripsit: As an aside, it might have been less inflamatory if the license has said ``if source of the program and any derivatives is distributed under an inheritive license (e.g. GPL), it must ALSO be distributed under this license.'' Then Sean would always have access to changed code for his proprietary works if anyone has access to them. Someone must have suggested this already but I don't see it in the archive. No, no one has, and I think this is quite a clever idea. It's appropriate to apply it to derivative works only, not to to distributions of unchanged code. Sean, what do you think? -- Deshil Holles eamus. Deshil Holles eamus. Deshil Holles eamus. Send us, bright one, light one, Horhorn, quickening, and wombfruit. (3x) Hoopsa, boyaboy, hoopsa! Hoopsa, boyaboy, hoopsa! Hoopsa, boyaboy, hoopsa! -- Joyce, _Ulysses_, Oxen of the Sun [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Understanding the LGPL.
Daniel Carrera scripsit: In practical terms, how is the LGPL license different from the BSD? If they both permit a third-party to use my work for propietary purposes, is there any greater protection that is afforded by the LGPL over the BSD? In practical terms, the LGPL is applied to libraries, and works like the GPL as far as changes to the library is concerned, but the library can be linked to non-GPLed code provided it's possible for the end user to replace the library with an updated version. (I suspect this proviso is often ignored in proprietary apps.) It's a very complex license, because it attempts to draw the line between a work based on the library and a work that uses the library, which is not at all easy to draw. Anything licensed under the LGPL is effectively dual-licensed under the GPL as well. The license of Guile, which is the GPL plus a proviso saying you can link this with anything you want, often does the work of the LGPL more simply. -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.reutershealth.com ccil.org/~cowan Dievas dave dantis; Dievas duos duonos --Lithuanian proverb Deus dedit dentes; deus dabit panem --Latin version thereof Deity donated dentition; deity'll donate doughnuts --English version by Muke Tever God gave gums; God'll give granary --Version by Mat McVeagh -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Understanding the LGPL.
Bjorn Reese scripsit: The article Working Without Copyleft deals explictly with this topic http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/policy/2001/12/12/transition.html As I kinda guessed before I read this article, it's basically about freedom for software developers. The GPL is basically about freedom for people who aren't software developers. That's why *I* use it. Speak your experience as your truth. -- John Cowan www.ccil.org/~cowan www.reutershealth.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] All isms should be wasms. --Abbie -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Understanding the LGPL.
Bjorn Reese scripsit: It was not my intention to start a discussion about licensing preferences by referencing the article, but rather to point out differences between LGPL and BSD, which the original poster asked about. Fair enough. However, (except for the point about complexity) the discussion of the LPGL is solely from the viewpoint of developer freedom, which IMHO misses the point of the LGPL. Speak your experience as your truth. I am not sure that I understand the above statement. # Early this spring [of 1986] I met a musician, the composer Pauline # Oliveros, a beautiful woman like a grey rock in a streambed; # and to a group of us, women, who were beginning to quarrel over # theories in abstract, objective language - and I with my splendid # Eastern-women's-college training in the father tongue was in the thick # of the fight and going for the kill - to us, Pauline, who is sparing # with words, said after clearing her throat, Offer your experience as # your truth. There was a short silence. When we started talking again, # we didn't talk objectively, and we didn't fight. We went back to feeling # our way into ideas, using the whole intellect not half of it, talking with # one another, which involves listening. We tried to offer our experience # to one another. Not claiming something: offering something. --Ursula K. LeGuin, Bryn Mawr Commencement Address (online at http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/sci_cult/leguin/) -- May the hair on your toes never fall out! John Cowan --Thorin Oakenshield (to Bilbo) [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: OSD#5 needs a patch?
Bruce Dodson scripsit: However, I realize that argument must seem a little fuzzy, and perhaps a little too idealistic as well, for all of you lawyers :-). ROTFL. Rick Moen the lawyer is right up there with George W. Bush the geek. He'll see thee damned ere thou callst him lawyer. -- I marvel at the creature: so secret and John Cowan so sly as he is, to come sporting in the pool [EMAIL PROTECTED] before our very window. Does he think that http://www.reutershealth.com Men sleep without watch all night? --Faramir http://www.ccil.org/~cowan -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: OSD#5 needs a patch?
Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. scripsit: My thoughts on this are twofold: [1] that OSD 5 or the proposed OSD 6 should be explicitly limited to matters that generally are NOT already covered by laws; The laws of which jurisdiction? in other words, the OSD should restrict the term discrimination to apply to matters that are important to the goals of the open source community (see below) Let us not forget the original use case for OSD #5, the license that prohibits use of this software by the police of South Africa. No reasonable court is going to say that being a South African policeman is a suspect classification meriting strict scrutiny (or whatever its native equivalent of that may be), but that license is not Open Source nevertheless. Whenever I need to reduce the OSD to bullet-points, it winds up something like this: - Freely redistributable - Source code available - Modifications allowed - No discrimination IOW, I consider the anti-discrimination requirement an essential part of what makes Open Source open. Regarding my first thought, if we accept the argument that the OSD should *generally* reflect the values of freedom of contract, I can't agree with you less. Freedom of contract implies the freedom not to contract. Open Source licensors give up that freedom by issuing public licenses that apply to all and give the same rights to all (with the obvious exception of the licensor, in cases like the NPL). To my mind, the trick is how to allow patent poison pills to work while blocking the argument that they discriminate against the class of people who sue the licensor for patent infringement. -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.reutershealth.comhttp://www.ccil.org/~cowan Humpty Dump Dublin squeaks through his norse Humpty Dump Dublin hath a horrible vorse But for all his kinks English / And his irismanx brogues Humpty Dump Dublin's grandada of all rogues. --Cousin James -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: OSD#5 needs a patch?
Lawrence E. Rosen scripsit: § 51(b) All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, or medical condition are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever. So it's perfectly all right, at least under 51(b), for a California business to have a sign on the door that says No admittance to persons who patronize our competitors, say, or We do not serve people named George? This is what troubles me about all the lists that have been served up so far: it's just trivial to find cases where the spirit but not the letter is violated. § 51(c) This section shall not be construed to confer any right or privilege on a person that is conditioned or limited by law or that is applicable alike to persons of every sex, color, race, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, or medical condition. This doesn't seem to parse. Can you expound, or at least unpack it a bit? -- You let them out again, Old Man Willow! John Cowan What you be a-thinking of? You should not be waking! [EMAIL PROTECTED] Eat earth! Dig deep! Drink water! Go to sleep! www.reutershealth.com Bombadil is talking.www.ccil.org/~cowan -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: mysql
Rodrigo Barbosa scripsit: Now, a question for the lawyer in the list: if I use a GPL'd documentation (example: describing an API) to create a software, must my software also be licensed undes the GPL ? IANAL, but the license of documentation has nothing to do with the license of the software described by it, unless the software incorporates non-trivial parts of the documentation. TINLA. -- You let them out again, Old Man Willow! John Cowan What you be a-thinking of? You should not be waking! [EMAIL PROTECTED] Eat earth! Dig deep! Drink water! Go to sleep! www.reutershealth.com Bombadil is talking.www.ccil.org/~cowan -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Which License should I pick?
Scott Long scripsit: I also feel that a person shouldn't be made to read kilobytes of text in order to understand the license agreement. Therefore, the brevity and clarity of the license is also a factor. (This also has to do with my ability to understand my own license, because legal language causes my eyes to glaze rather rapidly.) Notwithstanding this point, I think you should at least consider the Academic Free License, because of its protection against patent poison pills. -- John Cowanhttp://www.ccil.org/~cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Any legal document draws most of its meaning from context. A telegram that says 'SELL HUNDRED THOUSAND SHARES IBM SHORT' (only 190 bits in 5-bit Baudot code plus appropriate headers) is as good a legal document as any, even sans digital signature. --me -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Which License should I pick?
