Re: [License-discuss] Permissive but anti-patent license
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 10:42:00AM +0530, Prashant Shah wrote: I had some minor issues with Apache license - Redistribution clause - sections 1, 2 4. So I went ahead and modified the Apache license to suite my needs. Its just a template right now - nothing serious. https://github.com/octabrain/notache/blob/master/LICENSE-1.0.txt There are indeed some serious problems with the Apache License 2.0, and I avoid it like the plague. There's some information about its problems in a WikiVS page: https://www.wikivs.com/wiki/Apache_License_vs_COIL I'll give this Notache License a closer look. I'm pretty unhappy with section 4 (redistribution) of the Apache License 2.0 myself. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] [FAQ] Is some PHP program Open Source?
On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 05:43:07AM +0200, Engel Nyst wrote: In case it helps in any way, I'd suggest: You can see the PHP source code, so it's Open Source, right? No. The code of applications written in languages like PHP or JavaScript is visible, but that alone doesn't mean anything yet: it always depends on the license under which the code is distributed. Only if the code is licensed under an approved Open Source license, it's Open Source. The licenses in the list maintained by OSI are reviewed before approval, to make sure that everyone receiving the code has the perpetual right to use, modify, share and reshare the code freely, as well as other criteria as listed in the Open Source Definition. It's those criteria that define Open Source, not access to the source code alone. If the code is not under one of the approved licenses, then please do not call it Open Source. I missed this until now. Only if the code is licensed under an approved Open Source license is probably not the most ideal way to say this part of it. Rather, say that it is open source only if the code is available under a license that conforms to the Open Source Definition. There are, in fact, open source licenses out there that are not OSI approved, and there is open source software that uses licenses that are not OSI approved. The FAQ should strive for accuracy. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] [FAQ] Is some PHP program Open Source?
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 06:57:49PM +, Cinly Ooi wrote: I missed this until now. Only if the code is licensed under an approved Open Source license is probably not the most ideal way to say this part of it. Rather, say that it is open source only if the code is available under a license that conforms to the Open Source Definition. There are, in fact, open source licenses out there that are not OSI approved, and there is open source software that uses licenses that are not OSI approved. The FAQ should strive for accuracy. I might be splitting hair here: I think that the fact that in the quoted answer the word Open Source is in title case is an attempt to differentiate between OSI approved open source, vs general open source (small cases). The FAQ is hosted at OSI, so I think it is entitled to not consider non-OSI approved license non open source. I understand and agree with you that non-OSI approved open source license exists. I think the wording do make it clear to a person reasonably fluent in English to note that there is OSI-blessed Open Source on one hand, and open source in general. You are right to say that we should strive for accuracy. You are also right that the wording risk saying that non-OSI approved licenses are not open source. However, I think it is preferable than letting everyone thinks that just because someone write the word open source in the license it is open source as the community knows it. I am apparently far less confident that fluent English speakers will make the distinction the way you suggest. There are many reasons the words open source might be capitalized, just as there are many reasons free software might be capitalized. I believe that if the OSI starts claiming that only *approved* licenses are Open Source (or even open source) this will, in the long run, serve to marginalize the OSI rather than . . . whatever it is you think it might offer as a positive incentive for doing so. Refusing to acknowledge that non-approved licenses might still be open source licenses would come across as marketing propaganda rather than an attempt to be honestly informative. It might make sense to refuse to specify any *particular* licenses as open source licenses unless they are approved by the OSI, but denying even by implication that a license can be considered open source without OSI approval is generally nonsensical as things currently stand. If the OSI wants to start referring (especially in an FAQ presumably meant to be generally helpful rather than merely marketing material) to the term open source as specifically requiring OSI license approval, regardless of capitalization, it should: 1. acquire a trademark for the term open source 2. add a stipulation to the Open Source Definition that requires the OSI to approve a license before it is an Open Source License Otherwise, the focus of the FAQ should be on being informative about the meaning of open source and similar matters. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Permissive but anti-patent license
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 09:54:23AM +, John Funnell wrote: Dear all, GPL v2 and v3 have anti-patent clauses that says, in effect, that if anyone arranges a patent license for distribution of the code, they have to arrange that license for all possible downstream recipients of the code and derivatives. I would like to take this one step further so that the anti-patent clause covers use as well as distribution. I propose the license below, a BSD derivative. The aim, like GPL, is to drive a wedge between the software patent business and open software and the hope is to encourage the neutralisation (i.e. licensing for all) of critical patents that threaten popular free software. I am aware that the clause proposed only covers third-party patents: it might be worth rewording or including a clause to cover patents owned by the user/re-distributor themselves. I hope this makes sense. Please let me know if (a) there is an existing license that does this and (b) whether this would qualify as true open source. I'm afraid I'm a month late here, but . . . http://copyfree.org/licenses/coil/license.txt -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] License Stewards
