Re: Open Software License

[Walter Landry]

Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-06-02 at 16:16, Joey Hess wrote:
> > 10) Jurisdiction, Venue and Governing Law. You agree that any lawsuit
> > arising under or relating to this License shall be maintained in the
> > courts of the jurisdiction wherein the Licensor resides or in which
> > Licensor conducts its primary business, and under the laws of that
> > jurisdiction excluding its conflict-of-law provisions.
> 
> Haven't we rejected these clauses before? This is no different than
> "Under the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, United States" except
> its much more confusing (where does the licensor live today?)

I don't think so.  It isn't GPL compatible, which is why there was a
big fuss about the Python license.  But it wasn't considered non-free.

Regards,
Walter Landry
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Bug #189164: libdbd-mysql-perl uses GPL lib, may be used by GPL-incompatible apps

[Steve Langasek]

On Thu, May 29, 2003 at 12:20:39PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Steve Langasek wrote:
> >It is not "mere aggregation", for the same reason that a bug in a
> >library that makes it unusable by applications is a grave, not a
> >critical, bug: one piece of software is not "unrelated" to another if
> >the former depends on the latter.

> Ah, I get what I was missing earlier... so you're claiming that there's 
> a legal status for a combination C of A and B, which does *not* make C a 
> derived work derived from work B, but where C is also not a mere 
> aggregation of work A with work B.

> I don't think there is.  I could be wrong, of course.  IANAL.

I'm sorry -- IANAL either, and I was not aware that "mere aggregation"
was a legal term at all.  I'm discussing the concepts, as present in the
DFSG and the GPL, and explaining why I believe that, if the GPL places
requirements on applications that use GPL libs, this doesn't violate
DFSG#9.

-- 
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer


pgp3D16YphSsq.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Open Software License

[Mark Rafn]

> Sean 'Shaleh' Perry said on Mon, Jun 02, 2003 at 07:46:52PM -0700,:
> >I presume this document has been discussed elsewhere, has Mr. Rosen
> >spoken on these matters?  From what I have seen of him on the Net, he
> >seems willing to discuss such matters.

On Tue, 3 Jun 2003, Mahesh T. Pai wrote:
> I subscribe to the license-discuss list; but do not recall any
> discussion there on the lines of 'forced redistribution is not free'.

The OSI license-discuss list doesn't operate in the same way that
debian-legal does, and doesn't seem to have the same body of consensus
about topics not directly covered by the OSD.  There was an inconclusive
thread about this in April (sorry for the link, I couldn't find a better
one easily)  
http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:sss:6543:200303:nepgjjjogdajaicmedhi#b

I believe Debian takes a much stronger stance.  I hope the external 
deployment section of this license will be considered non-free.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]  

Re: Open Software License

[Mahesh T. Pai]

Sean 'Shaleh' Perry said on Mon, Jun 02, 2003 at 07:46:52PM -0700,:

>I presume this document has been discussed elsewhere, has Mr. Rosen spoken on 
>these matters?  From what I have seen of him on the Net, he seems willing to 
>discuss such matters.

I subscribe to the license-discuss list; but do not recall any
discussion there on the lines of 'forced redistribution is not free'.

The archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3

Regards,
Mahesh T. Pai


-- 
+==+
 Mahesh T. Pai, Advocate,   
 'NANDINI', S. R. M. Road,  
 Ernakulam, Cochin-682018, http://in.geocities.com/paivakil 
 Kerala, India.
+==+

Re: GPL exception ???

[Branden Robinson]

On Mon, Jun 02, 2003 at 01:57:08PM -0700, Mark Rafn wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Jun 2003, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > I hope the copyright holder realizes that this restriction is
> > unenforceable under copyright law if the source code and documentation
> > are rewritten such that they are no longer derivative works.
> 
> I don't disagree, but I think I'm missing something WRT the reason for
> your comment.  It never crossed my mind that a license author would expect
> such a restriction to apply to original works.  In this case, it even says
> "Derivative works must...".

I'm not convinced that the author of the blurb in questions understands
"derivative works" the same way I do.  His stance seems considerably
more militant than even a fairly strong reading of copyright law would
permit.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson| Good judgement comes from
Debian GNU/Linux   | experience; experience comes from
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | bad judgement.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Fred Brooks


pgpp3fYbv3hIo.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: The debate on Invariant sections (long)

[Branden Robinson]

On Mon, Jun 02, 2003 at 02:37:52PM -0600, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
> > > My understanding is that the FSF requires copyright assignments in
> > > order to give themselves the ability to most effectively defend the
> > > community against poachers and legal attacks.
> > 
> > It seems perfectly plausible to me that the reason you cite was never
> > the sole motivation for this policy, though it may have been the most
> > frequently and publicly articulated one.
> 
> Sure, and it's also perfectly plausible that RMS is a secret employee
> of Microsoft and Chinese double agent plotting the use of free
> software to assassinate the Dalai Lama.  But this is debian-legal not
> debian-wacko-conspiracy-theory.

This is a straw-man exaggeration of my position.

> Given the FSF's highly successful GPL enforcement activities and
> prescient concern with optimizing the community's legal position, and
> RMS's track record of both contributing to and founding the community,
> it seems like Occam's razor dictates taking the FSF's explanation for
> requesting assignments at face value.

I do not question RMS's large and foundational contributions to the
community.  But we should not express our approval by suspending our
ability to think critically and carefully, even about proposals from our
luminaries.  The GNU FDL is either problematic or it is not, and whether
it is has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the FSF is
promulgating it.

At any rate, your citation of Occam's Razor is inapposite.  Induction
tells me that people engaged in persuasive speech often do not lay out
comprehensive and exhaustive justifications for their positions.
Instead, they choose the justifications that they feel are are most
important and/or likely to persuade their audience.  I believe RMS is a
person, therefore I (parsimoniously!) deduce that he is likely to engage
in persuasive speech in a manner similar to most other people.  So far I
have seen no evidence to contradict this (tentative) conclusion.

Moreover, there are several points that RMS has frankly said he's
unwilling to discuss with us, claiming that he perceives us as hostile
interlocutors[1].  Therefore, by his own statements we know that his
position is more developed than the "face value" remarks he has been
offering this forum.

Therefore I request that you lay off the personal attacks and charges of
fallacious reasoning.  You'll note that I have impugned neither RMS's
personality nor his ability to reason.  I am merely committing the
heresy of being unpersuaded by the arguments he has offered to date that
the Debian's endorsement of the GNU FDL is worth what it would cost the
Project.

[1] Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

-- 
G. Branden Robinson| Communism is just one step on the
Debian GNU/Linux   | long road from capitalism to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | capitalism.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Russian saying


pgpXwlthglO0x.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Open Software License

[Anthony DeRobertis]

On Mon, 2003-06-02 at 16:16, Joey Hess wrote:

>   c) to distribute copies of the Original Work and Derivative Works
>   to the public, with the proviso that copies of Original Work or
>   Derivative Works that You distribute shall be licensed under the
>   Open Software License;
... 
> 3) Grant of Source Code License. The term "Source Code" means the
> preferred form of the Original Work for making modifications to it and
> all available documentation describing how to access and modify the
> Original Work. Licensor hereby agrees to provide a machine-readable
> copy of the Source Code of the Original Work along with each copy of
> the Original Work that Licensor distributes.

Damn is that a weird way to phrase copyleft. I'm not sure its
enforceable, quite frankly. How can a copyright license put demands on
the copyright holder?

> 
> 5) External Deployment. The term "External Deployment" means the use
> or distribution of the Original Work or Derivative Works in any way
> such that the Original Work or Derivative Works may be accessed or
> used by anyone other than You, [...]

Already noted by another poster as non-free. Gotta wonder how to comply
with this one if, e.g, I decide to use it as part of a router.


> 
> 6) Warranty and Disclaimer of Warranty. LICENSOR WARRANTS THAT THE
> COPYRIGHT IN AND TO THE ORIGINAL WORK IS OWNED BY THE LICENSOR OR THAT
> THE ORIGINAL WORK IS DISTRIBUTED BY LICENSOR UNDER A VALID CURRENT
> LICENSE FROM THE COPYRIGHT OWNER.

Wow, that's taking on a lot of liability, at least compare to normal
open source works.


> 9) Mutual Termination for Patent Action. This License shall terminate
> automatically and You may no longer exercise any of the rights granted
> to You by this License if You file a lawsuit in any court alleging
> that any OSI Certified open source software that is licensed under any
> license containing this "Mutual Termination for Patent Action" clause
> infringes any patent claims that are essential to use that software.

Hmmm, too bad its so easy to get around that clause, methinks... "No, we
didn't sue you --- our wholly-owned subsidiary did!"

> 
> 10) Jurisdiction, Venue and Governing Law. You agree that any lawsuit
> arising under or relating to this License shall be maintained in the
> courts of the jurisdiction wherein the Licensor resides or in which
> Licensor conducts its primary business, and under the laws of that
> jurisdiction excluding its conflict-of-law provisions.

Haven't we rejected these clauses before? This is no different than
"Under the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, United States" except
its much more confusing (where does the licensor live today?)

> The application
> of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International
> Sale of Goods is expressly excluded.

WTF is this convention, anyway? Everyone seems to exclude it.

> Any use of the Original Work
> outside the scope of this License or after its termination shall be
> subject to the requirements and penalties of the U.S. Copyright Act,
> 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq., the equivalent laws of other countries, and
> international treaty. This section shall survive the termination of
> this License.

(If you break the law, you are subject to the penalties for breaking the
law --- what a surprise! Anyone want to change Title 17 to Title 51?)

> 
> 13) Definition of "You" in This License. "You" throughout this
> License, whether in upper or lower case, means an individual or a
> legal entity exercising rights under, and complying with all of the
> terms of, this License.

Nice way to define section 9 right out of existence. After all a "You"
in section 9 is not complying with the license...

> For legal entities, "You" includes any entity
> that controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with you.
> For purposes of this definition, "control" means (i) the power, direct
> or indirect, to cause the direction or management of such entity,
> whether by contract or otherwise, or (ii) ownership of fifty percent
> (50%) or more of the outstanding shares, or (iii) beneficial ownership
> of such entity.

Well, at least that closes the wholly-owned subsidiary problem.



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: The debate on Invariant sections (long)

[Anthony DeRobertis]

On Mon, 2003-06-02 at 16:37, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:

> Sure, and it's also perfectly plausible that RMS is a secret employee
> of Microsoft and Chinese double agent plotting the use of free
> software to assassinate the Dalai Lama.  But this is debian-legal not
> debian-wacko-conspiracy-theory.

The FSF has already used a copyright assignment against the wishes of
the original author of the documentation, who objects to the added
invariant sections.

This assertion, by the author, has been made publicly on this mailing
list. It is in the archive at:

http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200304/msg00256.html


> Consider the current SCO/IBM brouhaha - it's a shame the FSF doesn't
> have assignments for the Linux kernel which would put it in a position
> to stand up for the community against SCO's bullying.

Yeah, it's really a shame that instead of the underfunded FSF standing
up to SCO its IBM's over-funded legal department[1].

And several other people (like LinuxTag) are taking on SCO, too. The FSF
could join in if it felt like it. And --- this just in --- SCO isn't
doing to well; they've been ordered to shut up.[0] 

> It is no
> coincidence that SCO chose to attack something that the FSF doesn't
> have legal paperwork on.

Sure it is. Attacking "linux" makes more press than attacking "gcc" or
"hurd." 


[0] http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,1114885,00.asp
[1] "If anything, IBM's legal pockets are deeper than
 Microsoft's, and the company is no stranger to
 controversial legal entanglements. So far, IBM shows
 no sign of caving."
 http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,1115134,00.asp


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part