Re: KDE violates IBM patent
Marius Amado Alves wrote: It seems to me that should be enough prior art to kill this patent. Clearly there is. But is this fact sufficient to protect someone (re)deploying the mechanism? Or must the patent be revoked in some way prior to that? US patents are presumed valid. A court will assume a patent is valid unless the defendant can prove that it isn't. So the burden is on you to come up with prior art and to ask the court to please revoke the patent. You can do this if you get sued or just if you feel like it, although most people don't feel like spending tens of thousands of dollars without a good reason. I haven't studied this patent in detail, just looked at the claims. It seems more than just detecting caps lock and giving a message. My first impression is that it covers the more specific idea of detecting a wrong password being typed, noticing caps lock being on, and saying Wrong password, perhaps due to caps lock being on That kind of invention isn't anticipated by DOS or Windows utilities that show the capslock status on the screen. It could be if you could find a login screen that exhibited the above feature and that existed more than a year before the filing date of this patent. IAAL, but TINLA. 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: Which license to use for MFC based software?
Lawrence Rosen wrote: John Cowan wrote: Their licenses can reach out to control what you and your whole family had for dinner on June 1, 1999. At least according to them. That is unreasonable. No court would enforce that. On the other hand, perhaps they can control what I have for dinner AFTER I enter into a contract to which I am bound. And Microsoft clearly considers their EULAs to be contracts (license agreement). 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: Which license to use for MFC based software?
Nick Moffitt wrote: begin Carsten Kuckuk quotation: As far as I understand, I can't use the GPL for any open source project I write using Microsoft's MFC. Which alternatives do I have regarding licenses, that come as close as possible to GPLing my own sources? You may grant special exception to the GPL to allow linkage with the MFC libraries. The MFC libraries -as far as I'm aware- do not allow linkage with GPL-licensed software. To be more precise, you usually may not combine or link the MS software with certain other software, typically called Publicly Available Software, Identified Software or Potentially Viral Software. The definition of the latter more or less covers all copyleft licenses. You also usually may not distribute the two together or use such software to develop derivative works of the MS software. It's not just GPL. The definition would cover any license that has GPL-like terms. And I don't know if the MFC license permits redistribution under BSD-like terms, since I don't think you get sublicensing rights or even source distribution rights. 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: Licenses and subterfuge
Alex Rousskov wrote: On Thu, 26 Feb 2004, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote: Our software can be linked with any library supporting Foo API. Users report success with FooLib on Linux. Other Foo API libraries may be available in your environment. Known compatibility problems with Foo libraries are available by searching our bug database at ... Can you really say that seriously if the _only_ implementation available is GPL-licensed FooLib? And more importantly, will a judge believe you? IMO, you can say that seriously if your program can accept any implementation of a published API. Availability and licensing of libraries should be irrelevant. If there's only one library in existence that implements the API, then you _must_ have used that library. Then I cannot see how your program can be anything other than a derivative of that library. 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: Licenses and subterfuge
Alex Rousskov wrote: Of course, it would be foolish to provoke a law suite by attacking viral goals in software documentation. Documentation should focus on technical issues. For example, it would be foolish to write: Absolutely right. Still, it could be problematic if there is only a GPL-licensed library available to perform the functions you need. In such a case you may be forced to have a similar library developed to avoid having to link to such GPL-licensed software. 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: Licenses and subterfuge
Alex Rousskov wrote: On Thu, 26 Feb 2004, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote: Absolutely right. Still, it could be problematic if there is only a GPL-licensed library available to perform the functions you need. In such a case you may be forced to have a similar library developed to avoid having to link to such GPL-licensed software. I do not see a problem from copyright/licensing point of view, as long as the resulting binary mix does not need to be distributed (by the company or its clients). The software in question simply implements one side of a published interface, which has nothing to do with GPL. The issue I see is that your software requires that particular GPL-licensed library to run. Normally, you would supply your software together with that library (dynamically linked). Now, for the sole reason to avoid having to comply with the GPL, you omit that library. That sounds like a subterfuge. Our software can be linked with any library supporting Foo API. Users report success with FooLib on Linux. Other Foo API libraries may be available in your environment. Known compatibility problems with Foo libraries are available by searching our bug database at ... Can you really say that seriously if the _only_ implementation available is GPL-licensed FooLib? And more importantly, will a judge believe you? My position is, if there's only one library that does that function available as open source, either you use that and you comply with that license, or you go and buy some commercial alternative. It's the only safe way. The only potentially gray area is availability of a published API. If the only API documentation are viral headers, the company can publish the interface on their own. No such thing as a viral header because header files are usually purely functional and so not copyrighted. And even then, does any code from the header file end up in the compiled binary of your code? 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
Eben Moglen wrote: On Tuesday, 24 February 2004, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote: I'm not even sure the license still exists if you take out the Contribution I made (embodying my patented method) and put it in some other work. In that case there would no mystery about the FSF position. If that's the right interpretation of the patent grant, then ASL2 isn't a free software license at all. The ASL2 says in section 3 that each Contributor gives everyone a patent license to make, use [etc] the Work. This is just like the GPL: the license is just for the work in question. Licensed are those patent claims that are necessarily infringed by [the] Contribution(s) alone or by combination of their Contribution(s) with the Work to which such Contribution(s) was submitted. So, if I have a patent on web server software arranged to perform method X and I contribute code to do method X to Apache, everyone using Apache has a license to do method X with my code and Apache. Now, someone takes my contributed code and combines it with another web server (or in a completely different program). This is allowed under the copyright license. But my patent license was _only_ to make, use [etc] ... *the Work*. The definition of Work in the ASL2 seems quite limited. The separate definition of Derivative Work and the constant use of the Work or Derivative Works thereof in the license makes it clear to me that Work and Derivative Work are different things. So apparently Derivative Works are not covered by the patent license! Perhaps it would be better to have contributors grant a license to make, use, sell etc. their _Contribution_ and combinations of their Contribution with the Work or Derivative Works thereof. 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
Roy T. Fielding wrote: On a side note, since software patent law is applied to the method of something and not to the particular expression, a patent license for doing that something remains in force regardless of the software that is later used to do it. The license is from the owner of the method to the legal entity using that method. Correct, although a patent license grant may very well be limited to one particular application. For example, I could license you under my patent to practice a method using only the software I provide to you. In other words, it is a blanket permission -- once you have the permission, you can use whatever tool you like (even one not derived from the ASL2 work) up until the permission is revoked. The ASL2 grants in clause 3 a patent license to make, have made, use, offer to sell, sell, import, and otherwise transfer the Work. If I Contribute software for one of my patented methods to ASL2- licensed code, you have the right to use *that code* to practice my patented method. You do not have permission to use your own software to practice my patented method. In that case you are not using the Work. If a company sues for infringement on the basis of a patent being included in XY, where XY consists of X (non-infringing) and Y (infringing), then that will be brought up by the defense and the company will have to claim Y infringes as well (or drop the case entirely). As such, there is no need for the patent license to talk about derivative works. Nor would it be safe to do so, since derivative work is a concept of copyright law, not patent law. I'm not even sure the license still exists if you take out the Contribution I made (embodying my patented method) and put it in some other work. 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: The regrettable use of all in Section 7 of the GPL
John Cowan wrote: Now I point out that there are various persons who, as a condition of their parole or probation, are not permitted to touch computers. Does that mean others are forbidden from *giving* them software, or they violate their parole if they _receive_ software? In other words, who goes to jail if those persons end up with software in violation of that condition? Distribution of GNU software to them is forbidden by law, and if they do happen to have GNU software on any computers they may own, they cannot redistribute it. Note that this disability is legal, not merely physical, short of fleeing the jurisdiction, itself a criminal offense. The restriction of distribution would apply to the person on parole, not to the rest of the world. If YOU cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence YOU may not distribute the Program at all. So the rest of the world can keep on distributing. 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: The regrettable use of all in Section 7 of the GPL
Bjorn Reese wrote: On Thu, 2004-02-19 at 14:23, John Cowan wrote: Therefore, the distribution of all GPLed software is, at least in the U.S., forbidden by the terms of the GPL, and should come to a screeching halt. I have spoken. The probationer is not prevented from distributing the software because of patent restrictions. Section 7 of the GPL is not just about patents. The first sentence contains If, ... for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you... But I had always interpreted this clause to only apply to _me_ as licensee. It shouldn't matter to me that there is someone else who cannot satisfy simultaneously [his] obligations under [the GPL]. Bill Gates could contract with Steve Ballmer that he will not ever distribute GPL-licensed software. Surely that couldn't have the consequence that *I* can no longer distribute that software? 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 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: 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: 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: 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: The Copyright Act preempts the GPL
Ruth A. Kramer wrote: I may be off the mark, but to me, part of the implied question (perhaps in an earlier post?) is whether a compiled program is a derivative work of the compiler? IANAL, but in my understanding it is not. It is, however, a derived work of the source code, IIUC. Usually a compiler adds certain code to the executable it produces. For example, it may add a standard library or start-up code. As a result, the executable may very well qualify as a derivative work of this code. If you use the gcc compiler, the 'libgcc' library is linked against your code. This library is under the GPL with a special exception: In addition to the permissions in the GNU General Public License, the Free Software Foundation gives you unlimited permission to link the compiled version of this file into combinations with other programs, and to distribute those combinations without any restriction coming from the use of this file. (The General Public License restrictions do apply in other respects; for example, they cover modification of the file, and distribution when not linked into a combine executable.) So in this particular case, the derivative work can be distributed under other licenses than the GPL. 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: Clarification of GPL
Ben Reser wrote: The problem here is exactly that. Assignment is a double edged sword. Assignment makes it easier for one individual to litigate against people who violate the license (which means violating the copyright). But it also permits the assignee to change the license for future releases in any manner which they please. Including proprietary licenses that perhaps the majority of contributors may not be inclined to agree to. Correct. Personally, I would not assign my copyright to someone else unless that person made a promise not to switch to a proprietary license. GNU projects require assignment of copyright to the FSF. In this case it is very unlikely (arguably impossible) that code would be relicensed in any manner that is inconsistent with the GPL. Though some people might even argue this point. I'm not arguing it, but keep in mind the discussions we've seen with the GFDL. The FSF believes this license is in accordance with its principles, but many others disagree. We will have to wait and see what happens with GPL version 3 (which is what the FSF will relicense its code to once this license is written). 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: Clarification of GPL
Gream, Matthew wrote: This is the case in the UK under the CDPA 1988, for both cases of copyright assignment (s.90) and exclusive licenses (s.92): they must be in writing and signed. Whether any interpretation, in light of other legal instruments or case law, recognises digital signatures as having equivalent effect to this is question better answered elsewhere. There is a Directive (99/93/EG) which mandates that EC member states recognize electronic signatures as equivalent to paper signatures. I am not sure whether it also states that digital files are equivalent to in writing. It would seem to be the case that submitting a patch constitutes granting a perpetual non-exclusive implied license for the reasonable purposes of incorporation of the the patch into the project under the terms of the license of the project - the patch being used to modify the work (the I think it is debatable in many cases whether a patch by itself is sufficiently original to qualify for copyright. But in any case you'd be best off insisting on an explicit copyright and license statement with the patch. project) and create a derived work (the new project). Interestingly the individual portions (i.e. files) of the project could lapse from copyright (and, therefore, GPL protection), even while copyright subsists in the entire collection as a whole, unless the project could be claimed to be a database, and subject to a relatively perpetual protection under a sui generis database right (which exists in the EU). [1] That's Directive 96/9/EC. I do not think the sui generis database protection can be applied to computer programs. There has to be qualitatively and/or quantitatively a substantial investment in either the obtaining, verification or presentation of the contents (art. 7(1)). European caselaw seems to focus on the principle that the investment has to be primarily aimed at these activities. If the database is a spin-off, a byproduct of something else, it's not protected. http://www.ivir.nl/publications/hugenholtz/fordham2001.html Note that this right is not available for producers of databases who live outside the EC member states (art. 11(2)). 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: Clarification of GPL
Gream, Matthew wrote: That's Directive 96/9/EC. I do not think the sui generis database protection can be applied to computer programs. There has to be qualitatively and/or quantitatively a substantial investment in either the obtaining, verification or presentation of the contents (art. 7(1)). European caselaw seems to focus on the principle that the investment has to be primarily aimed at these activities. If the database is a spin-off, a byproduct of something else, it's not protected. http://www.ivir.nl/publications/hugenholtz/fordham2001.html I'm not sure either that it could be applied to computer programs as such, but for example a large scale continually evolving project such as an operating system residing in a CVS repository seems to fall in the scope of the protection. Was there a substantial investment in creating the CVS repository of code? It seems to me the investment was in writing the code, not in putting the code in the repository. That seems to disqualify the repository from database protection under the spin-off doctrine. Here in the Netherlands, the national association of realtors put the information on houses for sale online in a web database. Previously every realtor had his own private little database. This web database was held to be a spin-off without substantial investment, since the investments made by the realtors were primarily aimed at their own databases, not the web edition. Anyway, I agree that these rights are not fully fleshed out, I was trying to make a point about how the original copyright in a patch could expire, but the patch may still be protected from extraction of the overall work. That may indeed be the case, although I think it may be difficult to encounter such a situation in practice. 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: Clarification of GPL
ti EMAIL wrote: A piece of software I regularly use is released under the GPL. My concern is how the original writer and maintainer accepts patches. Each source file is tagged with a header naming him as copyright followed by a GPL header. For anybody to submit a patch to the original distribution, you agree that he gets copyright of it. In most countries, an assignment of copyright has to be in writing and on paper. So an e-mail may well be insufficient. Can you transfer copyright to somebody after editing source under GPL, or are these two things unrelated? He claims this is to avoid stupid situations later on where the copyright is split out over a million people, each of which could stop further distribution of his program. That's a realistic worry, although if all those people license their code under GPL, they cannot revoke that license and stop distribution of the program. A bigger issue is if in the future the project wants to change the license. Then they have to ask everyone permission. For a code module/library I?ve written and released under the GPL, is it possible to be incorporated into this previous program giving the previous stipulation based on only the information I?ve stated here? If two works are under GPL, it is always permissible to combine them into a third work under GPL. Can you add requirements to a license in a source file such that your name must always be included as writing the file if anybody decides to use your code? (Questioning if this can be legally binding.) That's certainly legally binding. Note that the GPL already requires people to keep notices in the source intact (see section 1, which must be followed whenever someone distributes original or modified source code). 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: Viral licenses (was: wxWindows library...)
amado.alves wrote: I sense there are two senses to this word viral. I'm really interested in this so I'll appreciate any input. One sense is the GPL is viral because it spreads itself over derivatives i.e. forces derivatives to be distributed under GPL (if distributed at all, that is subsumed).* Is there another sense, perhaps more 'legal'? Thanks a lot. Ah but you see, the GPL does not FORCE itself. Sorry, I still think GPL forces itself upon distributed derivatives is a true sentence. If you distribute a work that is a derivative of GPL-licensed code, and you do not comply with the GPL, you simply violate the license. The copyright holder can then demand a) that you comply with the license or b) that you stop distribution of his code. The GPL would be viral if you could not choose option b). For me it is. Other words are: infecting (as 'bad' as viral), absorbing (better), reciprocating (maybe the best). The problem with viral and infecting is that they have very strong negative connotations, and create an image that GPL-licensed code is just as bad as a virus that wipes your harddisk. It also creates the impression that any code on the same harddisk will somehow automatically become GPL- licensed. It is true that you have to be quite careful when importing GPL-licensed code in your project. But this is no different from other third party code; you have to study the license, figure out the implications and deal with them. If you take proprietary code from some vendor, you sometimes also get very problematic conditions imposed upon you. The main problem with the GPL is that it is not very clearly written (if you're a lawyer) and the copyright holder(s) are typically not available to answer detailed questions. Often it is practically impossible to track down all copyright holders to get clarification or an exception for your usage. 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: Viral licenses
amado.alves wrote: A real world heir can refuse its heritage. In object oriented programming a heir can override it. A distributed derivative cannot do either. Sure it can. Say sorry and cease distribution. No. If I cease distribution the heir ceases to exist. This does not happen in real world and programming. In most jurisdictions, once you accept the heritage, you're stuck even if later someone discovers a $1 million debt is part of the heritage. So you need to get an inventory of the heritage before you accept it (or decide to refuse). With distribution of derivatives of GPL-licensed works, you are _not_ stuck if you only find out later the original work is GPL-licensed. You say sorry and cease distribution (ie give the heritage back). It seems I have to keep repeating this: inheritance is an issue only if you distribute. It is, but only if you let it. If you take a GPL-licensed work and decide you want to make derivatives and distribute those, then yes, you will be forced to license those derivatives as GPL. But that is your choice and not something you were forced to do. No one forced you to take that GPL- licensed work in the first place. If your supplier gave you code, warranted it was his but later it turns out the code was GPL, you say sorry, pull the derivative and sue the supplier for breach of warranty. There is simply _no way_ in this scenario that anyone will force you to re-release your derivative under the GPL. Frankly, I don't see _any_ scenario in which you are forced by a court to release your code under GPL, unless you promised in advance you would, or you tried some nasty trick to circumvent the GPL. 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: wxWindows library license infected by GPL?
David Akdikmen wrote: We are wondering about the wxWindow license. We like to develop a commercial application using this toolkit. We are worried that the exceptions listed under the license will be voided by the viral effect of the GPL license. You mean the exceptions listed at http://www.opensource.org/licenses/wxwindows.php I presume? According to that text, wxWindows is licensed under the Library GPL with one exception. The exception is that you may use, copy, link, modify and distribute under the user's own terms, binary object code versions of works based on the Library. Normally you have to supply at least the source code of the Library to those you distribute binaries to. Are the exception notice invalidated by the GPL? So we would have to GPL the rest of our application if we use wxWindows in it? If what you have received as 'wxWindows' is in fact the code licensed under this license, you have nothing to do with the GPL. Someone might have incorporated GPL-licensed code in the work without telling anybody, in which case he has violate the wxWindows license (see article 3). Such code may not be distributed by anyone. I do not see how such an act could result in your code having to be licensed under GPL. You may have to stop distributing your application until you have replaced the offending code though, but that's always a risk when using third party code. 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: Which License should I pick?
Bjorn Reese wrote: On Mon, 2003-12-08 at 22:34, Hans Ekbrand wrote: No it is the other way around: if the program is released under a less restricted license, e.g. xfree86-ish, then you could always, without the consent of contributors, change to (L)GPL for newer versions. The Maybe I am missing something, but why do you think that you can change the XFree86 license without the consent of contributors? The X license permits sublicensing. So it permits incorporation of the X software into a larger work which is then distributed under another license, e.g. the GPL. 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: non-aggression pacts for patents and the GPL
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That said, what would any of you make of what lawyers call reciprocal non-assertion pacts? That is, would it be a good thing if Company X let anyone use its patented, open-source technology on a royalty-free basis _as long as_ that person or group agreed not to sue Company X for patent infringement? This type of broad non-assert clause is popping up more and more often in (proposed) open source licenses. The new Apache Software License (http://www.apache.org/licenses/proposed/) also has such a clause (section 5). In a message from its general counsel, the FSF noted that this clause is incompatible with the GPL and is not appropriate for free software licenses: For this and other reasons, FSF believes that broad automatic termination provisions like that contained in the first sentence of section 5 are fraught with potentially serious unintended consequences, and are not an appropriate vehicle for protecting the freedom of free software against the serious threat posed by software patent litigation. We would urge that the first sentence of section 5 be removed. http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/[EMAIL PROTECTED]msgId=1127301 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: mysql
Marius Amado Alves wrote: On Fri, 2003-11-21 at 23:54, Rodrigo Barbosa wrote: Actually, what limits your hability to distribute your application is not MySQL AB, but the GPL itself. Indeed. It's the 'viral' nature of GPL that makes dual licencing economically feasible. See my essay Open Source Business Found Parasitic archived in this list and in www.SoftDevelCoop.org. No, it's the FUD that the GPL is 'viral' and therefore must be avoided in business environments. It is very well possible to combine GPL-licensed software with proprietary applications. You just have to make the right architectural decisions. 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: mysql
Mitchell Baker wrote: Arnoud Engelfriet wrote: No, it's the FUD that the GPL is 'viral' and therefore must be avoided in business environments. It is very well possible to combine GPL-licensed software with proprietary applications. You just have to make the right architectural decisions. Yes, but just making the right architectural decisions is not easy. Sometimes almost impossible if the code is already written. And sub-optimal in far more situations. It takes nothing away from the GPL to admit that it can be very awkward for use it in business settings. True. I didn't want to create the impression that it's easy. You have to think through what will happen and what parts subsequently will be open sourced, and whether that is acceptable from a business (and legal) point of view. And in large complex environments, making the right architectural decisions is difficult enough on purely technical grounds. Adding another lawyer adds yet more complexity and increases the chance of failure all around. Adding another _lawyer_? Surely you meant 'layer'? :-) 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: I give up...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Arnoud wrote: ...release it under the GPL ... (and keep it) proprietary in the internal project... Of course you cannot ever use any modifications from the external, GPL-licensed project in your proprietary internal project. How will your company benefit from the release as open source? We want to benefit from the modifications and support made by the community. That is why it should be under one license only. If your code is incorporated in a GPL-licensed project, and people make modifications in the project, you *cannot* use these modifications in a proprietary product. From the replies, I gather that the BSD, MIT and ZLib licenses are the same ??? BSD requires you to publish certain notices in the documentation if you do a binary-only release. MIT requires you to keep the notices in the source intact. zlib/libpng forbids you from saying you wrote that software if you didn't. All are GPL-compatible. That means, anyone can take this code and combine it with GPL-licensed code. If the result is distributed, it must be distributed under GPL. Hence modifications to the distributed code will also be under GPL. You then cannot use the modifications in your proprietary software. Does any of these protect against someone taking the source and making their own proprietary version, without recognizing the developers that built it? No. For that you want the LGPL, Mozilla PL or the GPL. BSD requires acknowledgements, but that's it. I suppose giving full freedom to my company, also gives it to others like Microsoft? You are free to use your own code however you want. You can keep it proprietary in one product, and release it under GPL with another product. You can make modifications to the proprietary version without having to release those in the GPL version. What you can *not* do is take other people's improvements and put them in the proprietary version, unless you have their permission. Licenses like the LGPL and GPL require contributors to give permission, but then you can only use those contributions under those licenses. You could draft a license that makes software publicly available under open source conditions. You can then add to that license that you must be given the right to use everyone's modifications any way you want. This however is not very popular with the community and you will not attract many developers willing to modify your software. 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: I give up...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am trying to convince my manager to develop a specific component as open source. The problem is that this component will be used in and/or included into many projects that's code must stay proprietary and secret. It will also be used by a group of open source programmers inside their potentially GNU GPL licensed software. As far as possible I want to avoid licensing it differently for the involved parties. I.e. no dual license If your company has developed the code, they can release it under the GPL to that group of programmers, and at the same time keep it entirely proprietary in the internal project. The copyright holder does not have to adhere to his own license. So if you publish the code under the GPL, you can still use the code in the internal project without having to do anything special. Of course you cannot ever use any modifications from the external, GPL-licensed project in your proprietary internal project. How will your company benefit from the release as open source? I looked at the BSD license, but the clause below make me unsure. The proprietary product that will depend on this component must be released under it's own license completely. The MIT license may be more to your liking. It allows incorporation into any project, with the sole requirement that you must keep intact the copyright notices and the MIT license in the source code. There are no obligations on a binary distribution, so the project with closed source does not have to publish anything. The MIT license is compatible with the GPL, so the code can be added to a GPL-licensed project. http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php An even more liberal license is the zlib/libpng license. http://www.opensource.org/licenses/zlib-license.php 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: Silly question: are usage restrictions covered by the OSD?
Rick Moen wrote: Quoting Chris F Clark ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): Perhaps a clause of the OSD should read that the license should not discriminate against (or prohibit) any form of usage which is not already proscribed by copyright law. That would be a very strong bound on what open source licenses can regulate. A possibly silly question of my own: If a particular form of usage is already proscribed by copyright law, then wouldn't it be pretty much pointless for a licence to discriminate against or prohibit it? Well, if the usage is normally reserved to the copyright holder, an open source license could grant that right to all users. I don't think that has anything to do with discrimination. If so, then the clause the license should not discriminate against (or prohibit) any form of usage would seem functionally equivalent -- and shorter. Why not simply say The license shall not restrict any form of usage of the software, as long as such usage does not involve distribution of the software to third parties? That seems to correspond quite nicely to the FSF's freedom zero (to use the program, for any purpose). It has the side-effect that the ASP loophole is then officially approved and cannot be closed. In other words, licenses like the Affero Public License, the Apple Public License 2.0 or the Open Software License 1.1 would no longer qualify as OSI approved. 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: Silly question: are usage restrictions covered by the OSD?
