Re: [License-discuss] License which requires watermarking? (Attribution Provision)

2013-01-03 Thread Björn Terelius 


On Jan 3, 2013, at 9:28 AM, Ken Arromdee wrote:


On Wed, 2 Jan 2013, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
Regardless of whether a library is licensed under the GPL or the  
LGPL, a
licensee will have to disclose *source code* of the library and  
*source

code* of derivative works of the library.


If you agree with the FSF's position on what a derivative work is, a  
work
that links to a LGPL library is a derivative work but you are not  
required

to release source for it.


Just some input to make the discussion easier to follow. Neither GPLv3  
nor LGPLv3 uses the term "derivative work" but seem to consider linked  
versions to be "based on the earlier work". The relevant LGPL  
exceptions to the source code requirement are as follows:


This version of the GNU Lesser General Public License incorporates the  
terms and conditions of version 3 of the GNU General Public License,  
supplemented by the additional permissions listed below.


A “Combined Work” is a work produced by combining or linking an  
Application with the Library. The particular version of the Library  
with which the Combined Work was made is also called the “Linked  
Version”.


You may convey a Combined Work under terms of your choice that, taken  
together, effectively do not restrict modification of the portions of  
the Library contained in the Combined Work and reverse engineering for  
debugging such modifications, if you also do each of the following:


[snip]

Best regards
Björn Terelius
___
License-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] License which requires watermarking? (Attribution Provision)

2013-01-03 Thread Ken Arromdee 

On Wed, 2 Jan 2013, Lawrence Rosen wrote:

Regardless of whether a library is licensed under the GPL or the LGPL, a
licensee will have to disclose *source code* of the library and *source
code* of derivative works of the library.


If you agree with the FSF's position on what a derivative work is, a work
that links to a LGPL library is a derivative work but you are not required
to release source for it.
___
License-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] License which requires watermarking? (Attribution Provision)

2013-01-02 Thread Lawrence Rosen 
Larry Rosen asked:
> How would the choice of license affect the *legal* determination of 
> whether the resulting work is or is not a derivative work for which 
> source code must be disclosed?

Ken Arromdee responded:
> The choice of license affects whether source code must be disclosed at
all.
> If the library was under the LGPL, the competitor would not have to
provide source.

That is precisely why this topic is appropriate for this list. Ken's
statement reflects a common misunderstanding of the GPL and LGPL. I'd like
to correct it.

Regardless of whether a library is licensed under the GPL or the LGPL, a
licensee will have to disclose *source code* of the library and *source
code* of derivative works of the library. 

This is also true if the work is NOT a library.  The test is merely whether
the resulting work is a *copy* or a *derivative work*.  Calling it a library
makes no difference whatsoever.

/Larry

Lawrence Rosen
Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com)
3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482
Office: 707-485-1242


-Original Message-
From: Ken Arromdee [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 10:55 AM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] License which requires watermarking?
(Attribution Provision)

On Tue, 1 Jan 2013, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
>> Some people use ordinary GPL on libraries with the intent of 
>> crippling competing commercial reuse (since any competitors have to 
>> release their source and competitors wouldn't want to do that).
>
> Really? That's not wise.
>
> How would the choice of license affect the *legal* determination of 
> whether the resulting work is or is not a derivative work for which 
> source code must be disclosed?

The choice of license affects whether source code must be disclosed at all.
If the library was under the LGPL, the competitor would not have to provide
source.

___
License-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] License which requires watermarking? (Attribution Provision)

2013-01-02 Thread Ken Arromdee 

On Tue, 1 Jan 2013, Lawrence Rosen wrote:

Some people use ordinary GPL on libraries with the intent of crippling
competing commercial reuse (since any competitors have to release
their source and competitors wouldn't want to do that).


Really? That's not wise.

How would the choice of license affect the *legal* determination of whether
the resulting work is or is not a derivative work for which source code must
be disclosed?


The choice of license affects whether source code must be disclosed at all.
If the library was under the LGPL, the competitor would not have to provide
source.
___
License-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] License which requires watermarking? (Attribution Provision)

2013-01-01 Thread Rick Moen 
Quoting Bruce Perens ([email protected]):

> On 01/01/2013 02:08 PM, Ken Arromdee wrote:
> >
> >Some people use ordinary GPL on libraries with the intent of
> >crippling competing commercial reuse (since any competitors have
> >to release their source and competitors wouldn't want to do that).
> >Is the GPL also considered unfree when applied to libraries?
> No.
> 
> Be careful to avoid confusing the creation of derivative works with
> use, which are two separate rights under copyright law.
> 
> And although badgeware should in general be rejected, "crippling
> commercial reuse" is the wrong reason to reject badgeware.
> 
> The reason to reject it is that it complicates simple use. 

Just a brief note:  Bruce, _you_ of all people probably are aware that
OSD #6 (discrimination against persons or groups), which I cited, does
specifically concern _use_.


