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 +0000 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.de/mailing-lists/perl5-porters/2000-08/msg01317.html
>will get used. Indeed, consider the fact that many modules on CPAN, and
>even some files in the perl5 core are under Artistic-License-only, despite
>Larry's encouragements to use the Artistic License I<only> as part of a
>dual-license scheme.
I don't believe he made any such encouragements.
I think this RFC is a good first draft. Thanks,
--
Chris Nandor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://pudge.net/
Open Source Development Network [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://osdn.com/
