Re: OSD modification regarding what license can require of
On Friday, March 15, 2002, at 12:04 a, Russell Nelson wrote: Hrm. I think that the GPL was simply acclaimed as an Open Source license. I'm not sure it actually qualifies as such, now that I see this note. OSD#3 says that the license must allow modifications. We have always interpreted that to mean that the license may not disallow modifications. I think that the correct interpretation - the one which most accurately reflects the spirit of free software- is that which reflects that there are more and less appropriate restrictions on modification. The purpose of the GPL restriction is to ensure that the user is aware of the license under which the program is available. It is not substantially different from the requirement that files that have changed be prominently marked as such; there is a restriction on modification that you can not modify something without marking it as modified. This is also not substantially different from restricting modification from removing copyright notices. These are The purpose of other licenses (that have not been approved) that restrict modification has generally been to get around the spirit of OSD#7. We have never removed OSI approval for any license, so I'm sure that the GPL is in no danger of not being an Open Source license. However, I'll take a good hard look at any license which doesn't permit any and all modifications to a program. I don't think this is the right approach. If the OSD precludes the GPL, in your opinion, then either your opinion or the OSD needs to change such that that is not the case. If a future revision of the GPL fails because of this opinion, something is wrong; if a future revision of the GPL passes because an earlier version passed, something is wrong. All licenses should at all times be passable by the OSD; this is why it is my opinion as well that licenses should be certified or not based on the spirit of open source, so that as the OSD is refined licenses that were certified become uncertifiable. If it's in the documentation, such a notice is displayed. It says nothing about that notice having to be displayed by the software itself, whereas the GPLv2 specifically says that the program must display the message. This is a false dichotomy. The documentation is part of the software when it is included in the package and under the same execution of a license. Restrictions on modification to documents are restrictions on modification full stop. [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: request for approval of APOSSL
On Wednesday, March 6, 2002, at 07:23 a, dave sag wrote: the basic ideas are as follows: APOSSL is a BSD style licence save for the following special points. * the name of the software should not include pronoic.org or Pronoic Ltd. This is not a difference. Neither the name of Organization nor the names of contributors may be used to endorse or promote... * the software should be described as being pronoic unless you ask for permission to use the term pronoic. in that case your request will be denied. *sigh* every time I read descriptions or pseudocode or the legal text, the results are different. while it is a non-traditional notion, it is not against the spirit of an OSSL and in fact is helpful in that it further legitimises notions of pronoia and pronoic thinking. It is thus distinct from other OSSLs as none of them, to my knowledge, have this as one of their goals. The license without that clause is functionally the same. I say, approve the license that is intended, which is to say the BSD license, and ignore nonsense that is of dubious and uncertain legal affect. As far as I am aware, having slightly off-beat goals is not a reason to deny an OSSL such accreditation. Having a license that is functionally equivalent to the BSD is. In an offlist email I have been accused of simply trying to litter the OSSL domain space. I refute this. You have been so accused because you ignore my requests to, as the approval procedure requests, explain *why* the existing license does not meet your needs. If you say it doesn't, but can't explain why, and then produce a license that is functionally identical, it is hard to say that you are not littering. I am trying to seek approval for a new licence that addresses points that are not addressed by any other licence. You have neither clearly demonstrated that it is a new license, nor have you ennumerated or described these points you say it addresses. Whether or not I am the only person to ever deploy software under such a licence is irrelevant. A licence is not a popularity contest. You keep on repeating this, but no one disagrees with you. Perhaps you are not clear on what is being said if you think this is contrary to what other people are saying. [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: request for approval of APOSSL
On Wednesday, March 6, 2002, at 12:43 p, dave sag wrote: I get the idea that you feel that there should be as few OSSLs as possible and are acting more as a review board than an accreditation board. We are neither. We are a discussion board. The discussion tends towards, another!?!? Surely a licence conforms to the OSD or it does not. Whether there is matter in the licence that is outside of the scope of the OSD would seem to me to be irrelevant to the veracity of the licence. This just makes a stronger case that we are being jerked around. [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: request for approval of APOSSL
On Wednesday, March 6, 2002, at 03:41 p, dave sag wrote: nice try but quines make sense. your response makes no sense. He made a small mistake: what he meant was... Will be rejected when approval is asked will be rejected when approval is asked. Is OK as long as you don't want our stamp of approval is OK as long as you don't want our stamp of approval. It's a quine, it's a valid English sentence, and it expresses the opinions of a lot of the people who have commented[1]. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1. It's still not a dessert topping, though. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: OpenE License
On Wednesday, February 27, 2002, at 12:46 p, David Blevins wrote: (I dislike seeing copyrights on licenses anyway. It implies that someone modifying the license needs approval...which means that OpenE needs approval from Apache groupDid they get it? Does OpenE want to be bothered when someone wants to take the OpenE license and modify it?) This is a sticky wicket which we have not found a good answer to. On the one hand, licenses that name a copyright holder are not reusable. On the other hand, it seems hypocritical for an organization that promotes software reuse to NOT promote license reuse. And as you point out, the license does not give any permissions to create derived works. The OSD is silent on this issue, so we have no grounds for refusing to approve a copyrighted license. We're having a board meeting today, and I'll bring this issue up. The license does give permission to create derived works, provided those derivations are under the same license. This is clearly impossible if merging that work with another work under the same restriction, so I see your point. You are confusing the copyright of the license and the copyright of the software. What was being discussed was how to handle a) licenses that are specific to a single company, and b) licenses that forbid derivative works (i.e., I like this license but I need to make this change for my needs... - the resultant license may well be OSD-compliant, but it might not be *usable*) I have felt first hand the complications of working on open source software copyrighted to someone else, an thusly, not having the right to mix that code with even another Open Source approved license. One possible avenue would be amending the OSD to protect the rights to change the license (and copyright) on derived works to any other OSI approved license. You can not, except under special circumstances, transfer copyright to someone else. If you could change the license of anything under an OSS license to be under any other OSS license, everything would eventually be under the BSD license. And there would be gobs and gobs and gobs of software that was Free Software but not Open Source, because people would not be *interested* in having whatever license they created for their software replaced. Different licenses serve different needs *of the licensor*, and the licensee's needs that are considered 'important' or 'necessary' or 'good' are the ones already in the OSD. Even this raises the question, who has rights to relicense and sell a commercial version as is done with PostgreSQL, MySQL, etc.? The copyright holder(s) and people to whom the copyright holder(s) grant that right. It is a common thread that people see part of Free Software and think, this is all there is; this license describes Free Software. It happens when people think that every concievable right ought to go to the licensee and they think the BSD license is all there is, and it happens when they see the GPL and think that Free Software must be provisioned to always be Free Software to qualify. [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: I don't mean to whine, but
On Tuesday, February 26, 2002, at 06:31 p, Russell Nelson wrote: I don't mean to whine, but nobody has said a word about these licenses: http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm- cgi?3:mss:4875:200202:kdeehglcnnehcgmipifk Identical to the Apache Software License... assuming that description is correct (there is neither a URL nor an available attachment), I don't see a need to comment. http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm- cgi?3:mss:4881:200202:keniicngdgcgjmjgdnoi Looks fine, although it's worth pointing out that they might have to go to court to get 'bug fixes' - what one person calls a bug, another person calls a feature (so fixing that bug might be removing that feature). I think. It's hard to tell, since I can't find that post in my archives and your webbing software helpfully removes all attachments (like the license). http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm- cgi?3:mss:4860:200202:pdjhhikmglggeanafjcc separate message This list was set up so that outsiders could have veto power over licenses. That statement neither reflects the original stated purpose for this list, nor the manner in which it's been used in the past by the OSI. [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Squeak License OSD-compliance
(My addressbook appears to be acting up, so I *think* this message only went to license-discuss-subscribe... hopefully you haven't seen this message yet) Section 2: There is a thorny issue about fonts. While fonts are clearly not part of the program if distributed separately, it is difficult to say that they are not part of the program when they are so distributed. If they are part of the program, then this section runs afoul (IMO) of #1, shall not restrict any party from selling . . . the software. I think the fonts should be in a separate package differently licensed, with all references to them excised from this license. Section 2: it is somewhat inaccurate to say that this license is an X11/MIT flavored license when it requires that modifications to existing methods or the VM be released under the license of Exhibit A. It is also appears trivial to get around, by first sub-licensing a modified version (say that *adds* a method) under a different license, and then from there modify the existing methods and VM. That is, unless that clause falls under being no less protective of Apple, which perhaps others can comment on (it doesn't seem to be clause protecting Apple, so it doesn't seem like it should necessarily be carried over). Section 6: I'm pretty sure that's a no-no, at least under OSD#5. [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: I don't mean to whine, but
On Tuesday, February 26, 2002, at 07:22 p, Cees de Groot wrote: Thanks, Russ - I was about to whine myself about the lack of commentary of the above one (the Squeak License). The webpages 'promise' a review when you post the license, but all I got back was a private mail from Guido with some comments (thanks, Guide), and nothing else. A lot happens because someone starts; it would have been nice if we could all have seen his response because that might have catalyzed on opinion in our own minds. Well, see my response under a separate subject (which should now actually go tot the right address). At the very least, the website should be modified to reflect actual practice (we'll post the license and maybe someone cares to comment)... This is a volunteer list and we contribute as we are willing and able. [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: I don't mean to whine, but
On Tuesday, February 26, 2002, at 08:03 p, David Johnson wrote: I've always that that this list was to discuss licenses informally, not to be the main clearinghouse for license approval. It is. On the other hand, it is worth pointing out that a license was recently tabled because there was too much disagreement on this list over how Open Source Fresh(notm) it was, so perhaps this list is being accorded more respect than it was in days past. [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Squeak License OSD-compliance
On Tuesday, February 26, 2002, at 08:25 p, Cees de Groot wrote: Matthew C. Weigel [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Section 2: There is a thorny issue about fonts. It's not, for two reasons: the fonts are bitmap fonts, and since the Squeak License was written they have been shown not to be protectable under copyright laws in various court cases - so we could just strike the whole passage. For good measure, though, we're working on replacing the Apple fonts. Striking the section is, IMO, necessary: elsewise there is a restriction in the license on the software that the OSD requires there not be. I'm pretty sure this list's opinion on 'unenforcable' clauses is 'then take it out!' :) Section 2: it is somewhat inaccurate to say that this license is an X11/MIT flavored license when it requires that modifications to existing methods or the VM be released under the license of Exhibit A. That's the only exception to an otherwise laissez-faire license (and I think a good one, too). I haven't got a *problem* with it, I was just clarifying what I thought the license's 'flavor' was. Section 6: I'm pretty sure that's a no-no, at least under OSD#5. This is indeed one of the biggest questions. If it's a no-no, I fear we need to go back and negotiate with Apple IIRC, this actually came up with the APSL too (corrections, anyone? was it the Plan 9 license instead?). If that recollection is correct, then it seems that it might be 'easy' to point out that they have capitulated on that point previously (that's probably not the best wording to use around them, though :). [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Netapp license approval retraction with apologies
On Tuesday, February 19, 2002, at 08:29 p, Topper, Anthony wrote: We understand the desire to have one Common Public License with no messy variations. We think it is an excellent license, hence our desire for our own small variation of it. The issue that had our attorney's concerned was IBM as the sole steward of change and NY as the applicable law. Maybe I'm crazy, but it seems like the OSI should encourage or require licenses that have such specific language to be submitted in template form, or to at the least 'approve' the template - and require that derivatives of the template, modified as templates are intended to be modified, not be restricted. Otherwise, there is the 'one license per package' problem that the OSD already attempts to prevent. [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Two GPL Questions
On Tue, 11 Dec 2001, Rui Miguel Seabra wrote: BSD allows other to fork your code, extend and embrace it and never ever compensate you for anything (see the case of microsoft's ftp client, for instance) if they so wish. You say that as if it's a bad thing. Put another way, the BSD license allows another to use your code for whatever they wish; it gives the user near-total freedom. So yes, it is about control, more specifically, of battling control. Yes. It keeps anyone else from having control, thus leaving the author as the de facto person in control. That is, the copyright holder(s) can relicense the code, but no one else can. The BSDL relies upon social force to keep modifications free, while the GPL relies upon legal force. The former is friendlier but accepts a less-than-100% success rate, the latter shoots for 100% success but at the cost of keeping the code from being used in some circumstances. Both are free software, and that's good enough for me (and this list). -- Matthew Weigel Research Systems Programmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] ne [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Response to comments on Intel's proposed BSD+Patent license
On Fri, 2 Nov 2001, Russell Nelson wrote: Intel can't solve those problems but it should be commended for doing what it can (even if it isn't doing everything that we think possible). Yes. Although my one response to this was in the negative, I *do* think it's great that Intel is trying. It's wonderful that Intel is interested in contributing to the wider community some access to their patents. Nonetheless, I think this license can only apply to open source software in the trivial case (no patents). -- Matthew Weigel Research Systems Programmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] ne [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Response to comments on Intel's proposed BSD+Patent license
On Wed, 31 Oct 2001, Stamnes, Michelle wrote: Finally, under the proposed license, you can use the software in Solaris or any other proprietary OS or in any other piece of software (in addition to the GPL based OS's). You just don't have a patent license; so you are no worse off than with the BSD license. I'm afraid the license is not entirely clear on this point: This license shall include changes to the Software that are error corrections or other minor changes to the Software that do not add functionality or features when the Software is incorporated in any version of a operating system that has been distributed under the GNU General Public License 2.0 or later. Does that mean that the license *only* includes such changes to the software under *only* such operating systems? This patent license shall apply to the combination of the Software and any operating system licensed under the GNU Public License version 2.0 or later if, at the time Intel provides the Software to Recipient, such addition of the Software to the then publicly available versions of such operating system available under the GNU Public License version 2.0 or later (whether in gold, beta or alpha form) causes such combination to be covered by the Licensed Patents. It is not clear whether this patent license means the license to make 'bug-fixing/ modifications, or the license before that: Intel hereby grants Recipient and Licensees a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free patent license under Licensed Patents to make, use, sell, offer to sell, import and otherwise transfer the Software, if any, in source code and object code form. If it's the latter, then use is effectively restricted (through patent law, and not copyright law, but I don't think the OSD allows for such distinction). If it's the former, then the right to create derivative works is effectively restricted (again, through patent law and not copyright law). Please remember that the OSI certifies *software*, so - in my opinion - software distributed under this license, whose use or sale infringes upon patent claims licensable by Intel, restricts the user's ability to make derived works unacceptably, and discriminates against persons not using a GPL'd operating system. This means, IMO, that if software whose use or sale infringes upon patents is to be considered OSI Certified Open Source Software, the patent license must also support the OSD. Compare this license to the license a while back that restricted the ability of the user to modify some pay for this software routines: if the copyright holder of that software managed to get a patent for his pay for this software routines, and distributed it under this license, would it be considered OSI Certified Open Source Software? -- Matthew Weigel Research Systems Programmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] ne [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Can anyone say his or her software is open source?
