Lawrence E. Rosen wrote, in part:
You don't need the clarification. Simply linking a program against a library
or loading machine readable code compiled from source code doesn't create a
derivative work of software.
Huh!!!?
Clarification or recent citation please?
As far as I
Read this and try to extrapolate it to software and static
linking [dynamic linking aside for a moment]:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/125_F3d_580.htm
If I were defending, and my attorney tried to cite only that
one as defense for a software license/copyright violation, I
Here we have collections which unambiguously are collections: the question
about statically linked software is precisely whether or not it is a
collection.
I think someone must successfully argue that it is only a collection
(and does not meet the definition of derivative work:)
from
Roy T. Fielding [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote, in part:
My take on this definition is that most statically linked programs
include a relocation table and symbol tables which are annotations
of the source code.
These annotations are not particularly original, but if you declare
that your
Sean Chittenden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote, in part:
Why does everyone insist that they're protecting my interests by
likening a piece of BSD code that goes closed source as a bad thing or
as if it's not what I want? That is precisely what I want people to
be able to do! That's a smart
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three tears, to
give any third party, at no charge, a complete machine-readable copy of
the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of
Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software
Well, are you
Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote, in part:
It doesn't even seem close to me. Let me know if I'm insane, or reading
it wrong, but I can't see how such a restriction can be considered open
source.
I know they're straight from the LGPL, but they are irrelevant there
because the LGPL is a
From: Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To:Forrest J. Cavalier III [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: OSD Model Code -- Article 1 (Free Distribution)
Do you mean clause 5 of version 2.0 of the Artistic License? If so, would
you
With my rewording, there's also no need for the confusing term
aggregate software distribution. We only need to rely on the
definition of the term copies in the Copyright Act. 17 USC 101.
I like the clarity of Larry's , but I think the clumsy wording of
OSD #1 was to permit the Artistic
From: Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: OSD Model Code -- Article 1 (Free Distribution)
I think you're doing more than clarifying. I think you're introducing
additional restrictions on a licensor -- and that's good! What if
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]
John Cowan writes:
With respect, Russ, that's bassackwards. Collectively if not individually,
the members of the list have far more free man-hours than you do. You
should pass submissions straight on to the list and let one
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.
access is not well-defined.
Is your intent to compel book publishers to
Lawrence E. Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in part:
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.
Lawrence E. Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in part:
Then, Forrest's question: what about a book that isn't a
derivative work? Could contract law and some technically
inept judge compell the book publisher to release the book's
source code (DocBook / TeX / whatever) under OSL?
Not if
Larry wrote, in part:
Not if it ain't a Derivative Work, I'd say.
Does OSL 1.1 1(c) with paragraph 3 require distribution
of derivative works or not?
Paragraph 3 mentions Original Work, not Original
and Derivative Works. So it seems not.
I looked up MSFT's latest financial release
(operating results for Sept 02 quarter, Oct 17).
They had $7.4B revenue and $2.7B net income.
EBIT was $4B and they paid $1.3B in taxes.
In the Sept 01 quarter (a really bad quarter)
EBIT was $1.9B and they still paid $600M in taxes.
Do you still
modifications, and distribute my own version, can I remove all instances of
RedHat ? 2. If I am allowed to, to what extent?
The OSD allows licenses to prohibit that. Some jurisdictions
may prohibit it.
As John Cowan noted separately, trademark law can require
the removal of trademarks.
Sure. Take a look at http://linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=6155.
So, how does someone with sense or conscience redistribute software
and offer a warranty of non-infringement for software they acquired
or is a combined work?
Relying on a cascade of breach of warranty lawsuits back through
This is how combined work is defined...
A Combined Work results from combining and integrating all or
parts of the Program with other code. A Combined Work may be
thought of as having multiple parents or being result of multiple
lines of code development.
Is this definition precise enough
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote, in part:
Your answer added nothing to the discussion. Please give some legal
argument why a single click-wrap won't bind the licensee to all relevant
licenses.
How do you form a contract without presenting the terms? Is there a
way to review the terms without
Seems to me that it is not GPL compatible. The GPL expressly
prohibits combining with licenses that have more restrictive terms
than the GPL.
without fee is a restriction the GPL does not include.
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
This is a very complicated license. Thanks for providing
the remarks and annotations. Very nice.
After a quick read, I think that it should not be OSI approved,
for numerous reasons, some follow.
Because the license is so complicated, it is not clear
to me that addressing the following
Steve Lhomme [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote, in part:
A Contributor can be (or not) a Distributor.
