Re: Cherry-picking license proposals
Sorry if this seems pedantic... On Sun, 21 Jan 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Convergence. Despite some degree of internal conflict, the final nail was really the result of independent external resolution of many of the issues we had sought to address. As of the last meeting (O'Reilly Conference, July, 2000), the landscape was clearly shifting to focus on what seemed to be three principle licensing models: - GNU GPL/LGPL: A primary license for HP's EZSpeak (?) project, e-speak. Also OpenOffice. adopted as part of multi-licensing models by Sun, Mozilla, and others. - Mozilla Public License: With very minor wording changes, adopted by Sun as the SISSL. Uh, no. Adopted by Sun for the "SPL", under which they've released NetBeans. The SISSL is much different, much shorter, more in spirit with the BSD licenses than the other two. - BSD/MIT style: Apple's Darwin code is derived from BSD sources, and Apple appears more comfortable with the BSD licensing model than GPL. Apple's own licensing has changed within the past month, I still need to review the changes. Yes, but to be clear, Apple's APSL is much different than the BSD license. Brian
RE: Cherry-picking license proposals
From: Carter Bullard [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Is the OSI trying to make a determination that two different legal documents are functionally equivalent? [DJW:] As I understand it, they are determining whether the licence is a member of the set of possible "open source" licences. The place to define the liabilities and remedies is in the license. My companies license has some detail in this area. [DJW:] IANAL, but I believe that it can only be done in a contract. Many "licenses" are actually both a licence and a contract, and some of the arguments about shrink wrapped licences are about whether a contract actually exists. In English, law contracts require an offer, acceptance of that offer and a consideration (something given in return). It would probably help if "open source" licenses that attempt to go beyond a statement of permissions explicitly identified all three components. [DJW:] -- --- DISCLAIMER - Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of BTS.
Re: Cherry-picking license proposals
Dave, A note of clarification. Although I need not speak for OSI, I am confident that they would say that they are NOT acting as legal counsel for the drafters of the submitted licenses. Instead, the idea of getting a license approved or of discussing the licenses on this list is more about the goals of open source and whether the proposed license terms in the submitted licenses are consistent with those goals. In other words, we are really talking about a matter of organizational politics and pragmatic business practices in my opinion, not legal counsel. Of course, many of the issues we discuss relate to legal questions, but so do front page stories in the morning newspaper. OSI, like other open source groups, wants to encourage software developers to develop and use software under the open source business model. Some of us on this list are lawyers and participate in the license discussions for educational and open discussion purposes. As a law professor and writer on issues of law and technology, I am here to learn and share knowledge. Most people, I think, understand that when it comes to obtaining legal counsel, you must hire a lawyer. -Rod
Re: Cherry-picking license proposals
on Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 12:30:15AM -0800, Brian Behlendorf ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Sorry if this seems pedantic... Not at all, quite appreciated. I have trouble keeping up with everything and appreciate the watchful eye. Thanks. On Sun, 21 Jan 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Convergence. Despite some degree of internal conflict, the final nail was really the result of independent external resolution of many of the issues we had sought to address. As of the last meeting (O'Reilly Conference, July, 2000), the landscape was clearly shifting to focus on what seemed to be three principle licensing models: - GNU GPL/LGPL: A primary license for HP's EZSpeak (?) project, e-speak. Also OpenOffice. adopted as part of multi-licensing models by Sun, Mozilla, and others. - Mozilla Public License: With very minor wording changes, adopted by Sun as the SISSL. Uh, no. Adopted by Sun for the "SPL", under which they've released NetBeans. The SISSL is much different, much shorter, more in spirit with the BSD licenses than the other two. - BSD/MIT style: Apple's Darwin code is derived from BSD sources, and Apple appears more comfortable with the BSD licensing model than GPL. Apple's own licensing has changed within the past month, I still need to review the changes. Yes, but to be clear, Apple's APSL is much different than the BSD license. Brian -- Karsten M. Self [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://kmself.home.netcom.com/ What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? There is no K5 cabal http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/ http://www.kuro5hin.org PGP signature
RE: Cherry-picking license proposals
