Re: Approval Requested for AFL 1.2 and OSL 1.1
To OSI License Discussion subscribers, From: Mahesh T Pai [EMAIL PROTECTED], From: Lawrence E. Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED], Almost every country specifies that suits for damages should be brought at the place of residence / business of the defendant. You can rarely contract out of that. That is exactly what I want to contract out of, and I can in many jurisdictions. Licensors shouldn't be burdened by having to go to courts all over the world where their licensees happen to be. Licensees have the choice of licensors, not the other way around, in open source software situations. My question is, have those clauses that specify the jurisdiction in which all legal matters are handled for a particular package ever been upheld? Have they ever needed to be? Once again we come back to the value of case law. Cheers, Nathan. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Approval Requested for AFL 1.2 and OSL 1.1
Lawrence E. Rosen wrote: Almost every license on the OSI approved list specifies a US jurisdiction. The OSL is specifically intended to be country neutral in that respect. If it isn't, we should make it so. What changes do you suggest? Simple, leave out references to jurisdiction. The law will operate whether you specify jurisdiction or not. Almost every country specifies that suits for damages should be brought at the place of residence / business of the defendant. You can rarely contract out of that. Regards, Mahesh T Pai. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
RE: Approval Requested for AFL 1.2 and OSL 1.1
Almost every country specifies that suits for damages should be brought at the place of residence / business of the defendant. You can rarely contract out of that. That is exactly what I want to contract out of, and I can in many jurisdictions. Licensors shouldn't be burdened by having to go to courts all over the world where their licensees happen to be. Licensees have the choice of licensors, not the other way around, in open source software situations. /Larry Rosen -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
RE: Approval Requested for AFL 1.2 and OSL 1.1
What happens if you, in the USA, prepare a derivative work based on two OSL licensed pieces of code, one from, say, Taiwan, and the other from France. You are obligated under two licenses, one from the licensor in Taiwan and the other from the licensor in France. Nothing unusual here with respect to the OSL. /Larry -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Approval Requested for AFL 1.2 and OSL 1.1
Henry Pijffers wrote: However, suppose big US company didn't register to do business anywhere in Europe, and just licensed some open source software to me through the Internet, and later decides to change their mind, then how can I defend my rights on anything I did with their software (assuming I didn't do anything illegal)? I am not aware of any Open Source or Free Software license that handles this situation. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Approval Requested for AFL 1.2 and OSL 1.1
You are obligated under two licenses, one from the licensor in Taiwan and the other from the licensor in France. Nothing unusual here with respect to the OSL. Two licenses with different effective terms; there is not one OSL, but one for each of the 100+ countries in the world. It means you need to know whose bit of the code you are actually modifying, something that, in real life, is likely to be difficult to do, unless the licence requires that derivative works only be distributed as patches to the virgin code. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
RE: Approval Requested for AFL 1.2 and OSL 1.1
From: Larry Rosen You are obligated under two licenses, one from the licensor in Taiwan and the other from the licensor in France. Nothing unusual here with respect to the OSL. From: David Woolley [mailto:david;djwhome.demon.co.uk] Two licenses with different effective terms; there is not one OSL, but one for each of the 100+ countries in the world. It means you need to know whose bit of the code you are actually modifying, something that, in real life, is likely to be difficult to do, unless the licence requires that derivative works only be distributed as patches to the virgin code. Huh? I meant two instantiations of the same license. What makes you think the terms of the OSL are different, or will be interpreted differently, in those other countries? It is true that the OSL -- and all other licenses -- must be interpreted in light of the laws of the jurisdiction in which the case is brought. Will every court interpret every license the same way? Of course not. Even the GPL hasn't been tested in any jurisdiction. While the Berne Convention is adopted almost everywhere, there are local differences with respect even to copyright law. For example, some here have argued that the term derivative work means different things in different jurisdictions, and that term is all over the GPL too. What's the specific problem with enforceability of the OSL in Taiwan? France? UK? Please don't try to make the lives of open source licensors and licensees seem any more difficult than it needs to be. In most places around the world where it matters, open source software can be licensed consistently. I challenge everyone to identify any part of the OSL (or AFL) that is illegal in any country or will be enforced locally in a way different from the consensus expectations of the open source community. If we've got problems with those licenses, help me fix them, or at least let's warn people not to license software from The State of Unfreedonia. /Larry Rosen -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Approval Requested for AFL 1.2 and OSL 1.1