A Distributor can be (or not) a Contributor.
That's what the definitions say.
The definition (at General #2) is as follows, and is formatted
thusly:
Contributor:
Any Distributor and/or
[Discussion of Paragraph 6]
The even if such marks are included is a problem when you also
require (in a separate paragraph) verbatim distribution of the
software. I read that as when there is any trademark in the
software, you are not permitted to distribute.
-- In my opinion that
The definition of User is too broad. It allows any
Distributor to force someone to be a User simply by
sending them a copy.
But does it arm any part of the license ? Or just a personal feeling ?
8.5 seems to have an effect for Users 15 may also.
16 also, but 16 is hard to follow.
Also, as written, I think this definition includes
compilers and linkers (and more! run-time ld? ) as
Source code.
ld is not a Source file.
The BXAPL says
Source Code is ... and any other files or members needed to
create the executables required to properly execute the Software
.
Forrest J. Cavalier III
Mib Software
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
of those licenses?
--
Forrest J Cavalier III
Get help selecting a license, or knowing OSD compatibility
with LIDESC: http://mibsoftware.com/librock/lidesc/tags.htm
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Akil Franklin wrote:
How could we reword clause 6 to make it less clumsy and to make it more
palatable?
As written, clause 6 obligates everyone who reuses the smallest piece
of your software.
6. All advertising materials regarding products derived from this
software and/or features
Akil Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Article 7 is basically meant to ensure that the authors of the framework
are notified when it is used (i.e. placed into a production system
either modified or not). Again, the goal is the sharing of information.
Perhaps the following would be better:
Akil Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Forrest J. Cavalier III [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
Notifying a specific entity requires that the entity exists. This
may not be the case in 10 years, or next week (which is not an
insult, just a statement of the risk that an adopter
You should just be using URIs (or even URNs) for the license file. Don't use a
hash because this can change if you license file changes (think whitespace).
Just use urns... urn:gpl or urn:lgpl should be fine.
That was considered.
There is no central authority for assigning URNs. Many
6. All advertising materials regarding products derived from this
software and/or features derived from its use must include the
following acknowledgement:
Is that worded as you want it? There is some clumsiness there
and I am not sure what features derived from its use really
means or is
COMMENT: This section has been added because of last year's
Specht v. Netscape decision, which threw doubt on the validity of what =
has
become an accepted industry standard - of trying to make terms and
conditions applicable (particularly in the web site context) without ma=
king
it
Here's the big problem with this clause: I can ignore it with impunity!
The clause is Affero GPL 2(d), which means it is effective
only when you are preparing derivative works.
This is how GPL clause 2 starts:
2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of
it,
Steve Lhomme wrote in part.
Because as the software is GPLed, you must supply the source code on request.
Where does clause 2(d) state that?
I want to discuss 2(d) specifically. Certainly the other
clauses of the GPL will remain in force, but there are
circumstances where only Clause 2(d)
Henri Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I wouldn't interpret it that way.
Were you involved in the creation of the text? Do you
speak for Affero? That would be very helpful to know.
This license is going to be used by others. (The intent and
interpretation that Affero has is important, but
Free Software Foundation Announces Support of the Affero General
Public License, the First Copyleft License for Web Services
http://www.fsf.org/press/2002-03-19-Affero.html
(NOTE: The FSF suggests comments to them. I CC'ed them, but
I'd prefer discussion in a forum. license-discuss seems
Free Software Foundation Announces Support of the Affero General
Public License, the First Copyleft License for Web Services
http://www.fsf.org/press/2002-03-19-Affero.html
I think clause Affero GPL 2(d) provides for the propagation of
badgeware, meaning that it obligates propagation of a
From: Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To:[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: OSD modification regarding what license can require of
The OSI-approved the W3C license which has a requirement of
displaying a notice to users.
If it's in the
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We have never removed OSI approval for any license,
APSL 1.0
so I'm sure that
the GPL is in no danger of not being an Open Source license.
You are the tail trying to wag the dog, Russ.
If the OSD can't accept the GPLv2, then the only plausible
Bruce wrote (in part)
So, what if it turns out that the present GPL doens't hold up with regard
to dynamic linking? Some future version of the GPL might have to place a
constraint on the user regarding combination of works on the user's system
that would, if it were distributed in that form,
I just want to point out that there is one license
already approved which has a public performance
clause like Bruce gave as an example..
