On Sun, 2003-09-28 at 19:09, John Cowan wrote:
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
On Sat, 27 Sep 2003, Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:
I'm sorry that I'm coming in late to this conversation but I've been busy.
I'm concerned about the following section of the proposed license:
4. Redistributions of source code must not be used in conjunction
with any software license that
On Sun, 28 Sep 2003, Russell Nelson wrote:
Brian Behlendorf writes:
It's not flame bait. Show me an open source license that specifies that
each user pay the copyright holder for use.
You could have a license which specifies that each user have to pay
the copyright holder when they get
Chip Salzenberg writes:
According to Brian Behlendorf:
... there are people out there who passionately cling to the notion
that if you get value for using a piece of software, you should be
paying the authors of that software ...
What if the authors are of a different opinion? Are
According to Brian Behlendorf:
... there are people out there who passionately cling to the notion
that if you get value for using a piece of software, you should be
paying the authors of that software ...
What if the authors are of a different opinion? Are you suggesting
that charity should
The OSSAL lets widget makers who use the same set of modules,
ensure that any work on the modules that they have an interest in
(that is done in the public), will be usable to them in a
product.
So? Let's say that somebody wanted to donate a module back to you,
but they wanted to
I think if I were to remove the following from the clause, (ex:
the GNU Public License, hereafter known as the GPL), the
discussion wouldn't have been nearly as involved. *sigh*
On the contrary, the words in parentheses only clarify the previous
words. Yes, you have been very careful
Sean Chittenden writes:
Why should the GPL be any different to you?
A patch under the GPL is the same as a patch released in an unusable
form. My bias and the OSSALs bias against the GPL stems from the
terms in the GPL that prevent me from using GPL'ed code in products.
Exactly my
Because I want widget makers to be able to take OSSAL code, and
use it in proprietary products.
But that's what the FSF is doing! Why don't you want them to do it?
The OSSAL lets widget makers who use the same set of modules,
ensure that any work on the modules that they
Because I believe that if I provide, as an example, a programming
language and someone writes a module for that language, the least
that the module author can do is release the module under
business friendly terms. If someone writes a module for my lang
but releases it under the
If the changes are outside of the scope of a business's core,
then maintaining those changes is expensive and it is in the
businesses best interests to release those changes. The OSSAL
prevents those changes from being licensed under the GPL, making
those changes available to other
Changes made to the BSD code by the authors of the GPL product
are changes that are available only under the GPL.
Yes, and changes made to the BSD code by the authors of a
proprietary product are changes that are only available to the
authors of the proprietary product.
Why should the GPL be any different to you?
A patch under the GPL is the same as a patch released in an
unusable form. My bias and the OSSALs bias against the GPL stems
from the terms in the GPL that prevent me from using GPL'ed code
in products.
Exactly my point. It's not
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003, Sean Chittenden wrote:
The problem here, Sean, which you seem to be ignoring, is that
you're treating the GPL as if it were somehow *worse* than a
proprietary license. It isn't.
Ah, but it is though. Hear me out:
A proprietary license doesn't foster a community to
The problem here, Sean, which you seem to be ignoring, is that
you're treating the GPL as if it were somehow *worse* than a
proprietary license. It isn't.
Ah, but it is though. Hear me out:
A proprietary license doesn't foster a community to stand behind
it to work on software
Right now the members of this list (but hopefully not the OSI
Board) are bent on arguing that OSI and the OSD is responsible for
only permitting licenses that GPL compatible.
Not at all.
I think your license is open source, and I said so.
My apologies. I've gotten so many responses
'tips hat to a BSDer and [snips]
Just to make sure things are clear: I don't think anyone on this
list would argue that OSI should beonly permitting licenses that
GPL compatible. In fact, the OSI has approved numerous licenses
that are GPL-incompatible. Further, any of us come from the BSD
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003, Sean Chittenden wrote:
Speaking of malintent, it may be argued that the OSSAL encourages a
corporation with a large amount of financial backing to issue a
large upgrade to their or someone else's open source product and
issuing it as closed source software for sale,
Quoting Ernie Prabhakar ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
In fact, I think I've noticed several distinct criticisms of your
license, which its important not to confuse:
A. It is morally wrong to create a license incompatible with the GPL
That would be a claim that, if actually expressed here (and I
Quoting Sean Chittenden ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Right now the members of this list (but hopefully not the OSI Board)
are bent on arguing that OSI and the OSD is responsible for only
permitting licenses that GPL compatible.