think the terms of the OSL are different, or will be interpreted differently, in those other countries? It is true that the OSL -- and The fact that you said that the choice of law was determined by the licensor; if it is unlikely to change, there will be less uncertainty for licensees if it is fixed as, say US law. As I see it, the only reason to need to specify that the law is defined by the licensor is that the interpretation *can* differ for different licensors (of which one program may have many). -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Approval Requested for AFL 1.2 and OSL 1.1
The amount of damages that courts would award might vary considerably from one jurisdiction to the next, even if the license is interpreted exactly the same way. Without naming any names wink, some countries are just more litigious than others; some courts, more punitive. - Original Message - From: David Woolley [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 5:47 PM Subject: Re: Approval Requested for AFL 1.2 and OSL 1.1 think the terms of the OSL are different, or will be interpreted differently, in those other countries? It is true that the OSL -- and The fact that you said that the choice of law was determined by the licensor; if it is unlikely to change, there will be less uncertainty for licensees if it is fixed as, say US law. As I see it, the only reason to need to specify that the law is defined by the licensor is that the interpretation *can* differ for different licensors (of which one program may have many). -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3 -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Approval Requested for AFL 1.2 and OSL 1.1
Perhaps it makes sense (say in a preamble) to mention that certain sections (and obviously which sections) use wording copied from the US copyright code, so that eveyone knows that the reasons the words sound strange is that they are legal jargon with precise meanings -Chris -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Approval Requested for AFL 1.2 and OSL 1.1
Lawrence E. Rosen wrote: The word prepare is taken from 17 U.S.C. ยง106, which reserves to the author of a copyrighted work the exclusive right to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work. If the word is good enough for the U.S. Copyright Act, its good enough for me. How good do you think it is for us Europeans and other non-US residents? And on a sidenote, I don't like licenses that designate a specific court of law. I ain't gonna go to the US of A to defend my rights. Henry Pijffers -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Approval Requested for AFL 1.2 and OSL 1.1
Henry Pijffers scripsit: How good do you think it is for us Europeans and other non-US residents? International copyright law is pretty uniform. Since the license was drawn up in the U.S., the chances are good that any Berne Convention court (which means just about any court nowadays) will apply U.S. canons of interpretation to it. And on a sidenote, I don't like licenses that designate a specific court of law. I ain't gonna go to the US of A to defend my rights. Say what? The OSL says: # 10) Jurisdiction, Venue and Governing Law. You agree that any lawsuit # arising under or relating to this License shall be maintained in the # courts of the jurisdiction wherein the Licensor resides or in which # Licensor conducts its primary business, and under the laws of that # jurisdiction excluding its conflict-of-law provisions. The application # of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale # of Goods is expressly excluded. Any use of the Original Work outside the # scope of this License or after its termination shall be subject to the # requirements and penalties of the U.S. Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. A^? 101 # et seq., the equivalent laws of other countries, and international # treaty. This section shall survive the termination of this License. So both the law to be used and the courts to be used depend on the location of the licensor. -- A mosquito cried out in his pain, John Cowan A chemist has poisoned my brain! http://www.ccil.org/~cowan The cause of his sorrow http://www.reutershealth.com Was para-dichloro- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Diphenyltrichloroethane.(aka DDT) -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
RE: Approval Requested for AFL 1.2 and OSL 1.1
I've been talking to Russ Nelson and Steve Mallett about setting up a separate threaded list where we can collect good FAQs about these licenses. Anyone with ideas for getting such a FAQ together should speak up. There's many more people than me who could contribute to such a FAQ. I'm reluctant to write a preamble, as such, because it might sound too much like interpreting my own words. One other word to the wise: Treat every word in any license as strange until you understand it in the context of that license. The OSL and AFL aren't unusual in that respect. /Larry Rosen -Original Message- From: Chris F Clark [mailto:cfc;TheWorld.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 12:02 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Approval Requested for AFL 1.2 and OSL 1.1 Perhaps it makes sense (say in a preamble) to mention that certain sections (and obviously which sections) use wording copied from the US copyright code, so that eveyone knows that the reasons the words sound strange is that they are legal jargon with precise meanings -Chris -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3 -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
RE: Approval Requested for AFL 1.2 and OSL 1.1
From: Henry Pijffers [mailto:henry.pijffers;saxnot.com] How good do you think it is for us Europeans and other non-US residents? And on a sidenote, I don't like licenses that designate a specific court of law. I ain't gonna go to the US of A to defend my rights. Under the OSL, if you are the Licensor you determine the jurisdiction. It's your software after all. So if you write and license your software in Europe to customers anywhere, you can defend your rights in Europe under European contract law. If you are the licensee, you can demand your rights in a jurisdiction where the licensor resides or has its primary business. So if you want to sue a big US company for licensing software to you over the Internet while you were in your home in Paris, and big US company has registered to do business in Paris, you can sue big US company in Paris. Almost every license on the OSI approved list specifies a US jurisdiction. The OSL is specifically intended to be country neutral in that respect. If it isn't, we should make it so. What changes do you suggest? /Larry Rosen -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Approval Requested for AFL 1.2 and OSL 1.1
