Re: For Approval: NASA Open Source Agreement Version 1.1
On Fri, Feb 13, 2004 at 03:27:52PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So Americans can ignore the civil-servant version of the NOSA license with impunity, but not so Australians. Depends. If there are patent rights then no. NOSA covers more than just copyrights. I don't believe there's a restriction on patent ownership by the US Government. -- Ben Reser [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://ben.reser.org Conscience is the inner voice which warns us somebody may be looking. - H.L. Mencken -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: apache license 2.0 for consideration
Russell Nelson said on Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 05:12:21PM -0500,: If nobody else reviews this license, then the license approval snip comply with the OSD (cough, cough). But still, could somebody else take a gander at this? This license was discussed on [EMAIL PROTECTED], and I had seen quite a few regulars on this and debian-legal there; and in one mail, Eben Moglen of FSF wrote:- quote FSF notes that section 5 is the only element of ASL 2.0 that is incompatible with version 2 of the GNU General Public License. FSF continues to believe that the achievement of compatibility between ASL and GPL would be of enormous benefit to the community of free software developers, allowing merger of valuable code bases currently separated by license incompatibilities. FSF is pleased to note the convergence implied by the ASL 2.0 draft. FSF will make efforts, in the development, discussion, and adoption of GPL 3 to further the process of convergence, by carefully considering the Apache Foundation's approach to the patent defense problem. For this reason, we consider the distinction between the approaches contained in the first and second sentences of section 5 to be particularly significant. /quote Sec. 5 referred to by Prof. Moglen was Sec 5 of the original draft as proposed by the Apache Foundation. This seems to have been renumbered as section 3 in the final license. Finally, on January 24th, Roy Fielding of the Apache Foundation stated on the same list:- quote They(*) are compatible. Whether or not they are considered compatible by the FSF is an opinion only they can make, but given that a derivative work consisting of both Apache Licensed code and GPL code can be distributed under the GPL (according to *our* opinion), there really isn't anything to be discussed. /quote Guess that settles the matter. I am not on a `always on' network, so cannot search out the archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED] for exact links to the above messages; the messages are archived by me though. (*) The ASL and GNU GPL. -- +~+ Mahesh T. Pai, LL.M., 'NANDINI', S. R. M. Road, Ernakulam, Cochin-682018, Kerala, India. http://paivakil.port5.com +~+ -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: NASA Open Source Agreement Version 1.1
Brian Behlendorf scripsit: So what happens when I download the code under a FOIA/public domain issue, and then relicense under a BSD license? Don't I have the right to relicense PD works? You can do anything you want to with a public domain work except try to assert a valid copyright on it, which is one of the incidents of the BSD or any other open-source license. So, no. -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.reutershealth.com www.ccil.org/~cowan You cannot enter here. Go back to the abyss prepared for you! Go back! Fall into the nothingness that awaits you and your Master. Go! --Gandalf -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
International treatment of the public domain
I believe that the OSI is not USA only, so I hope this question does receive some discussion. On Mon, 16 Feb 2004, Russell Nelson wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So Americans can ignore the civil-servant version of the NOSA license with impunity, but not so Australians. Interesting ... so what happens if an American citizen takes public domain US Government software into Australia and starts redistributing it there? But I suppose that's a problem that the NOSA will fix, so at least for this discussion it's a moot point. What if any US citizen took this work that is under the public domain (for them) and applied a BSD (or any other) license and redistributed worldwide? It appears that with US government created works that every US citizen has the right to apply licenses to the work, so whether any specific citizen (or a group) applied a NOSA license doesn't seem all that relevant. Which license agreements apply to a Canadian like myself? I would suspect any of them -- whether it be the NOSA agreement or the BSD or whatever other license an American wishes to apply to this public domain work. If I don't like the NOSA agreement I can just call a friend in the USA who can offer me the work to me in a BSD license. I think there is an interesting question being opened up by this discussion. Given that term expiry is not the only way for a work to enter the public domain, and term expiry can be different in different countries (A Disney production gets 95 years in the USA but fortunately only 50 years in Canada), are the other methods to enter into the public domain also country specific? It was always my understanding that a work that was released into the public domain by its author (Such as by a public domain dedication http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/ ) in the USA or any other country that this work was instantaneously in the public domain in all countries. This thread is outside the topic of license approval so is likely considered off-topic. This is unless we want to consider the worldwide applicability of the Creative Commons public domain dedication as an OSI license approval question. --- Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: http://www.flora.ca/ Perspective of a digital copyright reformer on Sheila Copps, MP. http://www.flora.ca/russell/drafts/copps-ndp.html Discuss at: http://www.lulu.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2757 -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: NASA Open Source Agreement Version 1.1
