Re: [License-discuss] Permissive but anti-patent license
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 10:42:00AM +0530, Prashant Shah wrote: I had some minor issues with Apache license - Redistribution clause - sections 1, 2 4. So I went ahead and modified the Apache license to suite my needs. Its just a template right now - nothing serious. https://github.com/octabrain/notache/blob/master/LICENSE-1.0.txt There are indeed some serious problems with the Apache License 2.0, and I avoid it like the plague. There's some information about its problems in a WikiVS page: https://www.wikivs.com/wiki/Apache_License_vs_COIL I'll give this Notache License a closer look. I'm pretty unhappy with section 4 (redistribution) of the Apache License 2.0 myself. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Permissive but anti-patent license
Hi, On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 2:38 AM, Chad Perrin per...@apotheon.com wrote: I'll give this Notache License a closer look. I'm pretty unhappy with section 4 (redistribution) of the Apache License 2.0 myself. I have rename the license to Akshar License 1.0 Development Repo : https://github.com/octabrain/akshar Akshar License 1.0 : https://github.com/octabrain/akshar/blob/master/LICENSE-1.0.txt Difference from Apache : https://github.com/octabrain/akshar/commit/f7485e9a60a11b8c89606f3020e833d968130baa Also any improvements / feedback will be welcomed. I am looking for someone who is willing to host the license :) Regards. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Permissive but anti-patent license
Hi, On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 7:48 AM, Chad Perrin per...@apotheon.com wrote: I would like to take this one step further so that the anti-patent clause covers use as well as distribution. I propose the license below, a BSD derivative. I'm afraid I'm a month late here, but . . . http://copyfree.org/licenses/coil/license.txt Apache License 2.0 is better when it comes to legal wordings. http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 3. Grant of Patent License. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable (except as stated in this section) patent license to make, have made, use, offer to sell, sell, import, and otherwise transfer the Work, where such license applies only to those patent claims licensable by such Contributor that are necessarily infringed by their Contribution(s) alone or by combination of their Contribution(s) with the Work to which such Contribution(s) was submitted. If You institute patent litigation against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the Work or a Contribution incorporated within the Work constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, then any patent licenses granted to You under this License for that Work shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed. Even golang is better : http://golang.org/PATENTS IMHO, if you want to base something on then go with Apache 2 rather than BSD/MIT since Apache is most bullet proof license when it comes to legal wordings. Even Google uses it for most of its projects. I had some minor issues with Apache license - Redistribution clause - sections 1, 2 4. So I went ahead and modified the Apache license to suite my needs. Its just a template right now - nothing serious. https://github.com/octabrain/notache/blob/master/LICENSE-1.0.txt Regards. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Permissive but anti-patent license
Hi, I had some minor issues with Apache license - Redistribution clause - sections 1, 2 4. So I went ahead and modified the Apache license to suite my needs. Its just a template right now - nothing serious. https://github.com/octabrain/notache/blob/master/LICENSE-1.0.txt Here is the diff of what I have changed. https://github.com/octabrain/notache/commit/b2c29ac4ee4a792f36f3c709e3e58cd2357d5e76 Regards. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Permissive but anti-patent license
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 09:54:23AM +, John Funnell wrote: Dear all, GPL v2 and v3 have anti-patent clauses that says, in effect, that if anyone arranges a patent license for distribution of the code, they have to arrange that license for all possible downstream recipients of the code and derivatives. I would like to take this one step further so that the anti-patent clause covers use as well as distribution. I propose the license below, a BSD derivative. The aim, like GPL, is to drive a wedge between the software patent business and open software and the hope is to encourage the neutralisation (i.e. licensing for all) of critical patents that threaten popular free software. I am aware that the clause proposed only covers third-party patents: it might be worth rewording or including a clause to cover patents owned by the user/re-distributor themselves. I hope this makes sense. Please let me know if (a) there is an existing license that does this and (b) whether this would qualify as true open source. I'm afraid I'm a month late here, but . . . http://copyfree.org/licenses/coil/license.txt -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Permissive but anti-patent license