On Fri, 30 Nov 2001, Tina Gasperson wrote: Does a license have to comply with the published requirements (http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.html) in order for the distributor or creator of the software to call it open source? No. It is encouraged socially to 'help the end user' by using the Open Source Initiative's definition of 'open source software' in deciding whether to call one's own software such, but there is no legal impetus to do so. The Open Source Initiative owns the servicemark OSI Approved Open Source Software, and that is all. disclaimer: This is a possible NewsForge story; if you don't want to be quoted please say so in your reply. Feel free to quote me. Better yet, take a look in the archives for the instance (last week? earlier this week) of a company calling their software 'open source.' -- Matthew Weigel Research Systems Programmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] ne [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: what was the point?
On Sun, 21 Oct 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yeah, but that kind of DVD stuff is enforced by the anti-circumvention crap of the WIPO treaty and the DMCA law, isn't Here's my understanding, surely to be corrected... The 'anti-circumvention crap' allows the copyright holder to effectively eliminate fair use, but I don't think your example does. Without the DMCA, Alice could provide tools that cricumvent the restrictions on music placed by Bob's Music Conglomerate (can I just call them BMG for short? ;). Your example hinges upon 'linking' as being the only way to access the music in the object file, but it wouldn't be. -- Matthew Weigel Research Systems Programmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] ne [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: fileset without makefiles Open Source?!
On Thu, 18 Oct 2001, Russell Nelson wrote: Lately I had a discussion with someone who wants to provide source code for his project, but without makefile(s). He intends to call it Open Source. G. Nobody has a trademark on Open Source, so he can call it that if he wants. Yes. As the OSI uses the term, I suspect that this will not be open source, since the 'preferred form in which the programmer would modify the program' should (IMO) include the makefiles (the entire 'build system,' actually, other than that provided by the operating system, or that the author expects to be provided by the operating system). More importantly, removing makefiles seems to qualify as deliberate obfuscation prohibited by the OSD (all of this from section 2, Source Code). So it will likely be incapable of being OSI Certified, whether it is referred to as open source or not. As a courtesy, it would be nice if this person either chose to call it something else, or tried to make it OSI Certified, out of respect for the work people are putting forth under the banner of OSI Certified open source. -- Matthew Weigel Research Systems Programmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] ne [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Approval request, DSPL v1.1
On Sat, 13 Oct 2001, Julian Hall wrote: Following comments I received on version 1.0 of the DSPL, I have prepared a revision for submission for approval. Here are my comments: Section 3, use of the software, seems to be fairly irrelevant. Surely simply saying use of the software is not restricted by this license would be sufficient? Section 4.1, ...and it is obvious that no charge is made for the Software in and of itself. It's not clear to me whether this violates the Free Redistribution clause of the OSD. It is my sense that people should be, in all cases, allowed to charge for distributing the software (whether aggregated or not). Additionally, the concern John Cowan raised regarding requiring archiving to be in the company of free software seems contrary to the OSD. In general this clause seems too concerned with limiting the ditribution terms of the software. Section 5.1. I am somewhat uncomfortable with the idea of submitting something for inclusion before knowing what your Merit Share might be. This is not an OSD issue, but I would recommend that - whether the license is OSD-approved or not - you allow submitters to have some way described in the license to bargain with the Executive Committee about the value of their contribution, including allowing the submitter to choose not to assign copyright if there is disagreement over the value of the contribution. Section 5.10. Again, not an OSD issue, but what is the rationale for not letting Authors split their Merit Shares in voting? It is my impression that this licenes imposes too much structure and ideology above and beyond distribution terms. In particular, I would suggest that pre-establishing a number of important by-laws for the Committee guarantees low interest in your license. It is my sense that you should seriously reconsider whether you want this license to have the approval of the OSI, and to thereby impose the additional complexity of another license upon the open source community while actively pursuing a different ideology. The DSPL is intended to allow commercial relicensing while assuring developers that they will retain both control over how their code is used, and that any profits from commercial exploitation will be used in a manner that is fair. Have you considered that, if you used the GPL (and did not ask contributors to hand over copyrights to an Executive Committee), then commercial relicensing could be accomplished just as well, without *any* possibility for misrepresentation by the Executive Committee (that is, each developer with copyright over a portion of the code could nix the deal, rather than having to try to call a no-confidence vote afterwards)? Then, a) commercial relicensing is possible, b) developers retain control over how their code is used, and c) any profits from commercial exploitation will be used in a manner that each developer agrees with (since the money will go to that developer, and not a committee, by default). -- Matthew Weigel Research Systems Programmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] ne [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: binary restrictions?
On Sun, 7 Oct 2001, Steve Lhomme wrote: That makes good sense. But in this case, why is their different rules for source code and binary versions of a work in most open-source licenses ? I mean if it's a derived work, the rules applied are the same one of a derived work. 1. Because binaries are inherently useful to a wider audience than source (consider it a special case requiring that English translations of Latin texts be redistributable). It is unacceptable to allow people to distribute patches to the source that will result in the binaries. 2. It is also unacceptable to allow people to only distribute the 'final' derivative work, that is, only the binary and not the source (which might also have been modified). It is simply a special case with special rules, because without the special case it isn't what people have been thinking of free software for decades. -- Matthew Weigel Research Systems Programmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] ne [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: The Invisible Hand
On Thu, 4 Oct 2001, Russell Nelson wrote: But you *did* say free software licenses according to the FSF. But that's precisely what I was objecting to -- your implication that the FSF defines free software and that nobody else's opinion matters. Please stop, and think about what you're saying for a minute. If I had said *just* free software, and used the FSF definition, I would be implying that only the FSF's definition matters. However, I qualified it with as according to the FSF to clarify that not everyone agrees. Look at the GPL's requirement for three-year's distribution of the source code. That's a constraint, and a cost. Doesn't stop you from distributing any code, but it makes it less convenient. Oh well. Neither does the APSL's publishing requirement. It materially affects what you can and can not do: you can not develop a derivative work that uses anything you are prohibited from publishing, *whether you distribute it or not.* Again, we are not the FSF. We don't have a charismatic founder whose word is law. What started your entire response to me was my statement that RMS is more open to criticism than the OSI. So, charismatic or not, it strikes me as *his* word being much more openn to discussion. I'll accuse you of any damn thing I feel you're guilty of. And if I'm wrong, I'll apologize for it, too. But you'll ignore any argument that you're wrong. Since you've continued to accuse me, let me defend myself. I have been on this list from the beginning, and I have tried to do whatever an outsider to the OSI can be expected to do. At the time I made that claim, the OSI had studiously avoided all messages on the list asking, what's going on? does the OSI need help? It is no accident that I referred to the refusal of the OSI to communicate as the deepest problem. But in *general* in the open source / free software / whatever world, contributions are gladly entertained, suggestions carefully Yup, and the OSI is such a sterling example of collaboration in action, that offers of help, requests for direction, *everything* is ignored. Are you ever going to evaluate the three current licenses or are you going to wh*n* some more? Ah yes, the three (wait, no two) licenses you claimed were submitted on 8/31. Plus a third that has been discussed voluminously already. http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:3735:200108:ajlgmjcdbmmllniijbba For readability, http://www.pitt.edu/~weigel/os/testsuite.html. What legally constitutes portability fixes? Bug fixes? Is it a bug if it reports your software as not compliant? Clause 4 discourages sharing and using the code as a starting point, in much the same way requiring pristine source + patches. In a similar way, I think it's OK but should be discouraged. I think that this license is conceptually opposed to open source, being that it is concerned with test suite software. It jumps through a few hoops to qualify as open source anyways, and it is interesting to note the way in which it circumvents requiring that only 'standard' binaries be distributed. It probably qualifies as open source, but the authors should consider their motivation for wanting the test suite to be open source. http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:3733:200108:lmhpmlehbejjkloffohl (this one's HTML is fine, you might want to compare the differences in the submissions and encourage submitters to follow the MOSL's method; looking at the archive it's not obvious, but you presumably have the messages themselves sitting around) This license requires a rewrite for clarity, so that there aren't two different 3(a)'s, 3(b)'s, and so that the 4(e) describing additional rights you may choose to offer licensees actually exists (if it does exist, I couldn't find it). My recommendation would be, at least as a first (new) draft, to do it in something like HTML that numbers them on the fly. Others have brought up the clause requiring Dutch Law, I'll defer to other people on that. The 4. U.S. Government End Users. clause also bothers me, I am not comfortable with claims of fact like that within the license. http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:msp:3728:ecdccfkopamdkjccmffn Oh yes, I've not made a peep about any of these licenses. Oh wait, I *have* discussed this license before. It is clerarly open source, does nothing interesting, but should be approved because it qualifies and as a sign of good will. -- Matthew Weigel Research Systems Programmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] ne [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: The Invisible Hand
On Mon, 1 Oct 2001, Russell Nelson wrote: This is a very good summary. See? I'm not out to demonize you :) The FSF argues that, without the social/ethical committment to free software, their committment to open source changes like the wind. Well, more accurately (IMO), the FSF argues that the pragmatic argument is not as unassailable, and thus not so constant, as the social/ethical commitment. Put another way, pragmatism is founded upon the ability of the user to adequately (or inadequately, if I were to argue open source were not pragmatic ;) weigh costs and benefits. An idealistic social/ethical stance is not so constrained. -- Matthew Weigel Research Systems Programmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] ne [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: The Invisible Hand
On Mon, 1 Oct 2001, Russell Nelson wrote: If you don't value freedom for its effects (admittedly a pragmatic argument), why do you value it? On ethical grounds- it is not an effect, an incidence, of freedom, that I value. I don't agree. I think that there are problems with it. Like what? The publishing clause. I believe I've been complaining about this since the original APSL. See, the problem here is that in order to be truthful, you have to say free software licenses according to the FSF. I'm sorry, I thought I was perfectly clear in delineating open source as according to the OSI, and free software as according to the FSF. I suppose the OSI is now a better judge of free software? I don't see why we cannot be allowed to have an opinion, given that RMS's opinion of free software is just that -- his opinion. You are, of course, allowed an opinion. That was a dig in anger, because I felt you were digging at me for the possibly *single* time I didn't delineate FSF free software in the post to which you responded. Nonetheless, you provide no reason to *not* listen to RMS over yourself. And that means what RMS thinks. I think there is more to free software than what RMS says, particularly when RMS says that free software imposes a requirement to allow users to retain certain specific types of privacy, but require them to give up other types of privacy. I'd be interested in hearing about this (possibly privately). No need for that. RMS is up-front about his objection to the APSL. By 'this' I meant but require[s] them to give up other types of privacy. Which is to say, it's not RMS's opinions, but *yours*, that I'd like to hear in more detail. It is not for any restrictions on the distribution of the software, but instead for the requirement to publish the source code to deployed modifications. Note that the APSL is not talking about private modifications, but instead modifications which have been distributed within an enterprise. Ah yes, there's that distribute word again. It's the foundation of the argument. This is not a free software issue. It is a privacy issue. It's even easily worked around. If you want to keep secret the fact that you are using a modified version of a piece of APSL software, you pay somebody else to modify it, publish their use of it, and publish the code itself. The secret-keeper can then use the published modified code with no requirement to publish their use of it, because *they* have not modified it. That is one workaround for *one kind* of privacy problem. What if you want to keep the modifications *themselves* private, never distributing them? The GPL, the most restrictive free software license, allows this. It is my opinion that this should be included in the OSD. Sorry, Matthew, but people who say At this point, I think the OSI needs to apologize to the wider community for wasting everyone's time, say that the FSF adequately represents the community, and dissolve. without first offering to help are whiners. Russ, unless you are interested in reading, and responding to, my own response to your accusations, please do not make them. You have already demonstrated your opinion that, in order to *not* be a whiner, I must show that my interest ALL ALONG was in changing the OSI - in short, that I was whining to affect change - and that if I continue to hold the opinion I stated, that I *am* a whiner. Consequently, I would rather not play by your definition of whiner. -- Matthew Weigel Research Systems Programmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] ne [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: The Invisible Hand
