Re: [License-discuss] Looking for a license agreement.
@Rudy Has someone pointed you at ODbL (Open Database License via the Open Data Commons) yet? http://opendatacommons.org/ http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/summary/ I believe that OSM switched to this and it might do what you want it to do for the data part. If all of your hosted data started under ODbL (or some variant) then any derivatives of that data remain under the same sticky note in your example...with the caveat that I haven't looked that closely at ODbL, nor am I a lawyer. Open Street Maps has made an effort to switch to this from CC-BY-SA. Would you still need to explicitly tie your software license to the data license in this scenario? ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Looking for a license agreement.
On Fri, Oct 07, 2011 at 01:13:26AM -0400, Rudy Lippan wrote: That is a tough one for me. I don't think that a list factual data itself is deserving of copyright protections esp. when the data cannot be recreated by someone else. This may be a touch off-topic for this list, but . . . why would you want to grant someone the ability to prohibit others from using *facts* by the simple expedient of (for instance) alphabetizing a list of facts? That's insane. In a time when even the ability to maintain a monopoly over things that have been *created* is becoming controversial, someone asserting a monopoly over information that has been *found* seems quite regressive and, frankly, harmful. Do you think that it would be compatible with open source for super- data-munger(TM) 1.3 to say, if you download* databases form the munger network(TM)+ and use super-data-munger to process the data, you must re-release the product of your munging along with your munger ruleset(TM) to the munger$ network? I ask because this is related to another project with which I am involved. That seems to me like a Terms of Service issue. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpd0CeKWyN6F.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Looking for a license agreement.
Chad Perrin wrote: someone else. This may be a touch off-topic for this list, but . . . why would you want to grant someone the ability to prohibit others from using *facts* by the simple expedient of (for instance) alphabetizing a list of facts? That's insane. In a time when even the ability to maintain a monopoly over things that have been *created* is becoming controversial, someone asserting a monopoly over information that has been *found* seems quite regressive and, frankly, harmful. Database copyrights are not like patents. As long as you obtain the fact independently, you can publish them. Telephone directories and maps have bogus entries to help detect whether a competing compilation is truly independent. -- 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 License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Looking for a license agreement.
David Woolley scripsit: Database copyrights are not like patents. As long as you obtain the fact independently, you can publish them. Telephone directories and maps have bogus entries to help detect whether a competing compilation is truly independent. Maps, I hasten to say, are copyrightable in the U.S., although facts in the maps (like London is in England) and about the maps (Anytown USA is in grid square N1 on such-and-such a map) are not. The map itself, however, requires the selection of which facts to present and the choice of a manner of presentation, and as such is more than creative enough to be an object of copyright. -- La mayyitan ma qadirun yatabaqqa sarmadiJohn Cowan Fa idha yaji' al-shudhdhadh fa-l-maut qad yantahi. co...@ccil.org --Abdullah al-Hazred, Al-`Azif http://www.ccil.org/~cowan ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Looking for a license agreement.
John Cowan wrote: David Woolley scripsit: Database copyrights are not like patents. As long as you obtain the fact independently, you can publish them. Telephone directories and maps have bogus entries to help detect whether a competing compilation is truly independent. Maps, I hasten to say, are copyrightable in the U.S., although facts in the maps (like London is in England) and about the maps (Anytown USA is in grid square N1 on such-and-such a map) are not. The map itself, however, requires the selection of which facts to present and the choice of a manner of presentation, and as such is more than creative enough to be an object of copyright. Rather worrying and rather relevant to this, thread, an American company is suing the (American) individual who maintains the timezone data used in Linux and other open source and proprietary software, for alleged infringement of their copyright on the historic timezone data, which they allege that he has copied from their publication and has attributed that publication as source. http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/10/06/1743226/civil-suit-filed-involving-the-time-zone-database -- 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 License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Looking for a license agreement.
On Fri, Oct 07, 2011 at 04:09:24PM +0100, David Woolley wrote: Chad Perrin wrote: This may be a touch off-topic for this list, but . . . why would you want to grant someone the ability to prohibit others from using *facts* by the simple expedient of (for instance) alphabetizing a list of facts? That's insane. In a time when even the ability to maintain a monopoly over things that have been *created* is becoming controversial, someone asserting a monopoly over information that has been *found* seems quite regressive and, frankly, harmful. Database copyrights are not like patents. As long as you obtain the fact independently, you can publish them. Telephone directories and maps have bogus entries to help detect whether a competing compilation is truly independent. The very existence of a copyright is a threat to others who deal in the material, because of the potential for expensive litigation regardless of the expected outcome if all parties are able to see it through to judgment. In the real world, the legal system is a bit more of a problem than the letter of the law might suggest. That, at least, is what I have observed. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpVWC851zjBS.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Looking for a license agreement.