___
License-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] License which requires watermarking? (Attribution Provision)

2013-01-01 Thread Rick Moen 
Quoting Ken Arromdee ([email protected]):

> On Mon, 31 Dec 2012, Rick Moen wrote:
> >I conclude that, in general, the overwhelming majority of such
> >entrepreneurs are thus seeking the crippling of competing commercial
> >reuse -- not just attribution.  So, OSI should give them the bum's rush.
> 
> Some people use ordinary GPL on libraries with the intent of crippling
> competing commercial reuse (since any competitors have to release
> their source and competitors wouldn't want to do that). 

Your premise that this in any way cripples commercial reuse -- by which
I of course meant _use in commerce_, not proprietising -- is simply not
the case.  (Moreover, so is your assumption that a competitor would be
automatically unwilling to release source, though that's not the main
point.  E.g., vTiger CRM upon release competed with its parent, the
weak-copylefted SugarCRM 1.0.  vtiger Systems (India) Private Limited
had no problem releasing its source code.)

You've gone rather far out of your way to misconstrue my phrase
'crippling of competing commercial reuse'.  This wasn't a very good use
of your time or mine.  

___
License-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] License which requires watermarking? (Attribution Provision)

2013-01-01 Thread Bruce Perens 
Would that we all had infinite budgets for going to court :-) But short 
of having them, many businesses choose, quite sensibly, to err on the 
conservative side of this sort of issue and will honor the license 
whether or not a court would make them do so. This will also get them 
through an M&A intellectual property audit in better shape than otherwise.


I do know a company that spent money, including on me, to argue just 
this sort of issue recently. They spent more than most businesses would 
be able to endure.


Thanks

Bruce

On 01/01/2013 05:23 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
Really? That's not wise. How would the choice of license affect the 
*legal* determination of whether the resulting work is or is not a 
derivative work for which source code must be disclosed?


<>___
License-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] License which requires watermarking? (Attribution Provision)

2013-01-01 Thread Lawrence Rosen 
Ken Arromdee wrote:
> Some people use ordinary GPL on libraries with the intent of crippling
> competing commercial reuse (since any competitors have to release 
> their source and competitors wouldn't want to do that).  

Really? That's not wise. 

How would the choice of license affect the *legal* determination of whether
the resulting work is or is not a derivative work for which source code must
be disclosed?

/Larry

Lawrence Rosen
Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com)
3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482
Office: 707-485-1242


-Original Message-
From: Ken Arromdee [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2013 2:08 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] License which requires watermarking?
(Attribution Provision)

On Mon, 31 Dec 2012, Rick Moen wrote:
> I conclude that, in general, the overwhelming majority of such 
> entrepreneurs are thus seeking the crippling of competing commercial 
> reuse -- not just attribution.  So, OSI should give them the bum's rush.

Some people use ordinary GPL on libraries with the intent of crippling
competing commercial reuse (since any competitors have to release their
source and competitors wouldn't want to do that).  Is the GPL also
considered unfree when applied to libraries?
___
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] License which requires watermarking? (Attribution Provision)

2013-01-01 Thread Bruce Perens 

On 01/01/2013 02:08 PM, Ken Arromdee wrote:


Some people use ordinary GPL on libraries with the intent of crippling 
competing commercial reuse (since any competitors have to release 
their source and competitors wouldn't want to do that).  Is the GPL 
also considered unfree when applied to libraries?

No.

Be careful to avoid confusing the creation of derivative works with use, 
which are two separate rights under copyright law.


And although badgeware should in general be rejected, "crippling 
commercial reuse" is the wrong reason to reject badgeware.


The reason to reject it is that it complicates simple use. We'd really 
like it to be possible for people to use software without the need for 
some compliance process. That line is crossed when you create a 
derivative work. If you have to be sure to put badges on your web site 
for some set of software you use, possibly a very large set, then you 
have to keep track of the software and its license terms just to use it, 
and simple use is no longer simple. There is also no limit to the 
potential number of badges you might have to display.


<>___
License-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] License which requires watermarking? (Attribution Provision)

2013-01-01 Thread Eitan Adler 
On 1 January 2013 17:08, Ken Arromdee  wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Dec 2012, Rick Moen wrote:
>>
>> I conclude that, in general, the overwhelming majority of such
>> entrepreneurs are thus seeking the crippling of competing commercial
>> reuse -- not just attribution.  So, OSI should give them the bum's rush.
>
> Is the GPL also considered
> unfree when applied to libraries?

Many would argue, yes.

-- 
Eitan Adler
___
License-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] License which requires watermarking? (Attribution Provision)

2013-01-01 Thread Ken Arromdee 

On Mon, 31 Dec 2012, Rick Moen wrote:

I conclude that, in general, the overwhelming majority of such
entrepreneurs are thus seeking the crippling of competing commercial
reuse -- not just attribution.  So, OSI should give them the bum's rush.


Some people use ordinary GPL on libraries with the intent of crippling
competing commercial reuse (since any competitors have to release their source
and competitors wouldn't want to do that).  Is the GPL also considered unfree
when applied to libraries?
___
License-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] License which requires watermarking? (Attribution Provision)

2012-12-31 Thread Rick Moen 
Sorry, I left out a crucial word:

> As I said, I for one consider such badge-on-every-UI-screen licensing to
> effectively violate OSD #6 (discrimination against fields of
> endeavour), in that the every-UI-screen requirement cripples third-party
> competing use.
   ^ commercial

As I said upthread, I don't think there's any bright line distinguishing
the degree and prominence of runtime acknowledgement in
SaaS/ASP/whatever code required for attribution (non-concealed
authorship credit), on the one hand, from mandatory advertising of one's
competitor, on the other:  There's a continuum.