On Sun, 30 Sep 2001, Martin Konold wrote: According to RMS the only way to become free software aka GPL compatible is either to have it GPL licensed or allow for conversion/relicensing to GPL. This is factually incorrect. RMS does not require free software to be GPL compatible. As he frequently says, it is his opinion that being GPL compatible should be a goal of free software license writers because of the wealth of software under the GPL (a situation he worked hard to engineer, granted). If you were to look at the FSF web page on the topic, you'd see GPL-Compatible Free Softare Licenses and GPL-Incompatible Free Software Licenses. -- Matthew Weigel Research Systems Programmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] ne [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: The Invisible Hand
On Sun, 30 Sep 2001, Russell Nelson wrote: No, the argument is that proprietary software is immoral and unethical. Sorry, I did not intend to make expansive arguments about the sum total of motivations. I was specifically referring to the idea that software licenses should not restrict us from sharing, and being a part of our community, with the software. I certainly did not mean social in the same way that going to a club, drinking, and dancing is social. No, not solely. Yes, we argue that it is technically superior, but the main thrust of our argument is that it is a more appropriate choice for all software producers but those people extracting monopoly profits from retaining a restrictive copyright. More appropriate on technical and pragmatic grounds, if I've read the essays right :) There's another possibility: that RMS pulled his objection to the APSL out of thin air, and that it doesn't have anything to do with free software. I don't agree. I think that there are problems with it. Then again, I'm not convinced the QPL should be a free software license. See, the problem here is that in order to be truthful, you have to say free software licenses according to the FSF. I'm sorry, I thought I was perfectly clear in delineating open source as according to the OSI, and free software as according to the FSF. I suppose the OSI is now a better judge of free software? And that means what RMS thinks. I think there is more to free software than what RMS says, particularly when RMS says that free software imposes a requirement to allow users to retain certain specific types of privacy, but require them to give up other types of privacy. I'd be interested in hearing about this (possibly privately). I've tried to talk to RMS about this, but he dismisses my objections as frivolous. Interesting. My experience has been that RMS responds to criticism with an open mind, an interest in resolving conflicts, and a speed not seen in other fora. He has taken my criticisms to heart, and never felt the need to call me a whiner. -- Matthew Weigel Research Systems Programmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] ne [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: The Invisible Hand
On Sat, 29 Sep 2001, David Johnson wrote: You're not seeing the forest through the trees. The invisible hand is the forest. No, I'm seeing hills, and you're calling it a forest. The FSF and OSI distance themselves from one another politically, and advocates of one over another disagree, but NO ONE says the things you are ascribing to them. The point of my post was that no matter how hard you try to do the socially right thing, you end up being pragmatic, and no matter how hard you try to be practical, you end up helping the community. It just so happens that the people involved with the OSI are *motivated* by the social/ethical concerns, but try to present the pragmatic issues in order to convince people. They are not trying to be pragmatic, they are simply accepting that other people are (and trying to speak to their concerns). Once a developer has bought it, it really doesn't matter whether open source is *actually* pragmatic or not (as long as they don't pull it back out). If it happens to not be pragmatic for a particular developer, then NO, being pragmatic and being socially conscious do not have the same effect. -- Matthew Weigel Research Systems Programmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] ne [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: The Invisible Hand
On Fri, 28 Sep 2001, David Johnson wrote: back about people having their heads in the clouds. The pundits on both sides have stipulated a choice between morality and pragmatism. I can only disagree with this. RMS has never said that free software was unpragmatic, or that a pragmatic person would necessarily choose non-free software. The argument is that, pragmatic *or not*, free software is the answer on social grounds. The argument of the OSI is that free software is the answer on technical merits. The disagreement lies in the differences between FSF-free software and OSI-open source; surely, if they were the same, RMS would not argue that the free software and open source communities are different (he would still argue, I'm sure, that the OSI trivializes what he considers the most important aspects). Certainly, there are OSD-compliant licenses which are not free software licenses according to the FSF - accordingly, claiming that pragmatic open source is every bit as free, and social free software is every bit as pragmatic, can not be supported. -- Matthew Weigel Research Systems Programmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] ne [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Section 2 source distribution terms (was Re: GPL vs APSL (was:YAPL is bad))
On Wed, 26 Sep 2001, Russell Nelson wrote: Of course, a big problem with the OSD is that it talks about legal requirements, and yet was not touched by a lawyer before being cast into stone. Any kind of extensive rewrite probably ought to be done by people with actual experience with the law, as opposed to dilettantes like you and I. IMO, either rewrite it trying to be more clear, or rewrite it trying to cover all of the bases legally. Again, IMO, writing it to be more clear, and relying upon the common sense of the OSI, seems reasonable. -- Matthew Weigel Research Systems Programmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] ne [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: click, click, boom
On Tue, 25 Sep 2001, Rick Moen wrote: The DFSG (and thus the OSD) were indeed abstracted out from several popular licences (if I remember accounts by Bruce P.). As adopted by I'd like to restate this. Prior to the formation of the OSI, the free software community was an open, friendly place oriented towards sharing and being friendly. The founders of the OSI were from that community, and were trying to foster that community in new ways. While nitpicking the particulars of the OSD and the OSI is a reasonable pastime amongst perfectionists, it must also be kept in mind that the OSD is an attempt to encapsulate an idea, that sharing is good, in a friendly and open manner. The intent was never, as far as I can reckon, to create an ironclad definition that could be upheld in courts without the participation of the community; I think the intent was always to make it clear to the reader what the idea behind open source was. Simply, the BSD/MIT license is approved because it adequately encapsulates the idea behind open source. Given that, there can be no argument whether the BSD/MIT license belongs - if the OSD suggests that it doesn't (and this is Greg's interpretation but quite a few people disagree with him), then throw the OSD out, because the license, better than the definition, encapsulates the ideas behind open source. -- Matthew Weigel Research Systems Programmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] ne [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
GPL v. NDA (was Re: YAPL is bad)
On Mon, 24 Sep 2001, Greg London wrote: the GPL and NDA's are orthogonal. or, at the very least, they are non-conflicting restrictions. Wrong. The particular problem is You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. I still think it's OK depending upon the definition of distribute, as Karsten elaborated. The GPL says 'whoever gets a binary must get the source. it does not restrict *who* can recieve a distribution. It does restrict any redistribution of modified code must be GPL as well, but that is orthogonal to a NDA restriction. I'm reasonably sure that an NDA would qualify as further restrictions on the rights granted by the GPL. This would suggest that, according to at least some interpretations, if a company were working on extensions to a GPL'd product that was (currently, before release) under an NDA, its employees couldn't work on that (extended version of the) software on their own time - because it would constitute distribution, which would kick in the application of the GPL, which would require that no additional restrictions be placed upon the rights given by the GPL. A NDA says who can recieve a company's source code. i.e. who can recieve a distrubution or corporate owned software. No, it doesn't actually. It restricts to whom you can distribute a copy, not who can have a copy. This is an important distinction in terms of who can get sued. The OSD prohibits discrimination against people and groups. A NDA is exactly discrimination against anyone who is not an employee. But NDAs are not software licenses, they are contracts. You certainly can't distribute open source software that is under an NDA, but that's a no-brainer. -- Matthew Weigel Research Systems Programmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] ne [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: OSD #2 (was Re: GPL vs APSL (was: YAPL is bad))
On Tue, 25 Sep 2001, Greg London wrote: is it possible to take GPL'ed code, modify it, relicense it under a proprietary license, and distribute it only in binary form? my understanding is it is not possible. but MIT'ed code would allow this. Irrelevant. Is it possible to take APSL'ed code, modify it, and not provide Apple with information on your changes? My understanding is it is not possible. But MIT'ed code would allow this. The 'bar' to meet GPL is pretty high. The bar to satisfy the MIT license is on the ground. The OSD is somewhere in between. No. First, understand that the OSI certifies *software*, in part because of the license under which it is distributed, and in part based upon what is distributed. So, as Bruce indicated, if software is made available under the BSD license and includes source code, it is OSI approved. If not, then not. OSD #2 applies to the software, and not the license. one can argue about RMS's definition of free software, but his implementation (the GPL license) set the bar a LOT higher than MIT. So? One could also argue that RMS's definition is moot to OSI, since OSI has it's own definition to follow. No, even working from the FSF definition, the BSD/MIT license is free. and to change the OSD to exclude them would be a travesty. travesty smavesty. I'm not saying exclude GPL. Never did. Please read what he wrote - excluding the BSD or MIT licenses would be a travesty. I am saying the MIT license does not meet OSD #2. That's correct. Because, strictly speaking, #2 applies to software, and not licenses. A license may preemptively *require* #2 to be met, but it need not - so long as it is met. Since OSD #2 says the program MUST include source code There is nothing in the MIT license to guarantee OSD#2, so it fails to meet the definition. Go back to the part you had so much difficulty with before - the OSI approves software, based in part upon software licenses. It certifies licenses as being compatible with the OSD. And OSD#2 requires this, because it uses the word MUST. I didn't put it there, OSI did. So, were you to distribute a derivative of a BSD kernel in binary form without source, you would not be distributing free software (unless you let people know where they could get the source). It isn't about it being a travesty. It's about whether or not OSI followed its own definition. No, it's a question of reading comprehension. The OSD does not require the license must guarantee access in source code form, the license must provide a public location from which to download the source, etc. It says the software must either include source, or have a well-publicized location from which to get source. Now, if you wanted the source to the FreeBSD kernel, included in binary form on your installation floppy... you know where to get it- www.freebsd.org. If OSI certification gives absolutely no guarantees about code licensed with an OSI approved license, then OSI is moot. Disregarding my own opinions on this, your analysis and the logic that leads to your conclusion are founded upon a misunderstanding. I also think that the OSD contributes to this misunderstanding - I think the wording of the introduction should be rewritten to not suggest the distribution terms have to meet the OSD, but the distribution terms or the distribution itself. -- Matthew Weigel Research Systems Programmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] ne [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: YAPL is bad (was: Re: Backlog assistance?)
