[boost] Re: Draft of new Boost Software License
Beman Dawes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote ... Thanks to Dave Abrahams, Diane Cabell, Devin Smith, and Eva Chen, we now have a pretty close to final draft of a new Boost Software License. For as many Boost libraries as possible, the plan is to replace the individual licenses with the official Boost license. Of course, the developers who hold the copyrights for each library must agree. We'll also submit the Boost license to the OSI (http://www.opensource.org/) for certification. This draft represents a lot of discussion between the lawyers and Boost moderators, and both groups are quite happy with the results. So now it's time to open it up for comments from the whole Boost community. For more background, including rationale, a FAQ, and acknowledgements, see http://boost.sourceforge.net/misc/license-background.html The draft license itself is at http://boost.sourceforge.net/misc/LICENSE.txt maybe a dumb question, but I just simulated an interested new boost user but didnt find anything about 'the' current license on www.boost.org, only the faq and lib-guidelines telling some requirements for interested boost contributers. For more info, downloading the complete package seems to be necessary. IMO it would be usefull, not only for me, to add a page with a prominent location to www.boost.org, telling whatever is generally known to apply to the complete current boost version (e.g. containing a copy of the upper license.txt), and then pointing out that each file may have additional terms, being part of that file, maybe copypaste an example of existing per-file-license. Regards, Markus. ___ Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
RE: [boost] Re: Draft of new Boost Software License
| -Original Message- | From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of David Abrahams | Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 7:57 PM | To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Subject: [boost] Re: Draft of new Boost Software License | ... www.boost.org was pretty stable, thus far. | | The problem is that we don't want to force companies to assume the | risk that www.boost.org will stick around. My original point was only that we should reduce the risk of a 'dangling pointer' by considering additions or alternative to a master copy on www.boost.org. After all, Boosters seem obsessed with 'smart pointers' :-)) So it would be really bad form to create one! Paul Paul A Bristow, Prizet Farmhouse, Kendal, Cumbria, LA8 8AB UK +44 1539 561830 Mobile +44 7714 33 02 04 Mobile mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
[boost] Re: Draft of new Boost Software License
Peter Dimov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Beman Dawes wrote: Let's see what the lawyers say before worrying too much about what may be a non-issue. I'd like to add some of my concerns to the list. First of all let me say that I fully realize that we just got a ton of free legal advice and that I do appreciate the efforts of everyone involved. And of course I am not a lawyer, not even able to impersonate one in front of laymen. But I do have some questions. Let's put the disclaimer aside for a moment; I'll return to it later. Here is the old Boost standard license (minus the disclaimer): // Permission to copy, use, modify, sell and distribute this software // is granted provided this copyright notice appears in all copies. I'll repeat here the new license (minus the disclaimer) for completeness: [start new license-- Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person or organization obtaining a copy of the software covered by this license (the Software) to use, reproduce, display, distribute, execute, and transmit the Software, and to prepare derivative works of the Software, and to permit others to do so, all subject to the following: The copyright notice in the Software and this entire statement, including the above license grant, this restriction and the following disclaimer, must be included in all copies of the Software, in whole or in part, and all derivative works of the Software, unless such copies or derivative works are solely in the form of machine-executable object code generated by a source language processor. -- end new license] My questions are failry obvious. * Why is the new license better? I'll get the lawyers to comment on this in more detail, but here are some answers as I understand them: Big picture: it has been vetted by lawyers for reducing ambiguity and risk for corporate legal departments, while protecting Boost developers by disclaiming implicit guarantees. It uses the correct legal terms for granting copy rights: use, reproduce, display, distribute, execute, and transmit... It is explicit about the differing requirements on source vs. object code. * Isn't there a conflict of interest between Boost contributors and the legal departments of some Boost users? Sure, at some level. Contributors want to guarantee nothing and legal departments want us to guarantee everything. Everyone benefits from better clarity, though, and that's what this license accomplishes. Which license of the two provides the better balance between the interests of these two groups? The 2nd one, IMO, because it doesn't hurt contributors at all while it helps the legal departments. In fact, it probably helps contributors by giving them a standard license with some legal foundation behind it that is less likely to cause legal SNAFUs later. Win-win. What is more important, encouraging contribution or encouraging use by large corporate clients? I don't think we have to choose. Nobody is willing to sacrifice contribution to the interests of corporate users, AFAICT, but IMO we can make the legal situation more solid and that will smooth things for everyone. * It is recognizable that the new license has been prepared with the help of a lawyer. Is this a good thing from a legal perspective? Just my opinion, but yes: it means that legal departments are getting communication in a language they understand and aggressive lawyers are less likely to mess with us. I'd like also to point out that it seems to me that the old in all copies form is better than the new one; the legal system is sufficiently flexible to reliably recognize a copy (i.e. a password protected RAR archive of an mp3 encoded song). I'm not sure about that. The problem is that the old version didn't distinguish source code copies from object code copies. The new wording seems to allow self-extracting archives of the Software to not carry the license. Good point. A simple copies of the source might work better than the wording we have now. Now the disclaimer. I am not sure to what extent we are even supposed to discuss such legal matters here; the public archives of the mailing list can be used as evidence in a hypothetical future lawsuit (SCO showed the way). So I won't go into details. Heh. Did that point kill this discussion wink ? I'll ask the lawyers. * Does free (beer) software need a disclaimer of any kind? Does it carry any implied warranties that need to be disclaimed? * Does the disclaimer provide any legal protection? Some, IIUC. Remember that the law here is applied in civil suits, so the kind of protection you need is discourages lawyers from suing because it weakens their case. That's what the disclaimer does. * Worse, if the disclaimer isn't strictly necessary and doesn't provide much legal protection, doesn't it _weaken_ our postition in a hypothetical lawsuit? Doesn't it present a convenient legal target that
[boost] Re: Draft of new Boost Software License
David Abrahams wrote: [...] Now the disclaimer. I am not sure to what extent we are even supposed to discuss such legal matters here; the public archives of the mailing list can be used as evidence in a hypothetical future lawsuit (SCO showed the way). So I won't go into details. Heh. Did that point kill this discussion wink ? No doubt. regards, alexander. P.S. CPL == *WIN*-*WIN* -- http://linuxtoday.com/infrastructure/2003070400526NWEMLL (EE Times: SCO's Chief Taking Linux Beef to Japan) talkback So, this idiot at SCO (a 30 million dollar company) is going to make the CEO's of Sony Matsushita, NEC, Philips, Samsung, Sharp and Toshiba sign an NDA? These guys are going to say to Mc Bride, So me the evidence or get the hell out of my office. I hope Sony buys SCO, then makes McBride a janitor. /talkback ___ Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
[boost] Re: Draft of new Boost Software License
