Re: subsets of licenses and copyright holders (was Re: I think the AL needs a rewrite)
Ben Tilly wrote: I believe that is correct as well. Is subset really the word? Should I choose to accept and redistribute using the AL, I should be able to distribute under any terms I choose that are consistent with the distribution requirements of the AL. This may include adding licensing terms that are not to be found in the AL. You can never add additional licensing terms, unless the license specifically grants you the right to do so. An example of why someone would want to do this would be if (like oraperl did) they are distributing a version of Perl that is modified and linked to other code with other restrictions. Allowing this is part of the intent of the AL, and so this is an important example to keep in mind. In that case, they are not changing the terms of Perl. They are choosing the "AL" path of the disjunctive license for the perl code (i.e., the code on which they hold no copyright), and choosing their own license for the code they wrote. Since the AL allows: * distribution of the perl code without source * derived works of the perl code to be combined with works under some proprietary software licenses (under certain conditions). They are able to do what they do. They haven't changed the terms of the AL, they are using the terms of the AL to do something it permits. It seems to me that we should ask all perl developers to trust Larry completely in matters of licensing, and thus copyright assign to him so he can make changes as necessary. My proposal would leave developers with more of a say and Larry with less paperwork. Since I don't think that Larry would want to make any more controversial licensing changes than he has to, I still haven't seen your proposal on this issue exactly spelled out, but I may have missed it. It sounds like an important proposal, and probably deserves its own RFC, as these issues are seperate from actual license changes. -- Bradley M. Kuhn - http://www.ebb.org/bkuhn PGP signature
Re: I think the AL needs a rewrite
At 7:39 -0400 2000.09.12, Ben Tilly wrote: I proposed, and Tom Christiansen for one agreed, that the point of allowing modifications that are made freely available is that they are then available for Larry to consider adding to the standard version. I don't think that the current language has captured that concept, and the result is a bug. Aha. No. Tom Christiansen only agreed with when you said that changes in anything "called Perl" should be able to be incorporated back into Perl. But that has absolutely nothing to do with what the AL calls "Freely Available." He did not comment on that at all, because your post that he agreed with did not discuss that at all. You don't seem to get it. Your post there dealt with a package, called Perl. Freely Available in the AL only deals with separately released modifications. Please don't misrepresent Tom. "Freely Available" in the Artistic License is never once used to refer to the Package, but is only used to refer to modifications to the Package. So yes, that would violate the license, in letter and spirit. Releasing a patch to Perl in the same way that their changed spec was released would satisfy section 3a. OK. More power to them. Accompanying the changed version with a self-extracting zip that comes with a BS copyright notice could satisfy section 4b. Are we going to be happy about this? I am not going to care. Why should I? It can never be actually incorporated into perl. I may distribute a Standard Version under 4a. So I do. I may aggregate distributed software under 5. So I will. I aggregate a modified version. Under 4a I am allowed to distribute this because I am going to distribute a Standard Version. (Nowhere does it say that the Standard Version used to satisfy section 4a must be the version that you are actually shipping under the permission in section 4!) Wow. You are just seeing things that aren't there. No, because in this case the Package HAS been modified, through addition. That's the point. Under section 5 that is explicitly allowed. Then it is no longer the Standard Version. Of course. If you want copyleft, you know where to find it ... If you want a BSD license, you know where to find it... I don't, thanks. The idea of the AL is to provide the bare minimum in the way of rules needed for Larry to be able to retain artistic control. The current license does not succeed in that idea. We have many years of proof that you're wrong. The entire Package is still subject to the original license. You cannot change that. No? Correct. I can put my modifications under Sun's Community Source License, and now I can meet my modification obligations under item 3a, and my distribution arrangements under 4b. Once again, the phrase "Freely Available" in the AL ONLY refers to modifications released BY THEMSELVES. You seem to be forgetting this, habitually. Nowhere are you given permission to change the license of the Package. You are only given permission to release your changes as "Freely Available." NOT the entire Package. As long as I meet my obligations under the AL there is no requirement that I use the AL license. Since the Copyright Holder owns the Package, and you do not, you cannot change the license without explicit permission. If this seems strange to you, may I remind you that there are licenses (eg the BSD) which have as their main point that you should be able to ship modified versions under practically any license you want. Yes, that may be explicitly allowed, of course. Under copyright law if I own a copy of the software I can use it. Look up fair use. The only person who owns the software is Larry. Most commercial licenses get around this by not letting you own your copy (instead it is leased). But the Artistic license doesn't say you cannot own it, so you can own your copy of Perl. That copy is yours. Then you literally can do anything you want with it, if you own it. But you don't. Your not knowing what fair use is But I do. As for my interpretation, do a search for "doctrine of first sale". No. Believe whatever you want. It won't hold up. Yes, it will. In particular sections 3d and 4d are effectively meaningless. No, they aren't. You may need to make alternate arrangements to modify and distribute under other terms. But that doesn't mean that Larry has the power to make them. Yes, he does. In fact he clearly does not. Yes, he does. And will not unless the AL has goodies added allowing him to. Yes, it does. You may believe that there is an implicit agreement there but I would like to see the judge who would agree with you on that one. It's common sense. The AL grants the Copyright Holder -- which is clearly stated to be, in the case of Perl, Larry, whether you think it would hold up or not -- authority to make these decisions. If you don't like that, then you shouldn't allow your code to be included. If you have a problem with the AL, you should
Re: I think the AL needs a rewrite
Chris Nandor wrote: At 10:41 -0600 2000.09.11, Tom Christiansen wrote: I suggest that one explore the answer to this question: What does one wish to prohibit people from doing? That is an excellent question. Bradley Kuhn asked we hold off on more discussion until he can release some RFCs tomorrow. I will put aside other related discussions, but this is the one discussion, which Rush proposed, which I don't think has any need to wait. Your answers to this explain a lot! If I may summarize. It seems that you are asking for better recognition than the BSD license supplies. I am asking for some protection against an Embrace, Extend, Extinguish attack. In broad, inexact, and incomplete terms: I wish to prohibit people from presenting my work as their own. I wish to prohibit people from releasing modified versions of my work that do not clearly, without question, note the modifications and incompatibilies, so they are not misrepresented as my work, while they are not. I wish to prohibit people from distributing my work in any form without prominent, working pointers to the complete, free of charge, unmodified versions. So you would not like to see something called "perlex" or something called "oraperl" distributed with no instructions on how to get "perl"? By contrast I would not mind that. Let me disagree (?) with Ben, who wrote: I wish to prohibit people from distributing something that they call Perl which differs significantly from Perl and has changes which Perl cannot choose to reincorporate into the standard version. I was going to disagree, but then I just decided I don't know what this means. What I don't understand is this thing about incorporating changes into the Standard Version. Why does it matter? Because if you are going to embrace and extend, I want the extension distributed on terms where the maintainer of the standard version does not have to play catch-up if you had some good ideas. And I don't want your extension to wind up in due course of time under a license which leaves you with essentially absolute control. This is also why I am focused on examples from Sun and Microsoft that fit into attacks of this nature. Does that clarify the underlying philosophical difference? Cheers, Ben _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com.