On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 08:21:14AM -0700, Ben Reser wrote: On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 11:27 PM, Rick Moen r...@linuxmafia.com wrote: Er, the licence steward's opinion on that substantive legal question (such as it is) strikes me as lacking relevance. Either the licence as a work is copyrightable in accordance with its own separate nature, or it isn't. The judge isn't going to ask the licence steward what he/she thinks, but instead will analyse the work. It's not likely to be in front of a judge if the license steward says that. I think you mean it's not likely to be in front of a judge if the license steward *means* that. If the license steward *says* it, but doesn't really mean it (or changes his/her mind), (s)he may try suing anyway. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] proposal to revise and slightly reorganize the OSI licensing pages
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 12:39:06PM -0700, Rick Moen wrote: Anyway, as I just got through saying to Ben Tilly: (1) People can and do perform pretty much whatever screwball actions they wish to perform with their own property. (2) You should take care to understand all of the implications of any licence you use, because somebody else definitely may, and you'll look really silly acting surprised. When people start talking about the 'finite pool of open source developers' on account of the unfortunate-for-the-speaker fact that some of those developers choose to do something the speaker dislikes (but that is lawful), I gently direct the speaker's attention to point #1. I.e., get used to the idea that that 'finite pool' are not your staff and are unlikely to do your bidding, unless perhaps you intend to hire them. I'm not particularly interested in the way the two of you are dancing around the subject of who's on what side of which ring (boxing or circus, whatever), but I figure it might be worth pointing out that I'm pretty sure nobody's claiming these hypothetical open source developers are anyone's staff, or complaining directly about them doing something legal. Rather, I think the complaint is about people making hypocritical statements about exactly the kind of behavior they exhibit with regard to source code appropriation, and about people pretending there is no difference between two different edge cases of license effects when, in fact, there is a difference. This may be getting buried under the language of disapproval. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] proposal to revise and slightly reorganize the OSI licensing pages
nobody notices the ISC License embedded in the documentation, accepting accolades for its excellent software. The Busybody Project's community then scolds the maintainers of the copyfree project for being evil enablers of predatory corporatism. The copyfree project maintainers say What the hell? Look at what you and that corporation are doing, you idiots. You and the corporation are doing the same thing, but *you* jackasses have the temerity to insult us personally on top of it! Following this, Rick Moen crops up on a mailing list and expresses disbelief that the copyfree project maintainers would have the gall to object to the behavior of the copyleft project maintainers, saying something like If you don't want them appropriating your source, you should use a different license, as if that in any way addresses their actual concerns. This is not, of course, *always* the way such things work out, but I have seen things go this way (not specifically in regard to Rick Moen, of course; you just make a convenient example in this case) enough times that I would have to have been keeping count to be able to ballpark the figure. I haven't kept score, so I've got nothing to offer as an estimate right now. I'm inclined it's just a matter of you not really looking at the situation from the perspective of people who have been on the receiving end of borderline-libelous mouth-frothing allegations of wrongdoing for using copyfree licenses, rather than maliciousness or stupidity, in case that wasn't clear. That's why I've bothered to explain what I've seen from people on the other side of this matter, in hopes of giving the situation a little perspective. _Unlike_ ideologue wankers, I have no wish to urge any particular licensing on anyone, and regard with particular distaste those who do. (In the general case, it involves someone else's property and is not really my concern at all.) As I very clearly stated upthread, I regard licences as legal instruments to implement the licensor's intentions. The intentions should logically dictate owner's licensing strategy: the only real tragedy is when people fail to understand their chosen licensing's natural and obvious consequences. Unfortunately (with regard to implementing a licensor's intentions), it's generally not considered open source or even free software when a license gets revoked any time a source code appropriator gets hypocritically self-righteous, and such a license would be frankly ridiculous and likely (I think, as someone who is not a legal professional) unenforceable. Yes, disingenuous. I have no time for someone who gratuitously accuses me of bad faith -- and also no interest in arguing with you in the first place. Kindly go bother somebody else. Thanks. It looks a little to me like you've both been accusing each other of bad faith. Maybe it's time to kiss and make up. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] proposal to revise and slightly reorganize the OSI licensing pages
