Re: For Approval: NASA Open Source Agreement Version 1.1
On 2004.02.12 20:42 Ian Lance Taylor wrote: Richard Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Such provisions are not allowed in an open source license. Reporting requirements are viewed as unreasonable limitations on the rights of licensees to do anything they want internally with open source Biggest problem of all here - who in all of creation has the authority on blessing open source licenses? Huh? The point of this mailing list is to advise OSI on blessing open source licenses. You don't have to believe that OSI's blessing has any value. But there isn't much point to joining this mailing list if you reject the whole concept of OSI blessing a license. I'm just saying that a stance that NASA, a US government agency with deep pockets, should remove imdenification wording is a haneous idea. And in general bashing the license on non-licensing issues doesn't do any good. It actually hurts open source license development. It's just my opinion. The OSI can do what it wants. My preference is to see all discussions the OSI endorses regarding licenses be done in the context of legitimate legal analysis (which is done by lawyers) and well trained laypeople. It's one thing if someone asks why a part of a license is important, and then tries to apply the answer to some licensing goal. It's quite another if we just blast away at a new license on uninformed and misguided knowledge. I maintain that an open source license has certain characteristics and achieves some well defined goals - the primary one being quick, open distribution or source code and documentation to the end user without charging a license fee. It is entirely unappropriate to specify what belongs and doesn't belong in an open source license. Either the license achieves it's own goals or it doesn't. OSI will only bless licenses that meet the Open Source Definition: http://opensource.org/docs/definition.php Absoutely. No argument there. They should. The NASA license, however, presents a unique opportunity for opensource.org. The organization can look at the language and concerns the license addresses and use that as an acid test to see if their criteria needs revising (a good standards body does that - and I have the impression opensource.org does). opensource.org has several licenses written by industry leaders like Sun, IBM, MIT, and others who have a lot of experience writing great open source licenses. The NASA license is a wonderful opportunity to add a US government agency's license to that list. When opensource.org puts all of them side by side and study what makes them unique, but still qualify as open source, then opensource.org has advanced the state of open source licensing. Lawrence is correctly saying that if the NASA license requires tracking of released software, that license does not conform to the OSD, and therefore the OSI should not bless it. I believe that is a misguided concept in open source licensing that some hold to. Tracking the use of a product does not make a license non-open source. Open Source licensing deals with accessibility and cost, but tracking, per se, is not even relevant to that characteristic. In fact, tracking the uses of open source is a *key* marketing tool and the only way we can judge if an investment of time into open source is paying off, is it not? That would not mean that the license is a bad license. It would merely mean that software released under the license is not OSI Certified Open Source Software. right. See, that's objective - what you just said. I got the sense from the original poster overtones of big bad big brother. Too much work goes into these licenses to take the conversation in that direction - I felt the need to call him on it, and I hope I called everyone making similar arguments on that point. Richard Ian -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: NASA Open Source Agreement Version 1.1
On Fri, Feb 13, 2004 at 12:05:08AM -0800, Richard Schilling wrote: The OSI can do what it wants. My preference is to see all discussions the OSI endorses regarding licenses be done in the context of legitimate legal analysis (which is done by lawyers) and well trained laypeople. You mean like Larry? From what I understand he practices law in this very subject matter. I find it odd that you keep going on about legitimate legal analysis. Why don't you provide your analysis as to why you think it complies with the OSD? That's a hell of a lot more constructive than ripping on someone elses intial thoughts. It's one thing if someone asks why a part of a license is important, and then tries to apply the answer to some licensing goal. It's quite another if we just blast away at a new license on uninformed and misguided knowledge. Larry asked why it was necessary, I don't think he was blasting away at their license. Absoutely. No argument there. They should. The NASA license, however, presents a unique opportunity for opensource.org. The organization can look at the language and concerns the license addresses and use that as an acid test to see if their criteria needs revising (a good standards body does that - and I have the impression opensource.org does). opensource.org has several licenses written by industry leaders like Sun, IBM, MIT, and others who have a lot of experience writing great open source licenses. The NASA license is a wonderful opportunity to add a US government agency's license to that list. When opensource.org puts all of them side by side and study what makes them unique, but still qualify as open source, then opensource.org has advanced the state of open source licensing. That's nice. It's an opportunity. But if the license doesn't comply with the OSD then no matter how wonderful of an opportunity it is we shouldn't certify the license. This list exists to discuss potential issues. Larry's response is by no mean a definitive review of the license. He gave his initial thoughts. Largely based up on the rationale for the different license. One thing that there is a general sense of is that we don't tend to want to encourage the use of zillions of different licenses when there is already a license that serves the same purpose. Larry's response was going to the heart of that. He was suggesting that perhaps and existing license would really serve their needs. I believe that is a misguided concept in open source licensing that some hold to. Tracking the use of a product does not make a license non-open source. Open Source licensing deals with accessibility and cost, but tracking, per se, is not even relevant to that characteristic. In fact, tracking the uses of open source is a *key* marketing tool and the only way we can judge if an investment of time into open source is paying off, is it not? Complying with a registration system is not necessarily without costs. While those of us that live in countries with inexpensive internet access take net access for granted, not everyone has the same level of access. If such a registration requirement was included then it could effectively stop the free distribution of the software to some people. These sorts of issues have been discussed many times before. There is sound logic behind the complaints with clauses like this. And it's grounded in the priciples that you say it has nothing to do with. right. See, that's objective - what you just said. I got the sense from the original poster overtones of big bad big brother. Too much work goes into these licenses to take the conversation in that direction - I felt the need to call him on it, and I hope I called everyone making similar arguments on that point. I don't think Larry was doing any such thing. Hell he put a smiley in there. But seriously I don't think there is an OSI certified license that includes an indemnification clause. I don't think it's really unreasonable to ask NASA to justify why they really need this clause. I think Larry's point was that the OSL would probably meet their needs and is already approved. Personally, I found it odd that they wanted indemnification but are unwilling to provide it to contributors. That doesn't seem right to me. But perhaps that's just an oversight. -- 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: net-snmp license
