Re: RFC 211 (v1) The Artistic License Must Be Changed
> >One problem is the definition of "Reasonable Copying Fee" given in the > >license. It is possible the definition means: "You can charge any amount as > >copying fee, if people will pay it". If this interpretation is correct, > >there is no real legal limit on the fee at all. > > That is again my understanding of the AL and again it is a feature I like. > > > > >However, there is another interpretation that also seems legally valid. The > >definition given of "Reasonable Copying Fee" could actually intend to place > >a limit on copying fees that prohibits charging enough to make a profit. Nick Ing-Simmons wrote: > If the licence changes to that intepretation than I will stop using it for > my software. I _want_ people to be able to make a profit from my efforts, > including, but not limited to, myself. My worry is that there is not enough clarity in the language to make it clear which interpretation is correct. > I would be fascinated to see how a "reasonable fee" could be better > defined. Media cost may not be the issue, it may be fuel cost to fly > across Australia to deliver it, or a large fee may be "reasonable" just > for the expertise to providing it on RTX11 8-inch floppies. Have you taken a look at the RFC I posted after that? It redefines "Reasonable Copying Fee" a bit better, I think. -- Bradley M. Kuhn - http://www.ebb.org/bkuhn PGP signature
Re: RFC 211 (v1) The Artistic License Must Be Changed
- Original Message - From: "Nick Ing-Simmons" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2000 6:05 PM Subject: Re: RFC 211 (v1) The Artistic License Must Be Changed > Perl6 Rfc Librarian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >=head3 Bruce Perens > > > >Bruce Perens, while a member of Open Source Initiative (OSI), stated: > > > >Section 5 of the Artistic License prohibits sale of the software, > > >yet allows > >an aggregate software distribution of more than one program to be sold. So, > >if you bundle an Artistic-licensed program with a 5-line hello-world.c, you > >can sell the bundle. > > That is one of the things I like about the AL - it does not really > "prohibit sale" at all. yes, one of the strengths of the Perl community is that there is a place for ActiveState and there rather good efforts they are happily making money (I hope) out of free s/w by adding value to it -- I *can't* see this as a bad thing as it seems to have opened the user-base up more than just slightly > >=head3 Bradley M. Kuhn > > > > > >One problem is the definition of "Reasonable Copying Fee" given in the > >license. It is possible the definition means: "You can charge any amount as > >copying fee, if people will pay it". If this interpretation is correct, > >there is no real legal limit on the fee at all. > > That is again my understanding of the AL and again it is a feature I like. > yes -- the more ppl who can make money by adding value the better... it will widen the user-base and improve the quality of the peripheral s/w
Re: RFC 211 (v1) The Artistic License Must Be Changed
The Perl6 RFC Librarian quoth: > >This and other RFCs are available on the web at > http://dev.perl.org/rfc/ > >=head1 TITLE > >The Artistic License Must Be Changed [...] Please add some reference to the fact that over the course of Perl's history it was changed, and therefore there is now some question as to whether copyright holders have actually agreed to the text as it now stands. Additionally I would like to see a "scare" scenario or two shown of how one could wind up complying with the terms of the license but defeat the intention. One such scenario would be releasing modifications under Sun's Community Source License. Clearly Freely Available, but clearly ineligable for inclusion into Perl. A second is to rename all of the executables, document the changes,and upon installation create symlinks making them available under the original name. You need to document the changes though. The third is even nastier. Set up two groups. The first modifies all of the executables in the Package to new names and documents it. Then distributes to the second group under the Artistic License. The second group modifies all of the executables *back* to the original names and documents the change from the version they received (which was never public). The twice modified version is now released under virtually any license you want, without source. My attempted license tries to address all three of these attempted attacks. Cheers, Ben _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com.
Re: RFC 211 (v1) The Artistic License Must Be Changed
Perl6 Rfc Librarian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >=head3 Bruce Perens > >Bruce Perens, while a member of Open Source Initiative (OSI), stated: > >Section 5 of the Artistic License prohibits sale of the software, >yet allows >an aggregate software distribution of more than one program to be sold. So, >if you bundle an Artistic-licensed program with a 5-line hello-world.c, you >can sell the bundle. That is one of the things I like about the AL - it does not really "prohibit sale" at all. >=head3 Bradley M. Kuhn > > >One problem is the definition of "Reasonable Copying Fee" given in the >license. It is possible the definition means: "You can charge any amount as >copying fee, if people will pay it". If this interpretation is correct, >there is no real legal limit on the fee at all. That is again my understanding of the AL and again it is a feature I like. > >However, there is another interpretation that also seems legally valid. The >definition given of "Reasonable Copying Fee" could actually intend to place >a limit on copying fees that prohibits charging enough to make a profit. If the licence changes to that intepretation than I will stop using it for my software. I _want_ people to be able to make a profit from my efforts, including, but not limited to, myself. >So, if some entity were to sell a CD with Artistic-licensed software on it, >that entity might be in violation of the license if they charge even $1 more >than someone in "the computing community at large" thinks they should. > >Also, the definition of "Freely Available" is not completely clear, with >regard to the charging of a "handling fee". > >For example, if I were to press a CD of an Artistic-Licensed software >program, and offer to give you a copy if you give me one dollar, would that >be permitted or not? Most people would call that charging a fee for the >item, which is prohibited; but if I simply called it a "handling fee", would >that make it permitted? > >What if a large computer store wanted to distributed this same CD of >Artistic-License software? Would that be permitted, or prohibited? In >principle, nothing would stop a store from saying they are charging a >"handling fee" for that item, but computer stores are not accustomed to >doing this, and might have trouble reprogramming the cash register to print >"Handling Fee" instead of "Price" for this particular CD. > >=head2 What About Simply Contacting the Copyright Holder? > > >The problem here, I believe, is one of scale. Consider John Q. Hacker, who >got a copy of thirty Artistic-licensed programs (each with a different >copyright holder). He got his copy of these programs on a CD, which he got >from a local user group, who in turn got their first copy from a large >redistributor of free software (such as CheapBytes). CheapBytes got their >copy directly from each author's website. > >Now, John Q. Hacker wants to run a side business installing these software >programs for his clients, charging a "copying fee". He does not plan to >modify the software at all, so he must only charge what the license calls a >reasonable copying fee. > >He isn't able to justify his fee to the entire computing community at large, >just to his client. So, he's left with section (4d); he has to email each >of the thirty copyright holders, and ask them for permission to do what he >wants. They will likely give it, but it is a lot of work for him to do >that. So what - if he is doing it for profit then he has to do something for his money, if not then it is very unlikely that the "community at large" would have a problem with it. > >That totals to the same question being asked ninety times. Even if the >answer was "yes" every time, that is still a lot of wasted effort, simply >because some wording of the original license was confusing. I would be fascinated to see how a "reasonable fee" could be better defined. Media cost may not be the issue, it may be fuel cost to fly across Australia to deliver it, or a large fee may be "reasonable" just for the expertise to providing it on RTX11 8-inch floppies. -- Nick Ing-Simmons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Via, but not speaking for: Texas Instruments Ltd.