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 8:09 AM, David Woolley for...@david-woolley.me.uk wrote: Chad Perrin wrote: someone else. This may be a touch off-topic for this list, but . . . why would you want to grant someone the ability to prohibit others from using *facts* by the simple expedient of (for instance) alphabetizing a list of facts? That's insane. In a time when even the ability to maintain a monopoly over things that have been *created* is becoming controversial, someone asserting a monopoly over information that has been *found* seems quite regressive and, frankly, harmful. Database copyrights are not like patents. As long as you obtain the fact independently, you can publish them. Telephone directories and maps have bogus entries to help detect whether a competing compilation is truly independent. Darn it! I was still hoping to get my copy of Flags Up! by Lillian Mountweazel. Best Wishes, Chris Travers ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Looking for a license agreement.
Quoting David Woolley (for...@david-woolley.me.uk): Rather worrying and rather relevant to this, thread, an American company is suing the (American) individual who maintains the timezone data used in Linux and other open source and proprietary software, for alleged infringement of their copyright on the historic timezone data, which they allege that he has copied from their publication and has attributed that publication as source. Nothing in the blue-sky, vague notions[1] discussed upthread could possibly avert utterly baseless ab-initio civil litigation by a deluded plaintiff for non-existent infringement of non-existent copyrights supposedly committed by fully credited reuse of strictly functional facts over the 30-year period. Because filing requires only a fee, a half-baked idea, and some paperwork. So, prevention is out. Deterrence on the other hand exists: Rule 11(b), Federal Rules of Evidence. http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule11.htm I hope defence in this case files immediately for sanctions under Rule 11(b). [1] My opinion, yours for a small fee and a modest patent indemnity. -- Rick Moen So as not to offend readers, use r...@linuxmafia.com'the N-word' instead of 'Nebraska'. McQ! (4x80)-- FakeAPStylebook ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Looking for a license agreement.
Rudy Lippan wrote: So what I would like to do is tie the license of the software to the user of the software respecting the licenses of the community-distributed components they use, whether or not the individual component is eligible for copyright protection. You can't have a licence unless some rights are restricted without it. If there really is no intellectual property in the components you mention, they don't need, and can't have a licence. Also note that, in the UK, some of your examples would be protected by copyright law (database copyrights). -- 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 License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Looking for a license agreement.
On 10/06/2011 12:50 PM, Rudy Lippan wrote: There will also be a community aspect where individuals will develop and contribute components, just like every other open source project However, some of the contributed components may not be eligible for copyright protections. A component might be a simple configuration file, a pure data set, or even a full description of a server farm with data processing and management software. So what I would like to do is tie the license of the software to the user of the software respecting the licenses of the community-distributed components they use, whether or not the individual component is eligible for copyright protection. Just my two cents here, but I believe that it will be simpler (and safer) if you assume that all contributions to your project are copyrightable, and thus, needing to be under a compatible license. (Yes, I'm sure someone will feel the urge to be pedantic and point out that there are multiple assumptions in the above sentence, but please do not.) If the contributions are not copyrightable, then the license applied to those contributions is possibly irrelevant, and the widest possible range of rights for it apply. However, if a contribution is assumed to be non-copyrightable and no license is applied, and that turns out to be false (or false for some jurisdictions), not having the license will be extremely problematic. I also think that you should handle contribution licensing requirements separately from the copyright license of your work. I have seen too many poorly worded software copyright licenses where the intent was noble, but the implementation ended up in something that was non-Free or non-Open Source. In Fedora, we require contributors to agree to the Fedora Project Contributor Agreement (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal:FPCA), to ensure that contributions (of both code and content) accepted to Fedora are guaranteed to come with acceptable licensing terms, either via explicit licensing statement from the copyright holder or explicit agreement to the default license terms as stated in the FPCA. A similar model may work for your project, and the FPCA is available under CC-BY-SA 3.0 Unported (with section 4d waived), although if you do decide to generate a derived work, I strongly encourage you to have a lawyer sign off on it first, because Legalese != English. Hope that helps, ~tom P.S. I Am Not A Lawyer, this is not to be considered legal advice. == Fedora Project ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Looking for a license agreement.
