Re: [License-discuss] FAQ entry for slight variations in licenses?
On 09/07/13 06:02, Luis Villa wrote: > I do remain open to discussing how to improve the situation by > systematically analyzing the most common/popular variants if Gerv, > Daniel, or others want to discuss that. I don't have time for a long project; I am interested in what seems to me like the low-hanging fruit of altering the markup on the OSI-approved version so that when it's copied and pasted, it comes out identically every time (and does not, for example, require people to insert replacement bullet characters, or whatever). http://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause Slightly less low-hanging is the idea that the OSI-approved version could be placeholder-less (and say "copyright holders" instead of ). But if we can't get agreement on that, we can at least do the former. Gerv ___ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] FAQ entry for slight variations in licenses?
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 10:19 PM, Luis Villa wrote: > A comment on the ISC license page (found by Engel- thanks!) points out > that there is more than one variation of the ISC license. This is a > common issue for the older permissive licenses, unfortunately. > > Driven by this question, I think we might want a FAQ entry that > answers the following question: > > Q: "I know about a variant of an approved license that differs from > the approved license by only one or two words. Is the variant also an > approved license?" > > A: Something along the lines of: "Many older licenses have a variety > of minor variations in the language. Unfortunately, it is not possible > for OSI to review every variation, so we cannot say if a given > variation is approved." After the inconclusive thread on this issue a few months ago, I've created a FAQ entry along these lines: --- Is a license an Open Source license if it is just a few words different from a license listed on your web site? Many older licenses, such as the BSD license, have several variations that differ only by a few words or sentences. Unfortunately, it is not possible for OSI to approve every variation, so we cannot say if a specific variation is approved. Where possible, please avoid using these variants, and instead use the same version used on the OSI website. -- I remain open to suggestions to improve the answer, with the exception that I'm not interested in an answer that suggests that each of these should be submitted individually to OSI. I do remain open to discussing how to improve the situation by systematically analyzing the most common/popular variants if Gerv, Daniel, or others want to discuss that. Thanks- Luis ___ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] FAQ entry for slight variations in licenses?
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 5:29 PM, dmg wrote: > On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 3:50 PM, Engel Nyst wrote: >> >>> Unfortunately, it is not possible for OSI to review every variation, >>> so we cannot say if a given variation is approved. >> >> From "not every", it does not follow logically "not any". I don't doubt >> the premise is true, but the second does not follow from it alone. >> But perhaps there is no need to go all the way, for minor differences >> and existing use...: it is not approved, but sometimes it is discussed >> and no reasons are raised, which would probably make it rejected. >> (apart from reasons unrelated to its FOSS appropriate status) >> With all other disclaimers needed... but if it's true, perhaps there is a >> way to say it. > > You can't be expected to review _every_ variation, but you can review > the ones that occur most frequently that are almost a match for the > license. If that could be data driven, and not anecdote-driven, I'd be open to it. What I don't want is having to review and post on the website every trivial variation anyone bothers to email to license-discuss. Luis ___ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] FAQ entry for slight variations in licenses?
Hi Larry, everybody, On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 7:44 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote: > > > As for the expense and nuisance of lawyers reviewing "trivial" modification > in licenses, that's an education problem that OSI could address. Especially > valuable would be them teaching people about the foolishness of having > hundreds of variants on the BSD and MIT licenses that do almost nothing > legally or practically different under copyright than the original licenses. I think there is an opportunity to tell people: your license is not exactly what it should be, so if possible, go an address it. However, there is a potentially legacy issue too, where updating the license might not be feasible. Ultimately, I agree with Larry. The OSI is a position to say: variants are not ok, don't modify licenses to replace words or sentences that you think are obviously equivalent (such as "program" and "programme" or the more challenging one replacing the "contributors" with their own name). And of course, don't add/remove entire sentences (like it is the case with MIT/X11, a total mess!!) -- --dmg --- Daniel M. German http://turingmachine.org ___ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] FAQ entry for slight variations in licenses?
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 3:50 PM, Engel Nyst wrote: > >> Unfortunately, it is not possible for OSI to review every variation, >> so we cannot say if a given variation is approved. > > From "not every", it does not follow logically "not any". I don't doubt > the premise is true, but the second does not follow from it alone. > But perhaps there is no need to go all the way, for minor differences > and existing use...: it is not approved, but sometimes it is discussed > and no reasons are raised, which would probably make it rejected. > (apart from reasons unrelated to its FOSS appropriate status) > With all other disclaimers needed... but if it's true, perhaps there is a > way to say it. You can't be expected to review _every_ variation, but you can review the ones that occur most frequently that are almost a match for the license. -- --dmg --- Daniel M. German http://turingmachine.org ___ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] FAQ entry for slight variations in licenses?