The OSI approved the APSL, with clauses 2.2c-d, which require
publication of sources upon deployment.
Can we use this concrete case to clarify the goal of
David Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote (in part)
The only way around this is for the author to put his morality on the shelf
and try to impose click-wrap licensing on me (bad), or to be honest and
present me with a contract prior to my aquisition of the software (doubtful
it would meet the
OSD-related issues that I see
1. Someone already pointed out the OSD #1 issue. If
the license doesn't explicitly permit selling copies,
then copyright law reserves the right to the author.
2. Except possibly for the copyleft clause 4c, the license
fails to state that the terms apply to
I didn't define Definitions, either. ducks
I have no legal training,
No legal training required for discussion here. And
according to Larry, if you have legal training, there
is some discussion you should not be doing here. :-)
but I thought it would be clear that
Modification and
APOSSL is a BSD style licence save for the following special points.
* the name of the software should not include pronoic.org or Pronoic Ltd.
That makes it like the Apache license, I think.
* the software should be described as being pronoic unless you ask
for permission to use the
What does quine'd mean?
http://www.ship.edu/~deensl/pgss/Day16/goedel.html
(I admit I used the term loosely to describe a statement which
can be read as a self-reference at more than one level that
creats a contradiction.)
Here is the response I would give you about OSI approval
for your
I wrote:
Here is the response I would give you about OSI approval
for your license.
Your request will be rejected is your request will be rejected.
I thought of another appropriate response...
We will refuse when you ask is we will refuse when you ask.
And another...
We won't
all fun aside, I am serious about APOSSL and believe I have reacted
in a serious manner to all serious points made.
Serious means more than simply not joking. John Cowan pointed out a
major mistake in 1.0, which was totally the opposite of what you
intended. If you were serious you would
[snip]
We seek to spread our ideas, meme like, through both non-commercial
and commercial channels We do not seek to restrict use of our
software by anyone, and for the most part our licence is bog-standard
OSS stuff, but we do have some weird demands on them should they do;
like a
dave sag [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote, in part
Clause 4 does NOT require promition of derivatives at all. Should you
never obtain written permission, you never need endorse anything.
4. The names Pronoic, or pronoic.org must be used to endorse and
promote products derived from this software
pronoic is a word (albeit a made up word) meaning the opposite of
paranoic it is also a name, but so is apple, and netscape and
apache they can use their name in their own licences
Undefined words no place in legal documents
If a made up word appears, or is offset in it will be
the key here is the qualifying 'before obtaining written permission'
should you NEVER obtain written permission you never need endorse
anything
Huh?
How does a court of law distinguish someone who will never
obtain permission from someone who has not yet decided
to obtain permission?
From: Steve Setzer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date sent: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 12:42:12 -0700
To:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Updated license from Edustructures
[snip]
Oh, and per Karsten, I submitted this one in text form. If/when the
approval process is done, I will
Sorry for the delay. I think most of us were distracted by a
discussion on fsb@crynwr at the time.
[snip]
http://www.squeak.org/license.html
Basically it's an X11/MIT flavoured license, but with a couple of added things
that we are not sure about how they impact OSD-compatibility:
-
The new program files that are added would only have the new
Apache
license.
I have had the impression the new software Yazd would be
distributed
under the new Apache license. Therefore, the new license would be
the license of the software, and there is no
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote (in part)
There is much in the OSD which is insufficiently explicit. For
example, we have maintained that there are no possible restrictions
a license could put on users, because there is no possible mechanism
one could use to constraint them, because
Tina Gasperson wrote:
Everyone is permitted to use, modify, and redistribute this
software, provided the above copyright notice and this permission
notice are included with all copies, modifications, and
redistributions.
I think you need a warranty disclaimer.
Here is the shortest free
What I want to accomplish is that if someone deploys a changed version
of my application he'd be required to publish those changes (or at least
send them to me and license me to use them in my free version), and that
the visitors of the generated pages would have a way to identify the
John Cowan wrote:
Lawrence E. Rosen scripsit:
As for the GPL, where does it say that you can't distribute source via a
website? As I read it, you must merely distribute source code on a
medium customarily used for software interchange. I now get almost all
of my software, including
Forrest J. Cavalier III wrote:
There are two ways that I see trademark clauses written
in licenses. As I read the GPL, trademark protection clauses
as a condition of license are not GPL compatible. But
trademark warning statements along the lines of Nothing in this license
gives
(a) Except as required by the
Acknowledgement section below, this license does not grant any rights
to use the trademark ArsDigita, the ArsDigita logo or the terms
ArsDigita Community System,ACS, or ArsDigita Corporation, even
if such marks are included in the Original Code.