I can't think of a way to say this that's not blunt, so what the hell:
On Mon Sep 29 17:20:36 EDT 2003, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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 Chittenden said on Sat, Sep 27, 2003 at 08:07:51PM -0700,:
I think if I were to remove the following from the clause, (ex:
the GNU Public License, hereafter known as the GPL), the
discussion wouldn't have been nearly as involved. *sigh*
On the contrary, the words in
Sean Chittenden writes:
Correct, but the BSD license does not ensure that all software
developed will be available under terms friendly for businesses, which
goes back to the point of me writing the OSSAL.
Neither does the OSSAL. Anybody can make changes to OSSAL-licensed
code and not
Mike Wattier writes:
The OSI is a political organization
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.
Not really. The GPL is legally troubled. It attempts
Brian Behlendorf writes:
It's not flame bait. Show me an open source license that specifies that
each user pay the copyright holder for use.
You could have a license which specifies that each user have to pay
the copyright holder when they get the software from the copyright
holder. It
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
Sean Chittenden writes:
Because I believe that if I provide, as an example, a programming
language and someone writes a module for that language, the least that
the module author can do is release the module under business friendly
terms. If someone writes a module for my lang but
Sean Chittenden writes:
What I'm trying to understand is why you say that incorporating BSD
code in a proprietary product is a good thing and simulataneously
say that incorporating BSD code in a GPL product is a bad thing.
Changes made to the BSD code by the authors of the
Sean Chittenden [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Changes made to the BSD code by the authors of the GPL product are
changes that are available only under the GPL.
Yes, and changes made to the BSD code by the authors of a proprietary
product are changes that are only available to the authors
[snip]
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.
[snip]
But you haven't made your point as to why a BSD+anti-copyleft is
more sellable, unless your customer is MicroSoft, or other company
hoping to segment the world of open source software into as many
incompatible islands as possible.
By and large, the GPL isn't attractive to software
The GPL interferes with the creation of proprietary software.
Correct, which is what I object to and why I created the OSSAL.
Businesses using OSSAL software would give the business the
ability to create proprietary software, even though the non-core
parts are most likely open
Why does everyone insist that they're protecting my interests by
likening a piece of BSD code that goes closed source as a bad
thing or as if it's not what I want? That is precisely what I
want people to be able to do! That's a smart business for reusing
someone else's wheel design,
Your license is fine, once the ambiguities are squeezed out, and
I recommend that the OSI approve it.
Are you apart of the approval process? *doesn't remember reading
that part*
As an individual, no; as a member of this list, yes.
Ah, ok... didn't know if you had special
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
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
Sean Chittenden [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What I'm trying to understand is why you say that incorporating BSD
code in a proprietary product is a good thing and simulataneously
say that incorporating BSD code in a GPL product is a bad thing.
Changes made to the BSD code by the authors of
I know that, but I want people to take bits and make them
proprietary. More correctly. In my own context, I want to be
able to use the fruits of my labor. The contributions that I seek
are from other widget makers using the same tool for their widget.
In that case, a community style
What I'm trying to understand is why you say that incorporating BSD
code in a proprietary product is a good thing and simulataneously
say that incorporating BSD code in a GPL product is a bad thing.
Changes made to the BSD code by the authors of the GPL product are
changes that are
I'm sorry that I'm coming in late to this conversation but I've been
busy.
No prob, life happens: I sympathize.
I'm concerned about the following section of the proposed license:
4. Redistributions of source code must not be used in conjunction
with any software license that requires
Sean Chittenden writes:
Because I want widget makers to be able to take OSSAL code, and use it
in proprietary products.
But that's what the FSF is doing! Why don't you want them to do it?
The OSSAL lets widget makers who use the same set of modules,
ensure that any work on the modules
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
You've suggested that some people confuse open source with the GPL,
but I don't think anybody on this list has that confusion.
Certainly many companies use xBSD licensed code, just as many
companies use GPL code. I don't see that either point proves that
the OSSAL would be useful.
I am in
Let me clarify some vocabulary:
people = home user or developer of applications out side of a
commercial entity working on a not for sale piece of
software.
businesses = commercial developers interested explicitly in the
purpose of
Businesses using OSSAL software would give the business the
ability to create proprietary software, even though the
non-core parts are most likely open and available to the
public.
The same is true of software under the BSD license.