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Brian Behlendorf scripsit: So what happens when I download the code under a FOIA/public domain issue, and then relicense under a BSD license? Don't I have the right to relicense PD works? You can do anything you want to with a public domain work except try to assert a valid copyright on it, which is one of the incidents of the BSD or any other open-source license. So, no. So I have no right to create a derivative work of a public domain work and release that derivative work under a license of my choice? For example, I can not take PD code and incorporate it into Apache httpd? I must misunderstand what public domain means, then. Brian -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: International treatment of the public domain
Russell McOrmond wrote: On Mon, 16 Feb 2004, Russell Nelson wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So Americans can ignore the civil-servant version of the NOSA license with impunity, but not so Australians. [This was in response to my quoting from the Berne Convention to show that copyright in other Berne countries is independent from existence of copyright in the home country, as long as the work qualifies as protected matter under the BC. Apparently under US law works by the NASA may be public domain by law] Interesting ... so what happens if an American citizen takes public domain US Government software into Australia and starts redistributing it there? But I suppose that's a problem that the NOSA will fix, so at least for this discussion it's a moot point. What if any US citizen took this work that is under the public domain (for them) and applied a BSD (or any other) license and redistributed worldwide? I don't think it is legal in the USA to apply your own license to a public domain work. How can you license something to which you do not have a copyright? Presumably creating a modified version or something would entitle you to a copyright to that version, but the 'bare' public domain work cannot be under copyright. I think there is an interesting question being opened up by this discussion. Given that term expiry is not the only way for a work to enter the public domain, and term expiry can be different in different countries (A Disney production gets 95 years in the USA but fortunately only 50 years in Canada), are the other methods to enter into the public domain also country specific? I think so. In fact it may be impossible for a work to truly enter the public domain in any other way. Most countries recognize the concept of 'moral rights' that are inalienable rights of the author and which cannot be transferred or given up. These rights permit the author to act against mutilation of his work, even when licensing it under an open source license, and also when saying this work is in the public domain or words to that effect. Arnoud -- Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch patent attorney - Speaking only for myself Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/ -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: apache license 2.0 for consideration
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, Mahesh T. Pai wrote: Russell Nelson said on Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 05:12:21PM -0500,: If nobody else reviews this license, then the license approval snip comply with the OSD (cough, cough). But still, could somebody else take a gander at this? This license was discussed on [EMAIL PROTECTED], and I had seen quite a few regulars on this and debian-legal there; and in one mail, Eben Moglen of FSF wrote:- quote FSF notes that section 5 is the only element of ASL 2.0 that is incompatible with version 2 of the GNU General Public License. FSF continues to believe that the achievement of compatibility between ASL and GPL would be of enormous benefit to the community of free software developers, allowing merger of valuable code bases currently separated by license incompatibilities. FSF is pleased to note the convergence implied by the ASL 2.0 draft. FSF will make efforts, in the development, discussion, and adoption of GPL 3 to further the process of convergence, by carefully considering the Apache Foundation's approach to the patent defense problem. For this reason, we consider the distinction between the approaches contained in the first and second sentences of section 5 to be particularly significant. /quote Sec. 5 referred to by Prof. Moglen was Sec 5 of the original draft as proposed by the Apache Foundation. This seems to have been renumbered as section 3 in the final license. Also, the second sentence referred to above by Eben in the older draft was the broader one that applied to any patent action taken against any open source software product. It was narrowed, in the draft that was eventually officially approved, to only cover patent actions regarding *the licensed software itself*, narrowing the scope but being much more acceptable. Finally, on January 24th, Roy Fielding of the Apache Foundation stated on the same list:- quote They(*) are compatible. Whether or not they are considered compatible by the FSF is an opinion only they can make, but given that a derivative work consisting of both Apache Licensed code and GPL code can be distributed under the GPL (according to *our* opinion), there really isn't anything to be discussed. /quote Guess that settles the matter. Well, Russ's matter is conformance with the OSD, not the GPL. Nothing came up in our own drafting and discussion of the ASL that suggested something beyond the OSD's constraints. The same basic contract is there - use our code for whatever purpose you want, just give us credit, don't call it Apache if it's your work, and caveat emptor. Brian -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: NASA Open Source Agreement Version 1.1