On Thu, Feb 12, 2004 at 05:28:48PM -0500, Mark W. Alexander wrote: Hi all, Has the net-snmp license (http://www.net-snmp.org/COPYING.txt) been specifically OSI approved or rejected. It's bsd-like, but OSI certification goes a long way towards selling it to management as safe to use. Really the software is under 3 separate licenses accorrding to that page. (What a mess). The CMU/UCD license is known as the Historical Permission Notice and Disclaimer and is OSI approved: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/historical.php The Network Associates, Inc is a standard 3 clause BSD license which is also OSI approved: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php The Cambridge Broadband Ltd. license is mostly a standard 3 clause BSD license, though the endorsement and the warranty disclaimer have the mention of contributors removed. I don't think this change is significant enough to consider it not to be the BSD license. So in my view the licenses it is under is already OSI certified. However, my review was only based upon the URL you provided. I did not make any effort to review the copyright notices and licenses of each file. So there may be other licenses that apply that I'm not aware of and as such you can't rely on my review as a definitive review of the licensing of the software. Standard disclaimers: IANAL, TINLA. Nor am I on the OSI board. -- 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: For Approval: NASA Open Source Agreement Version 1.1
Maybe it's just me, but I keep getting back to open source software licenses as a means to efficiently distribute software and allow people ready access to the knowledge it represents, and not so much as a mechanism to try a get license-savvy organizations to let their guard down. On 2004.02.12 21:03 Lawrence E. Rosen wrote: I'll reply off-list. I'm not ignorant about licenses or law. I'm an attorney. I'm general counsel of Open Source Initiative. I have written a book about open source licensing that will be published in a few months. And so I was not responding to NASA and its lawyers out of ignorance or as an armchair lawyer. They (and you) don't have to agree with me, but please respect my right to express myself. I'm not just spouting hot air. I didn't see a many points in your original posting that served any purpose other than to call on the carpet the motives and approach of the authors. If you are a lawyer, of all people, I would expect to see more constructive discussion about the license itself and how it can be made to comply with opensource.org's requirements. You should know, with all due respect to you and your profession, that providing specific reasons/alternatives, and avoiding taunting questions, is appropriate in helping NASA get their license to meet opensource.org requirements. If you're acting as council, please council on what they can do, not what they should have done. We would all learn from that approach. And, yes, I'm offended at the tone of the response NASA got to their posting. They've done more for open source work than many other organizations would even dream. They invented Beowulf cluters, for heaven's sake. Did I misread your response? Perhaps, but read it as such I did. I certainly respect what you do, but I also expect to see more respect directed to submitters of new licenses. Now, with respect to the INDEMIFY clause (section 8), which says : B. Waiver and Indemnity: RECIPIENT AGREES TO WAIVE ANY AND ALL CLAIMS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, ITS CONTRACTORS AND SUBCONTRACTORS, AS WELL AS ANY PRIOR RECIPIENT AND SHALL INDEMNIFY AND HOLD HARMLESS THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, ITS CONTRACTORS AND SUBCONTRACTORS, AS WELL AS ANY PRIOR RECIPIENT FOR ANY LIABILITIES, DEMANDS, DAMAGES, EXPENSES OR LOSSES THAT MAY ARISE FROM RECIPIENT'S USE OF THE SUBJECT SOFTWARE, INCLUDING ANY DAMAGES FROM PRODUCTS BASED ON, OR RESULTING FROM, THE USE THEREOF. RECIPIENT'S SOLE REMEDY FOR ANY SUCH MATTER SHALL BE THE IMMEDIATE, UNILATERAL TERMINATION OF THIS AGREEMENT. There is nothing in opensource.org's criteria that says the licensing party shall refrain from waivers and indeminification. NASA's policies require specific wording in section 8, and if that wording is not significantly different than what has been accepted before, then I don't see a problem. It's an administrative detail, really. I would like to see specific argument as to why, in NASA's case this wording does not need to apply to their sub-contractors. To me this is more appropriate to NASA's sub-contracting needs than what's in the other licenses. They know what's best for them, so let them demonstrate that. And if opensource.org throws out a license on this issue, I think it would be wise for opensource.org to review its criteria. I would suggest separating (in opensource.org's criteria) certain areas when evaluating new licenses. For example, develop clear criteria for the following and specify which items make/break an open source designation: distribution, re-distribution, deriverative works, copyright, waivers, deriverative works, related services, quality controls. opensource.org says what a license should have, but the website doesn't say enough about what the authors *can* do with their license. Specifically, I maintain that copyright and waivers are *not* determinants of an open source license, and I think it's improtant (if that's opensource.org criteria as well) to clearly state that. I would also suggest that as long as distribution is met, regardless of it's means, with or without re-distribution, the license be considered open source. From the end user's perspective getting a software product from one place -vs- 1,000 places and having the software tracked are not determinants of an open source license, per se. They get freedom of availability, use, modification and a means to submit changes. And that's what defines a collaborative project. All else is optional. Availability of the code and documentation, and the right to modify for personal use seem to me to be the baseline criteria to any open source license. Richard -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: NASA Open Source Agreement Version 1.1
On Fri, Feb 13, 2004 at 01:09:47AM -0800, Richard Schilling wrote: Maybe it's just me, but I keep getting back to open source software licenses as a means to efficiently distribute software and allow people ready access to the knowledge it represents, and not so much as a mechanism to try a get license-savvy organizations to let their guard down. I don't think that's Larry's intent. I think he's trying to get a justification for a deparature form the norm of open source licenses. I don't think this is a huge deal. On 2004.02.12 21:03 Lawrence E. Rosen wrote: I'll reply off-list. I hope you realize it's generally considered rude to quote someones private email to you on a public list without their specific permission to do so. Considering that Larry is an active contributor to this list, I'm sure he would have sent his email to the list if he'd intended to publish it to the world. I didn't see a many points in your original posting that served any purpose other than to call on the carpet the motives and approach of the authors. If you are a lawyer, of all people, I would expect to see more constructive discussion about the license itself and how it can be made to comply with opensource.org's requirements. You should know, with all due respect to you and your profession, that providing specific reasons/alternatives, and avoiding taunting questions, is appropriate in helping NASA get their license to meet opensource.org requirements. If you're acting as council, please council on what they can do, not what they should have done. We would all learn from that approach. And, yes, I'm offended at the tone of the response NASA got to their posting. They've done more for open source work than many other organizations would even dream. They invented Beowulf cluters, for heaven's sake. Did I misread your response? Perhaps, but