Re: [License-discuss] CDDL 1.1 and GPL 2 with CPE
On 02/01/2012 05:25 PM, Karl Fogel wrote: An hypothesis: If a license is already approved as open source, and the copyright holder adds an exception that merely indicates that under certain circumstances they will not enforce certain terms of the license, then the distribution terms are still open source. The logic is that anyone who receives a copy of the software clearly has all the rights guaranteed them by the base license, and in the general case no one can compel a copyright holder to enforce things they choose not to enforce anyway. In other words, things like the classpath exception are not really changes to the license at all. They are rather promises -- a form of estoppel, in which recipients can depend on the license holder to not exercise certain powers they might otherwise have exercised. The first part sounds plausible. An additional permission should not invalidate it complying with the OSD, as long as you can choose to forget or ignore the exception and say I just want my GPL. That applies to GPL + classpath exception. In fact, it explicitly says (for modified versions, but the modification could be trivial), If you do not wish to do so, delete this exception statement from your version. However, I think this *is* an additional license, rather than just estoppel or covenant not to sue. IANAL. TINLA. Matt Flaschen ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Can copyrights be abandoned to the public domain?
On 08/14/2012 11:43 PM, Chris Travers wrote: I don't see how copyright can be enforced when it is both explicitly disclaimed and the link with the author is severed. There would be no way to enforce it, nobody to go after for implicit warranties, etc. After all it would be like asking whether an anonymous pamphlet left at a college cafeteria was copyrighted. Disclaiming it as PD is again the key topic. Anonymous works are still copyrighted, at least in the U.S. (http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap3.html): In the case of an anonymous work, a pseudonymous work, or a work made for hire, the copyright endures for a term of 95 years from the year of its first publication, or a term of 120 years from the year of its creation, whichever expires first. Not only that, but: If, before the end of such term, the identity of one or more of the authors of an anonymous or pseudonymous work is revealed in the records of a registration made for that work under subsections (a) or (d) of section 408, or in the records provided by this subsection, the copyright in the work endures for the term specified by subsection (a) or (b), based on the life of the author or authors whose identity has been revealed. Of course, you have to provide evidence of who the anonymous author was, but without an effective PD dedication, that alleged revelation could open up a legal battle-field. Matt Flaschen ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] [FAQ] Is some PHP program Open Source?
On 01/08/2013 10:43 PM, Engel Nyst wrote: On 1/7/13, Ben Reser b...@reser.org wrote: On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 8:59 AM, Karl Fogel kfo...@red-bean.com wrote: What I meant was a specific rewording. In other words, I'm inviting you to do the work you're inviting me to do :-). I'll do it, it's a good point. Thank you for taking it into consideration, and I apologize for the slow follow-up. In case it helps in any way, I'd suggest: You can see the PHP source code, so it's Open Source, right? That could be misleading, since the PHP source code could mean https://github.com/php/php-src. How about: FooProgram is written in PHP, and I have the source code. Does that mean it's definitely open source? Matt Flaschen ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] web forums for license-* [was Re: proposal for revising code of conduct]
On 01/05/2013 09:42 PM, Luis Villa wrote: I've personally never seen open source forum software that wasn't an abysmal nightmare from a usability perspective, whereas many people here have email clients that they have chosen and customized specifically to deal with their workflow. So I'm very reluctant to make anyone less productive here by forcing them to use bad software. I haven't tried it for a serious project yet, but Discourse is new open source discussion software and seems quite promising. It's by some of the people behind Stack Overflow. It's under GPLv2 (http://www.discourse.org/faq/). See http://www.discourse.org/ and http://discourse.org/ It is still in beta. Matt Flaschen ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] License compatibility - reg
On 06/26/2013 03:48 PM, Rick Moen wrote: For a given copyrighted property or set of properties, a court is going to be looking to determine the licensors' actions (what they have permitted and subject to what conditions), and be primarily guided in the case of a written licence by the licence text, and to some degree possibly by other indicators such as licensors' actions and statements. I agree the license text is obviously paramount, and ideally it's not ambiguous. If I read your implication correctly, you are saying that the licence drafter's views, external to the licence text, are relevant to determining what the licensors have decreed in choosing that licence. It seems to me that this claim falls through a large logic gap. (Also, it's at odds with jurisprudence.) Possibly, if the court decides the license is ambiguous. They might look to the preamble, as well as the licensor's statements (as you said, the licensor is often not the license drafter). But I think it's reasonable to think they may consider the license drafter's statements as well. There's reason to think the licensor of a work may well have adopted the license drafter's interpretation, unless they say otherwise. If the licensor specifically says they disagree with the license drafter, that's another matter. So I think a court may decide someone using the GPL adopts the FSF's interpretation of an ambiguous part, unless that person says up front they reject the FSF's interpretation. I'm not sure by what measure what you say is 'conservative', but the bigger problem is that it doesn't appear to pass the test of relevance. (My view, yours for a small fee and waiver of reverse-engineering rights.) If you're not certain how the license will be interpreted in court, I think it's conservative (safer) not to do things the license drafter interprets as forbidden. Matt Flaschen ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