On Thu, Jun 07, 2012 at 03:09:47PM -0700, Luis Villa wrote: On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 3:04 PM, John Cowan co...@mercury.ccil.org wrote: Chad Perrin scripsit: Is have been approved through the [OSI's] license review process really a requirement for being an open source license, or is that just a requirement for being *certified* as an open source license by the OSI? Clearly the latter. The text should be adjusted accordingly, as there are several reasons why a license might be Open Source but not OSI-approved: 1) It has not been submitted for certification in proper form. 2) The Board considers it a vanity license. 3) The Board believes that it substantially duplicates an existing license. It seems that there is a distinction to be made between OSI-approved and merely open source, where open source would *by definition* (tautologically, it seems) be any license that conforms to the definition of open source. Exactly. I've got a partial draft response to Chad drafted, but John covers most of it - the general point is definitely well-taken. I'm about to leave on vacation, so am a bit crunched for time- if someone would propose an alternate wording, I'd appreciate it. I've been without email for about two and a half days, which accounts for the delay in my response. I just wanted to thank you both for your replies, clarifying the intent of the passage I quoted. I think the sentence in question can be best fixed by breaking it into two sentences, one each about what qualifies as an open source license and what the OSI review process does. While the following can surely stand some improvement, it may give a sense of what I mean as an example of how the edited form might be structured: Open Source licenses are licenses that comply with the Open Source Definition. The Open Source Initiative's review process is used to approve licenses for certification by the Open Source Initiative, as examples of licenses that conform to the Open Source Definition that should be regarded as well-established within the Open Source community. I hope that helps get the ball rolling on a revision. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] BSD, MIT [was Re: Draft of new OSI licenses landing page; please review.]
On Thu, Apr 05, 2012 at 02:48:38PM -0400, John Cowan wrote: Chad Perrin scripsit: Before pushing such a change, perhaps we should consider the meaning of Apache 2.0 License section 4, subsections 2 and 4. There's more to permissive than isn't copyleft, and Apache is a somewhat less permissive license. Those both have to do with making sure attribution (and blame) go to the right people. I don't see them as serious restrictions on reuse. Like many of the worst laws contemplated in US Congress, it specifies implementation rather than principle. This can cause problems, such that there are cases where it is inappropriate to use the license based on those clauses. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] combining GPL and proprietary software - was: CC withdrawl of CC0 from OSI process
On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 11:17:49AM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote: On 03/02/2012 10:38 AM, Chad Perrin wrote: On the other hand, a fully-written pleading for a Rule 11 sanction is beyond the means of someone who cannot afford a competent attorney. Since Olson was a Free Software developer, EFF provided his attorney pro-bono. Something tells me it is not reasonable to just always expect that writing open source code guarantees the EFF's help. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] [License-review] CC withdrawl of CC0 from OSI process
On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 11:18:12AM -0800, Rick Moen wrote: Quoting Chad Perrin (per...@apotheon.com): You seem here to be saying Let's not worry about it. You'll get sued, or you won't. There's no perfect answer, so don't bother trying to come up with somewhat better answers. That is not what I said, and very far from what I meant. And you actually know that, but desire to waste everyone's time anyway. 1. The use of the word seem was not accidental. 2. I said I didn't think you actually meant that (but you cut that part out). 3. It *seemed* like you were saying that in part because of the previous comments to which you replied. Context matters. 4. Your condescending self-importance is not helping. What I meant included things like 'People in general and very large corporations have no problem deploying open source software including codebases under popular reciprocal licences without infringing copyrights, through the simple expedient of not attempting to play aggressive brinksmanship games with property rights. Someone else might volunteer to give random coders free legal advice about whereexactly the brink is, but I have many better things to do with my time.' I think you have a strange impression that people are talking about trying to get away with something sketchy when, in fact, most people here are probably just talking about trying to get away with writing useful code. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] [License-review] CC withdrawl of CC0 from OSI process
On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 11:20:58AM -0800, Rick Moen wrote: Quoting Chad Perrin (per...@apotheon.com): I think the point was [...] I believe I was having a discussion with Chris Travers. Didn't I ask you to kindly go away and chew up someone else's time? Yes, you *are* the sort of person who likes to pretend a public discussion on a public mailing list is your private property. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] combining GPL and proprietary software - was: CC withdrawl of CC0 from OSI process
On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 11:43:41AM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote: On 03/02/2012 11:34 AM, Chad Perrin wrote: Something tells me it is not reasonable to just always expect that writing open source code guarantees the EFF's help. Sure. But folks who have asked me for help got me free, and I've sometimes found them an attorney too. This is something I would otherwise charge $7.50 per minute for. I think that's great, and I commend you on being an exception rather than the rule. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] combining GPL and proprietary software - was: CC withdrawl of CC0 from OSI process
On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 02:29:28PM -0500, Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote: On 3/2/12 1:38 PM, Chad Perrin per...@apotheon.com wrote: There seem to be three general approaches to failing to address the important matter of how to deal with the needs of independent open source software developers: 1. It's easy! All you need is the ability to fall back on a lawyer's help. 2. It's easy! Just avoid everything. Ah, what was your third general approach? How about: 3. It's easy! Just use Apache 2.0 licensed stuff! Permissive. Explicit patent grant. Done. :) Be careful about those requirements for things like per-file modification notices and proliferation of NOTICE file attributions. Of course, these are relatively minor matters compared to many other licenses, and I agree with your statement in principle; I just think the Apache License 2.0 is far from ideal. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] [License-review] CC withdrawl of CC0 from OSI process