Brian Behlendorf wrote: On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Brian Behlendorf scripsit: So what happens when I download the code under a FOIA/public domain issue, and then relicense under a BSD license? Don't I have the right to relicense PD works? You can do anything you want to with a public domain work except try to assert a valid copyright on it, which is one of the incidents of the BSD or any other open-source license. So, no. So I have no right to create a derivative work of a public domain work and release that derivative work under a license of my choice? Sure you can. It's just that you can't claim a copyright to the original public domain work itself. You seemed to suggest doing that (rather than creating a derivative work) above when you said downloading public domain code and relicensing it under BSD. The interesting question is whether I can then take your BSD'ed work and extract the public domain parts. It seems logical I should be able to do that, but there have been lots of lawsuits about restored versions of PD works and whether the result is copyright-protected. Arnoud -- Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch patent attorney - Speaking only for myself Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/ -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: NASA Open Source Agreement Version 1.1
Brian Behlendorf scripsit: So I have no right to create a derivative work of a public domain work and release that derivative work under a license of my choice? For example, I can not take PD code and incorporate it into Apache httpd? I must misunderstand what public domain means, then. Oh yes, you can do that. But the derivative work must be genuinely a derivative work, and not just a minor touch-up of the public-domain original. -- They tried to pierce your heartJohn Cowan with a Morgul-knife that remains in the http://www.ccil.org/~cowan wound. If they had succeeded, you wouldhttp://www.reutershealth.com become a wraith under the domination of the Dark Lord. --Gandalf -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: apache license 2.0 for consideration
Russell Nelson wrote: If nobody else reviews this license, then the license approval committee will have to work without your input. As we're only human, we might make a mistake, and approve an Apache license which didn't comply with the OSD (cough, cough). But still, could somebody else take a gander at this? When it was a draft, there was some discussion of the patent clauses. They have since been reworded to be more in line with other, OSI-approved licenses. I do wonder about 5. Submission of Contributions. Unless You explicitly state otherwise, any Contribution intentionally submitted for inclusion in the Work by You to the Licensor shall be under the terms and conditions of this License, without any additional terms or conditions. Notwithstanding the above, nothing herein shall supersede or modify the terms of any separate license agreement you may have executed with Licensor regarding such Contributions. Can you do that in a copyright license? It seems harmless, since it only applies if you intentionally submit something to the Licensor, but I've never seen it before in an open source license. For the rest, it reads like the Apache license 1.1 rewritten by a lawyer. :-) Arnoud -- Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch patent attorney - Speaking only for myself Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/ -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: International treatment of the public domain
Russell McOrmond scripsit: It appears that with US government created works that every US citizen has the right to apply licenses to the work, Not so. See my other posting. Given that term expiry is not the only way for a work to enter the public domain, and term expiry can be different in different countries (A Disney production gets 95 years in the USA but fortunately only 50 years in Canada), are the other methods to enter into the public domain also country specific? Yes. U.S. government works are P.D. in the U.S., but Canadian government works appear not to be so in Canada, and U.K. government works are definitely copyrighted by the Crown. In addition, there are country-specific rights: for example, a Canadian performer in Canada has a right in the nature of copyright over his unrecorded performance (it can't be imitated or recorded without a license), whereas in the U.S. nothing that is not fixed in a tangible medium can be the object of copyright. It was always my understanding that a work that was released into the public domain by its author (Such as by a public domain dedication http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/ ) in the USA or any other country that this work was instantaneously in the public domain in all countries. Seemingly not. -- Some people open all the Windows; John Cowan wise wives welcome the spring [EMAIL PROTECTED] by moving the Unix. http://www.reutershealth.com --ad for Unix Book Units (U.K.) http://www.ccil.org/~cowan (see http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/unix3image.gif) -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: apache license 2.0 for consideration
