Re: [License-discuss] Open source license chooser choosealicense.com launched.
What she said. Gwyn On Aug 28, 2013, at 12:23 PM, Roberta Cairney roberta.cair...@cairneylawoffices.com wrote: For what it is worth, I am a lawyer that does work in the open source world and I have found the recent discussions, including the Rosen/Kuhn dialog, to be among the interesting and valuable discussions that I've seen on this list in a while. And yes, I have been doing open source work long enough to appreciate the fact that it's not the first time that these issues have come up--the discussion still has value. From: Lawrence Rosen lro...@rosenlaw.com To: license-discuss@opensource.org Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 8:37 AM Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Open source license chooser choosealicense.com launched. Hi Luis, I refuse your request to be silent. What is more important to this list than this discussion? I won't just sit here like a lump while Bradley and others continue to encourage OSI to accept erroneous theories about license proliferation and while various groups implement FOSS license choosers that ignore legal analysis. If you believe that this or any other list is overflowing, open your drain wider. /Larry -Original Message- From: Luis Villa [mailto:l...@lu.is] Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 8:26 AM To: License Discuss; Lawrence Rosen; Bradley M. Kuhn Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Open source license chooser choosealicense.com launched. On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 9:14 AM, Bradley M. Kuhn bk...@ebb.org wrote: I don't think we need to (or should have) this debate (again) here Yes, please, let's not rehash this discussion here. It's been done many times, and the list is already overflowing this week. Luis ___ 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] Open source license chooser choosealicense.com launched.
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 9:14 AM, Bradley M. Kuhn bk...@ebb.org wrote: I don't think we need to (or should have) this debate (again) here Yes, please, let's not rehash this discussion here. It's been done many times, and the list is already overflowing this week. Luis ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Open source license chooser choosealicense.com launched.
Hi Luis, I refuse your request to be silent. What is more important to this list than this discussion? I won't just sit here like a lump while Bradley and others continue to encourage OSI to accept erroneous theories about license proliferation and while various groups implement FOSS license choosers that ignore legal analysis. If you believe that this or any other list is overflowing, open your drain wider. /Larry -Original Message- From: Luis Villa [mailto:l...@lu.is] Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 8:26 AM To: License Discuss; Lawrence Rosen; Bradley M. Kuhn Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Open source license chooser choosealicense.com launched. On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 9:14 AM, Bradley M. Kuhn bk...@ebb.org wrote: I don't think we need to (or should have) this debate (again) here Yes, please, let's not rehash this discussion here. It's been done many times, and the list is already overflowing this week. Luis ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Open source license chooser choosealicense.com launched.
For what it is worth, I am a lawyer that does work in the open source world and I have found the recent discussions, including the Rosen/Kuhn dialog, to be among the interesting and valuable discussions that I've seen on this list in a while. And yes, I have been doing open source work long enough to appreciate the fact that it's not the first time that these issues have come up--the discussion still has value. From: Lawrence Rosen lro...@rosenlaw.com To: license-discuss@opensource.org Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 8:37 AM Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Open source license chooser choosealicense.com launched. Hi Luis, I refuse your request to be silent. What is more important to this list than this discussion? I won't just sit here like a lump while Bradley and others continue to encourage OSI to accept erroneous theories about license proliferation and while various groups implement FOSS license choosers that ignore legal analysis. If you believe that this or any other list is overflowing, open your drain wider. /Larry -Original Message- From: Luis Villa [mailto:l...@lu.is] Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 8:26 AM To: License Discuss; Lawrence Rosen; Bradley M. Kuhn Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Open source license chooser choosealicense.com launched. On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 9:14 AM, Bradley M. Kuhn bk...@ebb.org wrote: I don't think we need to (or should have) this debate (again) here Yes, please, let's not rehash this discussion here. It's been done many times, and the list is already overflowing this week. Luis ___ 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] Open source license chooser choosealicense.com launched.