read it as such I did. I certainly respect what you do, but I also expect to see more respect directed to submitters of new licenses. Yes you misread his email. He gave some initial thoughts with a clear statement that he intends to follow up with a more detailed review later. I think he wanted to get some questions out in the open to have them answered between when he posted his email and hopefully when he found the time to do a detailed review. I'm certain Larry would have given specific analysis on the exact text of the license later. Now, with respect to the INDEMIFY clause (section 8), which says : B. Waiver and Indemnity: RECIPIENT AGREES TO WAIVE ANY AND ALL CLAIMS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, ITS CONTRACTORS AND SUBCONTRACTORS, AS WELL AS ANY PRIOR RECIPIENT AND SHALL INDEMNIFY AND HOLD HARMLESS THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, ITS CONTRACTORS AND SUBCONTRACTORS, AS WELL AS ANY PRIOR RECIPIENT FOR ANY LIABILITIES, DEMANDS, DAMAGES, EXPENSES OR LOSSES THAT MAY ARISE FROM RECIPIENT'S USE OF THE SUBJECT SOFTWARE, INCLUDING ANY DAMAGES FROM PRODUCTS BASED ON, OR RESULTING FROM, THE USE THEREOF. RECIPIENT'S SOLE REMEDY FOR ANY SUCH MATTER SHALL BE THE IMMEDIATE, UNILATERAL TERMINATION OF THIS AGREEMENT. There is nothing in opensource.org's criteria that says the licensing party shall refrain from waivers and indeminification. NASA's policies require specific wording in section 8, and if that wording is not significantly different than what has been accepted before, then I don't see a problem. It's an administrative detail, really. I would like to see specific argument as to why, in NASA's case this wording does not need to apply to their sub-contractors. To me this is more appropriate to NASA's sub-contracting needs than what's in the other licenses. They know what's best for them, so let them demonstrate that. The only comments made regarding this was that we didn't particularly like it and that we wanted a explanation as to why they thought it was necessary in addition to a traditional warranty disclaimer. And if opensource.org throws out a license on this issue, I think it would be wise for opensource.org to review its criteria. I would suggest separating (in opensource.org's criteria) certain areas when evaluating new licenses. For example, develop clear criteria for the following and specify which items make/break an open source designation: distribution, re-distribution, deriverative works, copyright, waivers, deriverative works, related services, quality controls. opensource.org says what a license should have, but the website doesn't say enough about what the authors *can* do with their license. Specifically, I maintain that copyright and waivers are *not* determinants of an open source license, and I think it's improtant (if that's opensource.org criteria as well) to clearly state that. I would also suggest that as long as distribution is met, regardless of it's means, with or
Re: For Approval: NASA Open Source Agreement Version 1.1
Ben Reser wrote: [...] But seriously I don't think there is an OSI certified license that includes an indemnification clause. Hmm. IPL/CPL section 4? regards, alexander. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
RE: Initial Developer's Public License
Ann W. Harrison wrote: [...] In this example, the commercial tool would probably be a single executable and not a set of libraries or plug-ins. To my understanding, that's similar to a User's Guide to Version 9 based on, extending and correcting the Guide for Version 8. To my uneducated understanding, that's similar to http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0387954015 To me, this book is a mere aggregation of papers/works with some glue (start up code, etc ;-) ). Aggregation doesn't make this whole book [just like the executable] a derivative work of its components. I tend to think that executables are like Java JARs (JARs are simple archives of java classes files and any other data stuff). I just can't see how a copyright in one Java class can affect other classes (even if something is inherited/composed/linked with the other(s)). regards, alexander. P.S. You might want to take a look at the CPL FAQ (Q15 and Q19). Eclipe.org legal FAQ is also worth reading. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
RE: Initial Developer's Public License
Err. Eclipe.org legal FAQ I meant http://www.eclipse.org/legal/legalfaq.html. To: Ann W. Harrison [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:RE: Initial Developer's Public License Ann W. Harrison wrote: [...] In this example, the commercial tool would probably be a single executable and not a set of libraries or plug-ins. To my understanding, that's similar to a User's Guide to Version 9 based on, extending and correcting the Guide for Version 8. To my uneducated understanding, that's similar to http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0387954015 To me, this book is a mere aggregation of papers/works with some glue (start up code, etc ;-) ). Aggregation doesn't make this whole book [just like the executable] a derivative work of its components. I tend to think that executables are like Java JARs (JARs are simple archives of java classes files and any other data stuff). I just can't see how a copyright in one Java class can affect other classes (even if something is inherited/composed/linked with the other(s)). regards, alexander. P.S. You might want to take a look at the CPL FAQ (Q15 and Q19). Eclipe.org legal FAQ is also worth reading. -- 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: For Approval: NASA Open Source Agreement Version 1.1
On Fri, Feb 13, 2004 at 12:05:08AM -0800, Richard Schilling wrote: I'm just saying that a stance that NASA, a US government agency with deep pockets, should remove imdenification wording is a haneous idea. And in general bashing the license on non-licensing issues doesn't do any good. It actually hurts open source license development. It's just my opinion. Ok, I'm new here, but I've been a U.S. citizen for some time, and I'm confused. (I don't know if that's a cause and effect thing or not ;) The original request stated: The intent is for NOSA is to be the controlling agreement for all distribution and redistribution of software originated by NASA, including derivative works. Title 17, section 101 states: (C) any work not subject to copyright protection under this title. 'A ''work of the United States Government'' is a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person's official duties.' Title 17, section 105 states: Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise Therefore work originated at NASA, at least by NASA employees cannot be copyrighted. If they are not copyrighted, there is not only no need for a license, any such license would be trumped by copyright law. Back to the original request: i. NASA legal counsel requires that all NASA releases of software include indemnification of the U.S. Government from any third party liability arising from use or distribution of the software. ii. Federal Statute mandates that the U.S. Government can only be held subject to United States federal law. iii. NASA policy requires an effort to accurately track usage of released software for documentation and benefits realized?purposes. (sic) NASA legal counsel doesn't seem to be aware of the Title 17 restrictions on government works. Policy cannot trump Title 17 requirements. Adherence to ii, precludes i and iii. Title 17 does state that the U.S. government can hold copyrights when the are transfered to them, so the _can_ maintain copyrighted works either performed as a work for hire or purchased by the goverernment. In such cases, as an open source advocate I can see how an appropriate open source license would be useful. As a citizen and taxpayer, however, I can also see the point of view that the U.S. citenzenry paid for it so they should have unrestricted access to it. I'm not trying to be combative, here. I'm just trying to understand how all these points jive with NASA's intentions. As it stands now, any code that NASA produces that is not subject to security classification is probably already available for any use to anyone who files an FOI request. The response to such a request would be devoid of any indemnification or tracking restrictions. Can anyone make NASA's policy, Title 17, and the proposed license all make sense to me at the same time? mwa -- Mark W. Alexander [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Initial Developer's Public License