Re: I think the AL needs a rewrite
Chris Nandor wrote: At 8:22 -0400 2000.09.12, Ben Tilly wrote: I was going to disagree, but then I just decided I don't know what this means. What I don't understand is this thing about incorporating changes into the Standard Version. Why does it matter? Because if you are going to embrace and extend, I want the extension distributed on terms where the maintainer of the standard version does not have to play catch-up if you had some good ideas. On the other hand, I don't want to put any such burden on users of my software. If they want to extend it to do whatever the want to do, then I don't see why I should care, as long as they don't call it perl. You are clearly not reading closely. My statement several times now is that I don't care what you do if you don't call it perl, and I have even given examples (oraperl and perlex) of people who did exactly that. The only concern is if you call it perl (embrace), it is not perl (extend), and your goal is to confuse people about what perl is (extinguish). Go look at what Microsoft tried with Kerberos and Java if you have any questions about what it is that I object to. And I don't want your extension to wind up in due course of time under a license which leaves you with essentially absolute control. If someone wants to take the source to perl and make something not called perl and make it totally incompatible with perl and somewhat proprietary ... *shrug*. Where have I said anything indicating that this is a problem? Please quote chapter and verse. Please, are you trying to have a discussion with me, or argue with some straw-man who you would like to call "Ben Tilly"? I would prefer to have a discussion. Why don't you just use the GPL? That's what I don't understand. It looks like you are talking to that straw-man again. Please talk to me instead. I have more interesting things to say. Just in case you sincerely meant that question, here is a sincere answer. This list is for discussions of Perl licensing. We wish to come up with an acceptable licensing scheme for Perl. Perl is used within a number of products which are not compatible with the GPL, and people want to continue to allow this. Therefore the GPL on its own is not an acceptable license. I happen to think that the idea of a dual license was a stroke of inspired brilliance on Larry Wall's part. I see no reason to not continue to dual-license. I see every reason to do what he did before and make it GPL and something else. The only question is what that something else should be. The guidance we have for that something else is that previous Larry made it clear that he wants to keep some sort of artistic control over Perl, but doesn't want to impose any other restrictions. The wording he came up with is the current AL. Does that answer your question? Regards, Ben _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com.
Re: I think the AL needs a rewrite
Chris Nandor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If you are going to contact the Copyright Holder under the provisions of sections 3d and 4d, it would only be in reference to the Package as a whole, for which the stated Copyright Holder has complete authority to rule. If you don't like it, you should not allow the Copyright Holder to include your code in their distribution. There is an implicit agreement there. I'd hate to argue that in court. I think the chances are scarily high that you'd lose, and the results of the precedent for other free software projects that play fast and loose with implicit agreements are frightening. If you're arguing an implicit agreement, that means you have to convince a court that you can read minds and know what the contributor was thinking when they submitted their modifications. Not the position you want to be in. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/
Re: I think the AL needs a rewrite
Ask Bjoern Hansen wrote: On Mon, 11 Sep 2000, Ben Tilly wrote: [...] Sorry, I thought most would be familiar with this story. Sorry, I misinterpreted what you said as the usual "BSD-like licenses are evil, just see what Microsoft did with Kerberos". Ah, sorry. No, I am not religious about anything about licenses other than the fact that they should mean what people think that they mean. If there is a disagreement between the two then the license needs modification or the human needs education. With the BSD license the sort of games I am talking about are irrelevant. The original author has no desire to keep any sort of artistic control and therefore games that are meant to get around those controls miss the point. But with the AL there *is* the desire to some that specific controls, and therefore the games matter. The more control you wish to assert, the more you need to worry about methods of circumventing that control. All of the way from BSD where pretty much nothing offends you to the nitpicking you see with the GPL. (Which tries to promote a very specific philosophy.) Use whatever license or combination thereof that manages to meet your goals is what I say. Arguing over what people's goals "should" be is counter-productive IMHO. There are valid reasons for every position in the spectrum, and just because someone else currently sits at a different place than you is not proof that they are wrong... Cheers, Ben _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com.