On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 09:41:01PM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote: On 02/26/2012 09:00 PM, Chad Perrin wrote: I suspect a better approach to understandable, legally well-formed license production might be to get someone who wants a very simple license to write it, and only *then* get the lawyers involved. While you're at it, be prepared to make the lawyers explain everything they want to change, and to tell them no a lot. The problem with your software, Chad, is that it's much too complicated for /no reason./ There's no reason for half of that crapton to be in there. We could cut it down to 10% of its present complexity if we had a /user /who wanted a really simple program write it first, and then we could have a programmer make it work correctly. While the programmer did that, we would make him explain /everything /that he was doing, and we would tell him no a lot to curb his natural tendency to add unnecessary complexity. This may surprise you, but I don't think that actually proves what you probably think it does. Y'know what? A user willing and able to dive into writing code for his or her own purposes should be encouraged to do so, and experienced software developers who are willing to offer some peer review or mentoring can provide an invaluable service in helping a novice programmer learn how to serve his or her own needs better than any outsider trying to second guess his or her desires ever could. So, yeah, that's pretty much *exactly* what I have in mind. Thanks for the excellent analogy supporting my point so beautifully. The pieces you don't like aren't there because anyone likes to put them there or because the people who wrote the license are idiots. Tell that to the guy who doesn't want the crashes every couple hours feature of an overcomplicated word processor or operating system, or the guy who doesn't want the What the hell is *that* doing in this license?! feature of a legal unwittingly misrepresented as having much simpler legal effects than were explicitly described in the license text itself (let alone those license terms that have *unintended* effects). You yourself have questioned some terms that are not fully disclosed in recent discussion, but now you act like this stuff doesn't matter. Sure, they're there for a specific reason, and the people who wrote the license are probably not idiots (in fact, I think they're probably quite smart about this stuff), but the fact remains that the legal density of the license text and necessary inadequacy of a plain English simplification leaves potential license users or accepters with a potentially disastrous misunderstanding of terms. There have been a lot of court cases in history. From those cases, we know a number of things that go wrong in courts. We want you not to get trapped by the same stuff. Instead, people should get trapped by the simple fact they do not understand the licenses in question, I suppose -- or perhaps open source software development and open culture art are only for people with lawyers on retainer. Once more, I'm not talking about things like This turn of phrase is necessary to cover specific case-law eventualities. I'm talking about This license explicitly disclaims any patent license, setting me up for a patent suit trap. That license limits what technologies I can use to redistribute this work, which means I'm violating its terms when I distribute it on iTunes. The other license specifies software in a definitions section in a way that makes my use of the covered work, which is a combination of example code and English explanation, only partially protected from copyright infringment suits if I redistribute it. The fact a lawyer wrote a license does not in any way whatsoever guarantee that people will not misunderstand the licenses, especially when all they're reading is a terribly under-explained summary (because full explanation would require a hefty chapter of a book, if for no other reason). It really does not matter, for the purposes of my point, how well the lawyer did achieving legal text that will for decades to come stand up to court test as satisfying the literal request (in every detail) of the guy who commissioned the lawyer's work. I had to help Bob Jacobsen, an Open Source developer who chose one of those over-simple licenses, the Artistic License 1.0, written by Larry Wall the Programmer. Bob had someone who both used his program in a product without even attributing it to him, and /also /asked Bob for lots of money for infringing his patent and tried to get Bob fired from his job by filing an FOIA with his employer. This was all over /model train software./ There is a difference between an overly-simple license that tries to do too much and a *properly* simple license that tries to do the minimum acceptable amount of stuff so that mere mortals are still capable of reading it when crafted by a qualified professional. Feature creep is as much a problem
Re: [License-discuss] [License-review] CC withdrawl of CC0 from OSI process
On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 12:08:17AM -0800, Rick Moen wrote: Quoting Chad Perrin: Explain to me how wanting to enforce a crapton of additional terms is realism instead of a more-restrictive license. Mu. This request has nothing to do with what I said, and I just don't have that time to waste. If that has nothing to do with what you said, what you said must have nothing to do with the points to which you replied. Anyway, I already pointed out extremely basic problems with 'Unlicense' on licence-review. . . . which you say as though I were somehow disagreeing here. That mystifies me. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] [License-review] CC withdrawl of CC0 from OSI process
On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 12:00:00AM -0800, Rick Moen wrote: Quoting David Woolley: I suspect that licences with lots of legalese discriminate against medium size enterprises. Oh, bushwah. Any layman who wants to understand in even paranoid levels of detail the major licences and has two hours to spare can pull down the PDF of Larry Rosen's book free of charge, among other methods of arriving at that understanding. And any of them who cannot comprehend MIT/X after two hours even without Larry's book probably should rethink running a business. I don't think David Woolley was saying the MIT/X11 License was lots of legalese. I think the point was about licenses at least three times the size of that one. That, at least, is how I understood it; CC0 pushes that barrier to understanding for the layman pretty hard, and many (longer) licenses blow right through it like it wasn't even there, such as a few very popular OSI-approved licenses longer than any Microsoft EULA I have ever seen. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] [License-review] CC withdrawl of CC0 from OSI process