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: P.S. CPL == *WIN*-*WIN* These legal issues are sufficiently confusing to overwhelm the brains of most of us regular Boost people. Unless you are prepared to depart from your usual hint-dropping style and explain why you think CPL is better than what we're considering, I think it's probably going to remain... wherever it is that droppings end up. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com ___ Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Re: [boost] Re: Draft of new Boost Software License
David Abrahams wrote: Peter Dimov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: * Why is the new license better? I'll get the lawyers to comment on this in more detail, but here are some answers as I understand them: Big picture: it has been vetted by lawyers for reducing ambiguity and risk for corporate legal departments, while protecting Boost developers by disclaiming implicit guarantees. The underlying assumption being that making source available for download free of charge leads to implicit guarantees. But I'm not sure that this is the case. That's why I'm asking. I'd like also to point out that it seems to me that the old in all copies form is better than the new one; the legal system is sufficiently flexible to reliably recognize a copy (i.e. a password protected RAR archive of an mp3 encoded song). I'm not sure about that. The problem is that the old version didn't distinguish source code copies from object code copies. I think it does. Object code is not a copy of the source code. The new wording seems to allow self-extracting archives of the Software to not carry the license. Good point. A simple copies of the source might work better than the wording we have now. It's redundant. The text all copies in a source file implies all copies of this source file. If you consider object code to be a copy of the source, changing copies to copies of the source doesn't help. ___ Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
[boost] Re: Draft of new Boost Software License
David Abrahams wrote: Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: P.S. CPL == *WIN*-*WIN* These legal issues are sufficiently confusing to overwhelm the brains of most of us regular Boost people. Uhmm. Your previous posting was not bad at all. ;-) Unless you are prepared to depart from your usual hint-dropping style and explain why you think CPL is better than what we're considering, I think it's probably going to remain... wherever it is that droppings end up. Sorry, I really can't explain it better than http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/os-cplfaq.html regards, alexander. P.S. http://ntxshape.sourceforge.net/opensource.html quote Common Public License There is one other license that we might have considered: the Common Public License, used for some projects on IBM's developerWorks site. It looks much like the IBM Public License, except that it is not hard-coded for IBM, and is is intended for general use. These licenses, both published by IBM, seem to strike a balance similar to that of the Mozilla Public License, but are easier for a human (as opposed to a lawyer) to read. However, the Common Public License bears a version number of 0.5. It is not a widely used license, perhaps because its version number implies instability. As a result it is not as well known as the licenses mentioned above, and has not entered into the open source vernacular. So, although it looks promising, this license does not have the same communication / project marketing value as the better known, more widely used licenses. IBM needs to release a 1.0 version of this license, and do a better job of marketing this license to developers, so that the license itself can help market IBM developerWorks' open source projects. Until they do those things, I doubt this license will get very much mindshare outside of IBM's developerWorks. /quote -- http://www.ibm.com/servers/eserver/linux/fun ___ Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
[boost] Re: Draft of new Boost Software License
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Unless you are prepared to depart from your usual hint-dropping style and explain why you think CPL is better than what we're considering, I think it's probably going to remain... wherever it is that droppings end up. Sorry, I really can't explain it better than http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/os-cplfaq.html Since that faq has no entries comparing CPL to the proposed Boost license text or explaining why Alexander Terekhov considers CPL better, it doesn't even begin to address the question. I'm fairly certain that you could do a little bit better than that with only a small effort. regards, alexander. P.S. http://ntxshape.sourceforge.net/opensource.html P.S. http://www.anthro.net/guides/promotion.shtml ... I suspect most humans hate long lists of URLs without descriptions. P.P.S. http://www.thrillingdetective.com/web_guy_2.html ...long lists of URLs or ISBNs aren't even interesting to begin with. P.P.P.S. http://www.nic.com/~csy2kt/errs.htm [Mis]use of HTML - Usenet is not the Web. If your browser posts only in HTML, it's broken. If it repeats every post in text and HTML both, it's broken. Usenet is a plain text medium. You are welcome to post URLs but please explain WHY you think they are worth visiting. P.P.P.P.S. http://www.lava.net/~sch/faq.txt * Naked URLs / Empty Posts - No, we don't want you to post your entire Web page (see above -- posts written in HTML will be rejected). Posting a URL is much better, but please tell us why you are doing it! Why should we go there? etc. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com ___ Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
[boost] Re: Draft of new Boost Software License
Peter Dimov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David Abrahams wrote: Peter Dimov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: * Why is the new license better? I'll get the lawyers to comment on this in more detail, but here are some answers as I understand them: Big picture: it has been vetted by lawyers for reducing ambiguity and risk for corporate legal departments, while protecting Boost developers by disclaiming implicit guarantees. The underlying assumption being that making source available for download free of charge leads to implicit guarantees. But I'm not sure that this is the case. That's why I'm asking. Oh, one other point: if we leave the question unaddressed there appears to be uncertainty. Corporate lawyers want to know just how much risk is being assumed by the company when using our code. If they read a disclaimer, they know quickly that they are assuming basically all of the risk. Otherwise, they are left with questions, which slows adoption. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com ___ Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
[boost] Re: Draft of new Boost Software License
Peter Dimov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David Abrahams wrote: Peter Dimov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: * Why is the new license better? I'll get the lawyers to comment on this in more detail, but here are some answers as I understand them: Big picture: it has been vetted by lawyers for reducing ambiguity and risk for corporate legal departments, while protecting Boost developers by disclaiming implicit guarantees. The underlying assumption being that making source available for download free of charge leads to implicit guarantees. But I'm not sure that this is the case. That's why I'm asking. IIUC, there are no absolutes here (i.e. no law says there is an implicit guarantee). Legally, it's just a question of what looks like an attractive/vulnerable target. IIUC, the deal is that without an explicit disclaimer, lawyers feel they have more leverage in claiming that there was an implicit guarantee. I'd like also to point out that it seems to me that the old in all copies form is better than the new one; the legal system is sufficiently flexible to reliably recognize a copy (i.e. a password protected RAR archive of an mp3 encoded song). I'm not sure about that. The problem is that the old version didn't distinguish source code copies from object code copies. I think it does. Object code is not a copy of the source code. The new wording seems to allow self-extracting archives of the Software to not carry the license. Good point. A simple copies of the source might work better than the wording we have now. It's redundant. The text all copies in a source file implies all copies of this source file. If you consider object code to be a copy of the source, changing copies to copies of the source doesn't help. Sounds convincing to me, but IANAL. Let's see what the lawyers say. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com ___ Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