Quoting Luis Villa (l...@lu.is): Yes, please, let's not rehash this discussion here. It's been done many times, and the list is already overflowing this week. I'd actually be interested in Bradley or Eben pointing to any caselaw that supports their view. It's a fair, interesting, and relevant question, and I'd really like to know the answer. If it turns out that the answer is 'That's not been adjudicated in any directly relevant manner, but here are the reasons we think it will work the way we have been claiming for many years', that would be interesting and worth hearing, too. If Bradley (and/or Eben) just don't want to address that question for whatever reason fair enough. It's their time and effort to use as they wish. However, no harm raising it. And, like Larry, I'm not seeing any overwhelming flood of mailing list traffic. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Open source license chooser choosealicense.com launched.
Larry, Lawrence Rosen wrote at 18:29 (EDT) on Saturday: Just don't try to create *derivative works* by mixing them in that special and unusual way. ... How often is it truly necessary to make *derivative works* by intermixing software? I don't think we need to (or should have) this debate (again) here, but I will point out for those following the thread (in case anyone still is :) that your theory about the rarity of derivative work creation isn't shared by most (including me) in the field of Free Software licensing. I note that your entire argument about the ease of compatibility is predicated on your notion that creating a derivative work rarely happens in practice. Thus, I hope you can see that if we disagree on that fundamental point, we're going to come to very different conclusions about license compatibility. -- -- bkuhn ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Open source license chooser choosealicense.com launched.
Bradley Kuhn wrote: I don't think we need to (or should have) this debate (again) here, but I will point out for those following the thread (in case anyone still is :) that your theory about the rarity of derivative work creation isn't shared by most (including me) in the field of Free Software licensing. I asked for practical examples. You cited none. In the world of copyrights or most logical pursuits, absence of evidence isn't evidence. I note that your entire argument about the ease of compatibility is predicated on your notion that creating a derivative work rarely happens in practice. Awaiting your evidence to the contrary Thus, I hope you can see that if we disagree on that fundamental point, we're going to come to very different conclusions about license compatibility. Not entirely, although you and I have disagreed so often in the past that you missed a major point I made. Most FOSS licenses (including the GPL!) don't actually define the term derivative work with enough precision to make it meaningful for court interpretation. The court will therefore use the statutory and case law to determine that situation. Lawyers will lead the discussion, not engineers. although this list may still listen to your opinion. Our different conclusions won't matter to the judge, though, and we will have to wait for that court case to arrive. In the FOSS situation, to the best of my knowledge, nobody (including your group) has ever sued anyone over the creation of a derivative work. Unless you have evidence to the contrary, *derivative works* analysis has never mattered to any FOSS court case More important, all major FOSS licenses that I'm aware of *except the GPL* make it abundantly clear that the mere combination of that licensed software with other software (FOSS or non-FOSS) does not affect (infect?) the other software. So regardless of what you personally believe and will argue about, those other FOSS licensors are quite comfortable having their software intermixed (in the collective work sense). None of those other licensors have, to my knowledge, ever sued for infringement on the derivative work theory because of incompatible FOSS licenses. So what's the worry about license incompatibility all about? Is it merely that so many licenses are deemed incompatible with the GPL, even though those other FOSS license are not incompatible with each other in any important way? If you take the GPL *linking issue* out of the equation, almost all FOSS software is compatible with all other software (in the legal sense). It is no big whoop. /Larry -Original Message- From: Bradley M. Kuhn [mailto:bk...@ebb.org] Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 9:15 AM To: license-discuss@opensource.org Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Open source license chooser choosealicense.com launched. Larry, Lawrence Rosen wrote at 18:29 (EDT) on Saturday: Just don't try to create *derivative works* by mixing them in that special and unusual way. ... How often is it truly necessary to make *derivative works* by intermixing software? I don't think we need to (or should have) this debate (again) here, but I will point out for those following the thread (in case anyone still is :) that your theory about the rarity of derivative work creation isn't shared by most (including me) in the field of Free Software licensing. I note that your entire argument about the ease of compatibility is predicated on your notion that creating a derivative work rarely happens in practice. Thus, I hope you can see that if we disagree on that fundamental point, we're going to come to very different conclusions about license compatibility. -- -- bkuhn ___ 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] Open source license chooser choosealicense.com launched.