The work that we have been doing on the BSDs will probably help to address this. There are some very small variations in the BSD that are widely used. For example, the word "Neither" is removed in many files that contain the BSD otherwise. Maybe this word can be considered optional. On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 10:19 PM, Luis Villa wrote: > A comment on the ISC license page (found by Engel- thanks!) points out > that there is more than one variation of the ISC license. This is a > common issue for the older permissive licenses, unfortunately. > > Driven by this question, I think we might want a FAQ entry that > answers the following question: > > Q: "I know about a variant of an approved license that differs from > the approved license by only one or two words. Is the variant also an > approved license?" > > A: Something along the lines of: "Many older licenses have a variety > of minor variations in the language. Unfortunately, it is not possible > for OSI to review every variation, so we cannot say if a given > variation is approved." > > Unfortunately, this is a bit of a non-answer, but I'm not seeing a > good way to address it. Perhaps someone here can give a more > useful/constructive answer that I'm not seeing right now? > > Thanks- > Luis > ___ > License-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss -- --dmg --- Daniel M. German http://turingmachine.org ___ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] FAQ entry for slight variations in licenses?
Richard Fontana wrote:
> One missile: The idea that you would need a lawyer, competent or
> otherwise, to be involved in such review, though personally appealing
> from a guild-aggrandizement standpoint, seems highly dubious, and
> probably sends the wrong message.
Dear Richard, my fellow guild-member:
As people who would be personally aggrandized by people consulting us
("competent or otherwise"), we should declare that it is really foolish to
entrust your copyrighted works to amateur legal efforts. Would you complain
about the guild-aggrandizement of those who would remove your gall bladder?
Would you entrust your health and your welfare to your fellow engineers?
Bruce Perens reminded us earlier that amateur license drafting efforts
caused a whole lot of grief for Jacobsen, and our community spent a lot of
(mostly donated) legal fees making sure that that license was honored
despite its amateurishness. It took an appeal to the CAFC to rescue our open
source licensing paradigm. Let's not encourage the same mistakes in future
licenses.
As for the expense and nuisance of lawyers reviewing "trivial" modification
in licenses, that's an education problem that OSI could address. Especially
valuable would be them teaching people about the foolishness of having
hundreds of variants on the BSD and MIT licenses that do almost nothing
legally or practically different under copyright than the original licenses.
/Larry
-Original Message-
From: Richard Fontana [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 6:04 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] FAQ entry for slight variations in licenses?
On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 05:01:03PM -0600, Karl Fogel wrote:
> "Many older licenses have a variety of minor variations in the
> language. Unfortunately, it is not possible for OSI to review every
> variation, so we cannot say if a given variation is approved.
> However, if you have a competent lawyer review the variation and you
> conclude that it is minor and could not possibly have any legal
> signifance, in terms of the license being compatible with the Open
> Source Definition, then if you use that license and call the licensed
> software 'open source', there is at least a possibility that any
> subsequent discussion with the OSI about it would go well. Please use
> good judgement and be conservative in this situation."
>
> Not terribly much more meaningful, really, but maybe enough for most
> people to work with & do what they need to do? :-)
>
> Comments, missiles welcome...
One missile: The idea that you would need a lawyer, competent or otherwise,
to be involved in such review, though personally appealing from a
guild-aggrandizement standpoint, seems highly dubious, and probably sends
the wrong message.
- RF
___
License-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
___
License-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] FAQ entry for slight variations in licenses?
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 6:03 PM, Richard Fontana wrote: > On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 05:01:03PM -0600, Karl Fogel wrote: >> "Many older licenses have a variety of minor variations in the >> language. Unfortunately, it is not possible for OSI to review every >> variation, so we cannot say if a given variation is approved. However, >> if you have a competent lawyer review the variation and you conclude >> that it is minor and could not possibly have any legal signifance, in >> terms of the license being compatible with the Open Source Definition, >> then if you use that license and call the licensed software 'open >> source', there is at least a possibility that any subsequent discussion >> with the OSI about it would go well. Please use good judgement and be >> conservative in this situation." >> >> Not terribly much more meaningful, really, but maybe enough for most >> people to work with & do what they need to do? :-) >> >> Comments, missiles welcome... > > One missile: The idea that you would need a lawyer, competent or > otherwise, to be involved in such review, though personally appealing > from a guild-aggrandizement standpoint, seems highly dubious, and > probably sends the wrong message. Agreed. On the flip side, I really don't want submissions of every 1-2 word variation in a license, which this wording would seem to encourage (whether or not filtered through a lawyer). Luis ___ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] FAQ entry for slight variations in licenses?