Scott Long scripsit: The difference being, a core file actually contains executable instructions from the original binary on disk. My format is different -- it only contains the DIFFERENCES between what is in memory and what is on disk. So I'm wondering if my snapshots are derived works or not. Probably not. Although no court has ruled on the point, the community does not usually treat diffs or patches as derivative works. Analogously, the _C Answer Book_ was not a derivative work of K R, although it consisted solely of someone else's answers to the questions posed in that book. -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.reutershealth.comhttp://www.ccil.org/~cowan Humpty Dump Dublin squeaks through his norse Humpty Dump Dublin hath a horrible vorse But for all his kinks English / And his irismanx brogues Humpty Dump Dublin's grandada of all rogues. --Cousin James -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Clarification of GPL
Mahesh T. Pai scripsit: If you do not like assigning copyright to the original author, you are free to create your own fork by adding your modifications, and distribute the whole thing yourselves. People did it to GNU Emacs by creating Xemacs. You are indeed free to do this, but it rarely happens and is generally considered a Bad Thing. Forks which remain split and where both branches have substantial life are very few: GNU Emacs/XEmacs, bison/byacc, FreeBSD/NetBSD, NetBSD/OpenBSD. -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ccil.org/~cowan http://www.reutershealth.com Thor Heyerdahl recounts his attempt to prove Rudyard Kipling's theory that the mongoose first came to India on a raft from Polynesia. --blurb for _Rikki-Kon-Tiki-Tavi_ -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: CUA Office Public License
Lawrence E. Rosen scripsit: Does everyone agree that derivative works of GPL-licensed software (like Open Office, http://www.openoffice.org/license.html) cannot be sublicensed under the MPL or CUA or any other license without the approval of the copyright owner of the original works (e.g., OpenOffice.org)? Right enough, except that Oo.o has various parts under the LGPL, and all of it is dual-licensed under the SISSL. The SISSL is an MPLish license, which provides that any or all of the *unmodified* files of Oo.o source code can be reused in derivative works under any license. So this isn't a good example for you, but what you say is undoubtedly true for pure GPLed code. Does everyone agree that derivative works of MPL- or CUA-licensed software cannot be sublicensed under any other license without the approval of the copyright owners of the original works? Definitely not. The MPL, like the SISSL, provides for reuse of unmodified files of source code in derivative works under any license. It requires distribution of source only of those files which have been modified, if any. -- John Cowan www.ccil.org/~cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.reutershealth.com [P]olice in many lands are now complaining that local arrestees are insisting on having their Miranda rights read to them, just like perps in American TV cop shows. When it's explained to them that there are in a different country, where those rights do not exist, they become outraged. --Neal Stephenson -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: CUA Office Public License
Danese Cooper scripsit: 3.1 Application of License. The Source Code version of Original Code may be distributed only under the terms of this License or a future version of this License released under Section 6.1, and You must include a copy of this License with every copy of the Source Code You distribute. You may not offer or impose any terms on any Source Code version that alters or restricts the applicable version of this License or the recipients' rights hereunder... I read that passage as saying that you can't redistribute copies of the source with the SISSL hiked off and another license applied. But cf. Section 3.4: You may create a Larger Work by combining Original Code with other code not governed by the terms of this License and distribute the Larger Work as a single product. In such a case, You must make sure the requirements of this License are fulfilled for the Original Code. There seem to be no restrictions whatever (not imposed by the other code) on the license for this Larger Work, as long as you don't try to impose invalid restrictions on the SISSLed code. The SISSL-GPL issue is because of the GPL, which explicitly imposes itself on all derivative works. -- I suggest you call for help,John Cowan or learn the difficult art of mud-breathing.[EMAIL PROTECTED] --Great-Souled Sam http://www.ccil.org/~cowan -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Panda3D Public License Version 1.0
Jesse Schell scripsit: I believe the license was loosely based on the Apple Public Source License. The lawyer who drafted the Panda3D license left the company some time ago, and I haven't been able to reach him. Obviously, the Apple license itself wouldn't suffice, since it explicitly names Apple, where the Panda3D license names Disney instead. If you globally replace Apple with Disney, the result will be trivially Open Source and will be no problem. It's possible that Apple might object, but not very likely. 4. [...] An electronic copy of the source code for all modifications made to the Software are to be forwarded to Licensor at [EMAIL PROTECTED] within 90 days of the date of the modifications. Clauses like this are unreasonably burdensome on the makers of distros, who typically have to make hundreds of patches to get everything working together. Having to send hundreds of copies of source code to different locations every time there is a new release is just too hard. The license should be changed to require that the licensor be notified of the location from which modifications can be downloaded. In that way, there is only a single transmission required from the licensee, not a whole series of them. If this problem is fixed, I see no problems with OSI approval. IANAL, TINLA, IANA OSI board member either. -- You let them out again, Old Man Willow! John Cowan What you be a-thinking of? You should not be waking! [EMAIL PROTECTED] Eat earth! Dig deep! Drink water! Go to sleep! www.reutershealth.com Bombadil is talking.www.ccil.org/~cowan -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Why?
Rick Moen scripsit: It should be pointed out that a public domain declaration would _not_ be a licence, but rather an attempt to nullify copyright title (which may or may not work, and may have differing results depending on jurisdiction). In any case, the right to recapture the copyright under U.S. law is not alienable. -- Do I contradict myself?John Cowan Very well then, I contradict myself.[EMAIL PROTECTED] I am large, I contain multitudes. http://www.ccil.org/~cowan --Walt Whitman, _Leaves of Grass_ http://www.reutershealth.com -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Why?
Alex Rousskov scripsit: So far, it looks like to safely place something in public domain, one should not claim a priori ownership/authorship but simply anonymously release the thing into the wild. SourceForge, CreativeCommons, or somebody should offer such a service. Anonymous code is too dangerous: the true author, or his heirs, might come back to bite you some day. People who are reusing code need to know the author and to know what the license is. You can always use a null license like this one: Everyone has the unconditional and irrevocable right to copy, distribute, make derivative works, publicly perform, publicly display, and use the following code free of any patent claims by the author. This license really doesn't protect the author enough, but it certainly gives the recipient pretty much all the rights he has over public domain works. IANAL, TINLA. -- John Cowan www.ccil.org/~cowan www.reutershealth.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] All isms should be wasms. --Abbie -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
OT: Sauron: Offer and Acceptance
For those who haven't seen this yet: http://blog.qiken.org/archives/000196.html LOTR meets the lawyers -- John Cowan www.ccil.org/~cowan www.reutershealth.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] All isms should be wasms. --Abbie -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: The Copyright Act preempts the GPL
daniel wallace scripsit: Section 103 (b) of the Copyright Act says: The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting material. This says there exist two mutually exclusive copyrights in a derivative work. To distribute this work the agreement of both authors is required... the copyrights are exclusive and therefore disjoint. Whenever a derivative work is authorized, a second disjoint exclusive copyright is automatically awarded to the modifying author. I entirely disagree (IANAL, TINLA) with your reading of the Act here; you seem to be construing it to mean the exact reverse of the plain meaning, which is that the creator B of the derivative work b, provided he acted under license from the copyright owner A of the original work a, has all the rights of a copyright owner. It is B and only B whose permission is needed to distribute b. An original author can unilaterally permit (prepare) a derivative work under section 106 (2)of the Copyright Act but cannot authorize distribution of that derivative work. Very true, but that does not mean that the original author must authorize jointly; the original author is not in it at all. How then, do you permit a derivative work to be distributed? This is usually done at the time the preexisting author authorizes the derivative work by way of a contractual agreement of some form with the contributing author. Per contra, the contractual agreement is about the permission to create the derivative work in the first place. Note that the six exclusive rights mentioned in S. 106 do not include authorizing the distribution of derivative works, but only the preparation of them. The GPL purports to authorize the distribution of derivative works within its four corners. However you choose to describe the GPL... contract, license, unilateral or bare the GPL purports to grant permissions to distribute derivative works. It does not. The GPL imposes a condition on anyone who wishes to make a derivative work, viz. that the derivative work, if distributed at all, be distributed under the conditions of the GPL and no others. The GPL purports to abolish privity concerns ad infinitum in a succession of mutually binding agreements between authors. Privity is not abolished but bypassed, and not by agreement, but by a condition imposed on the exercise of the license. -- John Cowan www.ccil.org/~cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.reutershealth.com [P]olice in many lands are now complaining that local arrestees are insisting on having their Miranda rights read to them, just like perps in American TV cop shows. When it's explained to them that they are in a different country, where those rights do not exist, they become outraged. --Neal Stephenson -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: PCT (Patents, Copyright, Trademark) policy and Open Source
Brian Behlendorf scripsit: I love it. They filed a patent for a process my company had a working example of long before the date of filing, and unlike these guys, we actually implemented it and ran it. We don't run our site, SourceXchange, any longer, but it's still infuriating to see IBM take credit for this. If anyone had a need to debunk this patent, let me know. Isn't there some clearing house for prior art should it ever be needed? Since the patent was published less than 60 days ago, we are still within the window to send prior art directly to the USPTO. Please consider doing this. See http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/200401/msg01114.html for what can be done to break patents *with* the system, rather than laboriously and expensively in court. Game theory lesson: file a patent on *anything* you're doing. I'm considering filing one on the particular way I walk down the hall after waking up in the morning. Why not? That Australian patent attorney who patented his kid's method of swinging on a swing is leading the way. Next step: the patented legal argument. -- By Elbereth and Luthien the Fair, you shall[EMAIL PROTECTED] have neither the Ring nor me! --Frodo http://www.ccil.org/~cowan -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: The Copyright Act preempts the GPL