My point, though, is that a badge-on-every-UI-screen clause lies
decidedly at the latter end of that spectrum.  If SaaS entrepeneurs were
indeed serious about merely seeking attribution, they should be
satisfied with CPAL's _much_ more modest but clear requirement of a
runtime acknowledgement.  The history of the past five years has proven
that, by and large, they aren't.

I conclude that, in general, the overwhelming majority of such
entrepreneurs are thus seeking the crippling of competing commercial
reuse -- not just attribution.  So, OSI should give them the bum's rush.

___
License-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] License which requires watermarking? (Attribution Provision)

2012-12-31 Thread Rick Moen 
Quoting David Woolley ([email protected]):

> Eitan Adler wrote:
> >On 24 December 2012 22:10, ldr ldr  wrote:
> >>John: I'd be happy with proprietary forks, as long as the Attribution
> >>provision would hold.
> >>
> >>E.g.: if they sell it to other people, those other people still are
> >>aware of my original project and have a link to it
> >
> >Aren't you looking for something similar to the 4-BSD license?
> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses#4-clause_license_.28original_.22BSD_License.22.29
> >
> And are you aware why no-one uses it any longer?
> 
> (It makes it difficult to create derivative works based on many
> different components with advertising clauses.  One of the main
> freedoms in open source is to be able to use parts of someone else's
> code without reproducing their whole application.  A lot of people
> searching for licences seem to think only in terms of their whole
> application, or forks that only differ slightly.)

4-clause BSD _also_ doesn't satisfy "ldr ldr's" stated desire to require a
mandated badgeware notice (so-called "attribution") on every user
interface screen of the application and derivative works thereof.
It only requires preserving copyright notices present in source code
(e.g., for a Web-based work, embedding them in HTML comments), and the
inserting of a copryight and licence notice into bundled documentation.

The advertising clause in 4-clause BSD, to which you refer, was
considered 'obnoxious' in its day for the reasons you mention, and has
been largely phased out thanks to action by the U.C. Regents concerning
CSRG code, but at least it didn't rise to the level of noxiousness that
typical badgeware licensing does.  

As I said, I for one consider such badge-on-every-UI-screen licensing to
effectively violate OSD #6 (discrimination against fields of
endeavour), in that the every-UI-screen requirement cripples third-party
competing use.

I think that should fact be clear from, if nothing else, its origin in
SugarCRM, Inc. management's fury over the effrontery of vtiger Systems
(India) Private Limited in lawfully forking the SugarCRM 1.0 code under
the terms of MPL 1.0 and going into competition against them:  SugarCRM,
Inc. has consistently acted since then to ensure that nobody can create
any further viable commercial forks.  And that is the very essence of 
OSD #6 cripping of commercial reuse.


(BTW, if "ldr ldr" would change his/her GECOS field to something more
name-like, that would be handy, though no rule requires it.)
___
License-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] License which requires watermarking? (Attribution Provision)

2012-12-27 Thread Clark C. Evans 
> Therefore should say on all interface screens

> "Foo, a project by Google" or, if a fork: "Bar, a

> fork of the Google project Foo" with a link back

> to its github repo.



This requirement is just too asymmetric.  What about

credit to the database glue you use?  What about the

language?  What about the other free software library

you use?   I believe it is unfair to shuffle those projects

under the carpet even if they don't have such a

requirement.   Your license should be designed such

that you'd be very happy if everyone used the provision

you propose, and in particular, that your work would

comply with respect to others' work.



I do think that there's room for an otherwise permissive

license to require reasonable acknowledgement in a

manner compatible with GPLv3.   It would require that any

derived work with an interactive interface have a prominent

way to display copyrights & other legal notices.   Then,

it'd require that your software project be mentioned in

those notices, in a manner commensurate with other

components of the whole work.



There are two parts to this.  First is community acceptance:

finding wording that is reasonably clear, effective, yet short

enough to satisfy those who are interested in a "permissive"

license isn't an easy task.   Second, and perhaps more

importantly, compliance must be quite trivial -- this requires

somesort of registry with just about every commonly used

open source work included, as well as a convenient

mechanism to use this registry to build a compliant

legal notice and acknowledgement visual display.



So, the outcome of this would be some sort of visual

menu that can be easily accessed, where your work

would be one of dozens.I do hope to engage in a

project like this when I have some time and can find

collaborators who agree on an sensible vision.



Best,



Clark
___
License-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] License which requires watermarking? (Attribution Provision)

2012-12-25 Thread David Woolley 

Eitan Adler wrote:

On 24 December 2012 22:10, ldr ldr  wrote:

John: I'd be happy with proprietary forks, as long as the Attribution
provision would hold.

E.g.: if they sell it to other people, those other people still are
aware of my original project and have a link to it


Aren't you looking for something similar to the 4-BSD license?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses#4-clause_license_.28original_.22BSD_License.22.29


And are you aware why no-one uses it any longer?