Rudy Lippan scripsit: So what I would like to do is tie the license of the software to the user of the software respecting the licenses of the community-distributed components they use, whether or not the individual component is eligible for copyright protection. I would just ignore the question of copyrightability, and treat all components as if they were under copyright. I would also like to have a framework where components could require automatic redistribution of modifications---a contributor could select a mandatory/automatic redistribution license. I'd recommend that you use the Apache 2.0 license for the core and the non-restrictive components, while allowing contributors to license components with LGPL 3 or later language. These licenses are agreed to be compatible. Any distribution not including a LGPLed component can be freely distributed with or without source; if the LGPLed component is included, it at least must be distributed with source. While I understand the desire for someone to remove/disable/firewall off the automatic redistribution functionality for security or other reasons, it would be nice to say If you disable this part of the system, you are restricted from using contributed components that require this functionality as a condition of your use. You can't restrict how people use copyrighted works by reason of the copyright alone: you can only control how they copy, distribute, or modify them. -- John Cowan co...@ccil.org http://ccil.org/~cowan Consider the matter of Analytic Philosophy. Dennett and Bennett are well-known. Dennett rarely or never cites Bennett, so Bennett rarely or never cites Dennett. There is also one Dummett. By their works shall ye know them. However, just as no trinities have fourth persons (Zeppo Marx notwithstanding), Bummett is hardly known by his works. Indeed, Bummett does not exist. It is part of the function of this and other e-mail messages, therefore, to do what they can to create him. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Looking for a license agreement.
Rudy Lippan wrote: So what I would like to do is tie the license of the software to the user of the software respecting the licenses of the community-distributed components they use, whether or not the individual component is eligible for copyright protection. You can't have a licence unless some rights are restricted without it. If there really is no intellectual property in the components you mention, they don't need, and can't have a licence. There may not be intellectual property in the components; however, there is work involved in their creation. As such, I think it would be fair to be able to attribute the creator some level of control over the use use of the product. License may be the wrong term here, but the idea is the same. I really get the idea of the License not being binding, but if someone were to Tag or identify tag the work as non-commercial, then it could not be used within the program for commercial purposes without violating the license of the program itself. I give you free use of a copy machine, but state that as a condition of use, you can't copy any of the books on shelf #3, even though a) I don't own the books and b) they are in the public domain. -r ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Looking for a license agreement.
Rudy Lippan scripsit: There may not be intellectual property in the components; however, there is work involved in their creation. That doesn't matter to the law. It takes a lot of work to alphabetize a list of millions of names, but the result is not in copyright in the U.S.; it is in the public domain. I give you free use of a copy machine, but state that as a condition of use, you can't copy any of the books on shelf #3, even though a) I don't own the books and b) they are in the public domain. You can do that because you own the copy machine. But if a book is in the public domain, that means that I don't own it and you don't own it and you don't own it (and so on for the billions of people and corporations and governments who can own things worldwide). -- Overhead, without any fuss, the stars were going out. --Arthur C. Clarke, The Nine Billion Names of God John Cowan co...@ccil.org ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Looking for a license agreement.
Rudy Lippan wrote: There may not be intellectual property in the components; however, there is work involved in their creation. As such, I think it would be fair to be able to attribute the creator some level of control over the use use of the product. License may be the wrong term here, but the idea is the same. That's why the UK recognizes database copyrights. However, if no such statute applies, you must create a contract with every transfer or copy of the components, and as part of that contract, require the receiving party to treat them as confidential. I'm not sure that is compatible with open source. Creating a contract where no money changes hands can be difficult. You are creating the opposite of a licence; you are imposing restrictions where none previously existed. IANAL TINLA. -- 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 License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Looking for a license agreement.
John Cowan wrote: You can't restrict how people use copyrighted works by reason of the copyright alone: you can only control how they copy, distribute, or modify them. I believe that may be true in the USA. Running a computer program is restricted under UK copyright law. -- 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 License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Looking for a license agreement.
On 10/06/2011 12:50 PM, Rudy Lippan wrote: There will also be a community aspect where individuals will develop and contribute components, just like every other open source project However, some of the contributed components may not be eligible for copyright protections. A component might be a simple configuration file, a pure data set, or even a full description of a server farm with data processing and management software. So what I would like to do is tie the license of the software to the user of the software respecting the licenses of the community-distributed components they use, whether or not the individual component is eligible for copyright protection. Just my two cents here, but I believe that it will be simpler (and safer) if you assume that all contributions to your project are copyrightable, and thus, needing to be under a compatible license. That might be assuming a lot :-) I am looking at a CPAN-like system for contributions but where individual builds would be able to be published within the network, but someone might be publishing equivalent of the ./configure options that were used to get some new CMS to work with a particular web server. (I used webserver 4.8 and I needed to add this set of modules along with making these configuration changes). Maybe think about of more of as a network for sharing .spec files? But where the.spec files can also indicate the base OS along with the specific versions of each application to along with the connections between other hosts. I think it would be a fair trade for the author to say, 'go figure it out how to do this for yourself if you don't agree to re-release your changes'. I also think that you should handle contribution licensing requirements separately from the copyright license of your work. I have seen too many poorly worded software copyright licenses where the intent was noble, but the implementation ended up in something that was non-Free or non-Open Source. This, of course, is what I am trying to avoid... In Fedora, we require contributors to agree to the Fedora Project Contributor Agreement (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal:FPCA), to ensure that contributions (of both code and content) accepted to Fedora are guaranteed to come with acceptable licensing terms, either via explicit licensing statement from the copyright holder or explicit agreement to the default license terms as stated in the FPCA. A similar model may work for your project, and the FPCA is available under CC-BY-SA 3.0 Unported (with section 4d waived), although if you do decide to generate a derived work, I strongly encourage you to have a lawyer sign off on it first, because Legalese != English. Something like that would probably work nicely for the core. I will have to spend some more time reading it, but it is much better than what I have now, which is that you assign all IP for any modifications that you make. -r ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Looking for a license agreement.