John, Ken, The vegetarian clause was, like moose excrement and chicken dancing, purely used to illustrate a point. It is not at all unreasonable to include a clause restricting patents on use of the code and I would expect a judge to respect the licensees intention. I do believe a clause can apply retroactively. If not, I could download the Linux kernel with good intentions, wait a week and then turn evil and, with that copy, violate GPL exactly as I pleased. License obligations are agreed when making the copy but they do not fade with time. A copyright license essentially says I will not sue you for copying my stuff provided that you do X and do not do Y. I am interested in three things here: - will the license clause proposed have the desired anti-patent effect? That is, will corporations understand it and respect it? - are there any loopholes, especially with regard to derived works? - is this a true open source license and is it ready for the License Review mailing list? ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Permissive but anti-patent license
On Wed, 2 Jan 2013, John Funnell wrote: I do believe a clause can apply retroactively. If not, I could download the Linux kernel with good intentions, wait a week and then turn evil and, with that copy, violate GPL exactly as I pleased. The requirements of the GPL apply when making copies. If you turned evil a week later, that wouldn't matter, since the GPL wouldn't actually require that you do anything, as long as you don't start making copies after you turn evil. It wouldn't apply retroactively--the copies that you already made are still good. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Permissive but anti-patent license
Hello, would you please remove me from this distribution? Thank you From: Bruce Perens br...@perens.com To: license-discuss@opensource.org Sent: Monday, December 24, 2012 11:46:29 AM Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Permissive but anti-patent license Incidental copying is always necessary for use. You can make the license work that way. On 12/24/2012 05:03 AM, David Woolley wrote: My understanding is that US copyright law doesn't restrict use of software (UK law does). If that is correct, you will need to form a contract at the time of supply of the software, that imposes this constraint. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Permissive but anti-patent license
J Evans jaanev...@yahoo.com writes: Hello, would you please remove me from this distribution? Done. -K From: Bruce Perens br...@perens.com To: license-discuss@opensource.org Sent: Monday, December 24, 2012 11:46:29 AM Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Permissive but anti-patent license Incidental copying is always necessary for use. You can make the license work that way. On 12/24/2012 05:03 AM, David Woolley wrote: My understanding is that US copyright law doesn't restrict use of software (UK law does). If that is correct, you will need to form a contract at the time of supply of the software, that imposes this constraint. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Permissive but anti-patent license
On Sun, 30 Dec 2012, John Funnell wrote: When a user makes their first copy, their acceptance of the anti-patent license is also an agreement to the restrictions on usage. If a US person violates this by entering into an agreement for a limited-scope patent license, they violate their original copyright license and are thus not allowed to copy, own or use the software. But can it retroactively invalidate an existing copy? If I write a license saying someone can only copy the software if they are a vegetarian, and they copy the software and start eating meat later on, they still were a vegetarian at the moment they copied the software. You won't be able to use the copy restriction like a use restriction because the copy restriction only applies to conditions that are true when the copy was made. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Permissive but anti-patent license
John Funnell wrote: I would like to take this one step further so that the anti-patent clause covers use as well as distribution. I propose the license below, a BSD derivative. My understanding is that US copyright law doesn't restrict use of software (UK law does). If that is correct, you will need to form a contract at the time of supply of the software, that imposes this constraint. -- 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] Permissive but anti-patent license
I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, etc. But I am under the impression that in the USA there is precedent saying that incidental copies that are necessary for use in a temporary medium (eg RAM) are not considered fixed and are therefore allowed under copyright law. If so, then any attempt in a copyright license to require acceptance to make those copies will fail because your permission was not, in fact, needed. On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 8:46 AM, Bruce Perens br...@perens.com wrote: Incidental copying is always necessary for use. You can make the license work that way. On 12/24/2012 05:03 AM, David Woolley wrote: My understanding is that US copyright law doesn't restrict use of software (UK law does). If that is correct, you will need to form a contract at the time of supply of the software, that imposes this constraint. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