(It makes it difficult to create derivative works based on many 
different components with advertising clauses.  One of the main freedoms 
in open source is to be able to use parts of someone else's code without 
reproducing their whole application.  A lot of people searching for 
licences seem to think only in terms of their whole application, or 
forks that only differ slightly.)


--
David Woolley
Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam,
that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.
___
License-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] License which requires watermarking? (Attribution Provision)

2012-12-24 Thread ldr ldr 
You know what, I think I am!

Thank you so much, this is the reason I joined the license-discuss
mailing-list =D

On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 2:52 PM, Eitan Adler  wrote:
> On 24 December 2012 22:10, ldr ldr  wrote:
>> John: I'd be happy with proprietary forks, as long as the Attribution
>> provision would hold.
>>
>> E.g.: if they sell it to other people, those other people still are
>> aware of my original project and have a link to it
>
> Aren't you looking for something similar to the 4-BSD license?
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses#4-clause_license_.28original_.22BSD_License.22.29
>
> --
> Eitan Adler
> ___
> 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] License which requires watermarking? (Attribution Provision)

2012-12-24 Thread Eitan Adler 
On 24 December 2012 22:10, ldr ldr  wrote:
> John: I'd be happy with proprietary forks, as long as the Attribution
> provision would hold.
>
> E.g.: if they sell it to other people, those other people still are
> aware of my original project and have a link to it

Aren't you looking for something similar to the 4-BSD license?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses#4-clause_license_.28original_.22BSD_License.22.29

-- 
Eitan Adler
___
License-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] License which requires watermarking? (Attribution Provision)

2012-12-24 Thread ldr ldr 
John: I'd be happy with proprietary forks, as long as the Attribution
provision would hold.

E.g.: if they sell it to other people, those other people still are
aware of my original project and have a link to it

On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 3:36 AM, John Cowan  wrote:
> ldr ldr scripsit:
>
>> 1. "Badgeware" (as you call it) requirement, i.e.: that every page of
>> the site and mobile-apps' have a copyright area which contains:
>> "Powered by [project name](github.com/projectname)" or
>> "Powered by [new project name]() a fork of [project
>> name](github.com/projectname"
>
> You have to word this very carefully, so that derivative works which
> don't have this type of user interface can still be in compliance.
>
>> 2. A carefully worded closure of the: "ASP loophole"
>
> The Affero GPL requires users who have access to the server to be
> able to download the source of the server software: see clause 13 of
> .  Beyond that, we are in
> unexplored territory.  In particular, it's not clear why you'd want to
> require server operators to provide their users with the freedom to obtain
> the source, when the BSD license generally permits proprietary forks.
>
> --
> La mayyitan ma qadirun yatabaqqa sarmadiJohn Cowan
> Fa idha yaji' al-shudhdhadh fa-l-maut qad yantahi.  [email protected]
> --Abdullah al-Hazred, Al-`Azif  http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
> ___
> 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] License which requires watermarking? (Attribution Provision)

2012-12-24 Thread John Cowan 
ldr ldr scripsit:

> 1. "Badgeware" (as you call it) requirement, i.e.: that every page of
> the site and mobile-apps' have a copyright area which contains:
> "Powered by [project name](github.com/projectname)" or
> "Powered by [new project name]() a fork of [project
> name](github.com/projectname"

You have to word this very carefully, so that derivative works which
don't have this type of user interface can still be in compliance.

> 2. A carefully worded closure of the: "ASP loophole"

The Affero GPL requires users who have access to the server to be
able to download the source of the server software: see clause 13 of
.  Beyond that, we are in
unexplored territory.  In particular, it's not clear why you'd want to
require server operators to provide their users with the freedom to obtain
the source, when the BSD license generally permits proprietary forks.

-- 
La mayyitan ma qadirun yatabaqqa sarmadiJohn Cowan
Fa idha yaji' al-shudhdhadh fa-l-maut qad yantahi.  [email protected]
--Abdullah al-Hazred, Al-`Azif  http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
___
License-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] License which requires watermarking? (Attribution Provision)

2012-12-24 Thread ldr ldr 
I have noticed that a lot of the discussion occurring is on section 7
of the GPL license; so I feel the need to alleviate those concerns and
tell you outright that what I am considering for my SaaS Startup.

I.e.: FreeBSD license with two added provisions:

1. "Badgeware" (as you call it) requirement, i.e.: that every page of
the site and mobile-apps' have a copyright area which contains:
"Powered by [project name](github.com/projectname)" or
"Powered by [new project name]() a fork of [project
name](github.com/projectname"
2. A carefully worded closure of the: "ASP loophole"

Given these conditions, which license is most aligns to my
requirements? - And would it be considered "open-source"?