Peterson, Scott K (HP Legal) scripsit: A copyright holder does not have a right to make a copy. Rather, the copyright holder has the right to prevent others from making a copy. Of course the copyright holder has the right to make a copy of the work. That is to say that each person has a duty not to hinder him. So, the interplay between the rights of author of an original work and the rights of the author of a derivative work interlock as follows: The author of the derivative work has the exclusive right to make copies of the derivative work. That means that they can prevent others from making copies of the derivative work. Correct. However, the author of the derivative work does not have the affirmative right to make copies of their derivative work. Of course he does, provided the derivative work was prepared under a license from the copyright holder of the original work. There may be various impediments to their ability to legally copy their own work. For example, their right to make copies is contingent on permission from the author of the original work (because the derivative work includes copyrightable content from the original; otherwise it would not be considered a derivative work). Not so. *Preparing* the derivative work in the first place is contingent on that permission, and of course the permission may be conditional (and often is). But once the derivative work is lawfully prepared, all the other exclusive rights in the copyright bundle attach to the copyright holder. New Line Cinema obtained a license from Tolkien Enterprises (not the same as the Tolkien Estate) to make a derivative work based on the _Lord of the Rings_. They then have the exclusive right to distribute copies of that work, and (more relevantly) the exclusive right to perform it publicly. No further permission is required. If you think otherwise, please point to the relevant sentence of the Copyright Act or case law. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Be yourself. Especially do not feign a working knowledge of RDF where no such knowledge exists. Neither be cynical about RELAX NG; for in the face of all aridity and disenchantment in the world of markup, James Clark is as perennial as the grass. --DeXiderata, Sean McGrath -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: The Copyright Act preempts the GPL
Peterson, Scott K (HP Legal) scripsit: By writing something down, you become a copyright owner. That ownership right does not give you any special privilege or right to copy, distribute, etc. that work. If others have rights that are infringed by such acts, they are free to assert those rights to prevent you from undertaking those acts. They have no duty not to hinder you. By your definitions there are no affirmative rights whatsoever, for there is no right against which some countervailing right cannot be asserted in *some* situation. You might as well say that the right to free speech is merely negative because one has no right to shout Fire! in a crowded theatre. As for the duty, if A has a right to do something, then B has a duty not to hinder A in the doing of it: Austin one-oh-one. How is this manifest in the law? The US copyright law gives remedies against those who undertake one of the exclusive actions without the copyright owner's permission (see 17 USC 501 and following). Let me know if you will not find in that copyright law any remedy against someone who hinders the author from making a copy of their own work. Since the right to copy is explicitly granted, and since there is no right without a remedy, a court would surely find a remedy of some sort, probably by way of injunction, or perhaps (in a practical situation) tortious interference with advantageous relations. IANAL, TINLA. However, the difference can be clearly seen in those downstream. Those downstream who make unauthorized copies of the derivative work infringe both the rights of the original author as well as the rights of the author of the derivative. In other words, the permission to create the derivative is not the end of the rights of the original author. As long as their copyrightable material is present, their permission is needed. Can you point to case law justifying this? To illustrate: author of original work gives permission for a second author to create a derivative work and to publish it as chapter 26 in a particular novel; someone then makes an unauthorized copy of chapter 26; that copy of chapter 26 infringes the rights of the original author as well as the rights of the author of the derivative. The original authors claim against the copier of chapter 26 is not based on that copier having violated the original author's exclusive right to make derivative works; it is based on violation of the original author's exclusive right to make copies of their work (literal or otherwise). This doesn't seem to me to be a very good hypo, for it is far from clear whether the particular novel counts as as a derivative work rather than a collective work. What you need is the author of a novel successfully suing for copyright infringement those who pirate a movie based on the novel, or a translation of the novel, or something of the sort. -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.reutershealth.com Mr. Lane, if you ever wish anything that I can do, all you will have to do will be to send me a telegram asking and it will be done. Mr. Hearst, if you ever get a telegram from me asking you to do anything, you can put the telegram down as a forgery. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: The Copyright Act preempts the GPL
Peter Fairbrother scripsit: Yes. In a derivative work, the second author has the right to make copies of his contribution to the derivative work, but he has no right at all to make copies of the whole derivative work. [analogous points snipped] You sound like you are describing a collective rather than a derivative work. He also has no rights in the derivative work as a whole - such rights don't exist. There is no copyright in the work as a whole, only seperate copyrights in the pre-existing work, and in the added work. This directly contravenes the text of the statute. The copyright owner of a derivative work is a copyright owner with all the rights of a copyright owner, except that he cannot prevent the creation of other works derivative of the original work but not based on his contribution. Note that copyright only subsists in _original_ works, and not in _derivative_ works. A derivative work does not per se have any associated copyright - though the parts of it may have associated copyright. A derivative work is an original work, except insofar as it is derivative. Original here is clearly opposed to unoriginal. IANAL, TINLA. -- If you understand, John Cowan things are just as they are; http://www.ccil.org/~cowan if you do not understand, http://www.reutershealth.com things are just as they are. [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: The Copyright Act preempts the GPL
Peter Fairbrother scripsit: No, a derivative work. Eg, the first author writes a book, the second author makes a film of the book. The film is a derivative work. The film director needs two seperate permissions from the book author: one permission to make a derivative work, and another permission to show the first author's work (along with his own work) as part of the whole derivative work when the film is shown*. Show it? The only way to show a book is to hold up the pages one at a time. For instance, it is common practice to limit the licence to distribute to one geographical area, or one distribution channel - satellite, terrestrial, cable, etc.. It is also common to limit the right to make derivative works to one medium - TV, Film, HDTV, etc. Sure, I said licenses were often conditional. But if you want a license to distribute, you go to the copyright holder of the film, not the copyright holder of the book. If you want to make derivative works based on a book, you go to the copyright owner of the book. **or perhaps a compiled work, but it makes no difference, derivative and compiled works are treated exactly the same in US law. A collective work is slightly different, when people agree together to make a work, but none of the works under discussion is a collective work. I think you are mixing the terms: when people agree together to make a work, that is a joint work, and each author has the undivided copyright, so all must agree. A compilation work contains individual works by other copyright owners embedded in it unchanged, and the only copyright on it is the minimal one covering order and selection. A tarball that contains works by various authors is a compilation work; a compiled program made from that tarball is a derivative work of the individual files of the tarball, but probably not of the tarball itself, because ordering has been lost. say author here instead of copyright owner, it makes things simpler Okay, though of course the copyright owner may wind up being someone different from the author. What (a) really says is that if you make a derivative work without permission from the copyright holder of the original work then you don't even have copyright in your own work. Correct. But if you do have permission (your work is a lawful derivative), then you are the author of the derived work with all the author's rights. You might think that [section 103] (a) says there can be copyright in a compiled or derived work as a whole, but it doesn't. That is just what it says. (b) make the overall situation perfectly clear - any copyright in the derived work does not extend beyond the contribution of the author of the derived work. Any preexisting material is unaffected by the new copyright. The only thing the second author has copyright in is his own work. No. He has no exclusive rights over the material taken from the origina work, since of course the original work's author has that. But over the derived work he has full rights. If the second author has to make copies of the original work in order to make copies of the whole derived work (which would usually be the case), Not at all. It *is* true of a compilation work, but you don't have to make copies of a book in order to make copies of a movie based on it. IANAL TINLA Likewise. Infinite are the arguments of mages. -- I could dance with you till the cows John Cowan come home. On second thought, I'd http://www.ccil.org/~cowan rather dance with the cows when you http://www.reutershealth.com came home. --Rufus T. Firefly [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: The Copyright Act preempts the GPL
Alexander Terekhov scripsit: To me, compilers (and tools like http://world.altavista.com) do nothing but transliteration, not translation in the legal sense. I may be wrong, of course. A strong point, certainly; but I think legal language, like ordinary language, applies mechanical to only a small subset of the acts that can actually be done by machines these days; roughly, those performable by machines that have only a small amount of state or none at all. Certainly machine translation is not translation in the full sense of the word, but the (very imperfect) state of the art requires considerably more state than seems to me consistent with the meaning of the word mechanical. -- All Norstrilians knew what laughter was:John Cowan it was pleasurable corrigible malfunction.http://www.reutershealth.com --Cordwainer Smith, _Norstrilia_[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: NASA Open Source Agreement Version 1.1
Ian Lance Taylor scripsit: Lawrence is correctly saying that if the NASA license requires tracking of released software, that license does not conform to the OSD, and therefore the OSI should not bless it. However, the NASA license does *not* require it. -- Eric Raymond is the Margaret Mead John Cowan of the Open Source movement.[EMAIL PROTECTED] --Lloyd A. Conway, http://www.ccil.org/~cowan amazon.com review http://www.reutershealth.com -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
U.S. government works in other countries