Bradley Kuhn wrote: The main community problem with proliferation is license incompatibility. Hi Bradley, That also exaggerates the problem. FOSS licenses are not generally incompatible with each other for most important purposes. Except perhaps for the GPL (because of the *linking* issue), anyone can create functional collections of FOSS programs at will. Just don't try to create *derivative works* by mixing them in that special and unusual way. There is no reason whatsoever why people can't combine MPL and CPL and OSL and Apache and MIT and BSD (etc., etc.) FOSS programs with each other. And even for the GPL, as with GPLv2 Linux or JBoss where the author states the *linking* exception clearly, one can even combine that software into collective works. How often is it truly necessary to make *derivative works* by intermixing software? When was the last time you intermixed an Apache Open Office module with a Linux driver, or a Mozilla plugin with an Eclipse tool, such as to create a derivative work? But feel free to *combine* Open Office with Linux with Mozilla with Eclipse to your heart's content. They are definitely not incompatible in that way! /Larry -Original Message- From: Bradley M. Kuhn [mailto:bk...@ebb.org] Sent: Friday, August 23, 2013 9:20 AM To: license-discuss@opensource.org Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Open source license chooser choosealicense.com launched. Lawrence Rosen wrote at 16:47 (EDT) on Tuesday: Perhaps, but the license proliferation issue is not quite helpful when phrased that way. It isn't that MORE licenses are necessarily bad. Instead, say that the proliferation of BAD (or me-too or un-templated or legally questionable) licenses is bad. The main community problem with proliferation is license incompatibility. Mozilla Foundation and the FSF did some great work together to reconcile the compatibility issues of the two most popular copylefts. We need to ensure that future license fit in the main compatibility, which I view as (from weakest copyleft to strongest): ISC = 2-clause-BSD = permissive-MIT License = Apache License = MPL = LGPL = GPL = Affero GPL If new licenses can't drop in somewhere along that spectrum, it's a proliferation problem, IMO. I suspect, however, that for-profit corporate folks would disagree with this as the primary problem here. I know that company's legal department really want to keep the license texts they must review quite low, and ISTR that was the biggest complaint about license proliferation from for-profit entities. It's hard to blame newcomers for wanting to draft their own licenses, as I think it's highly difficult to become part of the Free Software license policy discussion about existing licenses in practice *even* for would-be insiders. -- -- bkuhn ___ 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] Open source license chooser choosealicense.com launched.
Bradley M. Kuhn scripsit: This can be tested now: try it and see if choosealicense.com accepts the patches. John Cowan wrote at 12:30 (EDT) on Thursday: I am very disinclined to go to the effort of integrating my ideas (the actual code, which is plain HTML, is not relevant) into Github's code, absent some indication that they would be willing to adopt a more even-handed approach. I suspect that they favor permissive licenses for business reasons, as they encourage forking. I can't blame you for this. While I put the idea on my TODO list, I left it very low priority for basically the same reasons you state above. -- -- bkuhn ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Open source license chooser choosealicense.com launched.
Lawrence Rosen wrote at 16:47 (EDT) on Tuesday: Perhaps, but the license proliferation issue is not quite helpful when phrased that way. It isn't that MORE licenses are necessarily bad. Instead, say that the proliferation of BAD (or me-too or un-templated or legally questionable) licenses is bad. The main community problem with proliferation is license incompatibility. Mozilla Foundation and the FSF did some great work together to reconcile the compatibility issues of the two most popular copylefts. We need to ensure that future license fit in the main compatibility, which I view as (from weakest copyleft to strongest): ISC = 2-clause-BSD = permissive-MIT License = Apache License = MPL = LGPL = GPL = Affero GPL If new licenses can't drop in somewhere along that spectrum, it's a proliferation problem, IMO. I suspect, however, that for-profit corporate folks would disagree with this as the primary problem here. I know that company's legal department really want to keep the license texts they must review quite low, and ISTR that was the biggest complaint about license proliferation from for-profit entities. It's hard to blame newcomers for wanting to draft their own licenses, as I think it's highly difficult to become part of the Free Software license policy discussion about existing licenses in practice *even* for would-be insiders. -- -- bkuhn ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Open source license chooser choosealicense.com launched.