On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 9:05 AM, Rick Moen  wrote:
>
> Minor correction (proving that I shouldn't post to these subjects in a
> hurry while working on other things):
>
> > Getting back to what I was groggily trying to say last night:  My sense
> > is that OSI's approval of CPAL back in '07 was motivated in part by a
> > perception that a modest badgeware requirement was one arguably
> > reasonable method for giving reciprocal licensing enforcement power in
> > ASP/SaaS deployment, and that Socialtext's CPAL proposal wasn't so
> > extreme in its requirements as to preemptively kill third-party
> > commercial competition the way badgeware licensing usually does (the OSD
> > #3 concern I cited).
>   ^^
>
> Intended reference was OSD #6 (discrimination against fields of
> endeavour).
>
> Creative steps to cripple commercial reuse rights for others are a
> recurring theme, I notice.
>
>
> ___
> 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] License which requires watermarking? (Attribution Provision)

2012-12-19 Thread Rick Moen 
Minor correction (proving that I shouldn't post to these subjects in a
hurry while working on other things):

> Getting back to what I was groggily trying to say last night:  My sense
> is that OSI's approval of CPAL back in '07 was motivated in part by a
> perception that a modest badgeware requirement was one arguably
> reasonable method for giving reciprocal licensing enforcement power in
> ASP/SaaS deployment, and that Socialtext's CPAL proposal wasn't so
> extreme in its requirements as to preemptively kill third-party
> commercial competition the way badgeware licensing usually does (the OSD
> #3 concern I cited).
  ^^

Intended reference was OSD #6 (discrimination against fields of
endeavour).  

Creative steps to cripple commercial reuse rights for others are a
recurring theme, I notice.


___
License-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] License which requires watermarking? (Attribution Provision)

2012-12-19 Thread Rick Moen 
Quoting Richard Fontana ([email protected]):

> Actually, section 7 of GPLv3 was intended to allow a limited form of
> badgeware (as well as certain other kinds of restrictions). But the
> example cited by the original poster:
> http://www.nopcommerce.com/licensev3.aspx 
> goes well beyond what the FSF intended to authorize. 
> Unfortunately, I have seen a number of such misuses of GPLv3/AGPLv3 7(b).

Getting back to what I was groggily trying to say last night:  My sense
is that OSI's approval of CPAL back in '07 was motivated in part by a
perception that a modest badgeware requirement was one arguably
reasonable method for giving reciprocal licensing enforcement power in
ASP/SaaS deployment, and that Socialtext's CPAL proposal wasn't so
extreme in its requirements as to preemptively kill third-party
commercial competition the way badgeware licensing usually does (the OSD
#3 concern I cited).

Maybe FSF felt similiarly (that 'a limited form of badgeware' was
sufficiently harmless and worth trying in that sense).

By contrast, the _classic_ badgeware we'd seen up to that point was
typified by SugarCRM's, which invented (or at least popularised)
competition-killing ASP licensing in outraged reaction to
Bangalore-based vtigerCRM's emergence as an independent fork of SugarCRM
1.0, in 2004 when the latter was under MPL 1.0.  SugarCRM, Inc. designed
its new licensing (my interpretation) to cripple any subsequent forks'
commercial potential.  And a gaggle of imitators then followed them.

As the saying goes, that's certainly their legal right, but it just
isn't open source.  Much of the newer ASP pseudo-open source code we're 
seeing has eschewed CPAL in favour of far more extreme badgeware of the 
'mandatory advertising on every single UI screen' variety.  Which, I
conclude, shows that proponents are not merely seeking preservation of
'attribution' as they have tended to claim in this forum:  If they had
been, then CPAL's modest and minimally intrusive requirement would have
sufficed even for ASP/SaaS deployments where notices in the source code
may not be visible.  Thus, it appears what they are really seeking under
the guise of 'attribution' is spiking of competitors while still
claiming to do open source.

So, you say OSI, FSF, and (possibly) Debian's approval of CPAL was
wrongly decided, and you might be right -- but my point is that its
approval and subsequent non-adoption has at least had the virtue of
making clear that the assertion about merely wanting 'attribution' fails
the sniff test.

Also, a larger point:  OSI-approved licence Foo modified by a bunch of
restrictions dangled from it is pretty much reliably NOT open source.

-- 
Cheers,  Nothing's hotter than having a copyeditor correct your sex scenes.
Rick Moen   -- Max Barry
[email protected]
McQ! (4x80)
___
License-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] License which requires watermarking? (Attribution Provision)

2012-12-19 Thread Rick Moen 
Quoting Richard Fontana ([email protected]):

> On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 12:34:33AM -0500, Richard Fontana wrote:
> > I believe that the OSI's approval of CPAL (the license you may be
> > intentionally not naming) was, in retrospect, wrongly decided.
> 
> To be fair, and to spread the blame around, the FSF's decision that
> CPAL is a free software license was also wrongly decided, as was the
> Fedora Project's decision that CPAL was free for purposes of Fedora
> (which appears to be my fault -- sorry Tom!). I believe Debian treats
> CPAL as DFSG-free but whether this was a wrong decision depends on
> whether a decision was actually made, I suppose.

I respect your view on the matter.

At the time, FWIW, I was among those who found CPAL to be only minimally
noxious and only mildly infringing on OSD #6 (fields of endeavour)
freedoms, and basically felt it to be a questionable licence likely to
remain obscure but so much better than the other slop that Matt Asay et
alii were trying to cram down everyone's throat that it could be given a
chance without significant harm to anyone.  And I note that it was a
flash in the pan, pretty much -- worse and sneakier badgeware vehicles
like GPLv3 + restrictive 'Additional Terms' having emerged right around
the same time.  So, our collective desire to be accomodating (if that's
what it was) did not avail.