On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 12:15:51AM -0800, Rick Moen wrote: Quoting Chad Perrin (per...@apotheon.com): If that has nothing to do with what you said, what you said must have nothing to do with the points to which you replied. This comment does not strike me as either logical or constructive. However, please do have a pleasant day. Please explain to me how pointing out a miscommunication (where what I said to you was relevant to what I had previously said, indicating that if it was not relevant to your reply to what I previously said your comment was also probably not relevant to what I had previously said) does not appear to be logical or constructive so I may avoid that error in the future. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] [License-review] CC withdrawl of CC0 from OSI process
On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 12:28:03AM -0800, Rick Moen wrote: [Moved to license-discuss, as this thread has become highly offtopic for license-review.] Quoting Chad Perrin (per...@apotheon.com): It doesn't help much that it seems like everyone working with lawyers wants to produce horribly complex systems of license restrictions, so that almost the only people who *can* read them are lawyers. (Cry me a river.) It's called 'realism'. The reason well written licences have an irreducible complexity about them is that they are obliged to deal with real legal issues, e.g., the way warranty disclaimers are required to be specific and 'prominent' (which ends up meaning all capital letters) as a result of Uniform Commercial Code caselaw. Explain to me how wanting to enforce a crapton of additional terms is realism instead of a more-restrictive license. I'm not talking about needing three lines to say what takes one in plain English: I'm talking about adding stuff like restrictions on deployment or distribution technologies, special-case license combination exceptions, and other stuff that would really be entirely unnecessary if people would just stop trying to micromanage each others' lives. Defective efforts like 'Unlicense' are what happens when naive coders attempt to create permissive licences, with results about as sad and unfortunate as would be the case if typical coders were to attempt to practice law. . . . and yet, the Unlicense is lengthier than (for instance) the ISC and MIT/X11 licenses, which are better written from a legal standpoint. That's because the Unlicense is trying to *do* more, and not just because it wasn't written by lawyers or with lawyers on tap to help tighten up the language for legal purposes. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] [License-review] CC withdrawl of CC0 from OSI process
On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 12:28:03AM -0800, Rick Moen wrote: (Cry me a river.) By the way, your asshole-ish attitude is hilarious when you're addressing something I didn't even say. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] [License-review] CC withdrawl of CC0 from OSI process
On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 04:50:16PM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote: On 02/26/2012 02:31 PM, David Woolley wrote: The reality is that the people who have to comply with licences are not professional lawyers. This is always in my thoughts when considering any Open Source license. We can fail these people in two ways: 1. Provide them with a license that they might not understand. 2. Provide them with a license that won't hold up in court. The second damages them more. The first can be solved with explanation separate from the license. . . . which, judging by some Creative Commons examples (as the most obvious case of a license author/organization taking exactly that approach), is prone to being misleading and/or incomplete. Legal rigor is good, but pages of dense legalese coupled with plain English explanations that give people mistaken impressions because it's just not reasonable to expect a nuanced understanding of the sheer complexity of the license suggests to me that there's something wrong. What's wrong is usually the metric crapton of terms heaped on such licenses. I suspect a better approach to understandable, legally well-formed license production might be to get someone who wants a very simple license to write it, and only *then* get the lawyers involved. While you're at it, be prepared to make the lawyers explain everything they want to change, and to tell them no a lot. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] GPL and non-GPL binaries in one distribution
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 10:31:00PM +0200, Henrik Ingo wrote: On this topic there are many opinions out there and little case law, but personally I've always thought that if the FSF as the author of the GPL thinks something is permitted, then at least that much must be permitted and you can quite safely do that. . . . until the author's policy/stance changes. Then you might want to seek legal aid or quit using the licensed work. It's also important to take the (stated) intent of the work's author into consideration, because that person could still conceivably choose to sue you based on the letter of the license, rather than the FSF's stated intent for the license. Let the licensee beware. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] GPL and non-GPL binaries in one distribution