Pamela Chestek wrote at 09:54 (EDT) on Monday: And the major substantive aspects are what is captured in the summary. A major issue, I think, is that most people are really bad at writing good summaries of licenses. FWIW, a group of user interface researchers who have worked with Free Software extensively offered years ago to help draft user interface documents/systems that would help navigate an annotated text of various popular Free Software licenses and explain what they mean in a way that's grokkable by those who don't read licenses for a living. I asked many lawyers/licensing experts whom I knew at the time to volunteer to help on this project, and I sadly couldn't get anyone interested. The project died before it began. If there's interest in this again, I could start a thread off-list. Email me if you're interested in helping in this sort of effort, and I'll start the thread, but please be serious and ready to put time forward -- as I don't want to waste these researchers' time with another false start. -- -- bkuhn ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Open source license chooser choosealicense.com launched.
Pamela Chestek wrote at 12:18 (EDT) on Sunday: Why cannot an advocate for each license write a short blurb with the benefits and burdens of their own license? I don't think there's anything wrong with all the choices being positively-biased. This can be tested now: try it and see if choosealicense.com accepts the patches. -- -- bkuhn ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Open source license chooser choosealicense.com launched.
The GPLv3 is a rewritten GPLv2 which is less US specific, and addresses additional copyleft weaknesses. On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 10:48 AM, Engel Nyst engel.n...@gmail.com wrote: Hello license-discuss, On 08/18/2013 04:38 AM, Richard Fontana wrote: Independent of this point, I'm concerned about inaccurate statements made on the choosealicense.com site (one that we talked about was the assertion that GPLv3 restricts use in hardware that forbids software alterations). Please allow me to ask the impossible question: how would you write the summary of GPLv3 vs GPLv2 in 8-16 words? __**_ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.**org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/** license-discusshttp://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] Open source license chooser choosealicense.com launched.
Pamela Chestek wrote: I'm still having a hard time reconciling this with the also-held belief that license proliferation is bad. Perhaps, but the license proliferation issue is not quite helpful when phrased that way. It isn't that MORE licenses are necessarily bad. Instead, say that the proliferation of BAD (or me-too or un-templated or legally questionable) licenses is bad. Perhaps we might conclude that there aren't enough GOOD licenses on the various Recommended lists. The problem on this discussion forum is that hardly anyone (including me!) is qualified to tell the difference between GOOD and BAD licenses, since that depends more on the client's needs than the recommender's predilections. I think instead you want licenses to be readily adopted based on decision about the major substantive aspects and the rest of it just falls where it falls. And the major substantive aspects are what is captured in the summary. Go ahead and write license summaries. That may be useful. I've done that for my own licenses and even for some licenses I didn't create. But don't try to make it seem a trivial matter for software developers to license their software by giving them a simple-minded license chooser. That's less than helpful. If a lawyer posted such a license chooser that didn't consider the unique requirements of the client, it might be considered legal malpractice. Unless there were so many disclaimers as to make it useless advice on other grounds! /Larry -Original Message- From: Pamela Chestek [mailto:pam...@chesteklegal.com] Sent: Monday, August 19, 2013 6:54 AM To: license-discuss@opensource.org Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Open source license chooser choosealicense.com launched. On 8/18/2013 10:21 PM, Richard Fontana wrote: I really believe it is best for anyone to try to read the actual license in question. A summary can be a reasonable starting point, but it especially bothers me if it is distorted (as I think it may almost always be) by political or cultural bias. This can be fixed. Github has asked for patches and no one has reported having a patch rejected. Also, if a license is really too difficult to understand, that is itself useful (for the would-be licensor and for the license steward) to find out. I'm still having a hard time reconciling this with the also-held belief that license proliferation is bad. So you would like people to read and comprehend, we'll say conservatively the 11 Popular Licenses, and find one that has the major substantive aspects they want but that also does not have any aspect that could use some tweaking for their own business model -- say, for example, a delayed release date of source code, which will mean they will write another license, or find another obscure license that does what they want but is obscure for a reason. I think instead you want licenses to be readily adopted based on decision about the major substantive aspects and the rest of it just falls where it falls. And the major substantive aspects are what is captured in the summary. Pam Pamela S. Chestek, Esq. Chestek Legal PO Box 2492 Raleigh, NC 27602 919-800-8033 pam...@chesteklegal.com www.chesteklegal.com ___ 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] Open source license chooser choosealicense.com launched.