Arnoud Engelfriet wrote: I do wonder about 5. Submission of Contributions. Unless You explicitly state otherwise, any Contribution intentionally submitted for inclusion in the Work by You to the Licensor shall be under the terms and conditions of this License, without any additional terms or conditions. Notwithstanding the above, nothing herein shall supersede or modify the terms of any separate license agreement you may have executed with Licensor regarding such Contributions. Can you do that in a copyright license? 'copyright licence'? what's that? this clause is intended to cover all submissions to the licensor without having to explicitly execute any other document. for example, most (hopefully soon to be all) of the asf's committers have submitted CLAs (contributor licence agreements) which basically describe the terms of their submissions. however, stuff that comes in through the mailing lists or issue trackers in the form of patches *isn't* covered by a cla. this clause addresses that. -- #kenP-)} Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Golux.Com/coar/ Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/ Millennium hand and shrimp! -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: International treatment of the public domain
I do not have an answer to the specific question, but I suspect the answer may reside in a treaty or an international agreement that is not a treaty. The Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), for instance, allows works in the public domain in the U.S. to be scooped out of the public domain retroactively if those works whose source country is a member of the WTO or the Berne convention meets a set of criteria that the U.S. has agreed to. I doubt that this is a unilateral privilege so we may assume the public domain shrank in 1994 and thereafter. Still, I am unsure how this would affect an open source license since the license MAY be enforceable in the U.S. or, possibly, an international dispute resolution forum administered by WTO/WIPO -Rod [EMAIL PROTECTED] opensource.cyberspaces.org On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, Russell McOrmond wrote: I believe that the OSI is not USA only, so I hope this question does receive some discussion. On Mon, 16 Feb 2004, Russell Nelson wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So Americans can ignore the civil-servant version of the NOSA license with impunity, but not so Australians. Interesting ... so what happens if an American citizen takes public domain US Government software into Australia and starts redistributing it there? But I suppose that's a problem that the NOSA will fix, so at least for this discussion it's a moot point. What if any US citizen took this work that is under the public domain (for them) and applied a BSD (or any other) license and redistributed worldwide? It appears that with US government created works that every US citizen has the right to apply licenses to the work, so whether any specific citizen (or a group) applied a NOSA license doesn't seem all that relevant. Which license agreements apply to a Canadian like myself? I would suspect any of them -- whether it be the NOSA agreement or the BSD or whatever other license an American wishes to apply to this public domain work. If I don't like the NOSA agreement I can just call a friend in the USA who can offer me the work to me in a BSD license. I think there is an interesting question being opened up by this discussion. Given that term expiry is not the only way for a work to enter the public domain, and term expiry can be different in different countries (A Disney production gets 95 years in the USA but fortunately only 50 years in Canada), are the other methods to enter into the public domain also country specific? It was always my understanding that a work that was released into the public domain by its author (Such as by a public domain dedication http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/ ) in the USA or any other country that this work was instantaneously in the public domain in all countries. This thread is outside the topic of license approval so is likely considered off-topic. This is unless we want to consider the worldwide applicability of the Creative Commons public domain dedication as an OSI license approval question. --- Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: http://www.flora.ca/ Perspective of a digital copyright reformer on Sheila Copps, MP. http://www.flora.ca/russell/drafts/copps-ndp.html Discuss at: http://www.lulu.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2757 -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3 -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: International treatment of the public domain
Russell McOrmond scripsit: If NASA has the ability to apply a license in a foreign country to a works that is in the public domain in the USA, then does not any other US citizen have the ability to apply a license as well? If these other US citizens do not, then does NASA? Why, because NASA, through its employees who actually write the works, is the author. The Berne Convention gives rights to the authors of foreign works (relative to the country where the Convention is being applied), not to randoms in those countries who had nothing to do with the creation of the work. Does the concept of there being a copyright holder outside of the USA make sense when US legislation says that the US government creator does not receive copyright inside the USA? Just as much as the notion that _Steamboat Willie_ has a copyright holder in the U.S. but not in Canada. Different countries treat this differently. In Canada you can waive your moral rights, but cannot transfer them. The Berne Convention forces all participants to recognize a limited subset of moral rights, and the U.S. hews closely to that definition: thus the creators of works of visual art have moral rights, but writers, poets, and programmers do not. Nevertheless, I write on some of my programs the sentence John Cowan claims the moral right to be recognized as the author of this work. My government will not enforce this right for me, but I claim it anyway. If the phrase public domain means not protected by copyright, then the actual meaning of the public domain changes in every country as copyright is different in every country. Not the meaning, but rather the contents, of the public domain is indeed country-specific. -- Well, I'm back. --SamJohn Cowan [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
You can do anything you want to with a public domain work except try to assert a valid copyright on it, which is one of the incidents of the BSD or any other open-source license. So, no. So I have no right to create a derivative work of a public domain work and release that derivative work under a license of my choice? For example, I can not take PD code and incorporate it into Apache httpd? I must misunderstand what public domain means, then. What does the word it mean? :-) I think there is a confusion of antecedent basis here. In the original sentence, John suggested that nobody can assert a copyright on a public domain work. True. Its copyright has presumably expired (or perhaps it is a US Government work in the United States). It reqires no license at all to distribute a public domain work. Brian is also right. Anybody can create a derivative work of a public domain work and distribute that derivative work under the Apache or any other license. /Larry Rosen -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
RE: For Approval: NASA Open Source Agreement Version 1.1
So I have no right to create a derivative work of a public domain work and release that derivative work under a license of my choice? For example, I can not take PD code and incorporate it into Apache httpd? I must misunderstand what public domain means, then. Oh yes, you can do that. But the derivative work must be genuinely a derivative work, and not just a minor touch-up of the public-domain original. I don't think so, John. Anyone can do ANYTHING to a public domain work. No license is required, whether it is to do plastic surgery or simply to put on lipstick. If anything, the proper question is whether the degree of creativity in the derivative work is sufficient to actually create a new copyrightable work. If not, that so-called derivative work will be an uncopyrightable public domain work too. /Larry Rosen -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
making public domain dedication safer
I use Creative Commons public domain dedication[1] for some of the software I author. I am concerned that some people believe that it is impossible to permanently and/or reliably place software in public domain in some countries. It appears that while Creative Commons public domain dedication makes authors intent clear, some laws may not support that intent. While I would love to hear that the above concerns are groundless, I suspect we will never know for sure. Thus, I would like to create a safer version of Creative Commons public domain dedication by augmenting the public domain dedication with a catch-all license: The Authors place this Software is in Public Domain. Creative Commons public domain dedication follows If the above Public Domain dedication is deemed invalid under any theory of law, current or future, this Software can be dealt with under any OSI-approved license, including, without limitation, BSD and MIT licenses. The above is unpolished because I am not sure it makes sense from a legal point of view. After all, the above combination contains contradictory assumptions (public domain versus copyrighted/licensed code). Specifically, - Can PD+license combination be legal? - Can a reference to any OSI-approved license be legal? - Is the above approach likely to make PD dedications safer? - Can such a beast be polished and eventually approved by OSI? Thanks, Alex. P.S. The reasons I would prefer _not_ to always use MIT/BSD license alone (without PD dedication) are moral/political and, hence, are beyond the scope of this mailing list. [1] http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/ -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: NASA Open Source Agreement Version 1.1