[boost] Re: Draft of new Boost Software License
Glen Knowles wrote: [...] The Common Public License already has a section in the wiki and fails the boost requirements as shown. http://www.crystalclearsoftware.com/cgi-bin/boost_wiki/wiki.pl?Boost_License/Common_Public_License Yeah. That review process was really entertaining. Thanks for the reminder. Must be simple to read and understand is rather subjective, don't you think? As for Must not require that the source code be available for execution or other binary uses of the library... well, what's the problem? www.boost.org was pretty stable, thus far. regards, alexander. ___ Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Re: [boost] Re: Draft of new Boost Software License
On Wednesday 9 July 2003 05:48, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Common Public License The CPL is incompatible with the GPL. Whatever licence Boost settles on, it has to be compatible with the GPL. At least, unless you actually _want_ to force developers of GPL software to throw Boost out and reinvent it from scratch. See http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html -- Ross Smith . [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Auckland, New Zealand As Unix guru types go, I'm sweet, patient, and comprehensible. Unfortunately, Unix guru types don't go very far in that direction. I used to think this was a personality flaw. -- Elizabeth Zwicky ___ Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Re: [boost] Re: Draft of new Boost Software License
Alexander Terekhov wrote: Glen Knowles wrote: [...] The Common Public License already has a section in the wiki and fails the boost requirements as shown. http://www.crystalclearsoftware.com/cgi-bin/boost_wiki/wiki.pl?Boost_License/Common_Public_License Yeah. That review process was really entertaining. Thanks for the reminder. Must be simple to read and understand is rather subjective, don't you think? As for Must not require that the source code be available for execution or other binary uses of the library... well, what's the problem? www.boost.org was pretty stable, thus far. The answers to questions 12 and 18 from http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/library/os-cplfaq.html seem problematic. ___ Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
[boost] Re: Draft of new Boost Software License
David Abrahams wrote: [... P.S./P.P.S./P.P.P.S./P.P.P.P.S. ...] Thanks for the information. I've bookmarked everything. regards, alexander. P.S. Please don't infringe upon my concepts and methods. We can struck a licensing deal, of course. ___ Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
[boost] Re: Draft of new Boost Software License
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Glen Knowles wrote: [...] The Common Public License already has a section in the wiki and fails the boost requirements as shown. http://www.crystalclearsoftware.com/cgi-bin/boost_wiki/wiki.pl?Boost_License/Common_Public_License Yeah. That review process was really entertaining. Thanks for the reminder. Glad we could brighten your day. Must be simple to read and understand is rather subjective, don't you think? Yes. That doesn't make it unimportant. As for Must not require that the source code be available for execution or other binary uses of the library... well, what's the problem? www.boost.org was pretty stable, thus far. The problem is that we don't want to force companies to assume the risk that www.boost.org will stick around. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com ___ Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
RE: [boost] Re: Draft of new Boost Software License
Title: RE: [boost] Re: Draft of new Boost Software License From: Alexander Terekhov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] The Common Public License already has a section in the wiki and fails the boost requirements as shown. http://www.crystalclearsoftware.com/cgi-bin/boost_wiki/wiki.pl?Boost_License/Common_Public_License Yeah. That review process was really entertaining. Thanks for the reminder. Must be simple to read and understand is rather subjective, don't you think? As for Must not require that the source code be available for execution or other binary uses of the library... well, what's the problem? www.boost.org was pretty stable, thus far. Now you're arguing that the boost license requirements should be changed in order to make them compatible with the CPL? That's a bit of a stretch, especially since I like the boost requirements as they are. Glen
[boost] Re: Draft of new Boost Software License
Ross Smith wrote: On Wednesday 9 July 2003 05:48, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Common Public License The CPL is incompatible with the GPL. Translation: RMS just hates patents. (and DMCA, of course) http://finance.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?board=1600684464tid=caldsid=1600684464action=mmid=17801 http://finance.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?board=1600684464tid=caldsid=1600684464action=mmid=17860 http://free.madster.com/data/free.madster.com/566/1alert2001-02-209.pdf http://faculty.babson.edu/hotchkiss/casebook/mba/amazon.htm http://www.redhat.com/legal/patent_policy.html regards, alexander. ___ Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
[boost] Re: Draft of new Boost Software License
Peter Dimov wrote: [...] The answers to questions 12 and 18 from http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/library/os-cplfaq.html seem problematic. Well, http://ntxshape.sourceforge.net/opensource.html WRT q12: quote The Lesser GPL used to be called the Library GPL. For historical reasons this license still refers to the software application as the Library which can be confusing for licensees. Also, a licensee is allowed to convert the Lesser GPL to a full GPL, after which their enhancements could not be incorporated back into our version of the software. So, for us, LGPL is out. /quote WRT q18: quote This license strikes a good balance between making the source code available for use in commercial situations, while at the same time requiring that modifications / enhancements be published under the same license (thereby enabling all good enhancements to find their way back to us). /quote regards, alexander. ___ Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
[boost] Re: Draft of new Boost Software License
David Abrahams wrote: [...] As for Must not require that the source code be available for execution or other binary uses of the library... well, what's the problem? www.boost.org was pretty stable, thus far. The problem is that we don't want to force companies to assume the risk that www.boost.org will stick around. Companies will keep the code anyway. The requirement is: A Contributor may choose to distribute the Program in object code form under its own license agreement, provided that: iv) states that source code for the Program is available from such Contributor, and informs licensees how to obtain it in a reasonable manner on or through a medium customarily used for software exchange. regards, alexander. ___ Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
[boost] Re: Draft of new Boost Software License
Glen Knowles wrote: [...] Now you're arguing that the boost license requirements should be changed in order to make them compatible with the CPL? That's a bit of a stretch, especially since I like the boost requirements as they are. Frankly, I think that boost requirements make no sense. As an individual (poor one ;-) ), I'd rather go this way: http://lists.boost.org/MailArchives/boost/msg36819.php ([boost] Re: boost vs. The Lawyers (non-technical)) http://lists.boost.org/MailArchives/boost/msg46093.php ([boost] Re: Legal issues and licensing -- again) OTOH, from commercial (and OSS community) POV, I'd go CPL. regards, alexander. ___ Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
[boost] Re: Draft of new Boost Software License