Correct, but the BSD license does not
: Friday, September 26, 2003 12:56 AM
To: Ken Brown
Subject: Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
Ken Brown wrote:
Big Rick,
Your IBM funded-man Tony Stanco has the tape. You should ask him for a
copy. By the way, I see quite of bit of IBM money moving around Washington
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.
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
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.
I have no problems with it...like I said, I'd be happy to have a check from
IBM too. Its just time to end the mythology that Linux is something that
people who are above money sell. Linux is a business product. It makes
money. It makes more money as it is advertised, promoted and sold, etc.
Sean Chittenden wrote:
So I don't really see the difference here. In both cases the
modifications are not available without restriction. Why does it
matter that in one case they are licensed under a restrictive
license?
Because I believe that if I provide, as an example, a programming
Sean Chittenden [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Businesses who create
commercial, redistributed products, use (indeed prefer) BSD/MIT
licensed software.
It would be nice if you could stop using the words ``business'' and
``commercial'' when you really mean ``businesses which use proprietary
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
So I don't really see the difference here. In both cases the
modifications are not available without restriction. Why does it
matter that in one case they are licensed under a restrictive
license?
Because I believe that if I provide, as an example, a programming
language and
Businesses who create commercial, redistributed products, use
(indeed prefer) BSD/MIT licensed software.
It would be nice if you could stop using the words ``business'' and
``commercial'' when you really mean ``businesses which use
proprietary software.'' As I and others have pointed
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
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.
Sean Chittenden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote, in part:
Why does everyone insist that they're protecting my interests by
likening a piece of BSD code that goes closed source as a bad thing or
as if it's not what I want? That is precisely what I want people to
be able to do! That's a smart
Sean Chittenden wrote:
If someone writes a module for my lang but releases it under the
GPL, if I want to use that module, I have to duplicate that
effort.
If someone writes a module for your language and releases it under
the OSSAL as binary-only, if you want to use that module,
Sean Chittenden writes:
The GPL interferes with the creation of proprietary software.
Correct, which is what I object to and why I created the OSSAL.
Businesses using OSSAL software would give the business the ability to
create proprietary software, even though the non-core parts are
On Sep 26, 2003, at 12:46 PM, Russell Nelson wrote:
Sean Chittenden writes:
The GPL interferes with the creation of proprietary software.
Correct, which is what I object to and why I created the OSSAL.
Businesses using OSSAL software would give the business the ability to
create proprietary
Sean Chittenden [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why does everyone insist that they're protecting my interests by
likening a piece of BSD code that goes closed source as a bad thing or
as if it's not what I want? That is precisely what I want people to
be able to do! That's a smart business for
Ernie Prabhakar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It sounds to me like Sean really wants to avoid the emergence of a
alternative, viable Open Source fork of his project under the
GPL. That is, he is less concerned about what happens to the code per
se, and more concerned about the -community- being
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
Ernie Prabhakar writes:
It sounds to me like Sean really wants to avoid the emergence of a
alternative, viable Open Source fork of his project under the GPL. That
is, he is less concerned about what happens to the code per se, and
more concerned about the -community- being split by
I am not concerned about freedom of development to users/consumers
(which is the aim of the GPL), I'm concerned about the freedom of
development for businesses.
Your terminology is strange to somebody like me, who worked for many
years at a business which did very well using the GPL
Quoting Sean Chittenden ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Hrm, that's not the intent, nor how I read it. Redistributions of
source code means the source code in question that is licensed under
the OSSAL, not the software that it is linked to. In the same vein,
since the LGPL allows closed source
PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2003 2:46 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
I am not concerned about freedom of development to users/consumers
(which is the aim of the GPL), I'm concerned about the freedom of
development
Sean Chittenden writes:
Let me clarify some vocabulary:
people = home user or developer of applications out side of a
commercial entity working on a not for sale piece of
software.
businesses = commercial developers interested explicitly in the
purpose of
Let me clarify some vocabulary:
people = home user or developer of applications out side of a
commercial entity working on a not for sale piece of
software.
businesses = commercial developers interested explicitly in the
purpose of developing
Hrm, that's not the intent, nor how I read it. Redistributions
of source code means the source code in question that is licensed
under the OSSAL, not the software that it is linked to. In the
same vein, since the LGPL allows closed source applications to be
linked with LGPL libraries
Sean Chittenden [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I won't comment on what other people have already commented on.