(I'm writing this off the cuff at the end of a long day, and may well be
neglecting important aspects.  Sorry.)
___
License-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] License which requires watermarking? (Attribution Provision)

2012-12-19 Thread Rick Moen 
Quoting John Cowan ([email protected]):

> You should add this to the KB; I did check there, but with no success.

OK, I'll see about that.

> > http://linuxgazette.net/159/misc/lg/sugarcrm_and_badgeware_licensing_again.html
> 
> Offline, alas.

It's reachable now.  I'll soon be mirroring it on my own site, just in
case the _Linux Gazette_ Web site disappears -- not that I assert any
special merit to it.  (Back in 2009, I was, FWIW, trying to follow
developments in this area to best ability, with some help from the rest
of the magazine staff.)

___
License-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] License which requires watermarking? (Attribution Provision)

2012-12-18 Thread Richard Fontana 
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 12:34:33AM -0500, Richard Fontana wrote:
> I believe that the OSI's approval of CPAL (the license you may be
> intentionally not naming) was, in retrospect, wrongly decided.

To be fair, and to spread the blame around, the FSF's decision that
CPAL is a free software license was also wrongly decided, as was the
Fedora Project's decision that CPAL was free for purposes of Fedora
(which appears to be my fault -- sorry Tom!). I believe Debian treats
CPAL as DFSG-free but whether this was a wrong decision depends on
whether a decision was actually made, I suppose.

- RF
___
License-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] License which requires watermarking? (Attribution Provision)

2012-12-18 Thread Richard Fontana 
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 09:17:11PM -0800, Rick Moen wrote:
> An FSF author involved with the GPLv3 draft speaks to FSF's intent
> (FWIW):  http://gplv3.fsf.org/additional-terms-dd2.html
> 
>   A GPL licensee may place an additional requirement on code for which
>   the licensee has or can give appropriate copyright permission, but only
>   if that requirement falls within the list given in subsection 7b.
>   Placement of any other kind of additional requirement continues to be a
>   violation of the license. Additional requirements that are in the 7b
>   list may not be removed, but if a user receives GPL'd code that purports
>   to include an additional requirement not in the 7b list, the user may
>   remove that requirement.
> 
> The literal wording of 7b is exactly as quoted above.

This 7b refers to the 7b of GPLv3 Discussion Draft 2, which contained
the whole 'additional requirements' portion of section 7. In later
drafts of GPLv3, and in the final version, there were no subsections
of section 7, and 7b is one of the enumerated list of allowable
additional requirements. 

- RF

___
License-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] License which requires watermarking? (Attribution Provision)

2012-12-18 Thread Richard Fontana 
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 08:58:16PM -0800, Rick Moen wrote:
> As you have noticed, some firms have now adopted the clever if sleazy
> -- my interpretation -- ploy of purporting to use GPLv3 but sliding a
> mandatory badgeware notice requirement for every single UI page by
> claiming those are Additional Terms within the meaning of GPLv3 clause
> 7.
> 
> I personally think that is a total crock, and hope it gives rise to
> litigation at some point:  Clause 7 is a mechanism for adding
> _exceptions_ to the conditions GPLv3 would otherwise require.  The dodge
> of claiming you can add _restrictions_ via that clause or similar
> methods such as hanging a restriction off GPLv2 -- and the sheer
> dishonesty of pretending that is still open source -- almost certainly
> doesn't fool anyone.

Actually, section 7 of GPLv3 was intended to allow a limited form of
badgeware (as well as certain other kinds of restrictions). But the
example cited by the original poster:
http://www.nopcommerce.com/licensev3.aspx 
goes well beyond what the FSF intended to authorize. 
Unfortunately, I have seen a number of such misuses of GPLv3/AGPLv3 7(b).

As for adding a similarly-broad badgeware requirement on top of GPLv2,
it would be enough of a stretch to argue that limited GPLv3-acceptable
badgeware provisions are acceptable under GPLv2.

I believe that the OSI's approval of CPAL (the license you may be
intentionally not naming) was, in retrospect, wrongly decided.

 - RF

___
License-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] License which requires watermarking? (Attribution Provision)

2012-12-18 Thread John Cowan 
Rick Moen scripsit:

> Clark C. Evans brought that up in February.  Rather than recap the
> entire thing, I'll just repost my reply to him on that point.

You should add this to the KB; I did check there, but with no success.

> http://linuxgazette.net/159/misc/lg/sugarcrm_and_badgeware_licensing_again.html

Offline, alas.

> (What's the difference between 'specified reasonable legal notices or
> author attributions in that material' and required, immutable runtime
> display of trademarked logos and advertising on every user interface 
> screen of the program and all derivatives?  Degree, I suspect.  If
> reality is messy and lacks sharp distinctions sometimes, so be it.)

My only point is that lawsuits to determine if some particular behavior
is or is not reasonable are hard to win.