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 03:01:24AM -0400, Richard Fontana wrote: license oompatibility, License compatibility, that is. :) ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Open source license chooser choosealicense.com launched.
Bradley M. Kuhn scripsit: This can be tested now: try it and see if choosealicense.com accepts the patches. I am very disinclined to go to the effort of integrating my ideas (the actual code, which is plain HTML, is not relevant) into Github's code, absent some indication that they would be willing to adopt a more even-handed approach. I suspect that they favor permissive licenses for business reasons, as they encourage forking. -- Is not a patron, my Lord [Chesterfield],John Cowan one who looks with unconcern on a man http://www.ccil.org/~cowan struggling for life in the water, and when co...@ccil.org he has reached ground encumbers him with help? --Samuel Johnson ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Open source license chooser choosealicense.com launched.
Quoting Engel Nyst (engel.n...@gmail.com): Please allow me to ask the impossible question: how would you write the summary of GPLv3 vs GPLv2 in 8-16 words? 'I have written a truly remarkable comparison, which, alas, this margin is too small to contain.' -- apologies to Pierre de Fermat ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Open source license chooser choosealicense.com launched.
On 8/19/2013 1:48 PM, Engel Nyst wrote: Hello license-discuss, Please allow me to ask the impossible question: how would you write the summary of GPLv3 vs GPLv2 in 8-16 words? No need to be so parsimonious -- the current blurb is 44 words. Pam Pamela S. Chestek, Esq. Chestek Legal PO Box 2492 Raleigh, NC 27602 919-800-8033 pam...@chesteklegal.com www.chesteklegal.com ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Open source license chooser choosealicense.com launched.
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 08:48:06PM +0300, Engel Nyst wrote: Hello license-discuss, On 08/18/2013 04:38 AM, Richard Fontana wrote: Independent of this point, I'm concerned about inaccurate statements made on the choosealicense.com site (one that we talked about was the assertion that GPLv3 restricts use in hardware that forbids software alterations). Please allow me to ask the impossible question: how would you write the summary of GPLv3 vs GPLv2 in 8-16 words? GPLv3 is lengthier, with additional provisions concerning patents, 'Tivoization', anticircumvention law, license oompatibility, and cure. - RF ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Open source license chooser choosealicense.com launched.
On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 11:10:52AM -0400, Pamela Chestek wrote: On 8/17/2013 9:38 PM, Richard Fontana wrote: Speaking just for myself, it is difficult for me to imagine any license chooser or license explanation site that I wouldn't think was more problematic than useful. Linking to a *wide* variety of license choosers or summary sites with a very strong caveat emptor statement might be okay. Because you are so intimately familiar with the licenses and know every feature and blemish, so you seek the perfect when maybe we should only aspire to the better-than-nothing. Maybe not; I read your slides and take your point that nothing isn't really all that scary. I really believe it is best for anyone to try to read the actual license in question. A summary can be a reasonable starting point, but it especially bothers me if it is distorted (as I think it may almost always be) by political or cultural bias. Also, if a license is really too difficult to understand, that is itself useful (for the would-be licensor and for the license steward) to find out. - RF ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Open source license chooser choosealicense.com launched.
The problem/issue is that it is difficult to address licenses without, imo at least, the politics of said license leaking in. It is difficult to write things without personal biases filtering out, something which happens with me fwiw. On Aug 17, 2013, at 8:59 PM, Bradley M. Kuhn bk...@ebb.org wrote: Bradley M. Kuhn scripsit: Richard Fontana pointed out in his OSCON talk that license choosers generally make political statements about views of licenses. He used the GitHub chooser as an example, which subtly pushes people toward permissive licenses. John Cowan wrote at 09:49 (EDT): Surely he jests. Choosealicense.com *blatantly* pushes people toward the MIT license. :) Fontana has been known to jest. Still, my view is that it's tough to compliance about this; the choosealicense.com site says patches welcome, so we should offer them. I don't believe, however, that my chooser http://ccil.org/~cowan/floss has any such biases. John, have you considered offering text from your license chooser as a patch to chosealicense.com? I think it'd be good to test their claim that they want contribution, and you seem the right person to do it, since you've worked on this problem before. -- -- bkuhn ___ 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] Open source license chooser choosealicense.com launched.