Alexander Terekhov scripsit: To my uneducated understanding, that's similar to http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0387954015 To me, this book is a mere aggregation of papers/works with some glue (start up code, etc ;-) ). Aggregation doesn't make this whole book [just like the executable] a derivative work of its components. Indeed, it's plainly a collective work. I tend to think that executables are like Java JARs (JARs are simple archives of java classes files and any other data stuff). I just can't see how a copyright in one Java class can affect other classes (even if something is inherited/composed/linked with the other(s)). Presumably object code is a derivative of source code, however, and so a JAR file, while it is a collective work with respect to bytecode, is a collection of derivative works with respect to source code. Native executables aren't simply collections, however; linkers break up and redistribute the individual object files into different regions of the executable. -- There is / One art John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] No more / No less http://www.reutershealth.com To do / All things http://www.ccil.org/~cowan With art- / Lessness -- Piet Hein -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: NASA Open Source Agreement Version 1.1
Mark W. Alexander scripsit: NASA legal counsel doesn't seem to be aware of the Title 17 restrictions on government works. Policy cannot trump Title 17 requirements. Adherence to ii, precludes i and iii. The actual license (is anyone looking at it but me??) says that no copyright is claimed within the U.S. for works written by civil servants, as is the law. That implies that copyright *is* claimed for such works *outside* the U.S., which AFAIK is an entirely novel point, which is why I posted a query about it last night. -- While staying with the Asonu, I met a man from John Cowan the Candensian plane, which is very much like [EMAIL PROTECTED] ours, only more of it consists of Toronto. http://:www.ccil.org/~cowan --the unnamed narrator of Le Guin's _Changing Planes_ -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
For Approval: Lucent Public License Version 1.02
I sent the following in the past (see the Sept 2003 archive) and never really got a reply. I figured I'ld try again with a slightly reformated message. = Section 1 - The Lucent Public License version 1.0 was approved in 2003. Since then we've been using it to distribute Plan 9. As a result we've gotten feedback from our users, IBM's council David Shofi (a CPL person), and our own lawyers. Their comments have led us to make some changes. I am submitting the version 1.02 license for approval. Thanks. I've included the diffs to make it a bit easier to see the changes. The text version of the whole license is in a mime attachment. The original 1.0 license is at http://www.opensource.org/licenses/plan9.php The modified 1.02 version is at http://plan9.bell-labs.com/hidden/lpl102-template.html We've been distributing with the modified license since July and all of the requests for modifications died out in the first month so I doubt if there'll be a version 1.03 any time soon. Here are the changes: (1) The number changes every time we change the license. old: Lucent Public License Version 1.0 (OSI-approved) --- new: Lucent Public License Version 1.02 (2) The biggest change was wording. Too many people were confused by our lawyerese in defining a contribution. I really wanted to say that its a contribution if you say it is and isn't if you don't. Our lawyers didn't like that. It still looks too lawyerly to me but at least its clearer/shorter. We don't believe this affects anything to do with the OSD, just makes it clearer what the license says. First the definition of 'additions': old: additions to the Program; where such changes and/or additions to old: the Program originate from and are Contributed by that old: particular Contributor. A Contribution is Contributed by a old: Contributor only (i) if it was added to the Program by such old: Contributor itself or anyone acting on such Contributor's behalf, and old: (ii) the Contributor explicitly consents, in accordance with Section old: 3C, to characterization of the changes and/or additions as old: Contributions. Contributions do not include additions to the Program old: which: (i) are separate modules of software distributed in conjunction old: with the Program under their own license agreement, and (ii) are not old: derivative works of the Program. --- new: additions to the Program; new: new: where such changes and/or additions to the Program were added to the new: Program by such Contributor itself or anyone acting on such Contributor's new: behalf, and the Contributor explicitly consents, in accordance with Section new: 3C, to characterization of the changes and/or additions as Contributions. Then the definition of contributor (clause 3C mentioned above): old: C. In addition, each Contributor must identify itself as the old: originator of its Contribution, if any, and indicate its consent to old: characterization of its additions and/or changes as a Contribution, in old: a manner that reasonably allows subsequent Recipients to identify the old: originator of the Contribution. Once consent is granted, it may not old: thereafter be revoked. --- new: new: C. In addition, each Contributor must identify itself as the new: originator of its Contribution in a manner that reasonably allows new: subsequent Recipients to identify the originator of the Contribution. new: Also, each Contributor must agree that the additions and/or changes new: are intended to be a Contribution. Once a Contribution is contributed, new: it may not thereafter be revoked. (3) We also changed the templating of the license. We don't believe this affects anything to do with the OSD. (a) David Shofi and our lawyers pointed out that the state in which the license is interpreted should not be templated. Templating it makes the definition of the license variable since laws, interpretations, precedents, etc vary from state to state. All the lawyers said they liked NY best (don't really know why) so I fixed it as NY just like the IPL and CPL do. This was my fault. I templated the state when OSI asked that we template the license (I'm a hacker, looked like a formal parameter to me) and the lawyers didn't notice before we submitted our final version. (b) We also fixed who could change the license. This was done because this license is based on the IBM Public License (under IBM's copyright) and they want some control over changes, so they made a condition of our using theirs that we don't give that right away. Once again, my fault. Noone noticed that I added that to the template either. This is
Re: For Approval: NASA Open Source Agreement Version 1.1