My preference is for there to be a single license file in the boost root directory, and each file covered include a link. So a source code file might contain something like: // (C) Jane Programmer, 2003 // // See www.boost.org/license for license terms and conditions // // See www.boost.org/libs/janes-lib for documentation I'm not sure everyone agrees with that approach - part of the reason for discussion is to finalize that. The exact wording of the See ... for license ... is yet to be decided. We will follow the lawyers advice, in any case. I would highly recommend to have a version number for the license and include it in the source files! Even if you do not intend to change the boost license, you might be forced to do so by a change of the legal situation somewhere in the future. Bertolt ___ Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
[boost] Re: Draft of new Boost Software License
Paul A. Bristow wrote: [...] May I suggest consideration of what happens in a decade or two when boost.org might not longer exist to provide a reference, but we still need to ensure that the license terms are still available. http://web.archive.org/web/2229041743/http://www.sco.com/offers/ancient_unix.html regards, alexander. ___ Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
RE: [boost] Re: Draft of new Boost Software License
Another possible place - but Digital Object Identifiers are the Right Way to Do It, I believe. All the scientific journals are using it - but it may cost too much. Paul | -Original Message- | From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Alexander Terekhov | Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 11:43 AM | To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Subject: [boost] Re: Draft of new Boost Software License | | | | Paul A. Bristow wrote: | [...] | May I suggest consideration of what happens in a decade or two when | boost.org | might not longer exist to provide a reference, but we still need to | ensure that | the license terms are still available. | | http://web.archive.org/web/2229041743/http://www.sco.com/offers/an | cient_unix.html | | regards, | alexander. | | ___ | Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost | | ___ Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
[boost] Re: Draft of new Boost Software License
Gregory Colvin wrote: This seems like a lot more trouble than just pasting our brief license into every source file. The advantage of a single, separate file is that it is much less paperwork for an audit team to review. They only need confirm all files link to the same license, not that there are no files with subtly different wording. -- AlisdairM ___ Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
[boost] Re: Draft of new Boost Software License
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
IANALBIPOOTN.
um... I Am Not A Lawyer But I Play One On Television{what}?
What's the N?
--
Truth,
James Curran
www.noveltheory.com (personal)
www.njtheater.com (professional)
___
Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
[boost] Re: Draft of new Boost Software License
Alisdair Meredith wrote: [...] The advantage of a single, separate file is that it is much less paperwork for an audit team to review. I'm afraid that you're way too optimistic with respect to paperwork. It might not be a best example... but here's a message [kinda abridged] from my archive that was sent to me [and my manager] not so long time ago: I'm just too lazy to try-to-explain-it-in-my-own-words... so, here's **TOTALLY UNAUTHORIZED** derivative work ;-) --- Alexander, I am working with a team of developers here at snip on the project called snip. I need to complete a Certificate of Originality (COO) before the end of snip so that we can ship the product to customer in early snip. snip developers use code from public domain for latching and locking from the following package. Package Name: Apache Log4j (from Apache Jakarta project) Package Version: log4j version 1.2.8 Since code is being used from Open Source for snip, IP legal at snip requires that our team to complete additional steps in order for OSSC to approve COO. OSSC reviewed the COO and had pedigree concern based on FIFOReadWriteLock.java by Alexander Terekhov. I searched the header file and found the following: License text (if needed): Extract from source code header /* File: FIFOReadWriteLock.java Originally written by Doug Lea and released into the public domain. This may be used for any purposes whatsoever without acknowledgment. Thanks for the assistance and support of Sun Microsystems Labs, and everyone contributing, testing, and using this code. History: Date WhoWhat 11Jun1998 dl Create public version 23nov2001 dl Replace main algorithm with fairer version based on one by Alexander Terekhov */ OSSC would like to know if you wrote the code while employed by IBM, so that IBM owns the code. Would you please confirm when you wrote the code (before joining IBM or while employed at IBM)? Your prompt response is sincerely appreciated. I need to get back to OSSC as soon as possible. COO completion is pending on your response. Please help snip team to stay on schedule. Regards, snip Release Manager, snip Notes: snip/Silicon Valley/[EMAIL PROTECTED] Internet: snip@us.ibm.com Phone: snip --- Well, a bit later, the question/IP concern was kinda clarified: IP just wanted to know if IBM owns the algorithm. OSSC stands for Open Source Steering Committee (a special IBM corporate group for things like involvement with usage and/or distribution of OSS in any way with IBM customers, etc.). regards, alexander. ___ Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Re: [boost] Re: Draft of new Boost Software License
--On Wednesday, July 02, 2003 4:06 PM -0400 James Curran
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
IANALBIPOOTN.
um... I Am Not A Lawyer But I Play One On Television{what}?
What's the N?
The Net !?
___
Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
[boost] Re: Draft of new Boost Software License
James Curran wrote: Alexander Terekhov wrote: IANALBIPOOTN. um... I Am Not A Lawyer But I Play One On ... The Net. regards, alexander. ___ Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
[boost] Re: Draft of new Boost Software License
Ed Brey wrote: [...] In the use case I am asking about, which is typical for shrink-wrap software, only the libraries are pre-existing. The main program, the help files, and the read-me file are all brand new and they are all created together and are used together. It would be seem artificial to break them into separate works, like breaking into separate works chapters in a typical book. You'd have a collective work if your book would include some chapter(s)/portion(s) independently [in the sense of copyright law] written by others. Uhmm, a good example is probably this: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0387954015 (The Origins of Concurrent Programming: From Semaphores to ...) Now, imagine that *I* would write something in Russian and you'd simply translate it to English using, say, the AltaVista's Babel Fish translator (or something like that). I think that all such material (portion(s)) would be derivative work(s). BTW, you would have pretty much the same thing with a static linking for some library full of templates and that was shipped to you in a source code form only. You'd simply have some portion(s) of your program originated from others and translated to some executable machine language (or whatever) creating portion(s) that are derivative work(s). But the book itself (and your program) would still be a compilation, I believe. I would have absolutely no rights whatsoever with respect to the book/program portion(s) that were independently written by you. With a dynamic linking OTOH, your distribution would NOT need to include dynamically linked works originated from others (in either original or translated form; i.e. derivative work). I guess that's the only difference with respect to static and dynamic linking. Oder? Does that make the CD a compilation or a derivative work? I don't know. See above. [...] The legal definition of copy that Peter posted - ... is legally irrelevant, I believe. Legally, a copyright owner can license (subject to requirements/limitations) the following rights: - the reproduction right (making reproductions/copies) - the adaptation right (making derivative works) - the public distribution and first sale right - the public performance right - the public display rights For details on licensing, pls see the CPL. regards, alexander. ___ Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
[boost] Re: Draft of new Boost Software License
Fernando Cacciola wrote:
[...]