The draft NOSA implies that U.S. government works, though in the public domain in the U.S., are subject to copyright in other countries. Is this really true? The Berne Convention seems ambiguous on the case; it seems to me that it doesn't clearly foresee the case of works which are never in copyright in the country of origin. -- Work hard, John Cowan play hard, [EMAIL PROTECTED] die young, http://www.reutershealth.com rot quickly.http://www.ccil.org/~cowan -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Initial Developer's Public License
Alexander Terekhov scripsit: To my uneducated understanding, that's similar to http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0387954015 To me, this book is a mere aggregation of papers/works with some glue (start up code, etc ;-) ). Aggregation doesn't make this whole book [just like the executable] a derivative work of its components. Indeed, it's plainly a collective work. I tend to think that executables are like Java JARs (JARs are simple archives of java classes files and any other data stuff). I just can't see how a copyright in one Java class can affect other classes (even if something is inherited/composed/linked with the other(s)). Presumably object code is a derivative of source code, however, and so a JAR file, while it is a collective work with respect to bytecode, is a collection of derivative works with respect to source code. Native executables aren't simply collections, however; linkers break up and redistribute the individual object files into different regions of the executable. -- There is / One art John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] No more / No less http://www.reutershealth.com To do / All things http://www.ccil.org/~cowan With art- / Lessness -- Piet Hein -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: NASA Open Source Agreement Version 1.1
Mark W. Alexander scripsit: NASA legal counsel doesn't seem to be aware of the Title 17 restrictions on government works. Policy cannot trump Title 17 requirements. Adherence to ii, precludes i and iii. The actual license (is anyone looking at it but me??) says that no copyright is claimed within the U.S. for works written by civil servants, as is the law. That implies that copyright *is* claimed for such works *outside* the U.S., which AFAIK is an entirely novel point, which is why I posted a query about it last night. -- While staying with the Asonu, I met a man from John Cowan the Candensian plane, which is very much like [EMAIL PROTECTED] ours, only more of it consists of Toronto. http://:www.ccil.org/~cowan --the unnamed narrator of Le Guin's _Changing Planes_ -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: The Copyright Act preempts the GPL
Chloe Hoffman scripsit: You may want to take a look at Stewart v. Abend. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=USvol=495invol=207 An interesting case, but not really apropos, because the pre-1976 copyright renewal scheme, like the corresponding termination provisions in post-1976 law, are specially intended to arrange for the rights to be recaptured by the author or his heirs. This is not legal advice, etc. +1 -- After fixing the Y2K bug in an application: John Cowan WELCOME TO censored [EMAIL PROTECTED] DATE: MONDAK, JANUARK 1, 1900 http://www.ccil.org/~cowan -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: apache license 2.0 for consideration
Roy T. Fielding scripsit: Code incorporating patents, when the code and contributors' patents are licensed solely under the MIT license, cannot be incorporated into a derivative work distributed under GPLv2, because any recipient who receives a copy of such a derivative work has no rights to use any of the patents incorporated into the original MIT code. Why, then, is the MIT license compatible with the GPL? Because the MIT license is silent about patents; in and of itself, it can't do anything to require you to breach the GPL's licensing terms. (It may be that the word use provides an implied patent license.) A specific MIT-licensed program may be GPL-incompatible, but MIT-licensed programs as a class are not, because they don't impose any requirements incompatible with the GPL's. -- Where the wombat has walked,John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] it will inevitably walk again. http://www.ccil.org/~cowan -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: The regrettable use of all in Section 7 of the GPL
Ian Jackson scripsit: Is distribution of R still impossible because Stallman can't use it? Yes, it's impossible. This is exactly what the GPL is designed to do. So it's `regrettable' only if you don't agree with the GPL's goals. I agree with the GPL's authors, who consider this property desirable. Very well. Now I point out that there are various persons who, as a condition of their parole or probation, are not permitted to touch computers. Distribution of GNU software to them is forbidden by law, and if they do happen to have GNU software on any computers they may own, they cannot redistribute it. Note that this disability is legal, not merely physical, short of fleeing the jurisdiction, itself a criminal offense. Therefore, the distribution of all GPLed software is, at least in the U.S., forbidden by the terms of the GPL, and should come to a screeching halt. I have spoken. = Isn't there some way to avoid this daffy butterslide to Hell? -- John Cowan www.ccil.org/~cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.reutershealth.com Monday we watch-a Firefly's house, but he no come out. He wasn't home. Tuesday we go to the ball game, but he fool us. He no show up. Wednesday he go to the ball game, and we fool him. We no show up. Thursday was a double-header. Nobody show up. Friday it rained all day. There was no ball game, so we stayed home and we listened to it on-a the radio. --Chicolini -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Update for CUA Office Public License
Patranun Limudomporn scripsit: PS. If you want to compare and know what difference between CPL and MPL, just have a look at http://cuaoffice.sourceforge.net/productinfo_cpl_diff.htm Thank you for providing this diff. What it amounts to is that your CPL *is* the MPL 1.1 with the name changed and the pointers to Netscape changed to point to you. While this procedure is permitted under the MPL, I wish to strongly discourage you from taking this step, for these reasons: 1) The MPL is well understood by many programmers, who will be able to tell, simply by seeing that your software is licensed under the MPL, exactly what they can and cannot do with it without having to read and understand a new and complex license. 2) The MPL has become widely used outside the Mozilla project, just as the GPL has become widely used outside Project GNU and the BSD license has become widely used outside BSD. Thus, using the MPL does not in any way suggest that you are using Mozilla code or that there is some connection between your group and the Mozilla project. 3) It's in everyone's best interest if there are fewer, rather than more, open source licenses. It has often been difficult to convince corporate lawyers of this, hence the proliferation at opensource.org; nevertheless, standard licenses make for simplicity and uniformity, which encourage the easy use and reuse of open-source software. -- A mosquito cried out in his pain, John Cowan A chemist has poisoned my brain! http://www.ccil.org/~cowan The cause of his sorrow http://www.reutershealth.com Was para-dichloro- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Diphenyltrichloroethane.(aka DDT) -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: apache license 2.0 for consideration
Alexander Terekhov scripsit: Are you saying that your license allows GPL-forking? I think that it does allow things like distribution of GPL'd patches... but the resulting/originating derivative works would fall under multiple licenses -- the GPL for modifications and the ASL for all the remaining portions from the original work. Well, no. There are three cases: A. Patches are not an original work of authorship (because they are too trivial): the resulting derivative work can be licensed in any way that's compatible with the original. B. Patches are an original work of authorship: B-1. The original work's license is GPL-compatible: the resulting derivative work is licensed under the GPL. B-2. The original work's license is not GPL-compatible: the patches cannot be applied, or at least the result cannot be distributed. (with respect to reciprocation) licenses like the OSL and the CPL (and also the GPL) say that patches must be distributed under the original license even if, apart from referencing, they do NOT contain anything related to (copied from) the original work. This is only so if patches are themselves derivative works of the original. IMHO (IANAL, TINLA) they are not, and any parts of the original that appear inside a patch (a unified diff, e.g.) constitutes fair use and/or de minimis use of the original. The stock example is that the _C Answer Book_ is not a derivative work of K R, even though it just contains answers to the questions in K R, and therefore is meaningless without it. -- Her he asked if O'Hare Doctor tidings sent from far John Cowan coast and she with grameful sigh him answered that www.ccil.org/~cowan O'Hare Doctor in heaven was. Sad was the man that word www.reutershealth.com to hear that him so heavied in bowels ruthful. All [EMAIL PROTECTED] she there told him, ruing death for friend so young, algate sore unwilling God's rightwiseness to withsay. _Ulysses_, Oxen -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: proliferation of open/free licenses: causation by what/whom?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] scripsit: Lawyers often implement the business goals and decisions of their clients, not choose or lead the decisions (I can say after working in-house at 6 tech. vendors and from the outside with a hundred more.) Fair enough. I should have said corporate lawyers and/or their employers. -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.reutershealth.com www.ccil.org/~cowan The known is finite, the unknown infinite; intellectually we stand on an islet in the midst of an illimitable ocean of inexplicability. Our business in every generation is to reclaim a little more land, to add something to the extent and the solidity of our possessions. --Thomas Henry Huxley -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Erlang Public License
Marc van Woerkom scripsit: could you have a look at the Erlang Public License, which covers the Open Source version of Ericsson's Erlang language? It's absolutely just a variant of the MPL, with a new name, a different controlling law, and otherwise still as Open Source as ever. No worries. -- Deshil Holles eamus. Deshil Holles eamus. Deshil Holles eamus. Send us, bright one, light one, Horhorn, quickening, and wombfruit. (3x) Hoopsa, boyaboy, hoopsa! Hoopsa, boyaboy, hoopsa! Hoopsa, boyaboy, hoopsa! -- Joyce, Ulysses, Oxen of the Sun [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: derivative works question
Kerry Watson scripsit: Anyway, I am trying to find out if it is acceptable to write a book about an open source software program? I am talking about a users' manual for a program that states that it is subject to the OSI terms and license. I can't tell from the language whether a book would be a derivative work etc. I can't find any limitations about books or users' manuals. No worries. As long as you don't actually incorporate the source code of the program in the book, you can license the book however you want. Any help and guidance would be appreciated. I am not a lawyer; this is not legal advice (commonly abbreviated IANAL, TINLA on this list). -- BALIN FUNDINUL UZBAD KHAZADDUMU[EMAIL PROTECTED] BALIN SON OF FUNDIN LORD OF KHAZAD-DUM http://www.ccil.org/~cowan -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: A must read for license law