Richard Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'm just saying that a stance that NASA, a US government agency with deep pockets, should remove imdenification wording is a haneous idea. And in general bashing the license on non-licensing issues doesn't do any good. It actually hurts open source license development. It's just my opinion. I really think that you misread Lawrence's post. He is a long-time and respected contributor to this mailing list. But enough said about that. Lawrence is correctly saying that if the NASA license requires tracking of released software, that license does not conform to the OSD, and therefore the OSI should not bless it. I believe that is a misguided concept in open source licensing that some hold to. Tracking the use of a product does not make a license non-open source. Open Source licensing deals with accessibility and cost, but tracking, per se, is not even relevant to that characteristic. In fact, tracking the uses of open source is a *key* marketing tool and the only way we can judge if an investment of time into open source is paying off, is it not? First let me say that I understand that NASA's proposed license doesn't require tracking, it merely encourages it. I, and others, think that a tracking requirement would not be appropriate in an open source license. 1) Tracking presumably requires reporting back to some organization. What happens if that organization disappears? Does it then become impossible to distribute the code? If it does, the code would clearly no longer be open source. 2) It is generally considered to be desirable to permit open source software to be used anonymously, such as by a dissident under your least favorite form of government. Arguably preventing the possibility of anonymous use violates OSD #5. 3) While free software is not identical to open source software, they are generally congruous. The FSF specifically forbids tracking: http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-sw.html: You should also have the freedom to make modifications and use them privately in your own work or play, without even mentioning that they exist. If you do publish your changes, you should not be required to notify anyone in particular, or in any particular way. Ian -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: NASA Open Source Agreement Version 1.1
On Fri, Feb 13, 2004 at 09:18:30AM -0500, John Cowan wrote: Mark W. Alexander scripsit: NASA legal counsel doesn't seem to be aware of the Title 17 restrictions on government works. Policy cannot trump Title 17 requirements. Adherence to ii, precludes i and iii. The actual license (is anyone looking at it but me??) says that no copyright is claimed within the U.S. for works written by civil servants, as is the law. That implies that copyright *is* claimed for such works *outside* the U.S., which AFAIK is an entirely novel point, which is why I posted a query about it last night. So I'm not alone in my confusion... By my reading, Title 17 says that government works are not protected by copyright. Period. NASA also notes that they are only under the jurisdiction of U.S. federal law. No U.S. law does, or can, subject government works to foreign copyright authority. Therefore: No copyright, no right to license. Not here. Not there. Not in a box, and not with a fox. (Unless, you're represented by The SCO Group attorneys.) It's simply public domain. mwa -- Mark W. Alexander [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Inappropriate postings from non-lawyers
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004, Richard Schilling wrote: I post my response because so many times on this list people try to play armchair lawyer and pick apart a license. It's not appropriate Richard, Could you please point me to this list charter or guidelines? You seem to imply that only lawyers can discuss posted licenses on this list. If what you seem to imply is true, I personally would stop discussing others' licenses immediately! I am not a lawyer. I contribute from a license _user_ point of view. I hope that OSI wants to accommodate open source users at least as much as open source lawyers and, hence, would benefit from users point of view being represented. If there is no list charter or guidelines, or if they do not share your point of view, then please adjust your appropriateness criteria accordingly. You are, of course, welcome to create a moderated lawyers-only list and convince OSI to use that instead of or in addition to this list. Lawyers most likely write NASA licenses and that's something to respect. Whether something is worth respect is not determined by whether it was made by a lawyer, IMHO. YMMV. Alex. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: NASA Open Source Agreement Version 1.1
Mark W. Alexander scripsit: By my reading, Title 17 says that government works are not protected by copyright. Period. NASA also notes that they are only under the jurisdiction of U.S. federal law. No U.S. law does, or can, subject government works to foreign copyright authority. Well, I'm with you up to the last sentence. But by acceding to the Berne Convention, which is part of the supreme law of the land, on all fours with the Constitution and federal legislation, we do indeed subject ourselves to foreign copyright authority. Now a work can uncontroversially be in the public domain in one place and copyrighted in another: Australia's on life+50, the U.S. rule is everything after 1923 (with the exception of U.S. government works and a few others). Thus certain works by Edgar Rice Burroughs, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Sinclair Lewis, and Margaret Mitchell among many other Americans are still in copyright in the U.S. but not in Australia. But all those works were once in Australian copyright. The question is, can a work which is born into the public domain in its country of origin be in copyright anywhere at any time? The conflict of laws is an ugly and rather primitive subject (my father wrote an article about it once). -- 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: U.S. government works in other countries
Richard Schilling scripsit: The WTO countries are supposed to recognize US copyright, as the US is supposed to recognize the IP of the other WTO countries. Easier said then done, but it's there. Indeed. But are the Berne countries supposed to recognize our *non*-copyrights? The U.S. as an act of sovereign dominion prevents a U.S. entity, namely itself, from receiving copyright protection within its sovereign domain. Will other countries treat the work as copyright in their domains nevertheless, especially if the U.S. claims that it is? -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ccil.org/~cowan http://www.reutershealth.com Charles li reis, nostre emperesdre magnes, Set anz totz pleinz ad ested in Espagnes. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: NASA Open Source Agreement Version 1.1
On Fri, Feb 13, 2004 at 01:00:47PM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Ben Reser wrote: [...] But seriously I don't think there is an OSI certified license that includes an indemnification clause. Hmm. IPL/CPL section 4? I guess that is an indemnification clause. But it's also pretty much the same as 3H in NOSA which I don't think anyone has really objected to. Though the IPL and CPL do go farther than the NOSA 3H clause. I'm more comfortable with 3H, and the IPL/CPL section 4 than I am with the general waiver, indemnification clause. I can accept that if I'm going to make a commercial product I need to accept some liability, but I'm not fond of the idea of being in the position of indemnifying the US Government by simplying downloading and using their software. However, while I'm not fond of it, I don't think it rises to the level of OSD rejection. This is most certainly not the only license that is approved that has cluases I don't really care for... -- 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: For Approval: Lucent Public License Version 1.02