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 11:00:00PM +0200, Henrik Ingo wrote: On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 10:53 PM, Rick Moen r...@linuxmafia.com wrote: Quoting Henrik Ingo (henrik.i...@avoinelama.fi): On this topic there are many opinions out there and little case law, but personally I've always thought that if the FSF as the author of the GPL thinks something is permitted, then at least that much must be permitted and you can quite safely do that. In the general case (obviously excepting GNU packages), FSF is not the copyright holder and licensor. Hence, it cannot speak properly to other licensors' intentions, and its opinions are not relevant to what such licensors are willing and able to permit. (It would not in that case have standing in any related litigation, either, but that's a different subject.) This is an important point, yes. Otoh the GPL is the same license for everyone that uses it. At least in an ideal world it cannot apply in one way to your software and another to mine, since it is the same text. Lacking more legal precedent (on this particular topic) we can only guess what the real answer is, but it seems the authors of the license text should at least get a say in that general discussion, even if they wouldn't have standing in some particular lawsuit. My understanding is that the primary factors involved in determining the legal outcome of a conflict over license terms are (in no particular order): 1. What is the common understanding of the license? 2. What is the licensor's intent? 3. What could the licensee have reasonably believed the license to mean? 4. What does law on the books have to say about the matter? 5. What does court precedent establish the terms to mean? 6. How good is your lawyer? In that, the only way the opinion of the license's author really seems to factor into things once the license has already been written is as a contribution to the common understanding of the license. For that purpose, however, it is only one of many potential inputs to the common understanding of the license. What the licensee might reasonably believe the license to mean can be determined in court by, in part, the common understanding of the license. The same applies to the licensor's intent. Neither, however, is (likely to be) strictly dictated by common understanding of the license. That's my understanding, in any case. Of course, I am not a lawyer, this should not be regarded as legal advice, et cetera, yaddda yadda, don't take my word for it, get a lawyer. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] GPL and non-GPL binaries in one distribution
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 11:40:52PM +0200, Henrik Ingo wrote: On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 11:29 PM, Chad Perrin per...@apotheon.com wrote: In that, the only way the opinion of the license's author really seems to factor into things once the license has already been written is as a contribution to the common understanding of the license. For that purpose, however, it is only one of many potential inputs to the common understanding of the license. Yes. However, when referring to the GPL FAQ, I actually believe it represents the common understanding of a rather large portion of the FOSS community, not just the understanding of Stallman or perhaps Moglen. (Granted, for many it is just that they accept whatever the FSF says, for others it might be they don't want to argue with the FSF, but even so, their acceptance then contributes to the common understanding.) Hence I find it a useful though not legally authoritative document. I agree that appears to be the case, in this instance. The real point I was trying to make however is that the GPL FAQ seems to function well as a safe baseline for what is very likely allowed. Most people who disagree with the FSF interpretation (such as Rosen in this thread) usually believe a more permissible interpretation of copyright law is correct. Hence, it seems while Rosen writes that the FSF position is wrong, in this particular case they both would agree that 2 separately running programs (sharing no code) are not derivative works of each other and hence. I think there is actually a lot of agreement in circles that favor closed source software that the GPL might actually be *less* permissive than the FSF's FAQ might lead a reader to believe. I speak not of lawyers and managers in closed source software vendor organizations, but people farther down the chain, such as daycoder employees and people who form their opinions of IT matters based on the marketing materials of closed source software vendors. A lot of these people do not make much difference in the way the license is understood by those who actually have to make decisions about whether to use the software distributed under the terms of those licenses, though, so you're probably right in terms of the effects of all this. It's also important to take the (stated) intent of the work's author into consideration, If the author(s) has(have) given such a statement, and if it is equal to or more permissible than the common understanding of the GPL, then that would of course be the most usable information to go with and the rest of the discussion is unnecessary. Not necessarily. It's actually in cases where the software author's interpretation and intent is less permissive than the FSF's FAQ would lead us to believe, because it creates additional potential legal dangers. If the FSF's is the more restrictive interpretation, you then need to consider cases where the FSF has taken up the mantle of defender of works for which it arguably did not have a notable direct copyright interest, as in the Busybox mess and the brief period of bullying small Linux distribution projects whose maintainers believed they complied with the license by linking to upstream sources. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] GPL and non-GPL binaries in one distribution
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 08:51:34PM -0500, Richard Fontana wrote: On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 05:34:45PM -0700, Chad Perrin wrote: If the FSF's is the more restrictive interpretation, you then need to consider cases where the FSF has taken up the mantle of defender of works for which it arguably did not have a notable direct copyright interest, as in the Busybox mess You appear to be mixing up either SFLC or SFC with FSF. You are correct. I'm aware of the error, and still make it sometimes. I apologize. As I recall it was the SFLC, though I am not 100% certain. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] GPL and proprietary WebAPIs
On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 03:38:04AM -0800, Chris Travers wrote: Thus in general I think one is generally better off talking with upstream projects and trying to get them on board. Take the most restrictive reasonable interpretation of both if you want to play it safe. After all, a change in the upstream project's maintainership could get you in a lot of trouble if you rely entirely on the legally non-binding word of a project maintainer. -- Chad Perrin ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] a Free Island Public License?