-- 
Eric Raymond is the Margaret Mead   John Cowan
of the Open Source [email protected]
--Bruce Perens, http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
  some years ago
___
License-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] License which requires watermarking? (Attribution Provision)

2012-12-18 Thread Rick Moen 
Quoting John Cowan ([email protected]):

> It all hangs on the word "reasonable" in the definition of permitted
> restrictions of type 7b: "Requiring preservation of specified
> reasonable legal notices or author attributions in that material or in
> the Appropriate Legal Notices displayed by works containing it."  As you
> know, what is or is not reasonable is always going to be a tricky area.."
> Such litigation would be not only a dubious battle but an expensive one.

Clark C. Evans brought that up in February.  Rather than recap the
entire thing, I'll just repost my reply to him on that point.


Quoting Clark C. Evans ([email protected]):

> As an update to this thread, I've revived my interest in
> trying to keep GPLv3 compatibility with this approach;
> a reasonable, attribution terms for a MIT derived license
> or the GPLv3 itself (under 7b).

The term 'attribution' tends to be used for a variety of different
things, so you may wish to start there.

Classically in software, it refers to copyright notices, e.g., in source
code.  In the last decade, the aforementioned group of Web 2.0 / SaaS
hucksters started referring to mandatory runtime advertising as
'attribution', too -- a rather propagandistic sleight of tongue, in my
view -- an approach that reached the pinnacle of absurdity with SugarCRM
Community Edition 5.x's perversion of GPLv3, using clause 7b to
re-implement the same obnoxious name-and-graphical-logo on every page
requirement widely rejected in the openly badgeware licences that they
claimed were open source.  One of my analyses:
http://linuxgazette.net/159/misc/lg/sugarcrm_and_badgeware_licensing_again.html

Quoting:

   GPLv3 section 7 is _not_ about attribution provisions. It is about
   required legal notices (e.g., trademark) and other permitted
   supplementary terms. Clause 7b says that "Requiring preservation of
   specified reasonable legal notices or author attributions in that
   material or in the Appropriate Legal Notices displayed by works
   containing it" are permitted, but I very much doubt that FSF had in
   mind required, immutable runtime display of trademarked logos and
   advertising on every user interface screen of the program and all
   derivatives -- which has the obvious effect of severely impairing
   freedom of third-party commercial use.

An FSF author involved with the GPLv3 draft speaks to FSF's intent
(FWIW):  http://gplv3.fsf.org/additional-terms-dd2.html

  A GPL licensee may place an additional requirement on code for which
  the licensee has or can give appropriate copyright permission, but only
  if that requirement falls within the list given in subsection 7b.
  Placement of any other kind of additional requirement continues to be a
  violation of the license. Additional requirements that are in the 7b
  list may not be removed, but if a user receives GPL'd code that purports
  to include an additional requirement not in the 7b list, the user may
  remove that requirement.

The literal wording of 7b is exactly as quoted above.

Getting back to Clark's initiative:

> 1. Create a set of open source components that can be used
> for the visual display of OSS attributions in a manner that
> satisfies both the GPLv3 requirements as well as being 
> broadly useful enough for projects to incorporate.

'Visual display of OSS attributions' required via GPLv3 clause 7b
sounds a whole lot like the aforementioned Web 2.0 / SaaS notion of 
'attribution' and difficult to distinguish from what SugarCRM did 
in its 5.x series.  CPAL is also generically in the same category, but
its specific requirements are IMO orders of magnitude less burdensome, 
enough to constitute a difference in kind.

(What's the difference between 'specified reasonable legal notices or
author attributions in that material' and required, immutable runtime
display of trademarked logos and advertising on every user interface 
screen of the program and all derivatives?  Degree, I suspect.  If
reality is messy and lacks sharp distinctions sometimes, so be it.)

I know Clark was also talking about a 'registry of OSS works and
dependencies with pretty logos, license terms, and others', and
encouraging crediting such works in public deployments, which 
sounds useful, I guess, but I'm not enthusiastic about 'an emergent
consensus on acceptable attribution practices for those who might
otherwise wish to not play along', as it is highly prone to abuse,
and I doubt any such 'emergent consensus' is likely.

And, really, how about we call runtime advertising by its real name, and
cease this subterfuge of mislabeling it as 'attribution'?

___
License-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] License which requires watermarking? (Attribution Provision)

2012-12-18 Thread John Cowan 
Rick Moen scripsit:

> As you have noticed, some firms have now adopted the clever if sleazy
> -- my interpretation -- ploy of purporting to use GPLv3 but sliding a
> mandatory badgeware notice requirement for every single UI page by
> claiming those are Additional Terms within the meaning of GPLv3 clause
> 7.
> 
> I personally think that is a total crock, and hope it gives rise to
> litigation at some point:  

It all hangs on the word "reasonable" in the definition of permitted
restrictions of type 7b: "Requiring preservation of specified
reasonable legal notices or author attributions in that material or in
the Appropriate Legal Notices displayed by works containing it."  As you
know, what is or is not reasonable is always going to be a tricky area.."
Such litigation would be not only a dubious battle but an expensive one.