On Fri, Feb 13, 2004 at 09:59:40AM -0500, David Presotto wrote: I sent the following in the past (see the Sept 2003 archive) and never really got a reply. I figured I'ld try again with a slightly reformated message. = Section 1 - The Lucent Public License version 1.0 was approved in 2003. Since then we've been using it to distribute Plan 9. As a result we've gotten feedback from our users, IBM's council David Shofi (a CPL person), and our own lawyers. Their comments have led us to make some changes. I am submitting the version 1.02 license for approval. Thanks. I've included the diffs to make it a bit easier to see the changes. The text version of the whole license is in a mime attachment. The original 1.0 license is at http://www.opensource.org/licenses/plan9.php The modified 1.02 version is at http://plan9.bell-labs.com/hidden/lpl102-template.html We've been distributing with the modified license since July and all of the requests for modifications died out in the first month so I doubt if there'll be a version 1.03 any time soon. Here are the changes: (1) The number changes every time we change the license. old: Lucent Public License Version 1.0 (OSI-approved) --- new: Lucent Public License Version 1.02 (2) The biggest change was wording. Too many people were confused by our lawyerese in defining a contribution. I really wanted to say that its a contribution if you say it is and isn't if you don't. Our lawyers didn't like that. It still looks too lawyerly to me but at least its clearer/shorter. We don't believe this affects anything to do with the OSD, just makes it clearer what the license says. First the definition of 'additions': old: additions to the Program; where such changes and/or additions to old: the Program originate from and are Contributed by that old: particular Contributor. A Contribution is Contributed by a old: Contributor only (i) if it was added to the Program by such old: Contributor itself or anyone acting on such Contributor's behalf, and old: (ii) the Contributor explicitly consents, in accordance with Section old: 3C, to characterization of the changes and/or additions as old: Contributions. Contributions do not include additions to the Program old: which: (i) are separate modules of software distributed in conjunction old: with the Program under their own license agreement, and (ii) are not old: derivative works of the Program. --- new: additions to the Program; new: new: where such changes and/or additions to the Program were added to the new: Program by such Contributor itself or anyone acting on such Contributor's new: behalf, and the Contributor explicitly consents, in accordance with Section new: 3C, to characterization of the changes and/or additions as Contributions. Then the definition of contributor (clause 3C mentioned above): old: C. In addition, each Contributor must identify itself as the old: originator of its Contribution, if any, and indicate its consent to old: characterization of its additions and/or changes as a Contribution, in old: a manner that reasonably allows subsequent Recipients to identify the old: originator of the Contribution. Once consent is granted, it may not old: thereafter be revoked. --- new: new: C. In addition, each Contributor must identify itself as the new: originator of its Contribution in a manner that reasonably allows new: subsequent Recipients to identify the originator of the Contribution. new: Also, each Contributor must agree that the additions and/or changes new: are intended to be a Contribution. Once a Contribution is contributed, new: it may not thereafter be revoked. This seems fine... (3) We also changed the templating of the license. We don't believe this affects anything to do with the OSD. (a) David Shofi and our lawyers pointed out that the state in which the license is interpreted should not be templated. Templating it makes the definition of the license variable since laws, interpretations, precedents, etc vary from state to state. All the lawyers said they liked NY best (don't really know why) so I fixed it as NY just like the IPL and CPL do. This was my fault. I templated the state when OSI asked that we template the license (I'm a hacker, looked like a formal parameter to me) and the lawyers didn't notice before we submitted our final version. (b) We also fixed who could change the license. This was done because this license is based on the IBM Public License (under IBM's copyright) and they want some control over changes, so they made a condition of our using theirs that we don't
Re: Initial Developer's Public License
John Cowan wrote: [...] Native executables aren't simply collections, however; linkers break up and redistribute the individual object files into different regions of the executable. Do you seriously believe that such details/linking analysis [whether this or that linker redistributes the individual object files into different regions, etc.] matters? C'mon, RMS is right: it makes no difference whether linking is static or dynamic. Neither constitutes creation of derivative work, I think/hope. I may be wrong, of course. regards, alexander. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Initial Developer's Public License
Alexander Terekhov scripsit: The resulting *compilation* is copyrightable. I think the distinction compilation-vs-derivative is rather obvious. Whereas I think the distinction is very subtle and full of borderline cases, of which the native executable is just one. First thing you learn when you're in a lawin' family is that there ain't any definite answers to anything. --Harper Lee, _To Kill A Mockingbird_ -- Well, I'm back. --SamJohn Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Initial Developer's Public License
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John Cowan wrote: [...] Native executables aren't simply collections, however; linkers break up and redistribute the individual object files into different regions of the executable. Do you seriously believe that such details/linking analysis [whether this or that linker redistributes the individual object files into different regions, etc.] matters? C'mon, RMS is right: it makes no difference whether linking is static or dynamic. Neither constitutes creation of derivative work, I think/hope. I may be wrong, of course. All static linkers not only break up the individual object files and scatter them into different regions where they are merged with other objects, they also modify the objects as they are distributed based on the contents of the other objects included in the link. I think it is a pretty big stretch to say that static linking does not produce a derivative work of the objects included in the link. The original work is clearly identifiable in the resulting executable, and it can not be removed without leaving many traces behind. Ian -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: NASA Open Source Agreement Version 1.1
On 2004.02.13 07:38 Ian Lance Taylor wrote: [snip] I believe that is a misguided concept in open source licensing that some hold to. Tracking the use of a product does not make a license non-open source. Open Source licensing deals with accessibility and cost, but tracking, per se, is not even relevant to that characteristic. In fact, tracking the uses of open source is a *key* marketing tool and the only way we can judge if an investment of time into open source is paying off, is it not? First let me say that I understand that NASA's proposed license doesn't require tracking, it merely encourages it. I, and others, think that a tracking requirement would not be appropriate in an open source license. 1) Tracking presumably requires reporting back to some organization. What happens if that organization disappears? Does it then become impossible to distribute the code? If it does, the code would clearly no longer be open source. Detailed tracking is done anyway through web logs. And, companies dissappear all the time - no big deal there. It's their data so they can discard it if they like. I would rather know that more details about the product's use are being tracked than not. When a company tracks the usage of their product they have an easier time gaining support from onlookers, which is good for the product. I want to write to my congress people and make a case for NASA spending a lot of money on open source development. It's more compelling to do that if I can point out where the product is being used. Perhaps you're nervous because of the hype that licensing lawsuits get in the press? The rest of the NASA license guarantees free, unhampered use so tracking does not present a discrimination issue. Tracking information is meant to be held private, so it wouldn't be appropriate to release that inforamtion to the public anyway. Tracking information is absoutely key to a developer's ability to guage the success of their product. For example, if you have reliable numbers to compare your downloads with, say sales figures from a comperable well-known product (e.g. MS Office), then you can promote that product more effectively. 