On Mon, 24 Sep 2001, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: This leads to a GPL-related issue which is not clear to me: can redistribution of GPL code be constrained by an employment agreement? Well, that brings up the question of whether sharing within a corporation qualfies as distribution, a question which I can't recall being answered (although it could just be my memory failing). -- Matthew Weigel Research Systems Programmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] ne [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: RealNetworks' RTSP Proxy License
On Fri, 7 Sep 2001, Jeffry Smith wrote: OK, not being a lawyer, I may not have the full grasp, but from my one term of Business Law, I don't see how a license is enforceable EXCEPT under contract law. Nothing in Copyright Law specifies the Licenses (at least what I've read of the 1976 law and the DMCA), only what the default rights of the parties are. I don't mean to make specific factual legal claims, but I was under the impression that a license is a grant of rights. Copyright law specifies default rights of all parties, and - importantly - the ability for the various parties to grant rights they hold to other parties. For instance, it makes little sense that there must be a contract for a copyright holder to grant any user the right to copy and distribute their publication (I've seen stuff like this from some of the lovely street-side preachers here in town, who *really* want to get their message out). It seems to also make sense that such grants could be subject to restrictions, i.e., only granting a 'part' of the right. It further seems reasonable that this freeform grant of rights would have developed its own body of law, and come to be known as licenses whether copyright law actively addresses it or not. However, this is definitely beyond me, and I am hoping to be corrected (at least on my grossest errors). -- Matthew Weigel Research Systems Programmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] ne [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: W3C license
On Wed, 5 Sep 2001, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: This has the beneficial effect of making it harder to create Yet Another open source license. I agree with keeping the number of essentially identical licences to a minimum. I do *not* agree with accomplishing that by discouraging people from trying. To address that statement in particular, it was reducing the workload placed uon the volunteers of the OSI that had this particular benefit. Realistically, paring down the number of submissions is as necessary as paring down the number of approvals. The only way to pare down the number of submissions is, you guessed it, getting fewer people to do so. Presumably, a license which does something new and interesting will either a) have someone who already put in the time to develop this new and different license, and is clearly motivated, or b) get a tenacious third party sufficiently interested to do the work. -- Matthew Weigel Research Systems Programmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] ne [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: newsforge story
On Wed, 5 Sep 2001, Joseph Reagle wrote: On Wednesday 05 September 2001 15:03, M. Drew Streib wrote: For those that haven't seen, NewsForge is carrying a none-to-flattering story of the discussion on this list these past couple of weeks: http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=01/09/04/1615251 Yes, it's weird when people do reporting by quoting folks in an email thread: some things are a little off. I agree. I wish they had, rather than using a single quote from the mailing list, use the list as a guide for the people to whom they should direct questions, and what questions to ask. First, it appears that Russ was contacted regarding the article, but those who were actually quoted (such as myself) were not. For instance, when it is said speculation that Rosen was making all the decisions for OSI behind the scenes, it was apparently not clear that I later - and before Larry responded - corrected that speculation. I made that speculation before I saw Michael Tiemann's brief discussion of how the OSI works - and I stopped speculating that when I did see it. As another, it looks like there is some significant lag between article research and publication, because last I heard Daniel MD *didn't* want anything licensed under his proposed license. C. http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=01/09/04/1615251 Another post in support of certification of the W3C license asked the board why it had not been listed. Actions the W3C would apparently like to take -- including hosting Amaya on sourceforge.net -- depend upon this approval, which has been pending for over a year. This is an uncited (by Newsforge) excerpt from Matthew Weigel [0]. No, it was cited - it was a two-paragraph quote with the cite at the end. And it looks like I was wrong. It's been so long since the W3C license was discussed, that I forgot. I kinda wish they'd verified that with someone from the W3C. Better I look like a fool than my words be given more weight than they deserve. upon the OSI list as a white list, they're willing to accept other projects at their discretion; they've kindly accomodated HTML Tidy under the W3C software license. This, at least, was addressed by the article. -- Matthew Weigel Research Systems Programmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] ne [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: W3C license
On Wed, 5 Sep 2001, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: Given the current process, that is most likely true. But since I do not believe the current process is as good as it could be, I do not consider that truth to be an absolute one. Neither do I. Possible improvement #1: if the load is too much for the current volunteer base.. get more volunteers. This has been said many times, by myself and others. We can't make them pull more people in. Um, judging from the threads of the last fortnight, that just ain't happening with the current model. Sure it is, to the extent that much of anything is happening with the current model. More volunteers would help, but keeping the work load down for however many volunteers they do have is still valuable. I think we agree on everything but the value of trying to get the current process more effective over doing a complete overhaul. -- Matthew Weigel Research Systems Programmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] ne [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: W3C license
On Wed, 5 Sep 2001, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: I think we agree on everything but the value of trying to get the current process more effective over doing a complete overhaul. Okey, I can go along with that. :-) To clarify my statements (I didn't expect agreement or I wouldn't have said it! :), I think that the OSI should first improve their process so that *something* can be done, and second move away from their current process. If they try to overhaul while *still* trying to work with the current process, we'll see something worse as a result. -- Matthew Weigel Research Systems Programmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] ne [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
RE: License backlog - OSI is making itself irrellevant
On Fri, 31 Aug 2001, Matthew C. Weigel wrote: I think it comes down to control. It looks to me like, at this point, Larry Rosen is making all of the decisions about approvals, because Hmm. OK, I'm wrong. -- Matthew Weigel Research Systems Programmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] ne [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
W3C license
Why is this license (http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/ipr-notice-2612) not listed on the OSI list of approved licenses (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/)? Actions the W3C would apparently like to take - including hosting Amaya on sourceforge.net - depend upon this approval, which has been pending for over a year. Although I have no stake in this license, it seems it should be a higher priority and easier decision than some of the other licenses recently approved, since they actually need the approval to continue with some of their plans. -- Matthew Weigel Research Systems Programmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] ne [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: W3C license
On Thu, 30 Aug 2001, David Johnson wrote: The page you referenced is not the page containing the software license. This is a better link: http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/copyright-software-19980720 Thanks. As to why it has not yet been approved, I couldn't tell you. I understand that it is in the queue and being actively considered. I see onthing in the license that would prevent its approval, as it is a straight forward variation of the BSD and MIT licenses. Yes, that's the point. Russ got onto me awhile back for complaining about the OSI not listening, without sending mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] So, I sent a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the complaint that they have, for the past I think two years, managed to not see on license-discuss. There is no reason to think it is in the queue because it was never actually listed as being in the queue; they are, for wont of a better explanation, ignoring it. -- Matthew Weigel Research Systems Programmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] ne [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: W3C license
On Thu, 30 Aug 2001, Russell Nelson wrote: Hey, when did you do that? 25 April 2001. Why didn't you tell me?? Because if you don't bother asking us how the license approval is going, you obviously don't care. If you don't care, we don't care. http://www.mail-archive.com/license-discuss@opensource.org/msg03417.html Apparently, Joseph was under the horribly mistaken impression that mailing to license-discuss was an appropriate way to find this out. Last September, it was discussed in response to Lawrence Rosen's posting to the list - it was pretty clear that Joseph was asking for help on getting his license approved. No one from the OSI responded. Again this past June. No one responded, except yours truly, and I recommended contacting [EMAIL PROTECTED] (a position that we later found out was vacant at the time). Don't get your panties in a knot over what *we're* doing wrong. Try making it clear how to do it right. http://www.opensource.org/docs/certification_mark.html#approval certainly doesn't reflect this, and - gasp - it was updated 5 days after this grand policy change. Do your statements here suggest that anything that we actually want people in the OSI to see should go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]? Since Joseph Reagle has apparently been too lazy to be worth your attention, I'll forward your message to him. -- Matthew Weigel Research Systems Programmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] ne [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: documentation
On Wednesday, August 29, 2001, at 06:26 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have to see that it's a matter of opinion. OSI Certification Mark applies only to software packages. Doesn't say anything that OSI only cares about software full stop. I guess we're reading it differently - dedicated to . . . the OSD, specifically through the . . . certification mark. . . . I have to say he seems to have misconceptions about simple copyright statements and more complex licenses (IANAL) - however, you reacted in entirely the wrong way, repeating yourself rather than refuting his new points correctly. Then please, help me out - since he apparently thinks I started mudslinging, and is ignoring me, say how *you* think he's wrong. All I can think of to say is, it's obvious upon examination that licenses are not themselves free. I think you took things too personally. You should've looked at his reasoning, seen it was wrong, and corrected it. I tried. Hypocrite is one of the few things I take seriously - and its use was not warranted. Not for me, and not for the entire group of license-discuss participants. If he'd called me a sicko communist pig-spanker, I'd be all sweetness and light. As for his reasoning, I once again enjoin you to address its problems. Secondly, the OSI does not specify that only software *licenses* are covered, merely that they only certify software products. You are reading into that in a possibly incorrect way. It says open-source software must. There is nothing to make anyone think that open-source documentation must or should pay any attention to it. While I don't think it's intended to specifically exclude documentation, I think it *is* intended to specifically address software. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: documentation
On Wednesday, August 29, 2001, at 06:36 AM, Linux From Scratch is not a standard... are you confusing it with the FHS? Hmm. Yes. I've never heard of Linux From Scratch. I take it back. I took inspiration from the FDL in terms of invariant sections, but they can't be useful ones in the FDL. If you want to see what I mean I will send you a copy or link to the sLODL. That goes for anyone. Sure. The same OSD can cover it, I feel (as do otehrs, it would seem). After all, it's the OSD, not the OSSD. It started life as the Debian Free Software Guidelines. It was never put through any consideration for covering the slightly different world of documentation. It is ill-considered to tack on new duties. The point of documentation is to be read. If it requires building, it needs to be built before the reader gets to it. Good point (for most readers) - but I'm sure there are some unfriendly peeps out there. Errr... peeps? Surely marshmallow cremes aren't too unfriendly... True. I said patching isn't necessarily a good idea previously. Obviously, I think it's worse than not just a good idea for documentation. He's already stated he's going to distribute it in Word format or PDF - how do you patch those, anyways? with diff and patch, like anything else. They do work on binary files you know (although the diffs are unreadable). *In Windows*? What about MacOS? As much as you are to decide his neeeds *will* be served here. With groups like the LDP and FSF working on free documentation, I think it's at least obvious there are *better* venues. I'm not saying the needs *will* be served here. I am saying they objectively *may* be served, and IMO *should* be served. I do not say will/won't/should/shouldn't absolutely and objectively. And some people don't much like FSF, and LDP assumes the use of their license statement. The LDP does not assume the use of their license statement. They specify a set of requirements which must be met for distribution, and offer their default boilerplate as an example. Having spent more time thinking about these issues, and having a clear purpose to develop unaffiliated documentation, they are probably more appropriate. There is, as I have said, a case to be made for getting the OSI to look into documentation. It can not be made by him, with the arguments he has tried so far. There's a clear and present need to address the W3C software license. Fair enough. What about all the other software licenses pending? Could we have a list again please someone, it seems to have been a while... None of the other licenses have been waiting, what was it at last count, 13 months? None of the other licenses have already long ago received approval from the FSF as free software licenses, indicating that - since they're more restrictive - there should be no problems approving it here. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
RE: documentation
On Wed, 29 Aug 2001, SamBC wrote: It started life as the Debian Free Software Guidelines. It was never put through any consideration for covering the slightly different world of documentation. It is ill-considered to tack on new duties. Point me at the bits which make a problem, aside from cases of obvious intelligent reinterpretation... How about the title? I'm not saying that the general principles don't apply to free documentation - I'm saying that the exact set of trade-offs, made with an eye towards bringing the principles into the real world, were developed specifically for the 'real world' of software. Therefore, the principles behind the FSG and OSD still apply, but the FSG and OSD themselves do not. You can certainly hold documentation to them, but that was not their intent. For instance, would 4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code (either one) mean that you could distribute modified PDFs of a patch-only document (since PDF is definitely not the form of choice for editing documents, and should probably qualify for being a binary), but not TeX? What about HTML - should it be considered a binary form that you can distribute modified, or a source form that you can restrict to patches-only? Good point (for most readers) - but I'm sure there are some unfriendly peeps out there. Errr... peeps? Surely marshmallow cremes aren't too unfriendly... peeps = people. An irritating shortening I picked up somewhere a while back. Then I guess I don't understand what you're saying. *In Windows*? What about MacOS? No reason diff shouldn't still work. A lot of gnu stuff has been ported, and note mingw and cygwin, if people really want. But here we're debating technicalities, as we agree in principle that patches aren't good for docs. Yes. If we started with the assumption that printout was the final output, akin to binary executables, they would be fine - you'd download the source in, for example, TeX, apply the patches included with your version of the software, and print it out. But, most documentation is now viewed online, in 'raw' formats like HTML or nroff. What's more, you have - between HTML, man2html.cgi, and PDF plugins - the ability and motivation to distribute modified documents willy nilly. Presumably changed since I last looked. It was a while ago, but they said 'click here for license information for all LDP docs' or something equivalent... See 5. License Requirements at www.linuxdoc.org/manifesto.html. I agree this is pathetic, especially with the standing of W3C online... but what can we do? There's a slim chance someone in the OSI is reading this, or your responses to it (at least the new webmaster hasn't killfiled me). Perhaps someone can explain why it *hasn't* been approved? Shouldn't it be a priority, so that the much-respected W3C can get a spot on sourceforge.net? -- Matthew Weigel Research Systems Programmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] ne [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
RE: documentation