From David Johnson: With all due and considerable respect to Lawrence and the rest of the OSI, this is not a criteria for prioritizing the list. It's a statement that it might be better to discourage similar licenses. I disagree strongly. And I'll have to disagree with your disagreement :-) OSI is not trying to discourage new licenses, as far as I can tell. But they do seem to discourage licenses that are redundant. I agree with this stance (though I am unassociated with OSI). If there is a license proposed to OSI that is similar to an existing license, the onus should be on the submitter to state why the minor difference is important, relevant or necessary. Prioritizing the list should be based on the licenses' importance. All things being equal, a license that is similar to an existing license is less important than one that is significantly different than the others. The purpose of OSI shouldn't be an approval organ for licenses. Instead it should further the ends of Open Source Software. It can accomplish this task easier if the user of OSS isn't inundated with hundreds of licenses that differ only in minor details. And as the saying goes, "the devil is in the details", and it would be these minor points that will get users in legal predicaments. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, then. g As I see it, the sorting out of licenses is another thing (somewhat like business models) best left to the marketplace and experimentation, not dictated or even guided by any one group, even a group like OSI that has the best of intentions. If the OSI places an "onus on the submitter to state why the minor difference is important, relevant or necessary", then they're stifling experimentation. Perhaps a little, but they're stifling it nonetheless. I find it painfully ironic that given all the complaints I hear from companies about the technical difficulties of developing for Linux, which can almost universally be traced to a lack of standardization, the one area that includes Linux where there's even a trace of real pressure to standardize is in licenses. Yes, I know all about the LSB, the FHS, etc., but who's applying pressure for those to be enforced? IMO (as well as that of a lot of companies I talk with, including some of the Big Four distro makers), that's a situation where too much experimentation is indeed harmful, and it could be curtailed just a little and still allow tremendous room for competition, experimentation, and the continued evolution of Linux. But I'm drifting off topic here. If this is OSI's stance on this licensing issue, then it's their decision and I respect it. I'll shut up now, and go back to waiting for the license I submitted (Open Compatibility License) to be discussed. Take care, Lou Grinzo Editor, LinuxProgramming.com
RE: Cherry-picking license proposals
Gentle people, What I fail to understand is what is the OSI's purpose in certifying Open Source licenses. Is the OSI trying to make a determination that two different legal documents are functionally equivalent? I hope not, as this is not only a legal impossibility, but out of the scope of the OSI? A lawyer can only give his/her legal opinion regarding a determination of equivalency between two contracts. To claim/state otherwise is legal malpractice. And since the OSI is not in the legal advice game, how can they even comment on a legal position of equivalency? Is the OSI trying to develop a model license for the Open Source Industry? Then they should be working on certifying only one license? If so, what is the license, its current state, and what improvements have been added as a result of seeing what real companies put in their open source licenses. The biggest differences I see are in the areas of Contributor liability. I'm sure that there are other issues as well. Is the OSI going to improve its sanctioned license in this area? My basic concern is Open Source project patent infringement. If patented implementations find their way into my open source project, can the holder of the patents shut me down? Are Contributors liable? If a court puts an injunction against the distribution of code that infringes on a patent, is the Open Source project liable for recovering the old versions? The place to define the liabilities and remedies is in the license. My companies license has some detail in this area. Basically, its up to the user of the software to determine what if any patent infringement liability exists. If the OSI doesn't address this issue, then I cannot use their license, or I have to have an Addendum/Supplement that better defines these liabilities and remedies. Can the OSI license eventually handle these license issues? Carter Carter Bullard QoSient, LLC 300 E. 56th Street, Suite 18K New York, New York 10022 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone +1 212 813-9426 Fax +1 212 813-9426 smime.p7s
RE: Cherry-picking license proposals
For that matter, the Alternate Route Open Source License and the Alternate Route Library Open Source License are very similar to the GPL and LGPL license. In fact, the FSF has given the Washington State Department of Transportation permission to base our license on theirs. We have been waiting since October 1999. Approval should be a slam dunk. Richard Brice, PE Software Applications Engineer Washington State Department of Transportation Bridge and Structures Office -Original Message- From: Roger Browne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 19, 2001 12:35 PM To: Lawrence E. Rosen; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Cherry-picking license proposals "Lawrence E. Rosen" wrote: The board has chosen to "cherry-pick" a few licenses ... That has perhaps resulted in more attention paid to the license proposals of big companies and less attention paid to the smaller ones. If you must cherry-pick, why not pick those which you can deal with quickly? Surely it can't take more than two minutes to agree that the Eiffel Forum license is open source. This license predates OSI, is in widespread use amongst the Eiffel community, and has been awaiting OSI approval for almost a year! Regards, Roger === Eiffel Forum License, version 1 Permission is hereby granted to use, copy, modify and/or distribute this package, provided that: - copyright notices are retained unchanged - any distribution of this package, whether modified or not, includes this file Permission is hereby also granted to distribute binary programs which depend on this package, provided that: - if the binary program depends on a modified version of this package, you must publicly release the modified version of this package THIS PACKAGE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND WITHOUT WARRANTY. ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS BE LIABLE TO ANY PARTY FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS PACKAGE. -- Roger Browne - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Everything Eiffel 19 Eden Park Lancaster LA1 4SJ UK - Phone +44 1524 32428
RE: Cherry-picking license proposals
Perhaps the OSI board should have "cherry-picked" different licenses for review than the ones it did select. Whenever judgment calls are made, there is the opportunity to make them wrongly. I can only assure you that there has been no intention to harm any contributor. I am attaching the list of licenses (both approved and submitted for review) as of 11/4/2000. I encourage the license-discuss participants to recommend a priority for license review by the OSI board. [I distributed earlier versions of this list to license-discuss and never received any priority suggestions. Sorry, but I haven't had time to bring this list current with more recent submissions.] My own suggestions for prioritizing are these: * Is the license sufficiently different from one of the licenses already approved that we shouldn't simply encourage the submitter to use another already-approved license? * Does the proposed license address some useful licensing or business concepts that can be of general application within the open source community? * Is the proposed license likely to be used by a sufficiently large part of the community that it merits priority consideration? * Is the license well written and legally sound? * Has the submitter described the license in license-disucss with sufficient clarity that the community and the OSI board can understand why it is needed? * Has the community at large expressed its interest in the license by responding with meaningful comments (pro or con) on license-discuss? Of course, you may have your own suggestions and prioritizing rules. Mine are merely tossed into the hopper for your consideration. One thing I ask you to consider: License review, even for what you think are simple licenses, is not taken lightly by the *volunteer* OSI board. The board has to read the licenses carefully. There is no such thing as a "slam dunk" approval. /Larry Rosen Executive Director, OSI 650-216-1597 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.opensource.org LicList 11-4-00.pdf
RE: Cherry-picking license proposals
Lawrence E. Rosen writes: One thing I ask you to consider: License review, even for what you think are simple licenses, is not taken lightly by the *volunteer* OSI board. The board has to read the licenses carefully. There is no such thing as a "slam dunk" approval. Sure there is: Russ's Public License This software is copyrighted (C) DATE by AUTHOR. You may do anything you want with this software except remove this copyright notice. Slam dunk. :) Too bad that all licenses are more complicated than this one. MUCH more complicated. And once we approve a license, we can't take it back. "Failure is not an option." -- -russ nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://russnelson.com Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | "This is Unix... 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | Stop acting so helpless." Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | --Daniel J. Bernstein
RE: Cherry-picking license proposals
From Lawrence E. Rosen: My own suggestions for prioritizing are these: * Is the license sufficiently different from one of the licenses already approved that we shouldn't simply encourage the submitter to use another already-approved license? With all due and considerable respect to Lawrence and the rest of the OSI, this is not a criteria for prioritizing the list. It's a statement that it might be better to discourage similar licenses. I disagree strongly. If you want to say that similar licenses are lower priority for approval, that's one thing, and a defensible stance (which I disagree with it, however). But once OSI starts recommending that people change their plans and use another license, I feel they're crossing a line, akin to the FDA in the US telling drug companies which drugs to pursue researching based on the number of similar treatments already available for some diseases, instead of simply approving or rejecting submitted drugs for general use. And no, I'm not nave enough to think that if OSI deems a license to be only trivially different from an already approved one that there's anything to stop them from never getting around to it. But I would expect and hope that the OSI would be more even-handed than that. Again, I'm saying all this with a great deal of respect for the work the OSI is doing. The bottom line is that I think the OSI should leave the very complex issue of selecting a software license to the entity that holds the copyright to the material, unless specifically asked for advice. Take care, Lou Grinzo Editor, LinuxProgramming.com