Doesn't
Semi-automated License analysis and compatibility reporter:
http://www.mibsoftware.com/librock/lidesc/index.htm
What it does:
Based on answers to an HTML questionnaire, some conflicts with the GPL,
the FSF definition of Free software, the OSD, and closed-source
licensing are
In analyzing licenses for the LIDESC project
http://www.mibsoftware.com/librock/lidesc/index.htm
there are a few types of clauses which in my mind do
not meet the spirit of the OSD, but are not clearly
rejected by it.
Some of these came up by looking at which licenses pass
the OSD, but are
Okay. But my point was that the copyright holder can grant
portions of his rights under copyright without obtaining
the signature of the recipient(s), while usage rights require
a contract.
Do you think the GPL creates a contract?
--
license-discuss archive is at
Karsten M. Self wrote:
The attempt to key this to continued use rather than transfer has no
standing under copyright as previously stated.
Based on the discussion so far, everything seems to depend on
whether the recipient has a license, or is an owner of a copy.
I was hoping the OSD would
John Cowan wrote:
Won't work (IANAL, TINLA), at least in the U.S.; any copies of
computer programs that are needed in order to use the program
are specifically non-infringing, by section 117. Normally,
this refers to copying the binary form from disk to core,
but it plainly would cover
Russ Nelson wrote:
Forrest Tell me why you have to put the OSI's good name on this.
The only way we can reject a license is to point to the OSD term which
it violates.
The license under discussion violates FSF Freedom 0,
The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
I think approving this sets a dangerous precedent.
In order to approve this, the OSI has to take the view that
well, we approve documents of any length, of any content,
as long as the software license parts are OSD compliant. We
ignore everything else in the document.
Are you saying that if
Angelo Scneider wrote:
As I pointed out allready: linking to an API is not, I repeat: not a
derived work.
derived work is a legal term. You can not redefine it in your license.
I didn't say I agreed with the FSF/RMS interpretation, I just mentioned
what I remember it to be.
One of the
The discussion on this topic has been very interesting. I am unsure who posted
the comment about the lawyers at FSF, but if that person could obtain clearance
to post the complete explanation on why FSF has taken the position that the use
of inheritance constitutes the creation of a
Michael Beck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Derived class is a derivative work, because it is based on, or extends,
the original class. Using would be instantiating an object from it -
stand-alone, or as a part of another class (composition). There would be no
adaptation of the existing class.
These are good suggestions. They will be turned into reality with the
greatest alacrity if you make them changes yourself and submit them to
us.
Proposed consumer-centric index.html for www.opensource.org is
attached. Comments very much encouraged, on-list or in private.
Forrest
This
This is the problem Russel Nelson and I are investigating in our
discussion of section 2 of the OSD.
Right. I didn't see you discuss that the wording for appplying
the mark needs to be on the other web page, not just in OSD #2.
(And maybe if the change was there, you would not even have to
to be reworked?
I hope that Bruce can comment on this point.
--
Forrest J. Cavalier III, Mib Software Voice 570-992-8824
http://www.rocketaware.com/ has over 30,000 links to
source, libraries, functions, applications, and documentation.
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi
Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My main suggestion, however, was that some of the text - - the legal
stuff - - should be re-written so it is clear that an opinion of the author
is being expressed rather than a legal opinion being passed on by the
author.
I agree that being
, but the first sentence has the opposite meaning
from what you intend.
- The page isn't overly long right now, but if it grows, you
might want to split some of the sections into separate HTML
pages.
Keep up the good work!
Forrest J. Cavalier III, Mib Software Voice 570-992
are different, they are not compatible
with each other either. That seems like a problem.
Forrest J. Cavalier III, Mib Software Voice 570-992-8824
http://www.rocketaware.com/ has over 30,000 links to
source, libraries, functions, applications, and documentation.
is no. (But you can contrive
examples and distributions where the answer is yes.)
If you have a question about applying a particular
license in reusing software, why not write to the authors
and respect their interpretation?
Forrest J. Cavalier III, Mib Software Voice 570-992-8824
http
"Chloe Hoffman" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
pages./P PI think the real question is not whether an API is copyrightable
but how an API is infringed and what is a derivative work of an
API.
You admit that some parts of the API would not qualify as original.