On Tue, 28 Aug 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [would you mind wrapping your lines?] Not as a primary topic of discussion, no. Unaffiliated documentation suffers from bitrot at a much higher rate than affiliated documentation (and how often do you find out-of-date man pages in Linux?). accepted as true, but not necessarily universal or true (LFS being a good example) The LFS isn't documentation, it's a document trying to suggest a standard. But really, unaffiliated documentation suffers higher bitrot - if you keep up, it's because you're working harder. Goodness, I didn't realize it was controversial - it's God's own truth to the technical writers I know. And in some cases documentation may be distributed as, say, SGML, to be built into a more readable form by the user. And I would say that's not correct either. Further, a good way to implement patch-style updates for docs is used on my sLODL, and in the GNU FDL to a certain extent (last I checked). Looking at the GNU FDL, I'm not seeing what you mean. No-modify licenses simply aren't free or open. but modify with patches is. For software. We don't have an OSD for documentation licenses. The point of documentation is to be read. If it requires building, it needs to be built before the reader gets to it. How do you let someone browsing in IE from work read your derivative work? They can't simply patch the provided documentation from within the browser, getting a seamless view of the new work. You can't patch it for them, and distribute it via HTTP. He's already stated he's going to distribute it in Word format or PDF - how do you patch those, anyways? I provided two suggestions - but I still don't think his needs will be served by us. and you are in a position to make that judgement? As much as you are to decide his neeeds *will* be served here. With groups like the LDP and FSF working on free documentation, I think it's at least obvious there are *better* venues. this is a list to discuss licensing, why not? I think they woule serve a more clear and present need purpose than a glut of software licenses... There's a clear and present need to address the W3C software license. -- Matthew Weigel Research Systems Programmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] ne [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
RE: documentation
On Mon, 27 Aug 2001, SamBC wrote: Yes. And it's that subset that is of interest to the Free SOFTWARE and Open Source SOFTWARE community. Not the set of documents specifically outside that subset. Is it not plausible, though, that some documentation is outside a piece of software and yet still of interest to the Open Source software community? Not as a primary topic of discussion, no. Unaffiliated documentation suffers from bitrot at a much higher rate than affiliated documentation (and how often do you find out-of-date man pages in Linux?). Like linuxdocs, there is much documentation like HOWTOs outside of software projects. And, for the most part, they document how the software used to be. True. Which is why people like RMS hold the opinion that the documentation is part of the software, to be held under the same license, or a similar license. But some documentation is outside software, which FSF seem to recognise in their (not very good IMHO) FDL. Yeah, but the main drive and interest is affiliated software. You've got the source, why don't you know how to use it? ;-) I would assume this is a joke, but I'll refute it anyway. 1) Source can be quite difficult to interpret 2) Not everyone is that capable. Then why does open source matter? to make it pretty clear anyways. The software should be the documentation, but not in a bad way. No, no no! Software *always* needs documentation. See my reference about literate programming. And I do agree - I've already indicated that I think documentation should be part of the project. I am currently employed as a programmer, and my code will be left when I finish this job for others to maintain. So it needs to be clear. I need documentation on two levels as well as this to make it clear as glass - for developers, and for users. Documentation other than the source will *always* be needed. And should you be the one to write the documentation, or a third party? How would that be open source, if people can't modify it? More specifically, why would the OSI or the FSF care about it, if it's contrary to their goals? Well, the QPL was approved by OSI wasn't it? There's a significant difference between being able to distribute pristine source+patches versus pristine documentation+patches. One would normally expect to have to build source. What if they hack Perl up, and distribute their own version. Obviously they want to help people out by giving away documentation as well, but now their version can't be as well documented as the pristine version of Perl without a lot of extra effort on their part (or a little non-obviousness for the reader). True, but aside from the point. Not in the least aside from the point! This is why the software and documentation needs to be licensed together - so that any changes you can make to the code, you can reflect in documentation. No-modify licenses simply aren't free or open. I agree with the arguments of the previous poster - I will not post them again. I provided two suggestions - but I still don't think his needs will be served by us. I suggest documentation licenses (for standalone documentation outside of a piece of software) are vital, with a similar level of variety to the range of software licenses. They should be separate to deal with these specific issues. They would be useful, but I don't think that they are vital, nor relevant here. -- Matthew Weigel Research Systems Programmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] ne [EMAIL PROTECTED]
re: documentation
On Mon, 27 Aug 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You've got the source, why don't you know how to use it? ;-) a dismissive statement, hiding behind backhanded humor. That's right. Dismissive of the attitude that the software itself should not provide adequate documentation. You've apparently written a book on Perl, so why not roll this document of yours into the Perl distribution? Improve the man pages. I run a perl training, part time, where I work. Everyone in my class wants to learn perl. why did they bother coming to me when they could just read the source code and figure it out for themselves? Obviously, because teachers are a helpful learning tool. How would that be open source, if people can't modify it? More specifically, why would the OSI or the FSF care about it, if it's contrary to their goals? I find it interesting, almost like I've stepped into a world of group-self-deception, bordering on hypocricy, that GPL as a document is licensed as copy/distribute/no-modify. But every response (so far at least) to a request for a license that codifies copy/distribute/no-modify has dismissed the request. Great, someone else who's going to save open source from the people who understand it. Why are people so enchanted with the name open source that they want to attach it to whatever they do? First, I dismissed the relevance of your request - but I still provided some helpful suggestions. What you need isn't open source, deal with it. The responses so far regarding a copy/distribute/no-modify license have said that such a license would: 1) not be open source Well, I was more interested in pushing the not be open source software angle. But yeah, it's not open. 2) not further OSI's commitment to open-source That's right. Most of us also agree that translating all software documentation into Latin doesn't further the OSI's commitment to open source. 3) have no value to the rest of the world It might have value. I still get people who think that the Newbie Guide is useful (except for this little thing, would you mind changing it?). 4) would condemn it's document to instant out-of-dateness. Not instant. But it would be condemned. It is the official stance of the OSI that restricting yourself to a single vendor for a product through things such as no-modify clauses leads to undue reliance on the health and interest of that vendor (in this case, you). Yet, the GPL license, as a document itself, licensed as copy/distribute/no-modify, is: A) considered the granddaddy of all open-source movements B) at teh top of OSI's list of open source licenses C) widely by programmers to license their software D) up-to-date, and was even released with a new version number You're only fooling yourselves if you assert 1-4, since I've seen the evidence to the contrary in A-D. What can I say here but you're being obtuse? Here's an interesting point: the GPL ain't software. Delve into the issue, a little bit, and you'll figure this one out - hell, you've apparently figured out perl. So, I'm calling you on your conjuring trick. You wave your hands and say yeah, but that part's different. Do some thinking and you'll agree. Here's a first step: how does one preserve the right to modify the software in the license, if the license itself can change? A General Public License (GPL) that says copy/distribute/modify and a General Document License (GDL) that says copy/distribute/no-modify. I'm telling you that Open-Source ALREADY embraces both, since GPL is licensed under GDL. It's not a big deal. Get a clue. The GPL is not documentation, any more than it is software. No one ever argued that the GPL is free software. It's good enough for GPL to use the GDL, so it's good enough for me. What a maroon. What you need is not open source. What you need is (C) Greg London. The right to distribute copies of this work including this copyright notice, whole and without modification, is granted provided no fee is charged. No other rights are granted. What you want is to be able to attach the OSI service mark to your document. People in Hell want icewater. -- Matthew Weigel Research Systems Programmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] ne [EMAIL PROTECTED]
re: documentation
On Mon, 27 Aug 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Because there is currently no OSI approved license that says copy/distribute/no-modify. yet the defition appears to support one. I've addressed this. There's a significant difference between being able to distribute pristine source+patches versus pristine documentation+patches. One would normally expect to have to build source. I offered the opinion that pristine source ruins usability for documents much more than for software, and thus should not be covered. Keep in mind you're trying to apply guidelines for software to a non-software document. There are some changes. Great, someone else who's going to save open source from the people who understand it. Why are people so enchanted with the name open source that they want to attach it to whatever they do? misdirection and drama. I'm not out to save anyone. What do you call a rant about how hypochritical us poor license-discuss folks are, ignoring virtually everything I said? If you're not out to save us, then you're just trying to show how smart you are. Oops. My original email stated that I'm looking for a license based on the OSI definition prohibiting item #3 (derived works) by allowing #4 (patches). And my original email stated that you needed to go somewhere else. I'm not breaking the definition of Open Source. Your problem isn't even *relevant* to open source software! there simply isn't a license currently approved that does what I'm looking for. But my request was within OSI's own definition. From the OSD: }The distribution terms of open-source software must comply with the }following criteria: What software are you planning on distributing? If I am misunderstanding item #4 in the Definition, then perhaps there is no way to do what I want to do with an OSI approvable license. You misunderstood the preamble. if so, I'll move on. Then do so. Look to projects that are putting an effort into this, like the FSF or LDP. it was a relavent question. no need for flames. Do you still have copy of all the messages I sent, and the messages you wrote responding to them? Honestly, I tried to be helpful and point out that your problem isn't addressed by the OSI. : 4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code : The license may restrict source-code from being : distributed in modified form only if the license : allows the distribution of patch files with : the source code for the purpose of modifying : the program at build time. Unless, of course, you're waving your fists in the air about something that isn't part of the Open Source Initiative's commitment. Are you speaking for OSI, or for yourself? No, I don't speak for the OSI. Are you speaking your own agenda here rather than OSI's? If so, I'll politely ignore you henceforth. My agenda here is to move you out of the way so that more relevant things can be discussed, or I can get back to work. Which is to say, my agenda is to get on with the OSI's agenda. Yet, the GPL license, as a document itself, licensed as copy/distribute/no-modify, is: What can I say here but you're being obtuse? Here's an interesting point: the GPL ain't software. I was attempting to be very explicit. I understand the GPL isn't software. and I noticed the GPL isn't licensed under a software style license. it's licensed under a document style license. Good for you. You're right. And you're wrong. Its copyright notice is the type reserved for licenses themselves. Licenses don't change when people make derivative works. Documentation does. yes, there are times where it makes sense to license a piece of text as 'no-modify'. yes, exactly. yes, that's exactly the kind of license I'm looking for. I never said that there weren't times no modify was good. If I were to make my public key available, I sure as hell wouldn't want someone changing it. But a PGP key ain't documentation. Get a clue. The GPL is not documentation, any more than it is software. No one ever argued that the GPL is free software. its not software, and its not a document? It's not documentation. And no, it's not software. Never said it wasn't a document. you cannot put the GPL license in some meta-world where the rules do not apply. Actually, I can. The GPL is a document that is copyrighted by FSF and licensed under a copy/distribute/no-modify license. It does not merit special protection from the rest of the world. Yes, it does. It's good enough for GPL to use the GDL, so it's good enough for me. What a maroon. ah, name-calling, a new low. I must ask if you're representing OSI, or are these your own opinions? Why would you assume that I represent OSI? Because I quote and paraphrase text from their website? And what makes you think me calling you a name started this? OSI's home page starts out with this commitment: :Open Source Initiative (OSI) is a non-profit corporation dedicated to :managing and promoting the Open
re: documentation
On Mon, 27 Aug 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Which got me wondering. Exactly what world do you live in that software is NOT considered a document, controlled by copyright law? The world where software is covered as much by patent law, trade secret law Where I'm from it's a legal fact, and there is no opinion in the matter. There is always an opinion - should software methods be patentable, or does the DMCA appropriately represent the well-accepted cost/benefit analysis of copyright? -- Matthew Weigel Research Systems Programmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] ne [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: X.Net, Inc. License
On Sun, 5 Aug 2001, Russell Nelson wrote: Karsten M. Self writes: I'm assuming that markup isn't a legal part of the license -- and would strongly encourage submissions be made as plaintext, not HTML-tagged content. If you got a Word .doc file, would you also assume that the markup isn't a legal part of the license? What would be an example? The popular oops we didn't mean to include old revisions that make disparaging remarks kind of markup? I'd think that it's what prints out that counts. Is asking submissions to be in plaintext unacceptable? Nope. They want to specify jurisdiction, because they've had a problem in the past with jurisdictions which aren't friendly to open source. They didn't specify which one it was. My opinion is that MIT License with specified jurisdiction should be approved, as this seems like a valid concern. -- Matthew Weigel Research Systems Programmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] ne [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: approved licenses web page not being updated
On Wed, 1 Aug 2001, Russell Nelson wrote: Matthew C. Weigel writes: At this point, I think the OSI needs to apologize to the wider community for wasting everyone's time, say that the FSF adequately represents the community, and dissolve. The FSF may not handle things to everyone's satisfaction, but at least they handle things, and LISTEN to the community while doing so. You have never sent email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] It's hard to listen to people who never speak. I notice that you are listening now. If now, why not before[1] when this topic came up? To answer your question, I would assume that George Hunka ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) has the ability to make changes. George has moved on. I assume that you are volunteering (since you obviously have the time to complain). I'll email you the necessary passwords and login information off-list. Any further complaints about web pages not being updated may be sent to Matthew. Just out of curiosity, had George already moved on the last time I mentioned his name on the list, June 26 [2]? Did he move on only in the last week or two, which might explain why no public request for a new webmaster has been made? And, obviously you didn't understand what I said: I think the OSI should apologize for wasting everyone's time, and disband. And yet, no matter how hard it is for them, they still manage to update the list with licenses that never saw the light of day on the list. It is not just the webmaster not updating the license list online, it is approving licenses that license-discuss never saw, and not approving licenses without discussion on license-discuss. It is my opinion that keeping the online list up-to-date might help encourage the OSI to keep everything above board, but for that to matter, the OSI has to matter. And I don't think it does, anymore. If you still want me to handle the website, I'll do it. It will be with some sadness that I draft the apology to the community, though. [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/license-discuss@opensource.org/msg03293.html [2] http://www.mail-archive.com/license-discuss@opensource.org/msg03418.html -- Matthew Weigel Research Systems Programmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] ne [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: approved licenses web page not being updated