Lawrence E. Rosen wrote: Under the OSL, if you are the Licensor you determine the jurisdiction. It's your software after all. So if you write and license your software in Europe to customers anywhere, you can defend your rights in Europe under European contract law. This suits me fine when I develop a brand new piece of software. If you are the licensee, you can demand your rights in a jurisdiction where the licensor resides or has its primary business. So if you want to sue a big US company for licensing software to you over the Internet while you were in your home in Paris, and big US company has registered to do business in Paris, you can sue big US company in Paris. I don't think this will pose any problems for me in the near future. However, suppose big US company didn't register to do business anywhere in Europe, and just licensed some open source software to me through the Internet, and later decides to change their mind, then how can I defend my rights on anything I did with their software (assuming I didn't do anything illegal)? Almost every license on the OSI approved list specifies a US jurisdiction. The OSL is specifically intended to be country neutral in that respect. If it isn't, we should make it so. What changes do you suggest? As long as the OSL does the same thing for me here in the EU as it does in the US, then I'm ok with it. regards, Henry Pijffers -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Approval Requested for AFL 1.2 and OSL 1.1
From: Mike Nordell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bruce Dodson top-posted: Derivative Works means derivative works based upon the Original Work, as upposed to derivative works based upon Marvel Comics characters, or derivative works based upon previously-unreleased Elvis tracks. Since the definition of this isn't yet established in the license text, how would I know? If you take out the parenthesized Derivative Works, the license reads derivative works based upon the Original Work, just as I said. Anyway I was just stating my opinion as a layman who is NOT confused by this license. (That doesn't mean I would use it. That will not happen for either of these licenses until I see some open discussion that makes me comfortable with the warranty.) -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Approval Requested for AFL 1.2 and OSL 1.1
It seems clear to me, yet another non-lawyer:
Derivative Works means derivative works based upon the Original Work, as
upposed to derivative works based upon Marvel Comics characters, or
derivative works based upon previously-unreleased Elvis tracks.
Prepare - it doesn't say to prepare yourself to create [Derivative
Works]. It says to prepare [Derivative Works]. Like when you're
preparing dinner - after you have finished preparing it, you have something
that you can eat. No offense, but Duh.
Cheers,
Bruce
- Original Message -
From: Mike Nordell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 10:56 PM
Subject: Approval Requested for AFL 1.2 and OSL 1.1
From my wording, I think it's quite obvious that IANAL.
Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:
[link to OSL 1.1]
I must say, I read just down to 1 b) before I got hickups.
to prepare... What is prepare? To fork a CVS copy in preparation for
some
real work? To... I don't know.
No, the prepare phrase is way too vague for me to like it - especially
since it seems to be completely superfluous. Why would I need a grant to
prepare something? Someone is going to look over my shoulder to say Hey
there, it looks like you're 'preparing' derived works here!. Someone is
going to dissect my brain while it's running and say It seems like a
preparation... for even _thinking_ of doing something (which is a form of
preparation).
I think you should either reword or just drop it.
What would happen if to prepare was replaced with to create? That
wouldn't try to forbid people to even think, would it?
I also have complaints about the 100% reduncance in explaining that
derivative works is _really_ ('Derivative Works'). I believe it is a
great merit to explain something before it's used. In this case
derivative
works (capitalize however you like) could be explained before it was
used.
That would 1) obviate the need to write it twice in the same point, 2)
make
(reasonably) sure the reader knew what it was.
Besides that? Actually, that was enough for me to stop reading. Sorry
Lawrence, I'm sure you put great effort in creating this, but this
developer
didn't agree even with pt 1.
/Mike
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Approval Requested for AFL 1.2 and OSL 1.1
Bruce Dodson top-posted: It seems clear to me, yet another non-lawyer: Derivative Works means derivative works based upon the Original Work, as upposed to derivative works based upon Marvel Comics characters, or derivative works based upon previously-unreleased Elvis tracks. Since the definition of this isn't yet established in the license text, how would I know? Prepare - it doesn't say to prepare yourself to create [Derivative Works]. It says to prepare [Derivative Works]. Like when you're preparing dinner - after you have finished preparing it, you have something that you can eat. No offense, but Duh. None taken, but I still think that the word prepare is not in place. Just me _thinking_ of doing anything later stated could be to prepare for action. I still don't like it, and never will - worded as it is. /Mike -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