On 8/18/2013 10:21 PM, Richard Fontana wrote: I really believe it is best for anyone to try to read the actual license in question. A summary can be a reasonable starting point, but it especially bothers me if it is distorted (as I think it may almost always be) by political or cultural bias. This can be fixed. Github has asked for patches and no one has reported having a patch rejected. Also, if a license is really too difficult to understand, that is itself useful (for the would-be licensor and for the license steward) to find out. I'm still having a hard time reconciling this with the also-held belief that license proliferation is bad. So you would like people to read and comprehend, we'll say conservatively the 11 Popular Licenses, and find one that has the major substantive aspects they want but that also does not have any aspect that could use some tweaking for their own business model -- say, for example, a delayed release date of source code, which will mean they will write another license, or find another obscure license that does what they want but is obscure for a reason. I think instead you want licenses to be readily adopted based on decision about the major substantive aspects and the rest of it just falls where it falls. And the major substantive aspects are what is captured in the summary. Pam Pamela S. Chestek, Esq. Chestek Legal PO Box 2492 Raleigh, NC 27602 919-800-8033 pam...@chesteklegal.com www.chesteklegal.com ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Open source license chooser choosealicense.com launched.
Speaking for myself I find the CC mechanism and license chooser quite nice and not problematic at all for the vast majority of use cases. On 8/17/13 9:38 PM, Richard Fontana font...@sharpeleven.org wrote: Speaking just for myself, it is difficult for me to imagine any license chooser or license explanation site that I wouldn't think was more problematic than useful. Linking to a *wide* variety of license choosers or summary sites with a very strong caveat emptor statement might be okay. - RF ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Open source license chooser choosealicense.com launched.
Hello license-discuss, On 08/18/2013 04:38 AM, Richard Fontana wrote: Independent of this point, I'm concerned about inaccurate statements made on the choosealicense.com site (one that we talked about was the assertion that GPLv3 restricts use in hardware that forbids software alterations). Please allow me to ask the impossible question: how would you write the summary of GPLv3 vs GPLv2 in 8-16 words? ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Open source license chooser choosealicense.com launched.
Bradley M. Kuhn scripsit: Richard Fontana pointed out in his OSCON talk that license choosers generally make political statements about views of licenses. He used the GitHub chooser as an example, which subtly pushes people toward permissive licenses. John Cowan wrote at 09:49 (EDT): Surely he jests. Choosealicense.com *blatantly* pushes people toward the MIT license. :) Fontana has been known to jest. Still, my view is that it's tough to compliance about this; the choosealicense.com site says patches welcome, so we should offer them. I don't believe, however, that my chooser http://ccil.org/~cowan/floss has any such biases. John, have you considered offering text from your license chooser as a patch to chosealicense.com? I think it'd be good to test their claim that they want contribution, and you seem the right person to do it, since you've worked on this problem before. -- -- bkuhn ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Open source license chooser choosealicense.com launched.
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 10:17:47AM -0400, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote: Sorry for posting a month late on this thread [I hadn't poked into the folder for this list in some time], but I didn't see a consensus and wanted to add my $0.02. Luis Villa wrote on 16 July: In the long-term, I'd actually like OSI to promote a license chooser of its own. But in the meantime I'm pretty OK with linking to a variety of license choosers. Richard Fontana pointed out in his OSCON talk that license choosers generally make political statements about views of licenses. He used the GitHub chooser as an example, which subtly pushes people toward permissive licenses. I was told GitHub's chooser accepts patches, and I was planning at some point to try to patch out this bias myself and see if my patch was accepted -- but of course any patch I produce is going to have subtle copyleft biases -- which I think was Fontana's point. (Fontana, do I have that right?) It is fairly obvious that the GitHub site's presentation of what licenses it recommends, and why, is politically biased, though I wouldn't say it subtly pushes people toward permissive licenses. Rather, the impression I get is that it was originally designed to blatantly encourage non-copyleft licenses but threw in the GPL in its top three recommended licenses as a kind of simple political concession. It is certainly true that any patch you make will reflect your own political biases and maybe this is difficult for anyone to avoid unless they either struggle to overcome or correct for bias or don't have any bias to begin with. Independent of this point, I'm concerned about inaccurate statements made on the choosealicense.com site (one that we talked about was the assertion that GPLv3 restricts use in hardware that forbids software alterations). This is a general problem with all efforts I have seen to summarize or provide simplified explanations of licenses, and it happens even where the summary is provided by the license steward. Therefore, I think OSI should likely avoid license chooser lest OSI end up in the quagmire of taking a position in the copyleft/permissive debates. Speaking just for myself, it is difficult for me to imagine any license chooser or license explanation site that I wouldn't think was more problematic than useful. Linking to a *wide* variety of license choosers or summary sites with a very strong caveat emptor statement might be okay. - RF ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Open source license chooser choosealicense.com launched.