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 01:45:28PM -0500, Clark C. Evans wrote: I'd love your high-level thoughts on a Free Island license or anything that might be similar in nature. I'll see what I can offer. I speak for myself, only, in this. Note that I am not a lawyer, and my comments should not be taken as legal advice. What follows is my interpretations alone. FREE ISLAND PUBLIC LICENSE (v0.2 on 12 DEC 2011) This software is licensed for any purpose excepting the right to make publicly available derived works which depend exclusively upon non-free components. Based on this statement of intent, it seems your intent is to create a license that disallows distribution of any materials covered by its terms as part of a larger proprietary work. This is similar to some part of the intent of the GPL, and much of the reason that many GPL users choose that license, but with the added benefit that this statement of intent suggests you want to allow the licensed materials to be used with other open source licenses without overriding their license terms. Is this a fair assessment? Of course, I wonder if strong copyleft works would still not be able to use such a license, because of the fact that they would legally demand that the work be distributed under the terms of that umbrella license. It might be pretty hairy legal territory, and I am probably not qualified to judge this aspect of the license. So long as this copyright and license are included in all substantial copies of this work you may: The phrase substantial copies here seems imperfect for what I believe to be your wishes. Instead of substantial copies, you may wish to say something like copies in whole or significant part. I say something like because I'm sure that phrasing could be better refined. 1. Publicly copy and use verbatim copies of this work including public distribution and performance. There are some phrasing details here that make me wonder how it might be interpreted in court, though I think it is generally clear to the layman. A copyright lawyer could of course offer more substantial analysis, but I unfortunately do not know of any copyright lawyers prepared to freely offer such advice. 2. Privately deal with this work in any way you wish, including internal usage, copying, and modification of this work. You may also make publicly available via distribution or public performance any Derived Work only if the following conditions are met: 1. the preferred source code for the Derived Work must be made freely available under this license; The use of the term source code here makes this a software-specific license which, while fairly typical of licenses suitable to use in a software context (including notable copyfree licenses, despite their typically simple language), strikes me as an unnecessary limitation on the license whose effects when applied to non-software works has not to my knowledge been tested in court. This condition is essentially a copyleft licensing condition, of course. I am sure you are aware of this, but I figured I would point it out, just in case. 2. the Derived Work must pass the Free Island test. By Derived Work we mean a modified copy or adaptation of this work or a separate work such as a plug-in, protocol adapter, or wrapper which is designed to have intimate interactions with this work's operational details, or interfaces. This seems to make the work strongly copyleft because it implies (or, at least, I infer) that use of the work as a library dependency in any way would also qualify something as a derived work. This would make this more-copyleft than the LGPL at least. A Derived Work passes the Free Island test if it could be prepared, modified, compiled, tested, installed, and operated in a manner advertised or expected using only Commodity Hardware, Free Software, this software, and the Derived Work itself. In particular, the Derived Work fails this test if it depends upon proprietary software, remote services or hardware to provide features that do not have a corresponding Free Software implementation. By Free Software we mean any software which is readily available to the public without fee and with this license, any license approved by the Open Source Initiative or any license considered free by the Free Software Foundation. This places substantial power to determine what does or does not pass your free island test in the hands of third parties that are not in any way answerable to you or the intent of this license. A better approach, for purposes of ensuring the independence and satisfaction of intent of this license, might be to include a list of brief conditions that encompass the qualities of Free Software and open source software you wish to promote, probably inspired by the FSF/GNU Four Freedoms and the Open Source Definition. By Commodity Hardware we mean a computing device which has substitutes in a
Re: [License-discuss] a Free Island Public License?