daniel wallace scripsit: The following link is the best work on license law that I have ever found: http://www.lawyerdude.8k.com/5943.html Disaster lurks for those who do not comprehend the difference between a *malefaction* and a *benefaction* in copyright license law. I do not believe (IANAL, TINLA) that the public licenses Lawyerdude refers to have anything to do with the public licenses of the open source world. He seems to be talking about the license to practice law which he no longer has. -- Values of beeta will give rise to dom! John Cowan (5th/6th edition 'mv' said this if you triedhttp://www.ccil.org/~cowan to rename '.' or '..' entries; see [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/odd.html) -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: A must read for license law
daniel wallace scripsit: The FSF analogy of public license and the GPL is really what I was referring to. I believe that the term public license in the GPL and other licenses refers to the fact that everyone -- every member of the public -- is a licensee. The first paragraph quoted from the FSF describes the legislative malefaction (malum prohibitum) power to restrain what would be legal at common law. The status of copyright at common law is vexed, applied (if at all) only to unpublished works, and has been utterly moot since 1976, which almost certainly predates every piece of open-source software. So nobody knows if copyright infringement is a classical malum prohibitum or not. This confusion gives rise to the myth that a copyright license is not a contract. Even a bare license is a unilateral contract and any dispute in a court of law will be examined first under state common law of contract prior to evaluating federal copyright claims. Some open-source licenses, like the OSL and AFL, are indeed unilateral contracts, but the GPL is not; it is a voluntary (though conditional) derogation by the copyright owner of his sovereignty over the copyright. Its nearest conventional analogue is a license to enter on land. If I license you to cross my property provided you do no harm, you need not accept anything in order not to be a trespasser, and if you have no such license or do do harm (absent other circumstances), you are a trespasser, period, at common law (no question of malum prohibitum vs. in se here!) copyright license may give rise to promissory estoppel claims. The whole point of promissory estoppel, as I understand it, is that you are in certain circumstances equitably entitled to rely on promises even if they do not amount to contractual obligations. In a few weeks or months everything released under the GPL --- ~ 80% of open source code will be in a state of quasi-public domain due to promissory estoppel. Pooh. 114. SCO made a clear and unambiguous promise to IBM and others that SCO would copy, modify or distribute programs distributed by IBM and others under the GPL only on the terms set out in the GPL; and would not assert rights to programs distributed by SCO under the GPL except on the terms set out in the GPL. This is as much as to say that SCO (as Caldera) issued software under the GPL, and is now equitably estopped from revoking its license just when it happens to be convenient. This covers any cases where SCO was the original author of the GPLed code. The FLOSS world has always treated its public licenses as irrevocable, though it tolerates new versions being issued under incompatible or even proprietary licenses. Anyone who tries to revoke a public license outright with retroactive force is acting against community expectations, and IBM claims that this behavior not happening, when others have counted on it, is equitably estopped. Of course there is no question of common law here. -- There is / One art John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] No more / No less http://www.reutershealth.com To do / All things http://www.ccil.org/~cowan With art- / Lessness -- Piet Hein -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Project Public License (OPPL)
Larry Masters scripsit: May have to put this back on the drawing board. Basically what we are wanting to do with the license is control code created to work with the licensed software, control meaning that any software created to work with it must be released under the same license and source code made avaiable. In that case, I suggest you consider the Open Source License or the GPL, both of which have that property. -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.reutershealth.com www.ccil.org/~cowan I come from under the hill, and under the hills and over the hills my paths led. And through the air. I am he that walks unseen. I am the clue-finder, the web-cutter, the stinging fly. I was chosen for the lucky number. --Bilbo -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Project Public License (OPPL)
Larry Masters scripsit: I have seen problems in other projects where someone creates an program to work with another program but the source code is not released because it is argued that the new program is not derived from the other, which with my understanding of the GPL and US copyright law this could be true that the new program is not derived. Program X does this. Program Y does something else, but will work with Program X. The trouble is that it's impossible to say where the borderline is. A Windows version of your program works with Windows, and a Linux version works with Linux, neither of which is under your license. Even if we neglect the operating system, what about a program under your license which generates output on the standard output? If you use a pager (such as more or less), your program is working with the pager, which is under the GPL or BSD license depending on which version it is. And so on. I fear you are asking more than is reasonable. -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.reutershealth.comhttp://www.ccil.org/~cowan .e'osai ko sarji la lojban. Please support Lojban! http://www.lojban.org -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: LAB Public License proposal
DJ Anubis scripsit: No one is not supposed to be unaware of the law. Ignorance of the law excuses no man; not that all men know the law, but because it is an excuse every man will plead, and no man can tell how to refute him. --John Selden, 1584-1684 Nevertheless, this is not always strictly complied with. In criminal cases it holds up well enough, but when _Time_ magazine printed that a prominent Florida socialite had been divorced by her husband (where the fact was that she had divorced him), she sued for defamation. At the time, the only ground for divorce in Florida was adultery, and therefore _Time_ was per innuendo calling her an adulteress. The court rather sensibly held that _Time_ and its editors, both based in New York, neither knew nor had reason to know of this particular point of Florida law. Say a french author/vendor having his house/business in France must conform to french laws when granting/selling. Most jurisdictions surely apply the lex situs here. But when you are licensee, if the grantor is german, american, chinese, the grantor country law applies. With, or without, regard to the grantor's conflict of law rules? (I.e. accepting or rejecting the renvoi?) Most U.S. contracts attempt to contract out of the renvoi. -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ccil.org/~cowan www.reutershealth.com Micropayment advocates mistakenly believe that efficient allocation of resources is the purpose of markets. Efficiency is a byproduct of market systems, not their goal. The reasons markets work are not because users have embraced efficiency but because markets are the best place to allow users to maximize their preferences, and very often their preferences are not for conservation of cheap resources. --Clay Shirkey -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: OSL/AFL version 2.1 submitted for approval
Lawrence E. Rosen scripsit: I welcome comments on license-discuss about this change. Since the changed provision does not affect compatibility of this license with the OSD, I also request speedy approval of this license by the OSI Board of Directors. +1 -- Values of beeta will give rise to dom! John Cowan (5th/6th edition 'mv' said this if you triedhttp://www.ccil.org/~cowan to rename '.' or '..' entries; see [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/odd.html) -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Browsewrap Agreements
Lawrence Rosen scripsit: This portends a more liberal way of forming licenses, although this standard had not been adopted in any other circuit but the 2nd. YAAL and I am not, but I think this case is narrowly fact-based and doesn't portend squat. It depends critically on the fact that Verio snarfed Register.com's data over and over, even though they should have known after the first one what the story was. The court's apple analogy is an excellent one. -- The Imperials are decadent, 300 pound John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] free-range chickens (except they have http://www.reutershealth.com teeth, arms instead of wings andhttp://www.ccil.org/~cowan dinosaurlike tails).--Elyse Grasso -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: open-source x free software
Guilherme C. Hazan scripsit: Since i already misunderstood the concept of open-source (which does not only means source-code-available, but also requires-free-distribution), are there any other concepts behind free software, except that they are free The four freedoms of free software: 0) The freedom to run the program for any purpose 1) The freedom to study the source code and adapt it to your needs 2) The freedom to redistribute copies 3) The freedom to improve the program and release your improvements publicly Freedoms 1 and 3 imply that the source code is freely accessible. The principles of open-source software: 1) Freely redistributable 2) Source code available 3-4) Derivative works (or at least patches) can be made and distributed 5-6) No discrimination against persons, groups, or fields of endeavor 7-8) All who receive the program (no matter how) are covered by the license 9) The program must be distributable along with programs under other licenses 10) License provisions must not depend on specific technologies -- There are three kinds of people in the world: John Cowan those who can count,http://www.reutershealth.com and those who can't.[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: FYI: Next draft of MySQL FLOSS license exception
Zak Greant scripsit: The intent of the exception is to allow more Free/Libre and Open Source Software applications to be able to form derivative works with GPL-licensed MySQL software. The exception says that the MySQL client code can be combined with any code licensed under one of a laundry-list of FLOSS licenses. However, it does not require that the resulting code be so licensed. Thus, you could have component A licensed under the BSD license (which does *not* require derivative works to be made available in source form) combined with your libraries and the result delivered in binary form only. Presumably this is not what you want. If you have input to provide, please use the issue tracking system at http://zak.greant.com:/licensing/ or directly email me. I do ask that you review the existing issues in our issue tracking system before commenting. See http://zak.greant.com:/licensing/rptview?rn=8 for a list of issues. I have sent this both direct to you and to the list. -- John Cowan www.reutershealth.com www.ccil.org/~cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] 'Tis the Linux rebellion / Let coders take their place, The Linux-nationale / Shall Microsoft outpace, We can write better programs / Our CPUs won't stall, So raise the penguin banner of / The Linux-nationale. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: [off-band] Re: FYI: Next draft of MySQL FLOSS license exception
Alexander Terekhov scripsit: The copyright law does NOT establish exclusive right to combine works. FSF's theory of derivative works (just like the sort of FSF-inspired SCO's theory of derivative works) is total crap. If you truly believe that, you can make a lot of money publishing books that contain reprints of stories and articles from magazines without paying royalties to the authors of those stories and articles. Send us an email from the honor farm. -- Mark Twain on Cecil Rhodes: John Cowan I admire him, I freely admit it, http://www.ccil.org/~cowan and when his time comes I shallhttp://www.reutershealth.com buy a piece of the rope for a keepsake. [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Question re attribution for derived works...