Re: RFC 211 (v1) The Artistic License Must Be Changed
Note that I am not necessarily asking for any specific rebuttal; I am noting what I think are problems with the RFC here. So where I ask questions, we can discuss them here, but I am primarily asking that the clarifications be made for the RFC, not to me. At 7:04 + 2000.09.13, Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote: >The Artistic License Must Be Changed > Maintainer: Bradley M. Kuhn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 12 Sep 2000 > Mailing List: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Number: 211 > Version: 1 > Status: Developing >Bruce Perens, while a member of Open Source Initiative (OSI), stated: >Section 5 of the Artistic License prohibits sale of the software, yet allows >an aggregate software distribution of more than one program to be sold. So, >if you bundle an Artistic-licensed program with a 5-line hello-world.c, you >can sell the bundle. This feature of the Artistic License was the sole cause But how is this a _real problem_? Go for it, sell it if you can. If a dummy wants to buy it, so what? >The Artistic License requires you to make modifications free, No, it doesn't. Section 3b allows you to keep them private. >but then gives >you a loophole (in section 7) that allows you to take modifications private How is this a loophole? The GPL allows you to take modifications private. It is not a loophole, it is specifically provided for in 3b. >or even place parts of the Artistic-licensed program in the public domain!" No it doesn't. This whole paragraph is quite confused (either in intent or in expression). Maybe Bruce means something other than he says. Clarifications might be in order if it is to be included (see the note on the FSF position below). >=head3 Free Software Foundation >"We cannot say that this [the Artistic License] is a free software license >because it is too vague; some passages are too clever for their own good, >and their meaning is not clear." I don't think this adds anything to the RFC at all. It does not give any justification, whatsoever, for their view. I think either the view should be supported, or it should be removed. >One problem is the definition of "Reasonable Copying Fee" given in the >license. It is possible the definition means: "You can charge any amount as >copying fee, if people will pay it". If this interpretation is correct, >there is no real legal limit on the fee at all. Again, I am looking for _real problems_, not just statements about sections that are, in your eyes, vague. >However, there is another interpretation that also seems legally valid. The >definition given of "Reasonable Copying Fee" could actually intend to place >a limit on copying fees that prohibits charging enough to make a profit. >So, if some entity were to sell a CD with Artistic-licensed software on it, >that entity might be in violation of the license if they charge even $1 more >than someone in "the computing community at large" thinks they should. If it does not say you may not make a profit, then you are not so prohibited. Though I do understand your point about vagueness, I don't see it as a real problem opening anyone to liability. >Also, the definition of "Freely Available" is not completely clear, with >regard to the charging of a "handling fee". > >For example, if I were to press a CD of an Artistic-Licensed software >program, and offer to give you a copy if you give me one dollar, would that >be permitted or not? Why wouldn't it be? A handling fee is expressly allowed for. >Most people would call that charging a fee for the >item, which is prohibited; but if I simply called it a "handling fee", would >that make it permitted? Yes, according to the language of the license ... I don't see how this is vague. Perhaps overly permissive, but not vague. >He isn't able to justify his fee to the entire computing community at large, >just to his client. So, he's left with section (4d); he has to email each >of the thirty copyright holders, and ask them for permission to do what he >wants. They will likely give it, but it is a lot of work for him to do >that. There are two problems here. First, you assume that the Artistic License is wrong when it clearly states that (in the case of Perl) Larry Wall is the only one to be contacted in such a case. You don't even note the discrepancy, but instead say that 30 copyright holders should be contacted without giving any explanation. The second problem is that if you are going to assume that the Artistic License is wrong, then it is not a problem of scale, but a problem of validity. >=head2 Dual Licensing and the Artistic License > >Some might argue that the Artistic License need not be changed, since, as >Larry has declared, it should only be used as part of a dual licensing >(Larry Wall, 21 August 2000). He did not say that (in the post I saw). He said it was _designed_ to only be used as part of a dual licensing scheme. He did not make any admonition that it only _should_ be used thus. http://www.xray.mpe.mpg.