On Wed, 1 Aug 2001, David Johnson wrote: Back when I joined this list, it was my impression that it was only for unofficial public discussion of licenses, and *not* meant to be any part of an approval process. My assumption at that time, which still holds, is that the OSI board has their own discussions during the approval phase. According to the website, it is to review submitted licenses. Regardless, one would think that making known whether a license had made it or not would be reasonable, once a decision had been made. How else are they accountable to the community they purport to represent, than by making their actions known? -- Matthew Weigel Research Systems Programmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] ne [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: license submission: qmail
On Thu, 7 Jun 2001, Brian Behlendorf wrote: 4. The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in modified form only if the license allows the distribution of patch files with the source code for the purpose of modifying the program at build time. The license must explicitly permit distribution of software built from modified source code. The license may require derived works to carry a different name or version number from the original software. I think this is a flaw in the OSD - what it means is that those authors who place their software under such a license effective make forking impossible. Why? Because a project aimed at building a derivative work may not have a shared code tree, making collaboration impractical enough to effectively prevent a fork. Automate patch, and you have a shared source tree. There is no technical limitation to forking, there is simply a higher cost attached to the technical possibility. This allows for pragmatic window-dressing and bug fixing by repackagers like Debian and other linux distributions, but it does not really provide for the same checks on power between developers that are really what open source is all about. I submit that checks on power is not the point of open source (or free software), but rather the freedom from legal culpability in sharing, and the removal of the most onerous restrictions that prevent forking. Most onerous restrictions would include things like running code through an obfuscator, distributing in pseudocode or assembly, etc. By this token, I hereby submit that qmail's license terms, at least as defined at http://cr.yp.to/qmail/dist.html, passes this clause, and the others in the OSD, based on one theory - that the requirement only if the license allows the distribution of patch files with the source code I think that ...software built from modified source code... implies *binaries* built from modified source code fairly clearly. Which is not allowed. is superfluous. Such a promise never needs to be made, because a potential redistributor *always* has the right to create and distribute patches (was it the Accolade case that established that?), and with is not well defined and could simply mean on the same CD or from the same website, though that's largely immaterial: I have the right to distribute patches to qmail - I even have the right to create a single tarball that includes the qmail tarball and my patchset. These are standard rights under copyright law - it's clearly a compilation, and not a derived work. I think it is relevant, given the way case law and the legislators are leaning now, to mention the need in the definition, though. It renders interpretations of copyright law by judges and juries irrelevant - open source software must allow at least distributing patches. The other terms of clause #4 are met by DJB's requirements on package builders that he states on that same page. The other clauses in the OSD are also not violated. Clause #3 would be in question, but #4 seems to allow exceptions to #3 - which seems to fly in the face of the rationale of #3: people need to be able to experiment with and redistribute modifications. People need to be able to distribute at least patches so that fellow hackers hacking the same piece of software can experiment, and people need to be able to distribute binaries of their hacks for people less inclined to compile themselves. Thus, I submit that either qmail's license be approved as an OSD-conformant license, or OSI consider whether clause #4 needs, er, clarification. It's hard to argue that neither is the case. I would, although I'm not against clarification. -- Matthew Weigel Research Systems Programmer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: license submission: qmail
On Thu, 7 Jun 2001, John Cowan wrote: So if you devise qmail patches, you can pass them to your friends. I wasn't contesting that in any way. I was contesting Brian's claim that passing around patches was not enough in the *spirit* of open source. I think that patches and binaries are enough. and people need to be able to distribute binaries of their hacks for people less inclined to compile themselves. I agree. But that's not what the OSD says. Well, I expressed my opinion: I think that ...software built from modified source code... implies *binaries* built from modified source code fairly clearly. Which is not allowed. That is, I think the distinction made is sufficiently clear for people who are not trying to avoid the obvious interpretation. Not that I'm arguing don't change it, just that I think Brian's interpretation is specious. -- Matthew Weigel Research Systems Programmer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: license submission: qmail
On Thu, 7 Jun 2001, Brian Behlendorf wrote: If you can point me at a vibrant open source community laboring under such conditions, I'll rest my case; however, I just don't see how it's possible. Why does it have to be 'vibrant'? All it needs are a few members in the community. Given the huge # of patches in the qmail community and the degree of overlap between them and the stability of the underlying pristine source (djb does somewhere around a release every two years), I'd expect to see it there, but I don't. Well, what do you mean by 'vibrant'? That people *make* patches, and that there are a huge number of patches, is a lot more 'vibrant' than some open source projects. I think that ...software built from modified source code... implies *binaries* built from modified source code fairly clearly. Which is not allowed. DJB allows for binaries of modified source to be created, if they meet a set of conditions. Which are incompatible. For instance, DJB makes quite clear that 'fair use' is insufficient for free (or open source) software, in http://cr.yp.to/softwarelaw.html - As long as you're not distributing the software Further, the 'set of conditions' boils down to his approval, which is contrary to open source - The license must explicitly permit distribution of software built from modified source code. The qmail license does NOT explicitly permit distribution of software built from modified source code. -- Matthew Weigel Research Systems Programmer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: license submission: qmail
On Thu, 7 Jun 2001, Brian Behlendorf wrote: Nope, read more closely at http://cr.yp.to/qmail/dist.html: Exception: You are permitted to distribute a precompiled var-qmail package if [...list of conditions...] The OSD doesn't state that there could be no conditions. That's semantic pussy-footing. The license must explicitly allow distribution, not explicitly disallow distribution except when certain conditions are met. There is no room in 'grant permission to distribute' for 'do not grant permission to distribute.' I think that page describes sufficiently how to create binaries of derivative works; it just doesn't allow source code releases of those derivative works, except as pristine source + patches. Kinda perverse that the OSD has this preferential treatment for binaries over source releases, IMHO... Kinda perverse that you so strongly insist on misreading the OSD. It's simple; allow distribution of binaries for people who don't want to hack, and provide something that those who want to hack, can hack. While people on Unix systems tend to take compilers for granted, they are not automatically on every platform. What would you do if every open source project that runs on Windows (including gcc) were only available in source form? Like I did a few months ago with the can-copyrights-enforce-standards question, I'm exploring the edge cases of the OSD with the intent of either finding models that accomplish goals that others not currently in the open source community have (to bring them in) or to force us to ask ourselves what Open Source really means, and whether the OSD matches that concept. It does, as long as you read what it says. Edge cases are fine; but these aren't edge cases, these are examples of how intentionally misreading sections of the OSD lead to different non-open source licenses. I'm not trying to be an ass about this, seriously. I just see licenses like Darren Reed's and DJB's, and see some healthy debate outside of this list and OSI as to whether such terms are Open Source or not, and see the opportunity for clarification. Re: IPF license. Darren has made two incompatible statements about his intents in writing the license, one of which is clearly incompatible with open source, and one of which is perfectly acceptable. Drawing any conclusions about his intent in writing the license, and hence the footing on which a person might find himself in a legal battle based on intent, is not firm. Re: qmail license. Where's the 'healthy debate' about whether or not it is open source? You're intentionally misreading the OSD to get discussion going, but I've never seen DJB, nor anyone who uses qmail, nor anyone who refuses to incorporate qmail into 'free or open source only' compilations, claim that qmail is open source. -- Matthew Weigel Research Systems Programmer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Open Source - Resources doubt
There are a few answers to your question. One is, if you look at www.opensource.org, we all have the same question - ...please send us URLs of articles and papers on commercial trials of the open source model Another is on the personal level. If you want to contribute to open source or free software, get a job and put some of your spare time into a project to which you have some attachment. As Eric Raymond is so fond of pointing out, it's a gift culture where future jobs depend upon your contributions today. Whether you're working as a sysadmin, a programmer for internal projects (last I heard, programming positions that don't involve writing code to be sold are in the majority), a commercial developer, or whatever, you can contribute. Demonstrating prowess publicly can help you get better jobs, which in turn might give you more leisure time to devote to the community. Strong enough examples of strong programming skills devoted to the community may even net you a job for an open source or free software company (saving you the sweat of figuring out the business model). Yet another answer is, try and find out. Some companies are doing OK with open source business models, and some aren't; look at case studies on why specific companies succeed, and why specific companies fail. Most open source companies lived and died by the dot-com explosion here in the US, and many of them exhibited the same lack of regard for the bottom line that most dot-com startups did. Yet some predate the dot-com explosion, and many of *those* postdate the dot-com implosion in some form or another (Cygnus, for example, is now just part of RedHat, which is probably a good sign of having 'succeeded'). There are no straight answers about successful open source endeavors - but that's business for you. -- Matthew Weigel Research Systems Programmer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License List -- as of 9-11-00
On Fri, 1 Jun 2001, John Cowan wrote: Speaking only for myself, I think it unlikely that it was rejected. The OSI board is a group of overworked volunteers (sound familiar?) and things do get dropped on the floor from time to time. They are a group of overworked volunteers who claim to represent the wider open source community. In addition to 'dropping things on the floor,' they also occasionally make calls contrary to the stated opinions of the wider open source community - and when they do so, they do so quietly so that no one notices. After the on-going confusion as to the OSI Certified(sm) nature of Darwin (and the qualifying nature of the APSL 1.2), which resulted in a misinformed journalist lambasting Apple for not acting in good faith in proclaiming Darwin as open source, I think it is necessary to do two things: stick to the lists published on opensource.org as 'OSI Certified,' and light a fire under the hiney of whoever's responsibility it is to update that list. At this point, there are two kinds of licenses not included - licenses that someone hasn't 'gotten to,' and licenses which don't qualify. As long as there is such confusion, the OSI can avoid discussing its decisions to exclude licenses (because they might be on the todo list), and the wider open source community can be misled. -- Matthew Weigel Research Systems Programmer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OpenLDAP license
On Fri, 13 Apr 2001, Ryan S. Dancey wrote: [ as a side note, I think this is one of the places where the OSD itself is flawed. The language of #2 should say, in my opinion: "The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must REQUIRE them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software." ] You're welcome to your opinion; however, such an opinion - given the other things you have said - would presuppose that the Free Software community in general held that such a requirement was necessary for Free Software licenses, or that alternatively the Open Source community (insofar as it differs from the Free Software community) held such a view. Or else it suggests that you want to change the definition of Open Source (and possibly Free Software) to something 'better,' which is contrary to the OSI. In short, it apears that either your opinion is founded upon incorrect assumptions, or your opinion is incompatible with anything the OSI does as a representative (not leader) of the Open Source community. This disregards the technical claim that the BSD license is not Open Source. I think that, given the claim of the Free Software Foundation that the BSD license is Free Software, it follows that if the OSD excludes the BSD license, then it is in error. However, it isn't. The source code to BSD licensed software is available from well-publicized sources; it is the DERIVATIVE WORKS - with which I've dealt above - that may or may not be OSI Certified software. -- Matthew Weigel Research Systems Programmer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Converting/Splitting Code - Open to Closed
On Mon, 12 Feb 2001, Samuel Reynolds wrote: The copyright owner can license the code under any terms he likes, or none at all. He can license the code under different terms to different people. He can license the code under different terms to the same people at different times. Or, as in the case with GPL, some of the code is under someone else's copyright, to which the original author as a license via the GPL. Ssh is a good example of GPL'd code becoming less free. OpenSSH is a good example of what happens with the GPL'd version :) -- Matthew Weigel Research Systems Programmer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Converting/Splitting Code - Open to Closed
On Mon, 12 Feb 2001, Eric Jacobs wrote: Brian DeSpain [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yes - but the previous versions licensed under the GPL remain GPLd and development can continue on the code. Can you explain why this is the case? Because the license contains no provisions for revocation. Thus, the license can not be revoked, and thus people can continue to distribute the old versions under the GPL. That's exactly what would happen and that's why the GPL is there in the first place. The copyright owner retains copyright, therefore can make changes. You cannot retroactively change licenses under the GPL. People retain their original rights under the GPL. How can licensees retain their rights against the copyright owner's will? Is there something in the GPL that requires this? Nah, it's not necessary. Think of a license as a contract. Can you sign a contract with someone, and then, 6 months later, rewrite the contract? Maybe, *if* the contract says "I might rewrite this in six months, and you're subject to my whims if I do." Of course I'm not a lawyer, but I think this is pretty clear. As I mentioned elsewhere, look to the example of the progressively closing ssh source, and how OpenSSH came about: they took the last GPL'd version and went from there. -- Matthew Weigel Research Systems Programmer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: trademarked logos and GPL
On Tue, 23 Jan 2001, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: I want to discourage license-discuss participants from answering questions like this one. : But non-lawyers have to avoid giving legal advice Sorry, but this really rubs me the wrong way. In a word, BS. I agree. If "non-lawyers have to avoid giving legal advice" is the rule here, I guess we can all pack up and go home. We're talking about software licenses, and whether or not they fit the OSD. Given that we must consider whether or not the license, as is legally enforcable, conforms to the guidelines of the OSD, we must discuss legal issues. We may even say things that sound like legal advice, like "the text of that license leaves holes people could use to set up their own closed-source derivative product." Liability is not an issue; this is a list largely composed of software developers, not lawyers, and people shouldn't confuse the two. On a list of this nature, I refuse to accept it as a burden on *my* shoulders to avoid statements that people might use as legal advice. -- Matthew Weigel Research Systems Programmer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RMS on OpenMotif
On Mon, 21 Aug 2000, David Johnson wrote: will not be defined by the Windows98 user, but by the typical user of Unix (since that is the platform for Motif), who would have a radically different perception of what an OS is. If you're going to get into legal terms, then no, Unix does not have relevance here, since we're talking about free operating systems, none of which are Unix(tm). Yes, they work the same, but no, they're not Unix(tm). Since clearly Motif runs on them, Motif runs on more than Unix, so Unix definitions are insufficiently broad. Aren't there versions of Motif that run under Windows, too? We can argue this all day (I've gotten into arguments about definitions before, too, so I *know* we can argue this all day). My point is that we *can* argue it, and we can both make reasonable arguments, at which it comes down to with which a judge agrees. Don't leave it up to the lawyers and judges and jurors involved in a particular case -- just define the terms. Matthew Weigel Programmer/Student [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Plan 9 license
On Mon, 21 Aug 2000, David Johnson wrote:
I'm not certain I agree with that, myself. Its requirement that
licensees choose between licensing Plan 9 and being able to protect
their intellectual property is particularly onerous. The right of Bell
Labs to demand private source is also unacceptable.