Motivated by A. Terekhov concerns, I think the license should, if at all
possible, expressely PROHIBIT anyone, including the copyright holder,
from patenting the covered Software and any implied intellectual production.
That would make no sense.
Why?
Because a patent protects against the unauthorized manufacture,
use, sale... {subset of} rights that *ARE GRANTED* by a license
{subject to whatever requirements} we're discussing here.
I don't understand.
Isn't the license and its copyright notice itself which protects those rights?
If we only seek to retain the copyright notice which each _copy_, as required by the
license, do we _need_ a patent? I think not.
AFAICT, a patent gives you far more rights than those expressed in the copyright
notice, and in particular, gives you right to _control_ the use of the covered
subject by,
for example, requiring a royalty for each use of it. This is far more than what we
really need, isn't it?
Copyrights protect expressions of ideas. Patents protect ideas.
I guess, it's reasonable to expect that copyrights will end up
protecting things forever -- law makers constantly extend the
deadline. The protection period for patents is rather limited
(vs copyrights). Patent rights are negative -- the patent owner
can exclude others. The patent owner himself may not be able to
practice the invention if it's subject to other patents needed to
practice the invention. quote Sometimes one patent blocks
practicing (making or using) a second patent, while that second
patent blocks practicing the first patent. In that case, neither
patent owner can practice his invention until the other patent
expires, and so it is likely that the two patent owners will
cross-license their patents, giving each the ability to practice
their patents. /quote
Maybe you saw nonsense in disallowing the boost developers ourselves
to issue a pantent on our own software. Well, the intention is to reduce
loopholes: without this provision, I might be forced to prove that I am
the orginal developer (names are far from unique).
You aren't really forced to prove anything. Committers aside, that
is the problem (risk) of the Recipient. For example, the CPL states:
c) Recipient understands that although each Contributor grants
the licenses to its Contributions set forth herein, no assurances
are provided by any Contributor that the Program does not infringe
the patent or other intellectual property rights of any other
entity. Each Contributor disclaims any liability to Recipient for
claims brought by any other entity based on infringement of
intellectual property rights or otherwise. As a condition to
exercising the rights and licenses granted hereunder, each
Recipient hereby assumes sole responsibility to secure any other
intellectual property rights needed, if any. For example, if a
third party patent license is required to allow Recipient to
distribute the Program, it is Recipient's responsibility to
acquire that license before distributing the Program.
d) Each Contributor represents that to its knowledge it has
sufficient copyright rights in its Contribution, if any, to grant
the copyright license set forth in this Agreement.
regards,
alexander.
P.S. http://www.eclipse.org/legal/legalfaq.html
___
Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
[boost] Re: Draft of new Boost Software License
Beman Dawes wrote:
[...]
// See accompanying license for terms and conditions of use.
http://www.eclipse.org/eclipse/eclipse-charter.html
Licensing
All contributions to the Eclipse Project must adhere to the Common
Public License http://www.eclipse.org/legal/cpl-v10.html.
Notwithstanding the above, at the discretion of the PMC, Eclipse
Project downloads may include separately licensed code from third
parties as a convenience and where permitted by the third party
license, provided this is clearly indicated.
All contributions must contain the following copyright notice.
/**
Copyright (c) {date} {name of original contributor} and others.
All rights reserved. This program and the accompanying materials
are made available under the terms of the Common Public License v1.0
which accompanies this distribution, and is available at
http://www.eclipse.org/legal/cpl-v10.html
Contributors:
contributor1 - description of contribution
contributor2 - description of contribution
...
**/
The original contributor is the one who contributes the first version
of the file. A contributor may be a person or an organization - whoever
owns the copyright. If the contributor is an organization, the person
may also be indicated. For each additional contributor, indicate the
part of the code or contribution that came from the contributor,
especially if it contains an interesting algorithm or data table etc.
For clarity, also indicate the contributor in the actual section of
contributed code. Also reference the bugzilla bug ID if applicable. The
basic principle is to clearly identify the contribution... especially
if it is a separable block of code.
regards,
alexander.