2) It is generally considered to be desirable to permit open source software to be used anonymously, such as by a dissident under your least favorite form of government. Arguably preventing the possibility of anonymous use violates OSD #5. Once a product under GNU is initially downloaded, the person can distribute it anonymously. OSD #5 simply states non-descrimination - which means that you won't restrict the availability of your product to a particular group/caste/class/industry, etc... I maintain that as long as non-restricted access is granted non-descrimination is complied with. Besides, non-descrimination typically is not meant to ensure that you cannot know where your product is used. 3) While free software is not identical to open source software, they are generally congruous. The FSF specifically forbids tracking: http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-sw.html: I think what I was pointing out before was that the standards for open source definitions are arbitrary and varied. I would like to stick to opensource.org's criteria on this list. You should also have the freedom to make modifications and use them privately in your own work or play, without even mentioning that they exist. If you do publish your changes, you should not be required to notify anyone in particular, or in any particular way. GNU specifically states that changes will be submitted back to the authors. That requirement, if enforced, provides much more stringent tracking than what NASA proposes. But, I also point out that this requirement in GNU is not enforced at all, generally, making that provision useless, and makes the language in the GNU license an empty requirement on its face. For the GNU license it means the requirement might not be enforced by a judge even though the requirements are there. Why put such a requirement in the license if it's not going to be enforced? This is a key difference between NASA's license and the existing ones - enforcement of the requirement. If NASA requires registration, then fine, but I expect NASA to make an effort to actually enforce the requirement. And, the efforts to do that are clearly stated in the license itself, making the license more consistent between intent and implementation than many other licenses (on that point). Richard Ian -- 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: For Approval: NASA Open Source Agreement Version 1.1
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But all those works were once in Australian copyright. The question is, can a work which is born into the public domain in its country of origin be in copyright anywhere at any time? As far as I understand the Berne Convention, the answer is yes. Article 5(3) of the BC says: The enjoyment and the exercise of these rights ... shall be independent of the existence of protection in the country of origin of the work. Article 7(1) puts the duration of protection at life+50, but article 5(1) states that an author enjoys longer protection in countries that have a longer term. http://www.law.cornell.edu/treaties/berne/overview.html 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: Inappropriate postings from non-lawyers
On 2004.02.13 08:35 Alex Rousskov wrote: On Thu, 12 Feb 2004, Richard Schilling wrote: I post my response because so many times on this list people try to play armchair lawyer and pick apart a license. It's not appropriate Richard, Could you please point me to this list charter or guidelines? You seem to imply that only lawyers can discuss posted licenses on this list. If what you seem to imply is true, I personally would stop discussing others' licenses immediately! I am not a lawyer. I contribute from a license _user_ point of view. I hope that OSI wants to accommodate open source users at least as much as open source lawyers and, hence, would benefit from users point of view being represented. I simply expressed an opinion. One could assume that because I don't write the opensource.org charters. I'm simply laying out the judgement call that there's too much loose banter on this list. I would like to see the opensource.org criteria clarified on the web pages. It would help clear up some confusion. I suggested a few changes in an earlier post. I too, want to see opensource.org accomodate the general public . . . but it would be nice to see an effort by the list participants to keep the discussion related to legal licensing issues and not moral implications for the free world. Look, folks the entire purpose of a license of any kind is to have something to present to a judge in case something goes wrong, and to clarify what rights are transferred to the end user. The true test of a license (for open source work in a business) is what happens in court and in business negotiations. If us non-lawyers defer to lawyers and listen more we may have more lawyers providing constructive input. Obviously, people are arguing that the GPL is invalid and providing some detailed analysis. I hope opensource.org pays attention to that and gets self-critical about their criteria really quick. At present, they are endorsing licenses that don't mean anything in front of a judge. They're nice public statements and rhetoric, but not much else at times. Am I critical and judgemental? yes, I know. . . Will I start my own discussion list and take my opinions there? Sure, when I have time. Richard If there is no list charter or guidelines, or if they do not share your point of view, then please adjust your appropriateness criteria accordingly. You are, of course, welcome to create a moderated lawyers-only list and convince OSI to use that instead of or in addition to this list. Lawyers most likely write NASA licenses and that's something to respect. Whether something is worth respect is not determined by whether it was made by a lawyer, IMHO. YMMV. Alex. -- 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: For Approval: NASA Open Source Agreement Version 1.1
Arnoud Engelfriet scripsit: Article 5(3) of the BC says: The enjoyment and the exercise of these rights ... shall be independent of the existence of protection in the country of origin of the work. Article 7(1) puts the duration of protection at life+50, but article 5(1) states that an author enjoys longer protection in countries that have a longer term. Thanks; that looks definitive. So a U.S. government work is born into the public domain in the U.S., but is in copyright for 50 years after its publication date in Australia. Amazing. So Americans can ignore the civil-servant version of the NOSA license with impunity, but not so Australians. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan[EMAIL PROTECTED] You tollerday donsk? N. You tolkatiff scowegian? Nn. You spigotty anglease? Nnn. You phonio saxo? Nnnn. Clear all so! `Tis a Jute (Finnegans Wake 16.5) -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Inappropriate postings from non-lawyers
Ian Lance Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The arguments that the GPL is invalid are totally bogus. I need to qualify that by saying that I'm referring to the arguments which have appeared recently on the license-discuss list. There are other theories that the GPL, while valid, does not have the reach which most people think it does. Those theories may some day be tested in court. Until and unless that happens, nobody can definitively state whether or not the GPL is legally binding. Ian -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Inappropriate postings from non-lawyers
Richard Schilling scripsit: Look, folks the entire purpose of a license of any kind is to have something to present to a judge in case something goes wrong, and to clarify what rights are transferred to the end user. The true test of a license (for open source work in a business) is what happens in court and in business negotiations. If you think that's the entire purpose of the GPL, you haven't read it. If us non-lawyers defer to lawyers and listen more we may have more lawyers providing constructive input. As a matter of observable fact, being a lawyer or a nonlawyer has nothing to do with the constructiveness of one's input to this list. Obviously, people are arguing that the GPL is invalid and providing some detailed analysis. I hope opensource.org pays attention to that and gets self-critical about their criteria really quick. At present, they are endorsing licenses that don't mean anything in front of a judge. You don't know that, and neither does anyone else. -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.reutershealth.com www.ccil.org/~cowan I am he that buries his friends alive and drowns them and draws them alive again from the water. I came from the end of a bag, but no bag went over me. I am the friend of bears and the guest of eagles. I am Ringwinner and Luckwearer; and I am Barrel-rider. --Bilbo to Smaug -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Initial Developer's Public License
Ian Lance Taylor wrote: [...] I think it is a pretty big stretch to say that static linking does not produce a derivative work of the objects included in the link. ... With all those $$ legal funds to protect open source of lately, I just wonder whether the time is right for some vendor-neutral organization to bring the issue of linking into court. It could be a friendly, relatively-inexpensive summary judgment action, oder? Just an idea. regards, alexander. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Inappropriate postings from non-lawyers
Look, folks the entire purpose of a license of any kind is to have something to present to a judge in case something goes wrong, and to clarify what rights are transferred to the end user. ... and since the user is often not a lawyer, those who write licenses should try to strike a balance between users needs and legal needs. For example, open source software with new 100 page legal license attached has fewer chances succeeding in real world, no matter how many lawyers are happy about that license. I see a partial value of this mailing list in educating submitters what their primary user audience wants. The true test of a license (for open source work in a business) is what happens in court and in business negotiations. IMO, that's not the only test. The success or failure of a license is often tied to success or failure of the software that uses it. Open Source license is much more than a piece of legal text for courts. It has the power to attract or scare large number of users. If the submitter is serious about open source (and not just doing marketing), they should try to be friendly to as many open source users as possible, given other important factors. NASA license, for example, is not user-friendly at all, IMO. I am sure US Goverment has the resources to come up with a better license (while preserving the necessary level of protection). Hopefully, the discussion on this list will help them to do that. If us non-lawyers defer to lawyers and listen more we may have more lawyers providing constructive input. There needs to be a balance, IMO. Perhaps OSI should moderate this list. Alex. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Initial Developer's Public License
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ian Lance Taylor wrote: [...] I think it is a pretty big stretch to say that static linking does not produce a derivative work of the objects included in the link. ... With all those $$ legal funds to protect open source of lately, I just wonder whether the time is right for some vendor-neutral organization to bring the issue of linking into court. It could be a friendly, relatively-inexpensive summary judgment action, oder? Just an idea. Who would benefit from taking such an action? For a free software organization, the upside is minimal, and the downside is severe. Ian -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: NASA Open Source Agreement Version 1.1
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004, Richard Schilling wrote: I would rather know that more details about the product's use are being tracked than not. When a company tracks the usage of their product they have an easier time gaining support from onlookers, which is good for the product. I want to write to my congress people and make a case for NASA spending a lot of money on open source development. It's more compelling to do that if I can point out where the product is being used. Tracking information is meant to be held private, so it wouldn't be appropriate to release that inforamtion to the public anyway. Tracking information is absoutely key to a developer's ability to guage the success of their product. For example, if you have reliable numbers to compare your downloads with, say sales figures from a comperable well-known product (e.g. MS Office), then you can promote that product more effectively. Even if the above rhetoric makes sense on your planet, the above has nothing to do with licensing discussion on this list. Here is the registration-related summary: - If NASA wants to kindly ask users to register, license is not the right place to do that. NASA should change the license before OSI approves it (a simple quality control issue) - If NASA wants to trick users into registering (while not legally requiring that), then NASA should change the license before OSI approves it (a simple honesty/openness of intent issue). - If NASA wants to legally require registration, then NASA should change the license to make that legal requirement clear (a simple quality control issue). This change is likely to reduce changes of NOSA being OSI certified, I guess. Alex. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Initial Developer's Public License
Ian Lance Taylor wrote: [...] Who would benefit from taking such an action? The Global Economy, of course. For a free software organization, the upside is minimal, and the downside is severe. Really? I see nothing wrong if a free software organization would have to adopt some EULA (to restrict the use of free software). My, what a mess. regards, alexander. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: NASA Open Source Agreement Version 1.1
F. In an effort to track usage and maintain accurate records of the Subject Software, each Recipient, upon receipt of the Subject Software, is requested to register with NASA by visiting the following website: __. Note that each recipient is requested to register, not merely each recipient who downloads the software directly from NASA. If this were a requirement rather than a request, then I think the license would not be OSD-compliant. I have no personal problem with this. I'm sure NASA's reasons for gathering user information are totally benign, and that if their people can show that many individuals and companies benefit from thei work, it will help them get scarce budget dollars from Congress. But I don't think this really belongs in the license itself, any more than a request for all users of your software to (voluntarily) smile at their neighbor once a day, even though it certainly would be nice if we all smiled at each other a little more. I like licenses to be as simple and clear as possible. Therefore, I ask NASA, please, to consider removing the tracking clause from the license itself and make the request elsewhere. Another person thought it should be in the readme file. I agree. The documentation is probably the best place for this request. On the indemnification clause... Isn't a simple no warrenty disclaimer of liability enough? I'll defer to Larry and the other lawyers as to whether or not this clause has anything to do with the license's OSI-worthiness, but in the interests of simplification I would personally rather see it removed. - Robin 'Roblimo' Miller U.S. Taxpayer -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
RE: Initial Developer's Public License
With all those $$ legal funds to protect open source of lately, I just wonder whether the time is right for some vendor-neutral organization to bring the issue of linking into court. It could be a friendly, relatively-inexpensive summary judgment action, oder? Just an idea. Courts don't issue advisory opinions. They resolve disputes. The issue of linking under the GPL has never been appropriately presented to a court by parties to a specific dispute, with standing and able to assert one or more causes of action. /Larry Rosen -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