On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 05:01:03PM -0600, Karl Fogel wrote: > "Many older licenses have a variety of minor variations in the > language. Unfortunately, it is not possible for OSI to review every > variation, so we cannot say if a given variation is approved. However, > if you have a competent lawyer review the variation and you conclude > that it is minor and could not possibly have any legal signifance, in > terms of the license being compatible with the Open Source Definition, > then if you use that license and call the licensed software 'open > source', there is at least a possibility that any subsequent discussion > with the OSI about it would go well. Please use good judgement and be > conservative in this situation." > > Not terribly much more meaningful, really, but maybe enough for most > people to work with & do what they need to do? :-) > > Comments, missiles welcome... One missile: The idea that you would need a lawyer, competent or otherwise, to be involved in such review, though personally appealing from a guild-aggrandizement standpoint, seems highly dubious, and probably sends the wrong message. - RF ___ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] FAQ entry for slight variations in licenses?
On 3/7/13, Luis Villa wrote: > A comment on the ISC license page (found by Engel- thanks!) points out > that there is more than one variation of the ISC license. This is a > common issue for the older permissive licenses, unfortunately. > > Driven by this question, I think we might want a FAQ entry that > answers the following question: > > Q: "I know about a variant of an approved license that differs from > the approved license by only one or two words. Is the variant also an > approved license?" > > A: Something along the lines of: "Many older licenses have a variety > of minor variations in the language. Unfortunately, it is not possible > for OSI to review every variation, so we cannot say if a given > variation is approved." > > Unfortunately, this is a bit of a non-answer, but I'm not seeing a > good way to address it. Perhaps someone here can give a more > useful/constructive answer that I'm not seeing right now? > I wonder if it needs to be only FAQ (generic answer), or there is a way to explicitly point out the really minor known variations in use... Allow me to ask a different question: "Is there anything of significance that OSI knows of, at this time, which would make the variation break OSD in some way, or otherwise would probably not be approved?" If the answer 'no', and the variation is in real, successful use, then perhaps it is worth to say just that. For example (not necessarily the best example), on the license page, a note: "there is a variation in use, this [diff]. While it is not considered the canonical version approved by OSI, and we do not recommend its use for new projects, there were no significant reasons brought to light in community discussions for which this variation would break the OSD, or otherwise known serious flaws." It is not approved, but then, no variation is even considered for review as far as I think I have seen on this mailing list and OSI policies for non-proliferation or related reasons? (please correct me if wrong). That doesn't mean that they're all alike... > Unfortunately, it is not possible for OSI to review every variation, > so we cannot say if a given variation is approved. >From "not every", it does not follow logically "not any". I don't doubt the premise is true, but the second does not follow from it alone. But perhaps there is no need to go all the way, for minor differences and existing use...: it is not approved, but sometimes it is discussed and no reasons are raised, which would probably make it rejected. (apart from reasons unrelated to its FOSS appropriate status) With all other disclaimers needed... but if it's true, perhaps there is a way to say it. Just an idea... Probably not too well-thought. ___ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] FAQ entry for slight variations in licenses?
Luis Villa writes: >A comment on the ISC license page (found by Engel- thanks!) points out >that there is more than one variation of the ISC license. This is a >common issue for the older permissive licenses, unfortunately. > >Driven by this question, I think we might want a FAQ entry that >answers the following question: > >Q: "I know about a variant of an approved license that differs from >the approved license by only one or two words. Is the variant also an >approved license?" > >A: Something along the lines of: "Many older licenses have a variety >of minor variations in the language. Unfortunately, it is not possible >for OSI to review every variation, so we cannot say if a given >variation is approved." > >Unfortunately, this is a bit of a non-answer, but I'm not seeing a >good way to address it. Perhaps someone here can give a more >useful/constructive answer that I'm not seeing right now? "Many older licenses have a variety of minor variations in the language. Unfortunately, it is not possible for OSI to review every variation, so we cannot say if a given variation is approved. However, if you have a competent lawyer review the variation and you conclude that it is minor and could not possibly have any legal signifance, in terms of the license being compatible with the Open Source Definition, then if you use that license and call the licensed software 'open source', there is at least a possibility that any subsequent discussion with the OSI about it would go well. Please use good judgement and be conservative in this situation." Not terribly much more meaningful, really, but maybe enough for most people to work with & do what they need to do? :-) Comments, missiles welcome... ___ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