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 11:03:07AM -0600, Jeremy C. Reed wrote: On Fri, 16 Dec 2011, Chad Perrin wrote: TL;DR Summary: My take would be that this satisfies the conditions of the Open Source Definition, though I may have overlooked something in my first reading. I think it conflicts with criterion #9. I think that's true only to the extent that other copyleft licenses do, as well. If you have some differing insight, please share. I'd like to know what I missed. It appears to also satisfy the conditions of the FSF/GNU Four Freedoms I think it conflicts with the first freedom. I think that, too, is true only to the extent that other copyleft licenses do. Again, I'd like to know what prompts you to think otherwise. and the Debian Free Software Guidelines, I think it conflicts with description of the first point. See my above two responses to your disagreement with my estimation of the license's compliance with various standards. I'm curious about your points of disagreement. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] a Free Island Public License?
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 04:33:13PM -0600, Jeremy C. Reed wrote: I believe these could be understood to conflict with: - ``The license must not place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be open-source software.'' While I know this is about distribution, it can be said that it is distributed with its dependencies. The license in question doesn't override others licenses, but if used it implies about its dependencies which I'd suggest could be distributed together. This argument is weak. On the other hand, try distributing software that statically links both a library only available under the GPLv3 and a library you have by way of a proprietary license from Oracle. - ``The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).'' How can it be used for any purpose if it can't depend on non-free software implementation? I this think is a strong argument. My previous statement applies here, too. - ``The license of a Debian component may not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license may not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.'' This is about distribution collections. Maybe this one isn't a good enough argument but it similar to the point above. Yeah, I don't think that really prohibits friendly license interactions on the strength of the Free Island license terms. Basically, the way I see things here, it looks like this license ends up coming to roughly the same kinds of interactions with differently licensed works as the GPL in many cases, but does so in such an unfamiliar way and from such an unfamiliar direction that it looks, at first glance, like its effects are substantially different. In the end, though, it seems to me that the only real differences are in the way this license *can* be combined with certain other works without overriding their license terms. In cases where overriding other (open source) license terms is expressly prohibited, in fact, this license seems less prone to running afoul of restrictions on distribution with other software (e.g., CDDL software). I'm not trying to pick on the GPL in particular, by the way. It's just a handy example. I could have swapped the CDDL and GPL in that example, for instance, or used the MPL and CDDL, or something like that. My point is just that the same arguments that work for other copyleft licenses should, I think, apply to this license. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Looking for a license agreement.
On Fri, Oct 07, 2011 at 01:13:26AM -0400, Rudy Lippan wrote: That is a tough one for me. I don't think that a list factual data itself is deserving of copyright protections esp. when the data cannot be recreated by someone else. This may be a touch off-topic for this list, but . . . why would you want to grant someone the ability to prohibit others from using *facts* by the simple expedient of (for instance) alphabetizing a list of facts? That's insane. In a time when even the ability to maintain a monopoly over things that have been *created* is becoming controversial, someone asserting a monopoly over information that has been *found* seems quite regressive and, frankly, harmful. Do you think that it would be compatible with open source for super- data-munger(TM) 1.3 to say, if you download* databases form the munger network(TM)+ and use super-data-munger to process the data, you must re-release the product of your munging along with your munger ruleset(TM) to the munger$ network? I ask because this is related to another project with which I am involved. That seems to me like a Terms of Service issue. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpd0CeKWyN6F.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Looking for a license agreement.
On Fri, Oct 07, 2011 at 04:09:24PM +0100, David Woolley wrote: Chad Perrin wrote: This may be a touch off-topic for this list, but . . . why would you want to grant someone the ability to prohibit others from using *facts* by the simple expedient of (for instance) alphabetizing a list of facts? That's insane. In a time when even the ability to maintain a monopoly over things that have been *created* is becoming controversial, someone asserting a monopoly over information that has been *found* seems quite regressive and, frankly, harmful. Database copyrights are not like patents. As long as you obtain the fact independently, you can publish them. Telephone directories and maps have bogus entries to help detect whether a competing compilation is truly independent. The very existence of a copyright is a threat to others who deal in the material, because of the potential for expensive litigation regardless of the expected outcome if all parties are able to see it through to judgment. In the real world, the legal system is a bit more of a problem than the letter of the law might suggest. That, at least, is what I have observed. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpVWC851zjBS.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