Lawrence E. Rosen scripsit: I don't think so, John. Anyone can do ANYTHING to a public domain work. No license is required, whether it is to do plastic surgery or simply to put on lipstick. If anything, the proper question is whether the degree of creativity in the derivative work is sufficient to actually create a new copyrightable work. If not, that so-called derivative work will be an uncopyrightable public domain work too. I agree that that is the issue, though your wording is better than mine. Brian can't just take an arbitrary piece of public domain software (for concreteness, let us take the TZ library, whose author is one Arthur David Olson, a U.S. government employee) and slap a Copyright 2004 Brian Behlendorf on it: that would be fraudulent, though admittedly it's not clear to me who would have standing to sue. He could, however, do what the FSF has done: create a derivative work like GNU libc, which incorporates code originally written by Olson, and put his own copyright and license on that. -- You know, you haven't stopped talking John Cowan since I came here. You must have been http://www.reutershealth.com vaccinated with a phonograph needle. [EMAIL PROTECTED] --Rufus T. Firefly http://www.ccil.org/~cowan -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: International treatment of the public domain
Russell McOrmond scripsit: If NASA has the ability to apply a license in a foreign country to a works that is in the public domain in the USA, then does not any other US citizen have the ability to apply a license as well? If these other US citizens do not, then does NASA? Why, because NASA, through its employees who actually write the works, is the author. Like other forms of work for hire, the employer (The United States Government) would be the copyright holder if there was copyright. In this case the employer has released the works into the public domain via legislation. Just so. NASA is the author, but the works are born in the public domain in the U.S. (but apparently not elsewhere). I believe that first-copyright should only exist for natural persons, and that any transfer of copyright to an employer (natural person or corporation), if it happens at all, should be negotiated as part of an employment agreement or other legal document. Effectively it's just an implicit term in such an agreement. It is already possible to contract out of it by explicit language. Just as much as the notion that _Steamboat Willie_ has a copyright holder in the U.S. but not in Canada. You will need to provide a reference here. I was referring to the notorious 1928 film starring Mickey Mouse. This work seems to be P.D. in Canada under the 50-year provision for cinematographic works, but is very much in copyright in the U.S. -- A poetical purist named Cowan [that's me: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Once put the rest of us dowan. [on xml-dev] Your verse would be sweeterhttp://www.ccil.org/~cowan If it only had metrehttp://www.reutershealth.com And rhymes that didn't force me to frowan. [overpacked line!] --Michael Kay -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: apache license 2.0 for consideration
Rodent of Unusual Size writes: i don't think anyone has submitted it yet. the apache software foundation approved version 2.0 of its licence, and would like to submit it for osi approval. it's online at http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 and i'm attaching the text version to this message. it is our belief that this new licence is just as osi-compliant as the 1.1 version, and is more clearly compatible with the gpl to boot. +1 -- The man that wanders far[EMAIL PROTECTED] from the walking tree http://www.reutershealth.com --first line of a non-existent poem by: John Cowan -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
License Committee report
I'm the chair of the license approval committee. This is my report for the current set of licenses under discussion. If anybody disagrees with my assessment of the committee's conclusions, say so promptly. -- We've sat on this license submission for far too long. It's a clever and innovative license which we should approve. Title: EU DataGrid Software License Submission: http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:7072:200308:fcnekdmjcpiaemibokne License: http://eu-datagrid.web.cern.ch/eu-datagrid/license.html Comments: John Cowan: http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:msp:7262:eplnoepdlnfmkgagdbmp Ernie Prabhakar: http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:7262:200309:eplnoepdlnfmkgagdbmp Dave Presotto: http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:msp:7337:eplnoepdlnfmkgagdbmp Recommend: approval. -- Minor revisions to a license we have already approved. Clarification of language and removal of excess parameterization. Title: Lucent Public License Version 1.02 Submission: http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:7142:200309:onciffgepemojkpkiimk License: http://plan9.bell-labs.com/hidden/lpl102-template.html Comments: Ben Reser: http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:7744:200402:onciffgepemojkpkiimk Recommend: approval. -- This license, while seeming to comply with the OSD, isn't sufficiently different from the GPL or OSL. It's shorter, but in spite of its length, the GPL is reasonably well understood, so the WSOSL's shortness is not an improvement. Title: The Wilhelm Svenselius Open Source License version 1.1 Submission: Original: http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:7080:200308:ekmofmlcjbbcddoaoahj Revised: http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:7086:200309:pehonmokjnclhgnhddjo License: ttp://home.ws83.net/code/WSOSL.html Comments: John Cowan: http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:msp:7083:ekmofmlcjbbcddoaoahj Recommend: disapproval. -- This license puts restrictions on the use of software, specifically modifications for private use. Title: Public Security Interrest PSI License Submission: http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:msp:7098:bcgogjkdclpfihdgnoil License: Comments: John Cowan: http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:7098:bcgogjkdclpfihdgnoil Recommend: disapproval. -- This