On 8/17/2013 9:38 PM, Richard Fontana wrote: Speaking just for myself, it is difficult for me to imagine any license chooser or license explanation site that I wouldn't think was more problematic than useful. Linking to a*wide* variety of license choosers or summary sites with a very strong caveat emptor statement might be okay. Because you are so intimately familiar with the licenses and know every feature and blemish, so you seek the perfect when maybe we should only aspire to the better-than-nothing. Maybe not; I read your slides and take your point that nothing isn't really all that scary. But I'm having a little difficulty reconciling the concepts that a narrower choice of tested licenses is better (i.e., license proliferation is bad) but we're not going to help you understand how these licenses work so you can make a better-informed, albeit perhaps not perfect, choice. Pam Pamela S. Chestek, Esq. Chestek Legal PO Box 2492 Raleigh, NC 27602 919-800-8033 pam...@chesteklegal.com www.chesteklegal.com ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Open source license chooser choosealicense.com launched.
On 8/15/2013 10:17 AM, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote: I was told GitHub's chooser accepts patches, and I was planning at some point to try to patch out this bias myself and see if my patch was accepted -- but of course any patch I produce is going to have subtle copyleft biases -- which I think was Fontana's point. Why cannot an advocate for each license write a short blurb with the benefits and burdens of their own license? I don't think there's anything wrong with all the choices being positively-biased. Pam Pamela S. Chestek, Esq. Chestek Legal PO Box 2492 Raleigh, NC 27602 919-800-8033 pam...@chesteklegal.com www.chesteklegal.com ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Open source license chooser choosealicense.com launched.
Bradley M. Kuhn scripsit: Richard Fontana pointed out in his OSCON talk that license choosers generally make political statements about views of licenses. He used the GitHub chooser as an example, which subtly pushes people toward permissive licenses. Surely he jests. Choosealicense.com *blatantly* pushes people toward the MIT license. I don't believe, however, that my chooser http://ccil.org/~cowan/floss has any such biases. Certainly I myself have no skin in the permissive/GPL game, though I am against non-GPL non-permissive licenses because they create islands in the overall software commons. The GPL commons, like Australia, is too big to be called an island. -- Principles. You can't say A is John Cowan co...@ccil.org made of B or vice versa. All mass http://www.ccil.org/~cowan is interaction. --Richard Feynman ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Open source license chooser choosealicense.com launched.
Sorry for posting a month late on this thread [I hadn't poked into the folder for this list in some time], but I didn't see a consensus and wanted to add my $0.02. Luis Villa wrote on 16 July: In the long-term, I'd actually like OSI to promote a license chooser of its own. But in the meantime I'm pretty OK with linking to a variety of license choosers. Richard Fontana pointed out in his OSCON talk that license choosers generally make political statements about views of licenses. He used the GitHub chooser as an example, which subtly pushes people toward permissive licenses. I was told GitHub's chooser accepts patches, and I was planning at some point to try to patch out this bias myself and see if my patch was accepted -- but of course any patch I produce is going to have subtle copyleft biases -- which I think was Fontana's point. (Fontana, do I have that right?) Therefore, I think OSI should likely avoid license chooser lest OSI end up in the quagmire of taking a position in the copyleft/permissive debates. -- -- bkuhn ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Open source license chooser choosealicense.com launched.