Rudy Lippan scripsit: I give you free use of a copy machine, but state that as a condition of use, you can't copy any of the books on shelf #3, even though a) I don't own the books and b) they are in the public domain. You can do that because you own the copy machine. But if a book is But if I own the the software (copy machine), could I state that as a condition of my allowing you to use the software that you will read the requirements(title page) of the components (books) and agree to abide by what it says before using it with the software (making a photocopy)? -r ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Looking for a license agreement.
Rudy Lippan scripsit: But if I own the the software (copy machine), could I state that as a condition of my allowing you to use the software that you will read the requirements(title page) of the components (books) and agree to abide by what it says before using it with the software (making a photocopy)? Sure, but it seems to me better to make that self-enforcing as a result of using the right kinds of licenses on the content. The default assumption is that if someone gives you content, they have the right to do so. -- John Cowanhttp://www.ccil.org/~cowan co...@ccil.org if if = then then then = else else else = if; ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Looking for a license agreement.
David Woolley scripsit: I believe that may be true in the USA. Running a computer program is restricted under UK copyright law. Technically it is copying in the U.S. too, but there is an automatic license to do such copying, as long as your possession of the software is lawful. -- John Cowan http://ccil.org/~cowan co...@ccil.org 'My young friend, if you do not now, immediately and instantly, pull as hard as ever you can, it is my opinion that your acquaintance in the large-pattern leather ulster' (and by this he meant the Crocodile) 'will jerk you into yonder limpid stream before you can say Jack Robinson.' --the Bi-Coloured-Python-Rock-Snake ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Looking for a license agreement.
On Thursday, October 06, 2011 at 05:59:45 PM, John Cowan wrote: Rudy Lippan scripsit: But if I own the the software (copy machine), could I state that as a condition of my allowing you to use the software that you will read the requirements(title page) of the components (books) and agree to abide by what it says before using it with the software (making a photocopy)? Sure, but it seems to me better to make that self-enforcing as a result of using the right kinds of licenses on the content. The default assumption is that if someone gives you content, they have the right to do so. I think I may have confused the issue with the unfortunate choice of the Title page. Instead, lets say I build a library and allow people to place their rare books in the library, most of which are old and in the public domain. The owners of the physical copy of the books put on the inside cover a sticky- note (archival quality, of course) detailing restrictions on the use. As a condition of using the library, you have to respect the notes the book owners place on their books. Maybe what I am trying to do is overkill and idealistic, but I thought it would be nice to attempt to leverage the loss of being able to use an application (along with a possible copyright infringement lawsuit) to protect the people who's contributions might be significant but not up to the level of copyrightable IP. Take, for example, an intern who takes a week to do something that an experience sysadmin can do in a day. The intern is allowed to retain rights to the work and decides to release it tagged for non-commercial use. It would be pretty crappy for an organization to use it as the basis of project because they know would prevail in court (or more likely, when they find out after the fact that an employee used it and decide to brush off the author when the conditions of use are brought to their attention). -r ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Looking for a license agreement.
On Thursday, October 06, 2011 at 05:06:58 PM, David Woolley wrote: Rudy Lippan wrote: There may not be intellectual property in the components; however, there is work involved in their creation. As such, I think it would be fair to be able to attribute the creator some level of control over the use use of the product. License may be the wrong term here, but the idea is the same. That's why the UK recognizes database copyrights. However, if no such That is a tough one for me. I don't think that a list factual data itself is deserving of copyright protections esp. when the data cannot be recreated by someone else. statute applies, you must create a contract with every transfer or copy of the components, and as part of that contract, require the receiving party to treat them as confidential. I'm not sure that is compatible with open source. Do you think that it would be compatible with open source for super- data-munger(TM) 1.3 to say, if you download* databases form the munger network(TM)+ and use super-data-munger to process the data, you must re-release the product of your munging along with your munger ruleset(TM) to the munger$ network? I ask because this is related to another project with which I am involved. * know or have reason to believe that the data set originated or was derived from a munger network data source. + or any similar network that puts restrictions on the use of such databases. $ or network from which the original databases originated -r ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