Rick Moen wrote: Of course, Prof. Moglen has pointed out that (in connection with various wild claims to the contrary from SCO Group), at least in most jurisdictions, you don't need a licence to _use_ software in the first place. So, unless I'm missing something big, that question looks mostly moot, to me. In European Directive 91/250/EEC, where software was brought under copyright in the EU, the act of running the program is explicitly marked as an exclusive right. In other words, in the EU you do need a license to use someone's software. The exclusive rights of the rightholder within the meaning of Article 2, shall include the right to do or to authorize: ... the permanent or temporary reproduction of a computer program by any means and in any form, in part or in whole. Insofar as loading, displaying, running, transmision or storage of the computer program necessitate such reproduction, such acts shall be subject to authorization by the rightholder. Article 5 limits this by saying you don't need authorization for reproduction necessary for the use of the computer program by the lawful acquirer in accordance with its intended purpose, including for error correction. 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: Silly question: are usage restrictions covered by the OSD?
Rick Moen wrote: Quoting Arnoud Engelfriet ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): Well, if the usage is normally reserved to the copyright holder, an open source license could grant that right to all users. I don't think that has anything to do with discrimination. Isn't the right to use software implied by lawful receipt? Listening to most software copyright holders, it seems not. You do not receive a copy of the software to use as you see fit, but you get a very limited license for use on one PC, for example. I have no idea whether US caselaw has settled this question, but in Europe you are only allowed to use the software under limited circumstances. That seems to correspond quite nicely to the FSF's freedom zero (to use the program, for any purpose). I would have thought it understood implicitly that redistribution is not an instance of what is meant by _usage_, in this context. The OSD isn't code for a von Neumann machine: People are supposed to use their heads about what its phrases mean. The OSD only seems concerned with distribution and leaves it implicit that all usage should be unrestricted; only some special cases of usage restrictions are explicitly forbidden (like use in business or use by the South Africa police). Perhaps it would be stating the obvious, but would it hurt to say Users must be allowed to use the program for any purpose? It has the side-effect that the ASP loophole is then officially approved and cannot be closed. Hmm. It's not clear to me that the OSI Board desires to exclude licences extending copyleft provisions to situations that lack code distribution -- but they might. Such a licence is certainly on the militant end of the spectrum, but clearly conveys the rights to use and to fork the codebase. The Open Software License version 2.0, an OSI approved license, defines usage on a webserver to be distribution (section 5). The implication seems to be that in such a case I have to offer the source for my web application for download under the OSI, although nowhere do I see a requirement to make source available for my Derivative Work. 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
Silly question: are usage restrictions covered by the OSD?
Hi, This may be a silly question as I'm probably overlooking something, but as far as I can tell the Open Source Definition does not forbid any general restrictions on usage of software. The closest thing is No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor, but that only forbids exclusion of _some types_ of usage, not exclusions on usage by everyone. Would something like You may only use this editor if you release all works you create with it as open source software fail under OSD #6, and if not, why would it fail the OSD? The FSF says quite clearly that you should have The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0). Is this the same as OSD #6 or do they indeed require something broader here? 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: Termination for Patent Action
Lawrence E. Rosen wrote: Arnoud Engelfriet responded: Actually it goes much further. If you sue any author of any AFL- licensed software for patent infringement, you lose all rights to *all* AFL-licensed software, as well as all rights to all other software with that same poison pill clause. Currently that means you also lose rights to all OSL-licensed software. Actually, the new AFL version 2.0 (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/afl-2.0.php) doesn't contain that mutual defense clause because some key folks really hated it and refused to use any license that contained it. Ah. It was a very inconvenient clause, yes, infringement (i) against Licensor with respect to a patent applicable to software So if I start any lawsuit against Licensor for *any* software patent, even if totally unrelated to the AFL-licensed work, I lose my rights under the license? That is still quite inconenient. The problem I have with this clause is that it is impossible to evaluate its impact in advance. With the GPL's patent clause you know its scope: the software you license. With the old AFL/OSL clause, and IMHO also with this new one, you don't know what your non-assert is going to be. In other words, you don't know what you are licensing. This is very similar to the language in the Mozilla, IBM, Apple, and many other licenses. The MPL only forces you to refrain from asserting patents on the software you are licensing. So this is much more reasonable. 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