license is EXTREMELY controversial. It is a license which seems to comply with the OSD, yet whose purpose is explicitly to be incompatible with the GPL. Title: Open Source Software Alliance License Submission: http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:7133:200309:ahoninpjbapbnmdbglmm License: http://people.FreeBSD.org/~seanc/ossal/ossal.html Comments: many, however the most cogent comment comes from Rick Moen at: http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:7259:ahoninpjbapbnmdbglmm Recommend: remanding back to the author for rewording. -- MPL 1.1 with the name scratched off and replaced by CUA Office Public License. Danese pointed out that the submittor might be trying to relicense code that could not be relicensed in this manner. He replied that his code was all newly crafted. Title: CUA Office Public License Submission: http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:7486:hdlmlbkpenifmmkhppdd License: Comments: Danese Cooper: http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:msn:7486:hdlmlbkpenifmmkhppdd Patranun Limudomporn: http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:7496:hdlmlbkpenifmmkhppdd Recommend: approval. -- Rod Dixon made a couple of comments the day before Christmas Eve. I think we should contact the Panda3D folks and ask them to respond to Rod's comments. Otherwise I see no reason why we should not approve this license. Title: Panda3D Public License Version 1.0 Submission: http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:7499:ljampdokbpbinfhgnknf License: http://www.etc.cmu.edu/panda3d/docs/license/ Comments: John Cowan: http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:msp:7501:ljampdokbpbinfhgnknf Rod Dixon: http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:7501:200312:ljampdokbpbinfhgnknf Recommend: remanding. -- While I agree with the goals of the license author, he's putting restrictions on the use of the software, and restrictions on use are not allowed. He points to other licenses which restrict some modifications, but they do it at redistribution time, not at use time. Fundamentally, the author is trying to use licensing to substitute for trademark law. Title: Open Test License v1.1 Submission: http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:7537:200401:cldkhgfpmlhkdcokelpg Comments: Larry Rosen: http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:7541:200401:cldkhgfpmlhkdcokelpg Rod Dixon: http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:7545:200401:cldkhgfpmlhkdcokelpg Recommend: disapproval. -- Not different enough from any existing license. We should send it back to them suggesting that they use an existing license. If they simply cannot, and must have this license, then we will approve it upon resubmission. Title: Linisys Open Source License v1.4 Submission:
Re: apache license 2.0 for consideration
On Tuesday, February 17, 2004, at 04:04 PM, Mark Shewmaker wrote: On Sun, 2004-02-08 at 14:19, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: it is our belief that this new licence is just as osi-compliant as the 1.1 version, and is more clearly compatible with the gpl to boot. Is the patent grant section GPL compatible? Yes. From the Apache License, Version 2.0: | If You institute patent litigation against any entity (including a | cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the Work or a | Contribution incorporated within the Work constitutes direct or | contributory patent infringement, then any patent licenses granted to | You under this License for that Work shall terminate as of the date | such litigation is filed. From the GPLv2: | For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free | redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly | or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it | and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the | Program. To me it looks like the patent grant is an additional restriction beyond the bare GPL when a program licensed under the Apache License Version 2.0 is then distributed under the GPL. No, the patent (if there was one) would be an additional restriction on the GPL. The Apache License itself is not the patent and does not restrict the GPL any more than the GPL would have been restricted by the patent absent the Apache License. Roy -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: License Committee report
This must surely be the shortest open source license ever! Still, we should send it back to the author because he uses the hated word utilize. Don't use utilize! Utilize use instead. Means the same thing and avoids a phony formality. Title: Fair License Submission: Original: http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:msp:7623:hhkgifnkgiiejnigaakm Revised: http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:7623:200401:hhkgifnkgiiejnigaakm Comments: none Recommend: remanding. ... This license is intended to have the same legal effect as the MIT license, only be simpler to read. Thanks, but that doesn't make it an improvement. We will approve it if the author simply insists, but we officially discourage the proliferation of substantially similar licenses. Title: Simple Permissive License Submission: http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:7654:200402:ponaihiojnjdnagclgek License: http://zooko.com/simple_permissive_license.html Comments: Ian Lance Taylor: http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:7656:200402:ponaihiojnjdnagclgek Recommend: disapproval. So if I understand correctly, the Simple Permissive License and the (ideally edited) Fair License both pass the