___
Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Re: [boost] Re: Draft of new Boost Software License
Beman Dawes wrote: Let's see what the lawyers say before worrying too much about what may be a non-issue. I'd like to add some of my concerns to the list. First of all let me say that I fully realize that we just got a ton of free legal advice and that I do appreciate the efforts of everyone involved. And of course I am not a lawyer, not even able to impersonate one in front of laymen. But I do have some questions. Let's put the disclaimer aside for a moment; I'll return to it later. Here is the old Boost standard license (minus the disclaimer): // Permission to copy, use, modify, sell and distribute this software // is granted provided this copyright notice appears in all copies. I'll repeat here the new license (minus the disclaimer) for completeness: [start new license-- Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person or organization obtaining a copy of the software covered by this license (the Software) to use, reproduce, display, distribute, execute, and transmit the Software, and to prepare derivative works of the Software, and to permit others to do so, all subject to the following: The copyright notice in the Software and this entire statement, including the above license grant, this restriction and the following disclaimer, must be included in all copies of the Software, in whole or in part, and all derivative works of the Software, unless such copies or derivative works are solely in the form of machine-executable object code generated by a source language processor. -- end new license] My questions are failry obvious. * Why is the new license better? * Isn't there a conflict of interest between Boost contributors and the legal departments of some Boost users? Which license of the two provides the better balance between the interests of these two groups? What is more important, encouraging contribution or encouraging use by large corporate clients? * It is recognizable that the new license has been prepared with the help of a lawyer. Is this a good thing from a legal perspective? I'd like also to point out that it seems to me that the old in all copies form is better than the new one; the legal system is sufficiently flexible to reliably recognize a copy (i.e. a password protected RAR archive of an mp3 encoded song). The new wording seems to allow self-extracting archives of the Software to not carry the license. Now the disclaimer. I am not sure to what extent we are even supposed to discuss such legal matters here; the public archives of the mailing list can be used as evidence in a hypothetical future lawsuit (SCO showed the way). So I won't go into details. * Does free (beer) software need a disclaimer of any kind? Does it carry any implied warranties that need to be disclaimed? * Does the disclaimer provide any legal protection? * Worse, if the disclaimer isn't strictly necessary and doesn't provide much legal protection, doesn't it _weaken_ our postition in a hypothetical lawsuit? Doesn't it present a convenient legal target that can be exploited? In short, why not just drop the disclaimer? ___ Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
[boost] Re: Draft of new Boost Software License
Peter Dimov wrote: Ed Brey wrote: Peter Dimov wrote: I'd like also to point out that it seems to me that the old in all copies form is better than the new one; the legal system is sufficiently flexible to reliably recognize a copy (i.e. a password protected RAR archive of an mp3 encoded song). The new wording seems to allow self-extracting archives of the Software to not carry the license. To elaborate on this point, allow me to present two specific use cases to clarify the potential loopholes, both arising from the clause unless such copies or derivative works are solely in the form of machine-executable object code generated by a source language processor. * Suppose I create a product containing executables that make use of compiled boost libraries (only - no uncompiled boost source). I consider the CD and its content to be the work and I copyright it as such. It is a work derived from the Software (Boost license definition). What makes you think so? I'd say that CD is a compilation: quote A compilation is a work formed by the collection and assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship. The term compilation includes collective works. A collective work is a work, such as a periodical issue, anthology, or encyclopedia, in which a number of contributions, constituting separate and independent works in themselves, are assembled into a collective whole. A derivative work is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a derivative work. /quote Suppose the CD contains a plain text readme file. The derivative work is not /solely/ in the form of object code. Technically, I would have to include the boost copyright info, even though that is not the intent of the license. I think that under the CPL [presuming that your CD license would comply with terms and conditions of the CPL for CPL-originated portion(s)], you'd have to include a URL to the boost library at boost site (or at your own site, if you like). That's it. Oder? * Although language by definition represents expression with constraining rules restricting valid combinations of input, it is well established that computer languages make provision for encapsulating of unconstrained binary data. Suppose I create a C++ program whose sole purpose is to create a file containing a significant portion of boost source code. My program contains a long C string which is the boost source code. Once I compile the C++ code into object code, I meet the exception, and don't need to include the copyright info, which is contrary to the intent of the license. Well, you have either a single derivative work (since you've transformed the original work into a long C string... heck, you can even apply some #pragma(rot13), if you like) with some portion(s) added to the transformed stuff, or you've created a compilation in which you redistribute the original program (or derivative work) in either source code form or object code form. See the CPL for an example of REASONABLE requirements... that apply only if you distribute the result, BTW. Yep. It is my understanding that our original license uses the following implicit definition of copy: Yeah. The distinction between reproduction and derivative work may be difficult (and isn't really important, AFAICS). regards, alexander. ___ Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
[boost] Re: Draft of new Boost Software License
Alexander Terekhov wrote: * Suppose I create a product containing executables that make use of compiled boost libraries (only - no uncompiled boost source). I consider the CD and its content to be the work and I copyright it as such. It is a work derived from the Software (Boost license definition). What makes you think so? I'd say that CD is a compilation: quote A compilation is a work formed by the collection and assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship. The term compilation includes collective works. [...] /quote In the use case I am asking about, which is typical for shrink-wrap software, only the libraries are pre-existing. The main program, the help files, and the read-me file are all brand new and they are all created together and are used together. It would be seem artificial to break them into separate works, like breaking into separate works chapters in a typical book. Does that make the CD a compilation or a derivative work? I don't know. If a compilation, that would be a problem, since compilations are not covered in the exception clause. This problem would be in addition to the issue with the word solely in the proposed license. * Although language by definition represents expression with constraining rules restricting valid combinations of input, it is well established that computer languages make provision for encapsulating of unconstrained binary data. Suppose I create a C++ program whose sole purpose is to create a file containing a significant portion of boost source code. My program contains a long C string which is the boost source code. Once I compile the C++ code into object code, I meet the exception, and don't need to include the copyright info, which is contrary to the intent of the license. Well, you have either a single derivative work (since you've transformed the original work into a long C string... heck, you can even apply some #pragma(rot13), if you like) with some portion(s) added to the transformed stuff, or you've created a compilation in which you redistribute the original program (or derivative work) in either source code form or object code form. See the CPL for an example of REASONABLE requirements... that apply only if you distribute the result, BTW. Yep. It is my understanding that our original license uses the following implicit definition of copy: Yeah. The distinction between reproduction and derivative work may be difficult (and isn't really important, AFAICS). The legal definition of copy that Peter posted - A copy of a copyrighted work can be used to recover, display or perform the original work - seems to take care of the second use case. You've also answered your own RAR archive question, Peter, haven't you? ___ Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Re: [boost] Re: Draft of new Boost Software License
At 11:56 AM 6/28/2003, David Abrahams wrote: Beman Dawes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: At 01:26 PM 6/27/2003, Alisdair Meredith wrote: Plus, not all PCs with Boost distributions are going to have Internet connections. In these cases you really do need to include the license with the distribution. [Especially as you are binding distribution of the license as a requirement (in appropriate circumstances)] Yes, the link should certainly reference the license included in the distribution. But there needs to be a backup link to the web site so if the file gets separated from the distribution, there is still a way to reach the license, docs, etc. This is starting to get complicated. Remains to be seen. Maybe the message that has to be added is as simple as: // See accompanying license for terms and conditions of use. Let's see what the lawyers say before worrying too much about what may be a non-issue. --Beman ___ Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
[boost] Re: Draft of new Boost Software License
Beman Dawes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Remains to be seen. Maybe the message that has to be added is as simple as: // See accompanying license for terms and conditions of use. Let's see what the lawyers say before worrying too much about what may be a non-issue. Remember that the doubts and uncertainties raised for lay people count nearly as much as what the lawyers say. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com ___ Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
[boost] Re: Draft of new Boost Software License
Beman Dawes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: At 01:26 PM 6/27/2003, Alisdair Meredith wrote: Plus, not all PCs with Boost distributions are going to have Internet connections. In these cases you really do need to include the license with the distribution. [Especially as you are binding distribution of the license as a requirement (in appropriate circumstances)] Yes, the link should certainly reference the license included in the distribution. But there needs to be a backup link to the web site so if the file gets separated from the distribution, there is still a way to reach the license, docs, etc. This is starting to get complicated. I wonder if separating the license from the source is really worth it. What's the upside? -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com ___ Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
[boost] Re: Draft of new Boost Software License
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió en el mensaje news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fernando Cacciola wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fernando Cacciola wrote:
[...]