Claire Giordano scripsit: I'm wondering how feasible it would be to require people creating and distributing derived works to advertise (if they advertise) that their derived work was based on the open source technology in question. It's perfectly consistent with the Open Source Definition to require this. However, community experience shows that it's a bad idea, for two reasons: a) It makes the code incompatible with the GPL (which may or may not matter, especially if the license is GPL-incompatible for other reasons). b) If the license becomes popular, it puts a great burden on the makers of distributions: they may have to include dozens or hundreds of such attribution lines with every advertisement, which is expensive. For these reasons, the University of California unilaterally and retroactively annulled this clause from the BSD license as used in their works, and most people who have used the BSD license since then have excluded it. -- We call nothing profound[EMAIL PROTECTED] that is not wittily expressed. John Cowan --Northrop Frye (improved) http://www.reutershealth.com -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Which license to use for MFC based software?
Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. scripsit: The problem identified sounds less like a legal issue than it does a potential programmer's nightmare. It's both. You see, Microsoft (and all other proprietary software companies I know) absolutely deny that you have any rights in their software of any kind except those they are pleased to grant you, because you are a mere licensee of your copy, not an owner thereof. So if they want to say that you can only use their development tools, or their libraries, to create proprietary-software, they can. If their EULA provides that you can only use the tools while standing on your head, then that's what you have to do. If you don't like these conditions, you can return the software for a full refund, or at least so they say. I am assuming that Carsten bought a Microsoft IDE in some visual language, and in exchange Microsoft granted a royalty-free license for distribution of shared libraries. Royalty-free but not unconditional. Nor is his license to use the IDE unconditional. I am not sure what the end-user has obtained in exchange for all of the additional conditions cited by a previous post. The right to use the software, which the end-user would not otherwise have. -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ccil.org/~cowan www.reutershealth.com Linguistics is arguably the most hotly contested property in the academic realm. It is soaked with the blood of poets, theologians, philosophers, philologists, psychologists, biologists and neurologists, along with whatever blood can be got out of grammarians. - Russ Rymer -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Which license to use for MFC based software?
Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. scripsit: I suspect that if their licenses reach out to control distribution terms of the copyright protected work developed by the end-user...then...Houston, we have a problem. Their licenses can reach out to control what you and your whole family had for dinner on June 1, 1999. At least according to them. -- Business before pleasure, if not too bloomering long before. --Nicholas van Rijn John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ccil.org/~cowan http://www.reutershealth.com -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Which license to use for MFC based software?
Stephen C. North scripsit: And if legal action isn't possible, then the contract actually has no teeth? A fine question. My father wrote an essay about it called Law without Force, published in a Festschrift for Hans Kelsen (a typical joke of my father's, considering that he was blatantly opposing Kelsen's legal-positivist view of the matter). To summarize his argument, we all of us go through life making and breaking endless legal contracts, cursing innumerable defective products, engaging in sales, bailments, mortgages, and other legal events -- and yet most of us never sue or are sued. The sheriff that, according to Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., stood behind all of this is, in my father's words, a rank metaphysical spook. Enforcement of a contract represents the failure of that contract, as divorce represents the failure of marriage. Successful contracts and marriages never see a courtroom. -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.reutershealth.com ccil.org/~cowan Dievas dave dantis; Dievas duos duonos --Lithuanian proverb Deus dedit dentes; deus dabit panem --Latin version thereof Deity donated dentition; deity'll donate doughnuts --English version by Muke Tever God gave gums; God'll give granary --Version by Mat McVeagh -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
OT: John Cowan announces the Unix Power Classic
My apologies for this cross-post, but I just can't tell which of you will be interested in my latest effort: the Unix Power Classic, an evolving hacker-oriented version of the Tao Te Ching. See http://www.ccil.org/~cowan/upc . Please don't reply on-list, but directly to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thanks. -- Schlingt dreifach einen Kreis vom dies!John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Schliesst euer Aug vor heiliger Schau, http://www.reutershealth.com Denn er genoss vom Honig-Tau, http://www.ccil.org/~cowan Und trank die Milch vom Paradies.-- Coleridge (tr. Politzer) -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Dual licensing
Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. scripsit: Open source software refers to a development model as well as a software licensing legal regime. Maybe in the press it does, but on the ground it does not. Only a small fraction of the projects on Sourceforge or announced at Freshmeat are developed in bazaar fashion. (Note that in TCATB, Eric uses cathedral to refer to a certain kind of open source software, not to closed source software.) The small one-person efforts may be more huts than cathedrals, but that does not mean they are developed by an unconventional development model. -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.reutershealth.com www.ccil.org/~cowan The known is finite, the unknown infinite; intellectually we stand on an islet in the midst of an illimitable ocean of inexplicability. Our business in every generation is to reclaim a little more land, to add something to the extent and the solidity of our possessions. --Thomas Henry Huxley -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Dual licensing
Marius Amado Alves scripsit: Why are the other conditions e.g. the requirement to distribute under the same license (GPL) not considered restrictions? In addition to the reasons mentioned by others, there is also the fact that the GPL, BSD, Artistic, and MIT licenses are *prior* to the OSD (and its earlier version the Debian Free Software Guidelines). If the OSD says that one of those licenses is not free/open source, so much the worse for the OSD, and it will need to be changed or clarified. So far this hasn't been seriously needed. You can never entirely trap a slippery reality in a net of words. -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.reutershealth.com www.ccil.org/~cowan Original line from The Warrior's Apprentice by Lois McMaster Bujold: Only on Barrayar would pulling a loaded needler start a stampede toward one. English-to-Russian-to-English mangling thereof: Only on Barrayar you risk to lose support instead of finding it when you threat with the charged weapon. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: GPL, derivative works and C++ templates
[EMAIL PROTECTED] scripsit: The OSI and FSF seem to have different ideas about what constitutes a derivative work under GPL and would thus have to be licensed under GPL as well. For example, Lawrence Rosen for OSI says that simply combining something with the work isn't a derivative work Larry speaks for himself at that point, not the OSI. (He also speaks for me, as it happens, but I have nothing to do with the OSI.) whereas merely statically linking to a GPL library makes your work GPL in the GPL FAQ That is official FSF policy, and FWIW the traditional interpretation in the community. But in the end it doesn't really matter what Eben thinks or Larry thinks or anyone except His Honor thinks. The term derivative work is a statutory term, but it's one that is *deliberately* kept only partially defined. In the event of a lawsuit for infringement, the court will have to decide on a case-by-case basis, and the result is unlikely to set any meaningful precedent, because it will depend heavily on the particular set of facts. Consequently, there is no right or wrong answer here. There is prudent advice, but that's all. My prudent advice is that it's never a good idea to antagonize the copyright owner if you can possibly help it. The statutory *penalties*, as opposed to the definition, of infringement are quite definite, and fearsome. (So is the price of lawyers.) -- All Gaul is divided into three parts: the part John Cowan that cooks with lard and goose fat, the partwww.ccil.org/~cowan that cooks with olive oil, and the part thatwww.reutershealth.com cooks with butter. -- David Chessler[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
The OSI as a critic (was: Dual licensing)
A private correspondent wrote to me, expressing astonishment at the notion that the OSD might be changed simply because one of the major powers (meaning, as I suppose, the GPL) was found not to be conformant with its terms, whereas wannabe compliant licenses are made to conform to the OSD. I like my reply enough [buffs nails] to publish it. The OSD is a criticism of open-source licenses, and the OSI is a critic. If a theatre critic says that so-and-so's new play is no good, this is generally accepted as within bounds, and if the critic is respected, the play will probably not last very long. But if the critic says that _Hamlet_ is no good (as opposed to a particular production of it), he will make himself a laughingstock -- not because Shakespeare is a major power, but because his plays (with some exceptions) have held the stage for four centuries, and have become part of the fabric of the definition of good plays, at least in the anglophone theatre. This analogy is culture-bound, but one can find analogous analogies (!) in other cultures, and in fact the OSD does represent a cultural artefact: it states in concise form what our understanding of free and open-source software is. -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.reutershealth.com www.ccil.org/~cowan It's the old, old story. Droid meets droid. Droid becomes chameleon. Droid loses chameleon, chameleon becomes blob, droid gets blob back again. It's a classic tale. --Kryten, Red Dwarf -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Dual licensing -- other wrinkles