This guide ignores a FAQ or category (at least in non English-speaking countries where local administrations have an obligation to refer to legal instruments with a working value in their local language). The license must have the same working value in English, Bulgarian, Croatian, Czech, Danish, Dutch, Estonian, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Hungarian, Irish, Italian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Maltese, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, Slovak, Slovene, Spanish, Swedish... I know Chinese is still missing... P-E. 2013/7/15 Karl Fogel kfo...@red-bean.com Some of you may have seen this already -- from Ben Balter (of GitHub): http://choosealicense.com/ We may want to consider linking to it from OSI's FAQ, but it would be great to get people's opinions first. Ben's announcement is below: From: Ben Balter ben.bal...@github.com Subject: Choosing an open source license doesn't need to be scary -- choosealicense.com To: mil-oss [probably among other places] Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 10:45:48 -0700 (PDT) Launched a small resource today, choosealicense.com to help software developers make the decision of which license to use when releasing software. The site itself is open source and I'd love any feedback / pull requests you may have. To make the process even easier, there's also now a license picker when creating a new repository on GitHub.com which will automatically add the license to the project. * The Site: http://choosealicense.com * The Source: https://github.com/github/choosealicense.com * Full Background: https://github.com/blog/1530-choosing-an-open-source-license Cheers and open source, - Ben ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss -- Patrice-Emmanuel Schmitz pe.schm...@googlemail.com tel. + 32 478 50 40 65 ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Open source license chooser choosealicense.com launched.
Karl Fogel scripsit: http://choosealicense.com/ We may want to consider linking to it from OSI's FAQ, but it would be great to get people's opinions first. While I am obviously just me and not GitHub, and my site is not as pretty, I would also ask the OSI to look at http://ccil.org/~cowan/floss as a license-choosing resource. Historically OSI has shyed away from such things because they involve recommending licenses without being lawyers, and also suggest that some licenses are more useful than others. -- Possession is said to be nine points of the law,John Cowan but that's not saying how many points the law might have. co...@ccil.org --Thomas A. Cowan (law professor and my father) ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Open source license chooser choosealicense.com launched.
On 15/07/2013, at 15:10, John Cowan co...@mercury.ccil.org wrote: Karl Fogel scripsit: http://choosealicense.com/ We may want to consider linking to it from OSI's FAQ, but it would be great to get people's opinions first. While I am obviously just me and not GitHub, and my site is not as pretty, I would also ask the OSI to look at http://ccil.org/~cowan/floss as a license-choosing resource. Historically OSI has shyed away from such things because they involve recommending licenses without being lawyers, and also suggest that some licenses are more useful than others. Although OSI may not want to recommend licenses, having a set of license choosers linked from the FAQ I think is a great idea. Each site will probably have its own level of disclaimers anyway. Having a few choosers will help users, and being more then one, it has no chance in being confused with a specific OSI recommendation. Choosers will probably cary their own bias, and developers can learn from each view on the respective sites. I think your license chooser is very straightforward and simple, what is great and helpful! The one thing I would add to it is some context, since it is a bit bare, IMHO. Thanks! Bruno. -- Possession is said to be nine points of the law,John Cowan but that's not saying how many points the law might have. co...@ccil.org --Thomas A. Cowan (law professor and my father) ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss Bruno. __ Bruno Peres Ferreira de Souza Brazil's JavaMan http://www.javaman.com.br bruno at javaman.com.br if I fail, if I succeed, at least I live as I believe ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Open source license chooser choosealicense.com launched.
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 1:49 PM, Bruno F. Souza br...@javaman.com.br wrote: Although OSI may not want to recommend licenses, having a set of license choosers linked from the FAQ I think is a great idea. Each site will probably have its own level of disclaimers anyway. Having a few choosers will help users, and being more then one, it has no chance in being confused with a specific OSI recommendation. Choosers will probably cary their own bias, and developers can learn from each view on the respective sites. In the long-term, I'd actually like OSI to promote a license chooser of its own. But in the meantime I'm pretty OK with linking to a variety of license choosers. One place to put that list could be this page, once we finish it up and decide where it goes: http://wiki.opensource.org/website_license_howto (Thanks to Engel for putting that together - welcome thoughts/feedback from others). Luis ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