Motivated by A. Terekhov concerns, I think the license should, if at all
possible, expressely PROHIBIT anyone, including the copyright holder,
from patenting the covered Software and any implied intellectual production.
That would make no sense.
Why?
Because a patent protects against the unauthorized manufacture,
use, sale... {subset of} rights that *ARE GRANTED* by a license
{subject to whatever requirements} we're discussing here.
I don't understand.
Isn't the license and its copyright notice itself which protects those rights?
If we only seek to retain the copyright notice which each _copy_, as required by the
license, do we _need_ a patent? I think not.
AFAICT, a patent gives you far more rights than those expressed in the copyright
notice, and in particular, gives you right to _control_ the use of the covered subject
by,
for example, requiring a royalty for each use of it. This is far more than what we
really need, isn't it?
Maybe you saw nonsense in disallowing the boost developers ourselves
to issue a pantent on our own software. Well, the intention is to reduce
loopholes: without this provision, I might be forced to prove that I am
the orginal developer (names are far from unique).
Also, a public disclosure of an invention prior to the patent
application renders the invention no longer novel under the
IP laws of almost all countries outside North America.
I see.
If I understood correctly, this means that the release itself prohibits
_further_ patents to be registered on the software. Is that right?
But as you say this does not apply in the USA, so a express
provision is still necesary.
Finally,
AFAICS, a sort of common practice at companies practicing
the open source (e.g. IBM) is to seek the patent protection
and grant rights to the open source community (again: CPL *is*
the preferred license) but seek compensation from the
proprietary closed source competitors. What's wrong with that?
Nothing is wrong with that per see, it is a matter of goals.
Companies like IBM do businesses with their software, thus it makes sense
for them to seek patent protection, because patents regulates competition.
But competition is the key to evolution, so to the users and computing comunity
at large, patents are a BIG nuisance.
I don't think boost developers really want to protect themselves against comptetition,
we just want to retain credit for what we originally did, but via a simple mechanism.
Retaining _copy_ rights is far more easier than retaining _intellectual_ rights.
Currently, anyone can write from scratch the smart pointer libraries under his own
name.
We cannot protect that without a patent, right, but my guess is that boost developers
don't
really care, otherwise, we wouldn't release our work through boost.
Fernando Cacciola
___
Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
[boost] Re: Draft of new Boost Software License
Fernando Cacciola wrote: [...] Motivated by A. Terekhov concerns, I think the license should, if at all possible, expressely PROHIBIT anyone, including the copyright holder, from patenting the covered Software and any implied intellectual production. That would make no sense. My concern is this: http://boost.sourceforge.net/misc/license-background.html This license grants all rights under the owner's copyrights (as well as an implied patent license), that's one possible (and maybe even reasonable interpretation) but implied is Not Good. Well, patents aside for a moment, I personally find this whole issue rather entertaining... if you grant all rights then why not simply release it into the public domain? http://lists.boost.org/MailArchives/boost/msg36819.php ([boost] Re: boost vs. The Lawyers (non-technical)) http://lists.boost.org/MailArchives/boost/msg46093.php ([boost] Re: Legal issues and licensing -- again) regards, alexander. ___ Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
[boost] Re: Draft of new Boost Software License
Howard Hinnant wrote: [...] Will the copyright need to appear in the standard itself? Uhmm, why would you care? My job is to implement the std::lib for Metrowerks. Why would I /not/ care? Because it has no bearing whatsoever on you job. ? regards, alexander. -- http://opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007904975/frontmatter/participants.html ___ Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
[boost] Re: Draft of new Boost Software License
Beman Dawes wrote: [...] The point of the Boost license is to grant various permissions to everyday users. Special uses such as ISO standardization, or maybe some corporation that wants a different license, can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. That's a nice aspect of the developer retaining copyright. The developer can cut a special deal if he or she wishes (but of course is under no obligation to do so). Hmm. I just can't believe that ISO paid something to BS/KR/PJP. regards, alexander. ___ Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
[boost] Re: Draft of new Boost Software License
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Fernando Cacciola wrote: [...] Motivated by A. Terekhov concerns, I think the license should, if at all possible, expressely PROHIBIT anyone, including the copyright holder, from patenting the covered Software and any implied intellectual production. That would make no sense. Why? Fernando Cacciola ___ Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
[boost] Re: Draft of new Boost Software License
Gregory Colvin wrote: It seems that doing it by reference to a web page amounts to Boost reserving the right to change terms in the future, possibly to the disadvantage of the authors and users. But I see lots of code that refers to the GPL that way, so this is another question for the lawyers. Oh, I'd missed that. I assumed the link would reference the license in the downloaded distribution, rather than the online version. That way you are bound to the license you downloaded, rather than a license potentially changing without your notice. Plus, not all PCs with Boost distributions are going to have Internet connections. In these cases you really do need to include the license with the distribution. [Especially as you are binding distribution of the license as a requirement (in appropriate circumstances)] -- AlisdairM ___ Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Re: [boost] Re: Draft of new Boost Software License
Alisdair Meredith wrote: Gregory Colvin wrote: It seems that doing it by reference to a web page amounts to Boost reserving the right to change terms in the future, possibly to the disadvantage of the authors and users. But I see lots of code that refers to the GPL that way, so this is another question for the lawyers. Oh, I'd missed that. I assumed the link would reference the license in the downloaded distribution, rather than the online version. That way you are bound to the license you downloaded, rather than a license potentially changing without your notice. Most licenses solve this issue by version numbering, don't they? The GPL certainly does. A typical license reference for a GPLed file: * This library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or * modify it under the terms of the GNU Library General Public * License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either * version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. You wouldn't necessarily want to include the any later version clause, but boost might want to version the license... Plus, not all PCs with Boost distributions are going to have Internet connections. In these cases you really do need to include the license with the distribution. [Especially as you are binding distribution of the license as a requirement (in appropriate circumstances)] I would agree with that. -- --- Kevin Lynch voice: (617) 353-6025 Physics Department Fax: (617) 353-9393 Boston University office: PRB-361 590 Commonwealth Ave. e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Boston, MA 02215 USAhttp://budoe.bu.edu/~krlynch --- ___ Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Re: [boost] Re: Draft of new Boost Software License