litmus test of OSD. In addition to approving licenses which meet the OSD, the OSI also prefers to slow the proliferation of substantially similar licenses, and is therefore loathe to approve the Simple Permissive License. Finally, it seems that brevity in a license is not valued, or else that the value of brevity is outside the scope of the approval process. One thing I don't understand is if the Fair License would satisfy the goals of the Simple Permissive License while being even shorter. Personally, I'm a bit uncertain about the Fair License, perhaps because I have no legal training and I am already familiar with the MIT (-original) license. Does the Fair License require the software developer who uses such licensed source code to inform his users (i.e. at runtime or in documentation) about the existence of the Fair License? Another thing I don't understand is if the let's not proliferate substantially similar licenses reasoning should not also apply to the approval of the Fair License. I will not presume to insist that OSI approve the Simple Permissive License. Regards, Bryce Zooko Wilcox-O'Hearn -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: License Committee report
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, Russell Nelson wrote: While I agree with the goals of the license author, he's putting restrictions on the use of the software, and restrictions on use are not allowed. He points to other licenses which restrict some modifications, but they do it at redistribution time, not at use time. Fundamentally, the author is trying to use licensing to substitute for trademark law. Title: Open Test License v1.1 Submission: http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:7537:200401:cldkhgfpmlhkdcokelpg Comments: Larry Rosen: http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:7541:200401:cldkhgfpmlhkdcokelpg Rod Dixon: http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:7545:200401:cldkhgfpmlhkdcokelpg Recommend: disapproval. Thank you for reviewing my license submission. The license submission instructions indicate that OSI will work with [submittors] to resolve any problems uncovered in public comment. Could you please let me know how that problem resolution process works? Should I make modifications in hope to change your opinion and resubmit the license? Or is there a better way? Specifically, I would like to adjust the license so that there is no perception that some uses of software are restricted. I am not sure I understand the modification restriction at redistribution time loophole you refer to above, but would be happy to use that if needed (note that the submitted license does not restrict modifications of software at all!). Please advise what my post-disapproval options are. Thank you, Alex. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: License Committee report
On 2004.02.17 17:43 Zooko O'Whielacronx wrote: [snip] So if I understand correctly, the Simple Permissive License and the (ideally edited) Fair License both pass the litmus test of OSD. In addition to approving licenses which meet the OSD, the OSI also prefers to slow the proliferation of substantially similar licenses, and is therefore loathe to approve the Simple Permissive License. Finally, it seems that brevity in a license is not valued, or else that the value of brevity is outside the scope of the approval process. With all due respect to opensource.org and the long volunteer hours they seem to be putting in, I would like to point out that their role seems to be that of a licensing approval body with some well defined criteria. They may be in flux and vague to some non-licensing types, but they are there, and those criteria are not easy to create. And as such, their criteria and their general priorities are clearly stated. As with any standards type organization it's important to recognize that opensource.org people are working together to approve licenses they feel meet certain criteria and goals. Such direction and backbone is rare to find in the Open Source world. Sure, I argue quite a bit, but it's just debate. I also expect that by definition, a licensing approval body like opensource.org _must_ have a record of denials in order to demonstrate their goals (which I might add are for the better). My hat's off to them for sticking to their guns. They didn't even have my submission on the list but that's O.K., because if it's not meant for their purposes then at least they have said so. They didn't even list my license as being under consideration, which is O.K. When I submitted it I was told that there currently is a problem with the number of licenses being submitted in the first place. One thing I don't understand is if the Fair License would satisfy the goals of the Simple Permissive License while being even shorter. Personally, I'm a bit uncertain about the Fair License, perhaps because I have no legal training and I am already familiar with the MIT (-original) license. Keeping redundancy out of the mix is important. Since opensource.org has some trained legal people on their staff, I would suspect that if they think something is redundant for their criteria, then they should say so. I was surprised at the reaction to the NASA license, but I do hope that one provides some stimulus for opensource.org to evaluate its criteria. Open Source communities, especially governments using open source might learn a thing or two. This licensing thing is complicated ;-) Richard Schilling (who hopes he doesn't confuse people when he makes an argument on a variety of sides of a debate) -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