I don't see anything in the OSD forbidding the demand of private
derivations. This clause is certainly pretty poor, but it doesn't go
against the *letter* of the OSD.
Read what I said again. I'm saying it should be in the OSD, because the
clauses are "particularly onerous" and "unacceptable." I would argue the OSD
was not, is not, and never will be an airtight document whose letter you can
follow, but whose spirit you can ignore; the letter of the definition was
largely thrown together, in an attempt to encapsulate the spirit. Others
can say, "here, approximately, is what Open Source is," but the OSI and the
open source community should focus on the spirit, and when inconsistencies
arise, correct the letter, and not say "oh, we forgot to mention that
freedom, so we'll just roll over and ignore that it was ever important to
us." Yes, that means people submitting new licenses may be caught by
surprise; but OSI Certification should not be an assembly line production,
but a discussion (a discussion including the license's authors, so that
questions and explanations of intent, that might clarify a clause or get a
clause changed, can happen).
To quote from the page in question, "More precisely, it refers to four
kinds of freedom, for the users of the software... A program is free
software if users have all of these freedoms. " This seems to sum it up
for me. The rest is just commentary.
Yes, four *kinds* of freedom -- to be explained further in the document;
think of it as an explanation and statement of intent. The document is not
the four bullet points, and the clarifications and explanations included
discuss those four freedoms as RMS sees them. In order to have those four
kinds of freedom, there are preconditions, clarifications, and explanations
involved as well -- as discussed later in the document.
Later on, he does make some clarifications. One of them (I found two)
is: "but what they can and must do is refuse to impose them [export
control regulations] as conditions of use of the program". This may
apply to the Plan 9 license.
I think it's pretty clear it does ("can and must"). It would also be a part
of freedom #2, the freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your
neighbor. I think it's also pretty clear you were not reading very closely;
In order for these freedoms to be real, they must be irrevocable as
long as you do nothing wrong; if the developer of the software has
the power to revoke the license, even though you have not given
cause, the software is not free.
This goes back to the IP suit clause in the Plan 9 license, and is also
clearly a requirement for being free software -- you must have the four
freedoms, and the four freedoms must be real.
But whether this clarification is part of
the Free Software definition is, in my mind, debatable, as it still
meets the four necessary and sufficient freedoms stated at the top of
the page.
No. If you want to say "necessary and sufficient," then look at it like a
theorem, and you'll see again what I'm saying. Each of those conditions
has, on its own, necessary and sufficient conditions, all of which must be
satisfied for the condition -- the freedom listed in the bullet point -- to
be present. You can't simply wave your hand, say "you have the freedom to
redistribute copies to help your neighbor, except you have to restrict this
freedom according to US export law," and have the statement "you have the
freedom to redistribute copies to help your neighbor" unconditionally.
The only one I can see that is open to interpretation is this clause:
You should also have the freedom to make modifications and use them
privately in your own work or play, without even mentioning that
they exist.
The use of "should" rather than "must" causes it to appear that this is
optional, but strongly encouraged. This freedom would fall under
o The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your
needs
However, if you have "the freedom to study how the program works," should
that not imply that your licensed ability to study how the program works --
which includes modifications as a matter of experimentation -- must not be
limited by notification to third parties? And if no third parties (the
licensor included) need be notified for private copies, how can private
modifications be required to be submitted to a third party?
I'll say it one last time, and then I'll try not argue this point with you
again. Without reading the entire document, you are not grasping what the
four kinds of freedom described are and
Re: Plan 9 license
On Sun, 20 Aug 2000, David Johnson wrote: The questioner was asking whether it was Open Source. It is not yet "official" Open Source, but it seems to follow the letter of the OSD even if it strays from the general spirit several times. I'm not certain I agree with that, myself. Its requirement that licensees choose between licensing Plan 9 and being able to protect their intellectual property is particularly onerous. The right of Bell Labs to demand private source is also unacceptable. I should think that it may be approved at some point, although I have no doubt that they will be asked to change parts of it. Actually, it follows the four RMS definitions of Free Software as well... Look more carefully. The page that lists the four freedoms does not declare those four freedoms "absolutely what makes free software." Rather, those freedoms, combined with the explanations, discussion, and ideas below, make free software. The right to private, undistributed copies is discussed below. So is the right to maintain your license to the software so long as you have not given cause for it to be terminated; with the Plan 9 license, your license can be terminated if you file an IP suit against *some random other company who has contributed to Plan 9 any code*. A clause in the OSD regarding the "locality" of the license might be in order -- that is, that the license should not effect legal issues outside the domain of the software being licensed itself. Perhaps a clarification that all "fair use" such as annotations, or undistributed, personal modifications should also be held sacred explicitly. Matthew Weigel Programmer/Student [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RMS on OpenMotif
On Sun, 20 Aug 2000, John Cowan wrote: Ironically, that restriction excludes nearly all the commercial GNU/Linux distributions. They typically include some non-free software--an unfortunate policy--and hardly any of them fits the criterion specified in the Motif license. The OpenMotif licensing FAQ clarifies that the reference is to the *kernel* of the operating system only, without regard to bundled utility programs. All known Linux and BSD distros clearly meet this requirement. Although the FAQ is not part of the license, it definitely goes to show the licensor's intent. The FAQ is not part of the license; it's not a legal document, but commentary upon the legal document. Much as the hyperlinked explanations of the NPL had no legal weight, the FAQ doesn't either. Someone might want to make a snapshot of the FAQ as it currently stands, in case it becomes necessary in a court test which hinges on the interpretation of the license. For terms not defined in the license (such as "operating system"), it would be easy for whoever brought the lawsuit to argue that using the term according to precedent -- i.e., as in the Microsoft vs. US case, which would be everything on the CD from the kernel, to the DLLs of IE, to the IE app itself -- rather than according to random documents. IANAL, of course, but Judge Kaplan used the Microsoft vs. US case's definition of operating system in the DeCSS case, and it seems reasonable that such a high-profile case would be widely used for precedent. Matthew Weigel Programmer/Student [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RMS on Plan 9 license, with my comments
On Sat, 22 Jul 2000, David Johnson wrote: and may, at Your option, include a reasonable charge for the cost of any media. This seems to limit the price that may be charged for an initial distribution, prohibiting selling copies for a profit. I don't think this is really a problem; a "reasonable" charge can be whatever the buyer is willing to pay. I agree. When I first read Richard's comment on this, I wound up scratching my head. It seems to me that his own GPL is pretty much the same. It gives me the right to charge for copying, while Plan9 lets me charge for the media. Not much difference in my mind. But there is, potentially, a difference -- someone can take you to court over whether your fee was 'reasonable.' The GPL has no such limits: You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee. RMS is not disputing the right to sell media, but the right for the copier or transferrer's right to set any price. Matthew Weigel Programmer/Student [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RMS on Plan 9 license, with my comments
On Sun, 23 Jul 2000, David Johnson wrote: On Sun, 23 Jul 2000, Matthew Weigel wrote: Is there a problem with deleting the word reasonable? Are you simply arguing that it doesn't need to be deleted, that it's too small detail to matter? Because we don't know what reasonable might mean in a court room, and it might make a difference. With or without the word "reasonable", this clause is in accordance with the OSD and the Free Software definition. Other clauses are different matter. Yes, I know. But 'passable' and 'good' are different things. I would like to know, though, how Bell Labs people feel about the clause... because if they have a reason for keeping it, they should. Unless they make changes elsewhere, I don't think it should be certified, and they shouldn't worry about this until other things are taken care of. I don't think the other contestable portions of the licnese need much discussion; no one has defended them as meeting the definition. I've seen lots of people say "it's open enough, who cares if it's certified" on comp.os.plan9, but that's a separate argument. Why don't you have to 'interpret every software license according to what a judge or jury'? Legal precendence is a part of deciding what licenses do, and deciding what licenses do is part of deciding whether they're OSI Certified or not. I don't, and can't, interpret them that way, because I am not a mind-reader. I've seen enough legal decision, and sat on enough juries, to know that the legal process is far from objective. If there is prior precedence on the definition of "reasonable charges", then I'll go with that, but I might as well read the tea-leaves than try to guess what a future jury might do. I can't understand this. You agree, completely, that we don't know (barring someone doing legal research) what 'reasonable fee' means. And then you argue that as long as the definition of an ephemeral word is not contested, there's no problem, we should let it stay. Am I getting this right? I don't mean to build a straw man argument... it just looks as if you're trying to view the language as cut and dried, when it's not. I would hope some other people comment on this, because I think it's an important question of what subject matter is important to discuss (that's the only reason I haven't taken this off the list). Matthew Weigel Programmer/Student [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Plan 9 license
On Sat, 22 Jul 2000, Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote: [snip] I do think David makes a very good point. Although provisions like sections 6.1(i) and 6.1(ii) are not unusual for non-mass market software licenses, they do not seem to meet the spirit of an open source license. (Of course, it would not be in the spririt of open source to bring such a lawsuit either, but the restriction is what we may be concerned about, here). Ummm, what? Suing someone for violating the terms of an open source license is 'not in the spirit of open source'? Then what's the point of doing anything but sticking the code in the public domain, with a _request_ that a particular license be followed? It's certainly reasonable to try to work things out first, but then also you get into a situation where companies now feel free to violate licenses until someone calls them -- because if they change as soon as someone calls it, then nothing bad happens, but they possibly reap benefits from before. Be, for example, was able to have a boot loader before they'd gotten around to writing one themselves this way. Even if section 6.1 did not really bother anyone as a general matter, David's point is correct that the language is so broad that it does not limit its reach to the subject matter of the license. I would recommend that Lucent consider making their intent more clear under section 6.1. I've followed a little discussion on comp.os.plan9 on the subject (I really *do* like Plan 9, I wasn't trolling for licensing discussions), and Rob Pike seemed clear that the license as it stands is a reflection of what Bell Labs wants, rather than legalese thrown in by a lawyer. I'm not certain I disagree with their reasoning, but I think that unless their intent changes the license won't be OSI Certified. Matthew Weigel Programmer/Student [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Plan 9 license
On Fri, 21 Jul 2000, David Johnson wrote: I can understand where they're coming from with the clause, but it would have been nice if they limited it to copyright infringements. The way it is now, if I goof up and misuse the Lucent trademark as it relates to telephones, I lose the license to use Plan9. I'm not sure that's an "...intellectual property action against Original Contributor" But then, I don't know -- perhaps a lawyer can clear that up. What it definitely means is that if anyone else *contributes* to Plan 9, and you (as a licensee) are involved in (whether you initiate or not) an IP action against that contributor, you (and, AFAICT, the contributor) violate the license. So if your stake in Plan 9 is too high, all of your intellectual property is up for grabs by other contributors, including any other free software you contribute to the community. As I've heard others say: that would be fine, except that everything that goes into Plan 9 continues to be available to Bell Labs -- so everybody plays fair, and Bell Labs gets to play a little more fair. Not that I'm painting Bell Labs as a bad guy; it's just too much licensees have to give up to be free software, IMO. As I see it, this license is focused on software research -- if you make private modifications, Bell Labs can ask to see it; if you have other IP, but rely on Plan 9 for your money, Bell Labs can get it, modulo the business decisions you make as to whether you'll give up your license to Plan 9 to pursue them. Frankly, I'm willing to toy with Plan 9 anyways. But the license is not a free software license, I don't think it's a Debian Free Software License, and I don't think it should be an OSI Certified license. I also wish they wouldn't call it an "open source agreement" http://plan9.bell-labs.com/sys/doc/release3.html until and if it is OSI Certified, out of respect for the fact that it's a term the founders of the OSI brought into use. Matthew Weigel Programmer/Student [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OSI board asleep at the switch?