Infringement would therefore depend on
he did, the OSD reads very differently. That is how IntraDAT
planned to charge usage fees without violating the OSD.
---
Nowhere in the OSD is the right to use software required.
Although I believe this to be permitted by copyright law,
perhaps
Trust
me, there has been a lot of discussion. Should be easy to find.)
Forrest J. Cavalier III, Mib Software Voice 570-992-8824
http://www.rocketaware.com/ has over 30,000 links to
source, libraries, functions, applications, and documentation.
companying software that uses the DB software
You can derive "closed source" software from the Berkely DB software.
If you choose to distribute, you must publish the source.
(This is similar to the GPL.)
Forrest J. Cavalier III, Mib Software Voice 570-992-8824
http://www.rocketaware.com/ h
the value is preserved or increased (more people
will benefit) but if you can't stay in business, then don't
do it.
Forrest J. Cavalier III, Mib Software Voice 570-992-8824
http://www.rocketaware.com/ has over 30,000 links to
source, libraries, functions, applications, and documentation.
Justin Wells wrote:
I'm not sure that such short disclaimers will work.
What is the smallest warranty disclaimer you have seen and think
would work?
Also, since you do not
require people to copy the license on to further works, you will get sued by
third parties who had no opportunity to
Because disclaiming implicit warranties and all liabilities has to be
done explicitly and prominently. If the disclaimers are removed, then
it is neither explicit nor prominent--so the disclaimers are probably
unenforceable.
So what changes if the second party removes the disclaimers
The inspiration is the Apache license, with the advertising
clauses removed.
Can this be improved? Can it be made more simple?
Can it be more generic?
Forrest J. Cavalier III
http://www.mibsoftware.com/
-
This work is copyrighted
You may not modify in any way a file of The Program that bears a legal
notice forbidding modification of that file.
This is counter to the whole idea of free software, and violates
OSD #3. http://www.opensource.org/osd.html
One reason that RMS started the free software movement in the
heck of a lot easier
to understand than UCITA.
So can somebody give an example of a problem that UCITA solves?
2. Is there any benefit for consumers in UCITA?
(Beyond avoiding the scary future the lobbyists predict
that no one will be able to write and sell software in
the future if
instructions for Bob to do it, should be regarded with grave
suspicion.
This is something which has been discussed before on this list,
and elsewhere as well, I'd imagine.
Forrest J. Cavalier III
http://www.mibsoftware.com/
From: Mark Wells [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 3 Mar 2000, Forrest J. Cavalier III wrote:
I would very much like to hear that there is a flaw in this logic. If so,
where is it?
In my understanding, Alice must not have used the GPL'ed software
in her design and testing
From: John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Says who? If she distributed a derivative work of GPL'ed software,
then it must be GPL'ed. The question is whether or not Alice has
a derivative work.
In my first scenario, Alice made a derivative work but didn't distribute
it. She then
te (or at least read and approve) a license, and the license
has major issues (like totally misusing some wrong assumptions
about copyright laws) then don't expect much attention.
No one has time to baby sit.
Forrest J. Cavalier III
ware under a license
that better protects name recognition.
- - - - - - - - - - - - Copyright Notice - - - - - - - - - - - -
Copyright 1999 Forrest J. Cavalier III
MODIFICATION WARNING: This software may have been modified.
See http://www.mibsoftware.com/libmib/ for documentation and
Your request is off topic for license-discuss.
There are many free/open source WWW indexing programs in
the rocketaware index:
http://www.rocketaware.com/spec/infotool/www/robot/
From: "Robert M. Muench" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Answer: Because there is one US software patent issued, on
average,
every 20 minutes, and it would take several days of work to
find
prior art for each one and prepare a submission.
But not all patents are related to the topic we are
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED], wrote (in part):
If you think it is proper to use a name that gives credit to those who
developed a system, but you think (as I do) that it is impractical to
give credit in that way to all the contributors, I suggest making a
list of them in order of
Well, to explain all the reasons, the political and economic
circumstances
would need about 30 pages ...
I though you where an american and you knew that, are you not?
Regards,
Angelo
Your education seems to lack the realization that any
telling of history is one of opinion and
.
But for each such BSD item not listed, there
is likely a GNU and Linux work-alike which is
also not listed. So they might offset each other
pretty well.
Draw conclusions if you wish, the data is
below.
Forrest J. Cavalier III, Mib Software Voice 570-992-8824
The Reuse RKT: Efficient awareness
1 - 100 of 105 matches
Mail list logo