-- 
It was dreary and wearisome.  Cold clammy winter still held sway in this
forsaken country.  The only green was the scum of livid weed on the dark
greasy surfaces of the sullen waters.  Dead grasses and rotting reeds loomed
up in the mists like ragged shadows of long-forgotten summers.
--"The Passage of the Marshes"  http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
___
License-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] License which requires watermarking? (Attribution Provision)

2012-12-18 Thread Rick Moen 
Quoting ldr ldr ([email protected]):

> Thanks, I've seen it in a few open-source projects, such as:
> 
> http://www.nopcommerce.com/licensev3.aspx
> http://www.mvcforum.com/license

Those are not open source.  Moreover:

> But this isn't well received by the open-source community, and would not be
> OSI approved?

"Badgeware' licensing was heavily lobbied for by a little incestuous^W
group of Web 2.0 startups for a while, several years back.  One
watered-down example was eventually approved mostly because -- my
interpretation -- the amount of intrusion onto the user experience had
been cut back to a modest mandatory notice on one screen only.  

As you have noticed, some firms have now adopted the clever if sleazy
-- my interpretation -- ploy of purporting to use GPLv3 but sliding a
mandatory badgeware notice requirement for every single UI page by
claiming those are Additional Terms within the meaning of GPLv3 clause
7.

I personally think that is a total crock, and hope it gives rise to
litigation at some point:  Clause 7 is a mechanism for adding
_exceptions_ to the conditions GPLv3 would otherwise require.  The dodge
of claiming you can add _restrictions_ via that clause or similar
methods such as hanging a restriction off GPLv2 -- and the sheer
dishonesty of pretending that is still open source -- almost certainly
doesn't fool anyone.

I respect the publishers of outright proprietary software in many cases
a great deal, e.g., Opera Software ASA, my second-favourite set of crazy
Norwegians.  By contrast, companies that try to pull the above sort of
stunt, well:  not so much.

-- 
Cheers,"He who hesitates is frost."
Rick Moen -- Inuit proverb
[email protected]  
McQ!  (4x80)
___
License-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] License which requires watermarking? (Attribution Provision)

2012-12-18 Thread ldr ldr 
Thanks, I've seen it in a few open-source projects, such as:

http://www.nopcommerce.com/licensev3.aspx
http://www.mvcforum.com/license

But this isn't well received by the open-source community, and would not be
OSI approved?

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 8:02 AM, Rick Moen  wrote:

> Quoting Johnny Solbu ([email protected]):
>
> > You can also look at the various «Creative Commons» licenses. If I'm
> > not mistaken, all of them require attribution.
>
> They require keeping copyright notices intact and provide the name of
> the original author, etc., which credit may be 'implemented in any
> reasonable manner', etc.  Details for SA-BY 3.0 here:
> https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode (4a, 4b).
>
> However, I would hope that any work with elaborate copyright notices on
> every UI screen would be regarded as noxious and widely ignored.
> We've seen that sort of tactic before.
>
> ___
> 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] License which requires watermarking? (Attribution Provision)

2012-12-18 Thread Rick Moen 
Quoting Johnny Solbu ([email protected]):

> You can also look at the various «Creative Commons» licenses. If I'm
> not mistaken, all of them require attribution.

They require keeping copyright notices intact and provide the name of
the original author, etc., which credit may be 'implemented in any
reasonable manner', etc.  Details for SA-BY 3.0 here:
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode (4a, 4b).

However, I would hope that any work with elaborate copyright notices on
every UI screen would be regarded as noxious and widely ignored.
We've seen that sort of tactic before.

___
License-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] License which requires watermarking? (Attribution Provision)

2012-12-18 Thread Karl Fogel 
ldr ldr  writes:
>E.g.: This project was created by Google therefore should say on all
>interface screens "Foo, a project by Google" or if a fork: "Bar, a
>fork of the Google project Foo" with a link from Foo back to its
>github repo.

I'm not sure a license that has such onerous attribution requirements
(every interface screen) could be open source.  Open source license have
various attribution requirements, but usually they apply in only two
places:

  - At the source code level

  - In the UI on a designated credits screen or wherever credits
notices typically appear (i.e., not on every UI screen!)

There have been licenses that came closer to what you want to require,
but they've been very controversial.  I know that if someone proposed a
license now with the requirement you describe, I -- speaking only for
myself, not the OSI -- would argue that it cannot be open source.

-K
___
License-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] License which requires watermarking? (Attribution Provision)

2012-12-18 Thread Johnny Solbu 
On Monday 17. December 2012 02.14, ldr ldr wrote:
> Can you recommend such a license?

There is the BSD 2-Clause License.
It says in part in the first paragraph «... provided that the following 
conditions are met:»
Then add your special attribution requirements as part of the license 
conditions.

I'm not sure if the license would still be a BSD licence, but I think it'll at 
least be a BSD-like license.

You can also look at the various «Creative Commons» licenses. If I'm not 
mistaken, all of them require attribution.

-- 
Johnny A. Solbu
web site,   http://www.solbu.net
PGP key ID: 0xFA687324

Kom Arbeidslyst og treng deg på,
her skal du motstand finne.


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
License-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss