Re: [License-discuss] Newbie post: Localisable open source software license
Those CC licenses are indeed interchangeable l10ns, if it have the same properties. They also have special clause in the licenses to permit interchanging l10ns of the license in the actual legal code. Example: CC-by 3.0 China (in Simplified Chinese, on top of Chinese laws) versus CC-by 3.0 United States (in English, on top of US laws) versus CC-by 3.0 Unported (in English, on top of UN-administered international treaties) What I am trying here is to add similar clauses into open source licenses for software, making it similarly localizable. I will also include a single-direction relicensing clause converting the localizable variant to its base license. My current project is an l10n-3BSDL, will also have l10n-2BSDL (converts down to both 2-clause BSDL and MIT), l10n-Apache2, l10n-LGPL3 and l10n-GPL3 forks. Sent from my iPhone On 2013年10月21日, at 21:29, David Woolley for...@david-woolley.me.uk wrote: On 21/10/13 07:39, Maxthon Chan wrote: There is a project, Creative Commons, that focuses on providing free license for art, music and works alike. They tackled the localisation issue well, by providing localised licenses that is interchangeable with No they don't. All the licences seem to be in English. What is localised is the lay person's summary of the licence. E.g., the Chinese summary of CC-BY-SA, is http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.zh, but the first link on that page (法律文本（许可协议全文）), http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode, points to the English language text of the actual licence. each other, even in the copyleft variants.However Creative Commons does not work well with software. I can CC license my documentations but not the software itself. I would like to know your opinions on a localisable open source license. In general, a translation of a licence is a different licence, because one cannot exactly translate from one language to another. In fact, one could probably argue that choice of law needs to be specified, as well. Although Creative Commons have chosen to create the lay versions of the licence, I suspect many open source drafters would not want to do so, because users might believe that the summary is the licence. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Newbie post: Localisable open source software license
The links you included points to Chinese explanation of Unported license, not the localized license itself. An example: CC-by-sa 3.0 China http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/cn/ this is the localized one. Sent from my iPhone On 2013年10月21日, at 21:29, David Woolley for...@david-woolley.me.uk wrote: On 21/10/13 07:39, Maxthon Chan wrote: There is a project, Creative Commons, that focuses on providing free license for art, music and works alike. They tackled the localisation issue well, by providing localised licenses that is interchangeable with No they don't. All the licences seem to be in English. What is localised is the lay person's summary of the licence. E.g., the Chinese summary of CC-BY-SA, is http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.zh, but the first link on that page (法律文本（许可协议全文）), http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode, points to the English language text of the actual licence. each other, even in the copyleft variants.However Creative Commons does not work well with software. I can CC license my documentations but not the software itself. I would like to know your opinions on a localisable open source license. In general, a translation of a licence is a different licence, because one cannot exactly translate from one language to another. In fact, one could probably argue that choice of law needs to be specified, as well. Although Creative Commons have chosen to create the lay versions of the licence, I suspect many open source drafters would not want to do so, because users might believe that the summary is the licence. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Newbie post: Localisable open source software license
Problem: Chinese court generally require licenses be written in Chinese language. So still, I need some mechanism to make l10n work. Sent from my iPhone On 2013年10月21日, at 22:34, Luis Villa l...@lu.is wrote: On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 6:29 AM, David Woolley for...@david-woolley.me.uk wrote: On 21/10/13 07:39, Maxthon Chan wrote: There is a project, Creative Commons, that focuses on providing free license for art, music and works alike. They tackled the localisation issue well, by providing localised licenses that is interchangeable with No they don't. All the licences seem to be in English. Max is correct; you are wrong. Deeds are translated in some cases, but licenses also undergo what CC calls porting: a combination of translation and adaptation to local jurisdictions. You can see this, even if you're only an English-speaker, by noting that CC has several different licenses in English: e.g., CC BY England and Wales: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/uk/legalcode CC BY United States: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/us/legalcode CC BY Scotland: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/scotland/legalcode Max, it is important to know that CC *now believes they got this wrong*, and will stop porting licenses starting in 4.0, focusing instead on translations. Some discussion of that here: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2013-September/007451.html each other, even in the copyleft variants. Do not take for granted that the licenses (before 4.0) are interchangeable. For example, some (but not all!) of the EU Share Alike licenses in 3.0 deal with database rights. Luis ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Newbie post: Localisable open source software license
I will avoid fragmentation by forcing all localized versions of the same license freely interchangeable. A starting point: the license can be substituted with another localization of the same license, even without making any other modification to the work (distributors and copiers can relicense). Sent from my iPhone On 2013年10月21日, at 23:21, Luis Villa l...@lu.is wrote: On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 7:17 AM, ChanMaxthon xcvi...@me.com wrote: What I am trying here is to add similar clauses into open source licenses for software, making it similarly localizable. I will also include a single-direction relicensing clause converting the localizable variant to its base license. My current project is an l10n-3BSDL, will also have l10n-2BSDL (converts down to both 2-clause BSDL and MIT), l10n-Apache2, l10n-LGPL3 and l10n-GPL3 forks. I would recommend looking at the equivalent clauses in CC 4.0, which are substantially better drafted than the same clauses in CC 3.0. That said, I would probably still push for OSI to reject them if they were submitted to OSI: as CC has learned, this approach leads to fragmentation, and the open source approach has never, in practice, been shown to cause problems. In other words, you're trying to solve a theoretical problem, not a real problem. Luis ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] You need to pay to access AGPL3 scripts?
I believe it is perfectly fine. RMS himself even *encourage* that. Sent from my iPhone On Jun 10, 2014, at 13:11, ldr ldr stackoverflowuse...@gmail.com wrote: Here is an excerpt from the response I received: Yes, FullContentRSS is an AGPL3 script, you can use and/or modify the script as you want. However you can get the script for $20. Is that congruent with the AGPL3 license? ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Does this look like an open source license?
I was once using straight 3c-BSDL but one incident (I am not from an Anglophone country) proved to me that it's language is too complex in local courts. Now I am sort of forced into creating a functional equivalent using only simple English (definition: restrict word usage to the 3000 basic English word defined by Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary) so this is my first attempt. Sent from my iPhone On Jan 23, 2015, at 02:00, Ben Cotton bcot...@fedoraproject.org wrote: On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 10:32 AM, Maxthon Chan xcvi...@me.com wrote: I have used a license like this for my open projects for a very long time. Does this look like a real open source license? snip Is this a rephrase of the 3-clause BSD license? It looks like a rephrase of the BSD 3-Clause, but there are some concerns I have about it (I am not a lawyer, so my concerns may be incomplete and/or irrelevant)... * You distribute this software in its executable form with the copyright notice above, this license and the disclaimer below intact and display them in appropriate ways; * You distribute this software in its source code form with the copyright notice above, this license and the disclaimer below intact and the end result of such source code displays them in appropriate ways; These two clauses, pedantically interpreted, would require anyone who uses the software to distribute it. Basically you'd want If you distribute...then you must include... The BSD 3-Clause begins both clauses with the word Redistributions in order to make it clear. In addition, I'm not sure what is meant in the second clause by the end result of such source code. Does that mean any compiled/interpreted code must display the license? What if it's a program that generally produces no output (think `cp`, `mv`, etc.)? The BSD 3-Clause requires the notice in the documentation, etc., but not in the end result of the source code. I would argue that it violates item 10 of the Open Source Definition, but that's a debatable point. In any case, it seems impractical. * The name of the author and contributors are not used without previous explicit written permission by the author and contributors. This also seems impractical, as it would disallow attribution. This license doesn't require attribution, so it's not a direct conflict, but it would prevent a common courtesy (at least without administrative overhead for both the original and downstream developers). The BSD 3-Clause forbids the use of the author's name to endorse or promote products derived from [the] software, but not attribution. This wouldn't technically violate any part of the OSD as far as I can tell, but it's unwieldy. THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED TO YOU ON AN AS-IS BASIS. NO WARRANTY WHATSOEVER COMES WITH THIS SOFTWARE, IMPLICIT OR NOT, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY THE LAWS. THE AUTHORS, CONTRIBUTORS AND COPYRIGHT HOLDERS SHALL NOT BE HELD RELIABLE TO ANY DAMAGE OR LOSS OCCURRED FROM USING OF THIS SOFTWARE. THE LAWS? What laws? It's not clear from your post if you've written this license or if you got it from somewhere else, but if it's yours I wonder what the motivation for this is as opposed to just using the BSD 3-Clause, which seems to have the same intention but with more practical wording. Thanks, BC -- Ben Cotton ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
[License-discuss] Undistributable binaries and network services
Sometimes licenses conflict, producing a non-distributable mess of licenses for a piece of code. Using my such code internally is not that much of a problem but what if I used such piece of code in a web application? My project involves transcoding video files on the cloud, hard dubbing the subtitles and emitting multiple formats. The service used a version of libav that is linked in a non-distributable fashion. Will that cause me any trouble? Sent from my iPhone ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Software, licenses, and patents
Just wondering, since decades if not centuries ago a prior art already stood there, why would the patent still be relevant in the first place? If the hostile IP cockroach is biting you can show the court those prior art, either proving that their patents have nothing to do with your code, or just shoot their patents down completely. No lawyer, just trying to give my two cents. Sent from my iPhone On Mar 13, 2015, at 06:49, Ben Tilly bti...@gmail.com wrote: I think I can unconfuse you. :-) The developer knows of an applicable patent, but believes the following set of statements to be true. 1. The new software does not infringe. 2. The patent holder might believe otherwise. 3. Said patent may have been granted on the basis of work the developer did many years ago. 4. The algorithms used have at least 3 decades of prior art behind them. Just not decades of prior art in software. My further impression is that there is considerable history between the developer and the patent holder. Likely there is some bad blood. The developer is unhappy that the patent exists, and thinks it shouldn't. If my impression is correct, the developer is an interested party in an ongoing conflict. Therefore the developer's opinion on infringement is biased and is therefore not to be trusted. I therefore suggest that the developer should discuss the situation with a neutral lawyer, and follow that lawyer's advice. (None of us like being accused of incorrectly evaluating the situation. But having recently been through a divorce, I'm painfully aware of how my judgement of certain situations was different during the conflict than it is now...) On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 2:48 PM, Lawrence Rosen lro...@rosenlaw.com wrote: Jonathon, This double-negative in your email leaves me confused: This isn't a case of where the developer is unaware of possible patents. In many situations, such as in Apache and W3C, a contributor has an obligation to the community to disclose what he or she knows. Secrets serve nobody. Disclose what you know. No negatives. AS-IS and NO WARRANTY with respect to patents would then be appropriate. /Larry -Original Message- From: jonathon [mailto:jonathon.bl...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 1:53 PM To: license-discuss@opensource.org Subject: [License-discuss] Software, licenses, and patents All: Need some help. Software was privately created. Developer wants to release under the GNU GPL 3.0. If you want to change the license, for your comments, do so. Issue: Developer is using systems, methods, and techniques that were described in the literature more than three decades ago (in some instances 400 years ago), except instead of using pen and paper, they are using software. As best as can be determined, there are no patent issues with any libraries that are used. As best as can be determined, there are no copyright/license issues with any of the libraries that are used. Developer is not going to be responsible for claims of patent infringement by users. Developer is not going to cover any court costs incurred by users, because of patent related litigation, or threats of such litigation. Developer is emphatically not going to pay for the right to utilize any patents within the software. Content created by the developer years before the patents were applied for, might have been the source of any patents that were granted. Question: Should developer make any notation about possible patents that the software _might_ infringe upon? This isn't a case of where the developer is unaware of possible patents. Nor is it a case of where the developer holds any patents. jonathon ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Shortest copyleft licence
Then I would like to propose this Copyleft-modified 2BSDL (or its 3BSDL-based cousin) but how? I would prefer writing the additional clause in the same fashion of the original clauses though. Sent from my iPhone On Mar 30, 2015, at 22:24, co...@ccil.org wrote: Maxthon Chan scripsit: Is it favorable to add a copy left clause into 2BSDL to make it copyleft? You must provide the source code, in its human-preferred format, with this work or any derivatives of this work you created when redistributing. That's pretty much what the Sleepycat license does. Here's a very lightly edited version of its additional clause: Redistributions in any form must be accompanied by information on how to obtain complete source code for the licensed software and any accompanying software that uses the licensed software. The source code must either be included in the distribution or be available for no more than the cost of distribution plus a nominal fee, and must be freely redistributable under reasonable conditions. For an executable file, complete source code means the source code for all modules it contains. It does not include source code for modules or files that typically accompany the major components of the operating system on which the executable file runs. The restrictions pretty much match those of the GPL2. The Sleepycat license itself is redundant and non-templatized, so it can't be reused directly. If someone felt like proposing something like 2-clause BSD + the above, I for one would welcome it. Unlike the GPL, this does not create a new and distinct software commons. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowanco...@ccil.org Police in many lands are now complaining that local arrestees are insisting on having their Miranda rights read to them, just like perps in American TV cop shows. When it's explained to them that they are in a different country, where those rights do not exist, they become outraged. --Neal Stephenson ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