No Spam scripsit: 1. Can I simply write a preamble in my headers saying if you didn't pay for this, it is licensed under GPL; if you did pay for this, you can either choose GPL or (unnamed commercial license)? Sure. 2. I'm not interested in the complexities of collecting sublicensing and subsublicensing fees -- all I want to do is, if you pay for it, you can use it any way you see fit, including except that you can't sublicense it as anything else but GPL. Would the header preamble handle this? Is it sufficient for the other license to be some sort of permissive non-reciprocal license like CPL, BSD, etc., or do I have to put more teeth into it? I'm not sure what the point is of doing a dual license like that. You normally dual license either to be compatible with two different codebases (both GPL and MPL, say) or to let people pay to opt out from reciprocity. 3. Suppose at some later stage, I discover another GPL'ed derivative of my work in the wild. Does the fact that I have dual license mean that if the other author says, I don't want to submit this code back to you under your dual license, I cannot then incorporate his code back into my dual licensed code base? The GPL doesn't force people to publish their changes in any way, except that if they publish modified binaries, they must publish modified sources at no additional charge (to prevent holding up the sources for ransom). If you get changes licensed under the GPL, you can't incorporate them into the commercially licensed version of your app unless the author either transfers copyright to you or gives you a license to do so -- and you can't extort consent in advance, either. -- John Cowan www.ccil.org/~cowan www.reutershealth.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] SAXParserFactory [is] a hideous, evil monstrosity of a class that should be hung, shot, beheaded, drawn and quartered, burned at the stake, buried in unconsecrated ground, dug up, cremated, and the ashes tossed in the Tiber while the complete cast of Wicked sings Ding dong, the witch is dead. --Elliotte Rusty Harold on xml-dev -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Dual licensing -- other wrinkles
Sam Barnett-Cormack scripsit: AIUI, no, you cannot, unless you make a seperate version that is *only* GPL and is not offered under any other licenses - unless *all* contributors agree to it. In fact, if you register your version with the Copyright Office and the contributor does not, you can spit on the contributor's license, because he'll only be able to sue for actual pecuniary damages, and there are none. Of course, your ethical position is then terrible. -- Is not a patron, my Lord [Chesterfield],John Cowan one who looks with unconcern on a man http://www.ccil.org/~cowan struggling for life in the water, and when http://www.reutershealth.com he has reached ground encumbers him with help? [EMAIL PROTECTED] --Samuel Johnson -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Dual licensing -- other wrinkles
Sam Barnett-Cormack scripsit: Well, that depends on if you're living entirely in the US, or on the basis of international copyright treaties, in which case you or other parties might be in countries that don't require the insanity of registered copyright. The U.S. doesn't *require* copyrights to be registered -- that would be against the Berne Convention, and in fact was one of the stumbling-blocks to U.S. acceptance of Berne, back in the day. It simply grants a privilege to people who do register: they can sue in U.S. court for infringement and do not have to prove actual monetary damages -- instead, they can get US$50,000 per infringing act, which is quite a hefty threat. You don't need to be a U.S. citizen or resident to register, either. So if you are the copyright owner of open-source software, it may be worthwhile to pay the registration fee (the cost is $30 for a perpetual registration, though you need to register at least each new version, if not each actual release) in order to put teeth into your license. IANAL, TINLA. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan[EMAIL PROTECTED] You tollerday donsk? N. You tolkatiff scowegian? Nn. You spigotty anglease? Nnn. You phonio saxo? Nnnn. Clear all so! `Tis a Jute (Finnegans Wake 16.5) -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Dual licensing -- other wrinkles
No Spam scripsit: B. If the user has paid and chooses to accept the code under BSD, a third party who has not paid cannot then use this code as BSD, since the header preamble denies him the choice. Instead he can still accept it under GPL. The line if the user has paid is rather vague. Paid whom, exactly? Anyone? Is it enough if I slip my brother-in-law a fin for passing me the software? -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.reutershealth.com www.ccil.org/~cowan [R]eversing the apostolic precept to be all things to all men, I usually [before Darwin] defended the tenability of the received doctrines, when I had to do with the [evolution]ists; and stood up for the possibility of [evolution] among the orthodox -- thereby, no doubt, increasing an already current, but quite undeserved, reputation for needless combativeness. --T. H. Huxley -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Dual licensing
dlw scripsit: Any attempt to regulate copyright rewards outside of contractual privity is preempted by sec. 301 of the Copyright Act regardless of the philosophical underpinnings of free as in 'freedom' software. That turns out not to be the case. I am attracted to the philosophical principle of free software and copyleft, unfortunately that kind of licensing is not possible under current law. Put your money where your mouth is. Reuse FSF-copyrighted software in a proprietary product, and invite the FSF to sue you. You'll make a jim-dandy test case. Even worse is the fact that the exponentially growing pool of software utility patents and their attendant field of use restrictions without any requirement of contractual privity are rapidly rendering software copyright license discussions irrelevant to developements in Information Technology. Patents are indeed a concern. -- Business before pleasure, if not too bloomering long before. --Nicholas van Rijn John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ccil.org/~cowan http://www.reutershealth.com -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Dual licensing
Sam Barnett-Cormack scripsit: You buy, or are given legally, a book. Now, copyright stops you from doing most things with it, of course, including fanfic, strictly. FWIW, the case that text-only fanfic actually constitutes a derivative work is extremely shaky. The leading case is about comic books, where of course there is a purely graphical resemblance as well. All those BigCos telling little web sites to take down their fanfic are skating on extremely thin ice, and they know it. -- Samuel Johnson on playing the violin: John Cowan Difficult do you call it, Sir? [EMAIL PROTECTED] I wish it were impossible.http://www.ccil.org/~cowan -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Effect of the MySQL FLOSS License Exception?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] scripsit: Treatment of independent work under GPL: if combined, all must be under GPL if seperate, each can be under different license No. If you distribute a binary that is compiled from multiple pieces of source some of which are under the GPL, then all the sources must be GPL-compatible (BSD is GPL-compatible, and a list can be found at www.gnu.org), but they need not all be GPL. Treatment of independent work under GPL + FLOSS Exception: if combined or seperate, each can be under different license The requirement for GPL-compatibility is waived, but the source under the GPL+Exception stays that way. -- We call nothing profound[EMAIL PROTECTED] that is not wittily expressed. John Cowan --Northrop Frye (improved) http://www.reutershealth.com -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Effect of the MySQL FLOSS License Exception?
No Spam scripsit: Gill decides to make all of Abcess BSD licensed and incorporates MySQL code in it. The Abcess code is reasonably independent from the MySQL code but they are definitely intermingled, linked together in an executable. He merrily releases Abcess (but keeps the source code private which he is allowed to) which squashes every other database and he goes on to become a zillionaire, while MySQL goes broke. IIRC it's only the client-side code which has the FLOSS exception. The actual database engine is purely GPL. So at most GWB (hmm, sounds familiar) can only provide excellent client tools for MySQL, which redounds to the benefit of MySQL AB. -- John Cowanhttp://www.ccil.org/~cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please leave your valuesCheck your assumptions. In fact, at the front desk. check your assumptions at the door. --sign in Paris hotel --Cordelia Vorkosigan -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Effect of the MySQL FLOSS License Exception?
Lawrence Rosen scripsit: But what is it about the copyright law that leads you to believe that the degree of triviality to wrap a copyrighted work as a black box makes a difference in the definition of a derivative work? For one thing, if the wrapper is too trivial we won't have sufficient originality to be a derivative work, and the work will just be a copy of the original. And what is wrong, ethically or morally or according to the open source creed, with encouraging open source black boxes to be put together in imaginative ways without forcing those ways to be disclosed? Exactly. After all, nobody supposes that you can't write a proprietary shell or Perl program that invokes GNU utilities. (Hey, what kind of a LK would I be if I couldn't argue out of both sides of my mouth before lunch?!) Let's be candid about what behavior we want to affect by our reciprocal licenses. I believe we want to make sure that changes, bug fixes and enhancements to our software are returned to the commons. But we don't want to discourage the use of our open source software in combination with other software, proprietary or open. By distinguishing between *derivative works* and *collective works* as the copyright law itself does, we can better achieve this balance. The sticky point is this: It's settled that a binary is a derivative work of its source. It's obvious that a source tarball is a mere collective work, or aggregation as the GPL calls it. What, then, is the status of a binary compiled from the tarball? It evidently is a derivative of the collection; is it a derivative of the source works as well? Larry says (in effect) no; Eben says yes. Infinite are the arguments of mages. -- But I am the real Strider, fortunately, John Cowan he said, looking down at them with his face [EMAIL PROTECTED] softened by a sudden smile. I am Aragorn son http://www.ccil.org/~/cowan of Arathorn, and if by life or death I can http://www.reutershealth.com save you, I will. --LotR Book I Chapter 10 -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Effect of the MySQL FLOSS License Exception?
Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. scripsit: Unfortunately, you started off wrong and ended with a questionable observation. First, it is not well settled that a binary is a derivative of source; that is akin to saying a copy is a derivative of the original. In a metaphysical sense, we can debate the point, but there is no debate in the copyright sense. Since none of the relevant licenses permits copying but forbids derivative works (the QPL, exceptionally, forbids the *distribution* of derivative works, but not their creation), this is a distinction without a difference. -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ccil.org/~cowan www.reutershealth.com If I have seen farther than others, it is because I was standing on the shoulders of giants. --Isaac Newton -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: testing kit conformance as a condition of distribution
Brian Behlendorf scripsit: What I need are solid sound-bite-y easy-to-explain but non-dogmatic arguments as to why such a conformance requirement is not compatible with the way Open Source works (putting aside compatibility with any particular licenses). Why, it's very simple. Suppose I have written from scratch a J2EE-compatible implementation (open source or proprietary, it makes no difference), and I have gotten Sun to certify it. Then not even I (never mind anyone else) can create and publish a derivative work of that code which is *not* J2EE compatible. (Derivative works can be made by the author as well as by a licensed third party.) Clearly I ought to be able to do this, provided I don't step on any of Sun's trademarks or claim certification for code that doesn't have it; and what I can do myself, I ought to be able to license a third party to do. Instead, Sun is inviting me to contract away my authorial right to reuse my own code (except in undistributed works) except as Sun says I can. The most that Sun ought to reasonably require is that its trademarks and certification marks not be applied to derivative works without a separate license from Sun. This is very different from the case of being allowed to reuse Sun's own code, where they may put in place any restrictions they please. -- Is a chair finely made tragic or comic? Is the John Cowan portrait of Mona Lisa good if I desire to see [EMAIL PROTECTED] it? Is the bust of Sir Philip Crampton lyrical, www.ccil.org/~cowan epical or dramatic? If a man hacking in fury www.reutershealth.com at a block of wood make there an image of a cow, is that image a work of art? If not, why not? --Stephen Dedalus -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: testing kit conformance as a condition of distribution
Mitchell Baker scripsit: I believe the rationale is that this is an acknowledgment, but a limitation on use in nuclear facilities, and so it's OK. Did you drop a not here? Would including this clause in a BSD-license be OK? It would need separate approval, but I see nothing open source about it. A more interesting question to my mind is, would it be GPL-compatible? I think so, because it does not impose a restriction as such. -- Henry S. Thompson said, / Syntactic, structural, John Cowan Value constraints we / Express on the fly. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Simon St. Laurent: Your / Incomprehensible http://www.reutershealth.com Abracadabralike / schemas must die!http://www.ccil.org/~cowan -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: testing kit conformance as a condition of distribution
Kevin S. Clarke scripsit: It would need separate approval, but I see nothing open source about it. Did you drop a not here? ;-) ;-) -- You're a brave man! Go and break through the John Cowan lines, and remember while you're out there [EMAIL PROTECTED] risking life and limb through shot and shell, www.ccil.org/~cowan we'll be in here thinking what a sucker you are! www.reutershealth.com --Rufus T. Firefly -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: [License-discuss] Looking for a license agreement.
Rudy Lippan scripsit: So what I would like to do is tie the license of the software to the user of the software respecting the licenses of the community-distributed components they use, whether or not the individual component is eligible for copyright protection. I would just ignore the question of copyrightability, and treat all components as if they were under copyright. I would also like to have a framework where components could require automatic redistribution of modifications---a contributor could select a mandatory/automatic redistribution license. I'd recommend that you use the Apache 2.0 license for the core and the non-restrictive components, while allowing contributors to license components with LGPL 3 or later language. These licenses are agreed to be compatible. Any distribution not including a LGPLed component can be freely distributed with or without source; if the LGPLed component is included, it at least must be distributed with source. While I understand the desire for someone to remove/disable/firewall off the automatic redistribution functionality for security or other reasons, it would be nice to say If you disable this part of the system, you are restricted from using contributed components that require this functionality as a condition of your use. You can't restrict how people use copyrighted works by reason of the copyright alone: you can only control how they copy, distribute, or modify them. -- John Cowan co...@ccil.org http://ccil.org/~cowan Consider the matter of Analytic Philosophy. Dennett and Bennett are well-known. Dennett rarely or never cites Bennett, so Bennett rarely or never cites Dennett. There is also one Dummett. By their works shall ye know them. However, just as no trinities have fourth persons (Zeppo Marx notwithstanding), Bummett is hardly known by his works. Indeed, Bummett does not exist. It is part of the function of this and other e-mail messages, therefore, to do what they can to create him. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Looking for a license agreement.
Rudy Lippan scripsit: There may not be intellectual property in the components; however, there is work involved in their creation. That doesn't matter to the law. It takes a lot of work to alphabetize a list of millions of names, but the result is not in copyright in the U.S.; it is in the public domain. I give you free use of a copy machine, but state that as a condition of use, you can't copy any of the books on shelf #3, even though a) I don't own the books and b) they are in the public domain. You can do that because you own the copy machine. But if a book is in the public domain, that means that I don't own it and you don't own it and you don't own it (and so on for the billions of people and corporations and governments who can own things worldwide). -- Overhead, without any fuss, the stars were going out. --Arthur C. Clarke, The Nine Billion Names of God John Cowan co...@ccil.org ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Looking for a license agreement.
Rudy Lippan scripsit: But if I own the the software (copy machine), could I state that as a condition of my allowing you to use the software that you will read the requirements(title page) of the components (books) and agree to abide by what it says before using it with the software (making a photocopy)? Sure, but it seems to me better to make that self-enforcing as a result of using the right kinds of licenses on the content. The default assumption is that if someone gives you content, they have the right to do so. -- John Cowanhttp://www.ccil.org/~cowan co...@ccil.org if if = then then then = else else else = if; ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Looking for a license agreement.
David Woolley scripsit: I believe that may be true in the USA. Running a computer program is restricted under UK copyright law. Technically it is copying in the U.S. too, but there is an automatic license to do such copying, as long as your possession of the software is lawful. -- John Cowan http://ccil.org/~cowan co...@ccil.org 'My young friend, if you do not now, immediately and instantly, pull as hard as ever you can, it is my opinion that your acquaintance in the large-pattern leather ulster' (and by this he meant the Crocodile) 'will jerk you into yonder limpid stream before you can say Jack Robinson.' --the Bi-Coloured-Python-Rock-Snake ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Looking for a license agreement.
David Woolley scripsit: Database copyrights are not like patents. As long as you obtain the fact independently, you can publish them. Telephone directories and maps have bogus entries to help detect whether a competing compilation is truly independent. Maps, I hasten to say, are copyrightable in the U.S., although facts in the maps (like London is in England) and about the maps (Anytown USA is in grid square N1 on such-and-such a map) are not. The map itself, however, requires the selection of which facts to present and the choice of a manner of presentation, and as such is more than creative enough to be an object of copyright. -- La mayyitan ma qadirun yatabaqqa sarmadiJohn Cowan Fa idha yaji' al-shudhdhadh fa-l-maut qad yantahi. co...@ccil.org --Abdullah al-Hazred, Al-`Azif http://www.ccil.org/~cowan ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] TCPDF license: LGPLv3 + a special clause: is this still considered Open Source?
David Woolley scripsit: It is LGPL v3 + Additionally, YOU CAN'T REMOVE ANY TCPDF COPYRIGHT NOTICE OR LINK FROM THE GENERATED PDF DOCUMENTS. http://www.tcpdf.org/license.php What do you think? I'd say the licence was void as it attempts to impose an additional restriction. I would not use it. The further restriction rule in Section 10 of GPL3 applies only to licensees: the licensor, as always, may construct any license he chooses, even things like GPLv3, unless your name is Jones, in which case BSD. (This is a fine illustration of how a license may be open source even though not -- and not likely ever to be -- OSI-approved.) In any case, further restrictions are only voidable, not void ab initio. More seriously, however, this product seems to generate copyright notices in documents written by others, which may well be copyright fraud. I'd stay a million miles away from that. IANAL; TINLA; YYY. -- John Cowan co...@ccil.orghttp://www.ccil.org/~cowan Is it not written, That which is written, is written? ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] GPL and proprietary WebAPIs
Chris Travers scripsit: Now, if linking implies derivation, then isn't the software (and by extension *all* Windows software) derivative of Windows? If that's the case then doesn't every developer of Windows software need Microsoft's permission to distribute such software? I don't think so. I do think so, but in fact such permission is forthcoming. Microsoft grants explicit permission to use its SDKs to construct software that is intended to run on Windows. If it happens to run on non-Windows systems such as ReactOS or Wine, that is not the developer's fault. In this case of NDISwrapper, the Windows drivers that it wraps are licensed to run on the hardware they are being used on, since almost every PC is licensed to run Windows whether it actually does so or not. IANAL, TINLA. -- John Cowanhttp://www.ccil.org/~cowan co...@ccil.org if if = then then then = else else else = if; ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] SPDX abbreviations
Luis Villa scripsit: Is there a full/formal list of those abbreviations somewhere? Would be useful to be able to point at. Thanks! http://www.spdx.org/licenses/ -- Some people open all the Windows; John Cowan wise wives welcome the spring co...@ccil.org by moving the Unix. http://www.ccil.org/~cowan --ad for Unix Book Units (U.K.) (see http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/unix3image.gif) ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