Let me clarify some vocabulary:
people = home user or developer of applications out side of a
commercial entity working on a not for sale piece of
software.
Sean Chittenden [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Businesses using OSSAL software would give the business the ability to
create proprietary software, even though the non-core parts are most
likely open and available to the public.
The same is true of software under the BSD license.
Ian
--
Businesses using OSSAL software would give the business the
ability to create proprietary software, even though the non-core
parts are most likely open and available to the public.
The same is true of software under the BSD license.
Correct, but the BSD license does not ensure that all
Sean Chittenden [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If the bits are OSSAL, a business can trust on the OSSAL bits always
being OSSAL.
This would be automatically true by default operation of copyright
law, with or without OSSAL clause 6. To reiterate: Licences over
other codebases used in
If the bits are OSSAL, a business can trust on the OSSAL bits
always being OSSAL.
This would be automatically true by default operation of
copyright law, with or without OSSAL clause 6. To reiterate:
Licences over other codebases used in combination with the
OSSAL-covered
On Thu, 25 Sep 2003, Sean Chittenden wrote:
Let me clarify some vocabulary:
people = home user or developer of applications out side of a
commercial entity working on a not for sale piece of
software.
businesses = commercial developers interested
Sean Chittenden wrote:
Businesses using OSSAL software would give the business the
ability to create proprietary software, even though the non-core
parts are most likely open and available to the public.
The same is true of software under the BSD license.
Correct, but the BSD
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
Sean Chittenden [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Your arguments about businesses don't make any sense to me since
there are certainly a number of businesses happily making money from
GPL software. Here is what my version of what I think you are
doing.
Some, not all. Just to keep the
On Thu Sep 25 15:52:09 EDT 2003, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Note that if I take BSD code, and link it with GPL code, and
distribute the result, the recipient is permitted to extract the BSD
code and make a proprietary fork of that. So the BSD license always
does permit proprietary forks of the
Personally, the OSSAL is a step in the right direction, once it's finished I
am thinking of adopting it myself. It reflects current day needs among small
shop developers (eg. self employed programmers/consultants). Which I might
add, is a segment of this community who's needs are seemingly
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
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
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
Quoting Sean Chittenden ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Strictly speaking from a legal sense, it is not needed, however for
interpretation's sake, you're probably right. I'll add an FAQ section
to the license page to handle this case.
I strongly recommend that misleading ambiguities in the licence text
Quoting Ken Brown ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
You are making some very legitimate points. Last year, Bruce Perens, one of
the most active proponents of the GPL, said the exact same thing at an open
source conference, the GPL has limited commercial applications.
Hello again, Mr. Brown! How are
Mike Wattier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well..there are those within the community to which the GPL is a hindrance,
plain and simple.
Sure, I know that. (I've been in the open source business for 13
years now; I really do know something about it. And I do mean
business literally, as it's how
Pulling a Kibo:
On Thu, 25 Sep 2003, John Cowan wrote:
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.
Quoting Brian Behlendorf ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
The essential device of an OSI license - the right to distribute modified
works without the copyright holders' consent - does mean there's a whole
host of business models the copyright holder simply can't make viable,
especially on a startup
On Thu, 25 Sep 2003, Rick Moen wrote:
Quoting Brian Behlendorf ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
The essential device of an OSI license - the right to distribute modified
works without the copyright holders' consent - does mean there's a whole
host of business models the copyright holder simply can't
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
guys are
getting to support our research.
kb
-Original Message-
From: Rick Moen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2003 6:24 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
Quoting Ken Brown ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
You
I've been waiting for someone to actually go through this, thank you
for your time and energy.
4. Redistributions of source code must 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).
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.
Sean Chittenden [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The OSSAL is the most similar to the BSD license. This is a
derivative license in that it is modeled after the BSD license,
however it prevents code or objects from being used by GPL'ed bits.
The reason for these addions being that as a language
For your purpose, the BSD or the MIT license is better
than the OSSAL, which impose on businesses the burden
of not being able to use GPL code for their purposes.
Hopefully you will not force the FreeBSD project to
adapt your license.
--- Sean Chittenden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
DISCUSSION:
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
The OSSAL is the most similar to the BSD license. This is a
derivative license in that it is modeled after the BSD license,
however it prevents code or objects from being used by GPL'ed
bits. The reason for these addions being that as a language
author, I don't want any of the modules
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
1 - 100 of 101 matches
Mail list logo