I am hoping also that the difficulty so many have had with unsusbscribing is due to similar issues. I experienced this recently myself, when I noticed that I hadn't seen an OSI board-member post in quite some time, nor indicate they'd read a single blessed thing. The directions to unsubscribe don't work, and while I've tried to be polite and simply delete everything as it comes, it's gotten annoying when heated discussions ensue. On Wed, 5 Apr 2000, Bruce Perens wrote: I'm told privately that this is incompetence and not conspiracy. But that doesn't make it any less of a problem. We need to track this. Thanks Bruce Matthew Weigel Programmer/Sysadmin/Student [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Wired Article on the GPL
On Thu, 30 Mar 2000, John Cowan wrote: Remember that we are talking about the GPL here, not some random proprietary license. The GPL grants you permissions to take certain actions provided you meet certain conditions. The actions are copying, distributing, and making derivative works. You neither accept nor reject the GPL; it grants you permissions whether you want them or not. Ummm... yes, you can accept or reject the GPL, if I understand it correctly. You either accept the terms of the license -- the restrictions placed on distribution, for instance -- or you don't, and if you don't, you have no legal recourse for distribution. I haven't been following this discussion too closely (I have, in fact, made several attempts to unsubscribe per the directions sent to me when I subscribed), but regardless of whether a license is very restrictive, and regardless of whether the author of the license chooses to call it a "copyleft," it's a license granting rights over copyrighted material. If you choose to not accept the license, then you can't use the software. Of course, there's no reason to *not* accept the GPL, if you're not planning on doing any distribution or derivative works, since your use is not restricted. But it's still an option. If the copyright owner revokes the permissions, you are probably out of luck. Can a copyright owner revoke a license which has no 'revocation' clause? It seems that other licenses, such as the APSL, were scrupulous in including such a clause so as to be able to revoke the license. Matthew Weigel Programmer/Sysadmin/Student [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License Approval Process
On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, John Cowan wrote: The "new BSD" and the equivalent MIT license are compatible with the GPL; the "old BSD" license with the advertising requirement is not. In general, a license is compatible with the GPL if it imposes the same, or fewer, restrictions than the GPL. Ummm... I don't think so. For one, Nothing is commutatively compatible with the GPL -- software can't be redistributed under different terms[1]. Also, if another license is as restrictive as the GPL, you probably can't license it under different terms either, and thus you can't redistribute under the GPL. As far as I know only software licensed under the X and new BSD licenses can be redistributed under the GPL without changes, but I thought some software licensed under the old BSD had been redistributed under the GPL with a caveat. Matthew Weigel Programmer/Sysadmin/Student [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GNU License for Hardware
On Thu, 14 Oct 1999, Derek Balling wrote: Say what? The SunOS kernel isn't free. Why would RMS urge its use? We're not talking about urging its use, we're simply talking about "what would you CALL a hybrid of the SunOS kernel using entirely GNU applications". For RMS's contentions about the name "GNU/Linux" to be true, they also must hold true for "GNU/Solaris". Yeah -- the SunOS kernel isn't free, so why should it be considered a GNU system? ...Whereas Linux (the kernel) *is* free, and is considered part of the GNU system. I don't think it should always be called GNU/Linux, in the case of, say, S.u.S.E or OpenLinux etc., but when you're talking about an operating environment that consists of the GNU system and a kernel licensed under the GNU license... I'm not sure I agree with it, but I *am* sure that GNU/Solaris is incosistent. His claim is that Linux is the Kernel, and GNU is the "meat" of the OS, hence the "/" name. His claim also can be extended to GNU/Solaris, if someone were to design such a beast. RMS states that he would not encourage that name, even though he encourages GNU/Linux. THAT is the hypocrisy. Except that you can't create a GNU system with proprietary software, so until the SunOS kernel is free, it won't be a GNU system. Matthew Weigel Programmer/Sysadmin [EMAIL PROTECTED] Operating Systems Advocate http://www.pitt.edu/~weigel
Re: rights and freedoms
On Thu, 14 Oct 1999, L. Peter Deutsch wrote: I find FSF's position on proportionate compensation quite clear and philosophically consistent; I don't like some of its consequences. Think of it from another angle, then, that I think is consistent with the Free Software Foundation's views: people using code are what's liberated, not the software. Programmers are free to provide their programming services to people, using the works of their community to improve their ability to provide services. When a lawyer wins a case, the case records aren't locked up, the court's decision isn't locked up, it builds the body of law we live under. Why doesn't service programming provide us, programmers, with the same community? Why do we compete not just on the professional level, but on our resources? Sure, lawyers don't give everyone access to their private libraries and notes, but everything they've *produced* is available. The software industry is so caught up with building and shipping product that programmers become assembly workers, if usually well-paid assembly workers. Frankly, I'm not going to college to get on an assembly line, and I like that with the current body of free software I can probably make a living as a service provider. Matthew Weigel Programmer/Sysadmin [EMAIL PROTECTED] Operating Systems Advocate http://www.pitt.edu/~weigel
Re: RFC soon on essay Does Free Software Production in a Bazaar obey the Law of Diminishing Returns?
On Sun, 22 Aug 1999, Richard Stallman wrote: software. There is only one known case where we disagree, and that is the Apple license. Excuse me. That was originally said in conjunction with a few other things that I ended up taking out, because I couldn't figure out how to word it properly. I agree with you that the QPL has major drawbacks as a free software license, and I agree that the proliferation of corporate licenses since 1998 is bad for the community. But I don't think that Free Software and Open Source really disagree very much here. Which is why I took out the other stuff I wrote, I just left that line in (I'm not sure why). Matthew Weigel Programmer/Sysadmin [EMAIL PROTECTED] Operating Systems Advocate http://www.pitt.edu/~weigel
Re: RFC soon on essay Does Free Software Production in a Bazaar obey the Law of Diminishing Returns?
On Fri, 20 Aug 1999, Miguel de Icaza wrote: I agree with Richard that GNOME should be classified of part of the Free Software movement. I'm glad you said something -- I almost jumped in, but I'm not involved with Gnome. We are not working on GNOME because it is "economically" a good idea, nor for any of the allegedly development benefits of open source, but because of the freedom issues involved in this. I think this is somewhat secondary, if my understanding of Open Source is correct. I am much more concerned about the fact that Open Source accepts an increasing variety of licenses, thus polluting the pool of free software to include software that allows you to look at it, mess with it, but not necessarily stick it in the communal library of previous code. And that loss of community code is a serious problem, and something that can let proprietary software can sneak its way back in. They do not enable me to reuse code between different projects. The crazy idea of cut-and-pasting is no longer possible between these projects. There is a nice study of this here: http://pmitros.mit.edu/patchwork.html Although that is definitely (IMO) a very significant concern, that article only addresses licenses that restrict modifications to patches (such as the QPL, or perhaps an earlier revision of the QPL). There are more licenses that allow you to wholesale change things, but still make it difficult to cut and paste. Matthew Weigel Programmer/Sysadmin [EMAIL PROTECTED] Operating Systems Advocate http://www.pitt.edu/~weigel
Re: gpl backlash?
On Mon, 26 Jul 1999, Wilfredo Sanchez wrote: [for readability I've reformatted some comments] | Except the *NeXT* community. OK, that's fair. | making open systems in the first place), of course. My objective | is to benefit the user, and make the user's life nice. OK, I like that objective. Good! [snip] Certainly the GPL has worked well here. Writing a compiler is enough of a pain in the ass that dealing with the GPL, regardless of your objections, is likely worthwhile. And I'll grant you that the GPL has done great things for free software. In times when nobody in business thought free software was interesting, it kept things moving. To that end, the GPL is a wonderful thing. On the other hand, people are starting to see real economic benefit (resource management, compatibility, standardization) to open source. I disagree -- it looks like people are starting to see the benefits of getting their end users to fix bugs. Which can be a different animal from open source entirely. [note: I'm not sure if I agree with the APSL but I'm not flaming it here; I'm trying to push the idea that there are different degrees of freedom to software, and I happen to like the highest degree possible] Of course, the fastest way to open software up is to provide lots of endearing and attractive open source options, that strongly encourages more open software. The GPL in some cases is overkill (there's a strong encouragement in the BSD family for proprietary vendors to give back), but in some cases its necessary. The GPL's major flaw is its unbounded viral nature. [snip] But you have to at least specify what you mean by derivative works, and allow for the possibility of integration of open code with closed code. Do you mean by this that if the GPL were more specific in its allowances and prohibitions, it would make for more acceptance and a better license? I can agree with that. It's important to put people at ease that their use of a license is doing what they think it's doing, and clear language is important there. And yes, you can probably find ways to change the code such that you don't have to contribute anything of value if you dance around the license enough, but I can accept that. As can I. It would be difficult to add proprietary extensions to gcc, for instance, without making a clearly derivative work (as opposed to the below). the "protection" that you're after. Lucky it's never been tried in court; I'm quite curious about it. As am I. For the rest of it, see above. | For other things, the most important thing for the end user is | compatibility; internet servers, for instance. In those cases, it's more | important that *absolutely everything* come from a commnon code base, | period. Well, it's important that things interoperate, not that they use the same code, though sharing code does tend to help that a lot. The fastest way to push a standard out is to give people the code to implement the standard, so that it will work with some minor tweaks and studying. It looks to me like X won this way, as well as a lot of BSD stuff (I'm almost certain OS/2 uses some BSD code for its networking stuff, for example). | 1 Infinite Loop, 302-4K, Cupertino, CA | | This has got to be a joke...? Yes and no. Those Crazy Californians again, I guess. Yes, my roots go to California too :) On a side note, has anyone been receiving multiple copies of messages? I received the message I'm responding to *thrice*. Matthew Weigel Programmer/Sysadmin [EMAIL PROTECTED] Operating Systems Advocate http://www.pitt.edu/~weigel