At 07:14 AM 6/27/2003, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Beman Dawes wrote: [...] The point of the Boost license is to grant various permissions to everyday users. Special uses such as ISO standardization, or maybe some corporation that wants a different license, can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. That's a nice aspect of the developer retaining copyright. The developer can cut a special deal if he or she wishes (but of course is under no obligation to do so). Hmm. I just can't believe that ISO paid something to BS/KR/PJP. I don't think any money changed hands. The issue was that those folks wanted to protect the copyrights on their books. That was all they were asking. --Beman ___ Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Re: [boost] Re: Draft of new Boost Software License
At 12:36 AM 6/27/2003, Rene Rivera wrote: Ha! You've never dealt with ISO, I guess. They are a world unto themselves and their views on copyrights are pretty high-handed. No I haven't. And I get the fealing that I should run away if said beast approaches ;-) Well, luckily the standards committee has a sort of chairman called the Convenor, currently Herb Sutter, whose job it is to deal with ISO. So don't let the idiosyncrasies of ISO worry you if you are interested in participating in standards work:-) --Beman ___ Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Re: [boost] Re: Draft of new Boost Software License
At 09:33 PM 6/26/2003, Fernando Cacciola wrote: Motivated by A. Terekhov concerns, I think the license should, if at all possible, expressely PROHIBIT anyone, including the copyright holder, from patenting the covered Software and any implied intellectual production. That's an interesting issue. I've added it to the list. (Rather than peppering the legal folks with issues one-by-one, I'll build up a list for a few more days and then send it to them all at once.) BTW, make sure to express our gratitude to those lawers for their time and great work!! Will do. Thanks, --Beman ___ Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
[boost] Re: Draft of new Boost Software License
Fernando Cacciola wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fernando Cacciola wrote:
[...]
Motivated by A. Terekhov concerns, I think the license should, if at all
possible, expressely PROHIBIT anyone, including the copyright holder,
from patenting the covered Software and any implied intellectual production.
That would make no sense.
Why?
Because a patent protects against the unauthorized manufacture,
use, sale... {subset of} rights that *ARE GRANTED* by a license
{subject to whatever requirements} we're discussing here. Also,
a public disclosure of an invention prior to the patent
application renders the invention no longer novel under the
IP laws of almost all countries outside North America. Finally,
AFAICS, a sort of common practice at companies practicing
the open source (e.g. IBM) is to seek the patent protection
and grant rights to the open source community (again: CPL *is*
the preferred license) but seek compensation from the
proprietary closed source competitors. What's wrong with that?
regards,
alexander.
___
Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
[boost] Re: Draft of new Boost Software License
Beman Dawes wrote: At 10:27 PM 6/26/2003, Howard Hinnant wrote: [...] company, and then moved to another company. Although no physical copy of the source code was involved, the programmer had a good memory, and basically just duplicated the prior effort. Yup. That's what The Clean Room is all about... Howard, and you're already seriously contaminated, I'm afraid. ;-) http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise27.html regards, alexander. ___ Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
[boost] Re: Draft of new Boost Software License
Beman Dawes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Now you might ask, what about the interface, doesn't the copyright cover that too? The answer is no, as has been fought out in court several times. Ask a lawyer for details, but interfaces themselves aren't covered by copyright. The docs are covered, the header is covered, the implementation, test cases, etc, are all covered, but not the conceptual interface. We ought to put this in the license FAQ. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com ___ Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
[boost] Re: Draft of new Boost Software License
Thomas Wenisch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I have been told by previous employers' lawyers that the word Copyright is in fact required. That matches my understanding. Also that (C) has no legal value. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com ___ Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
[boost] Re: Draft of new Boost Software License
David Abrahams wrote: Thomas Wenisch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I have been told by previous employers' lawyers that the word Copyright is in fact required. That matches my understanding. Also that (C) has no legal value. http://www.iusmentis.com/copyright/crashcourse/requirements (Formalities for obtaining copyright protection...) regards, alexander. ___ Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Re: [boost] Re: Draft of new Boost Software License
At 01:26 PM 6/27/2003, Alisdair Meredith wrote: Gregory Colvin wrote: It seems that doing it by reference to a web page amounts to Boost reserving the right to change terms in the future, possibly to the disadvantage of the authors and users. But I see lots of code that refers to the GPL that way, so this is another question for the lawyers. Oh, I'd missed that. I assumed the link would reference the license in the downloaded distribution, rather than the online version. That way you are bound to the license you downloaded, rather than a license potentially changing without your notice. Plus, not all PCs with Boost distributions are going to have Internet connections. In these cases you really do need to include the license with the distribution. [Especially as you are binding distribution of the license as a requirement (in appropriate circumstances)] Yes, the link should certainly reference the license included in the distribution. But there needs to be a backup link to the web site so if the file gets separated from the distribution, there is still a way to reach the license, docs, etc. Thanks, --Beman ___ Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Re: [boost] Re: Draft of new Boost Software License
At 05:58 PM 6/27/2003, David Abrahams wrote: Beman Dawes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Now you might ask, what about the interface, doesn't the copyright cover that too? The answer is no, as has been fought out in court several times. Ask a lawyer for details, but interfaces themselves aren't covered by copyright. The docs are covered, the header is covered, the implementation, test cases, etc, are all covered, but not the conceptual interface. We ought to put this in the license FAQ. Done. Once we think the license background page is pretty stable, perhaps the lawyers can take a quick look at it to make sure we haven't said anything totally wrong. (Dave is the Boost point person in dealing with the lawyers; he deserves a lot of credit for persevering in getting busy people to focus on Boost, and getting them to understand the Boost culture.) --Beman ___ Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
[boost] Re: Draft of new Boost Software License
Beman Dawes wrote: At 01:10 PM 6/25/2003, Daniel Frey wrote: I think that the term used in the suggested new boost license could be a problem here. Reading the entire sentence, the phrase of the Software appears three times. Note the capitalization of Software. That makes it clear that the copyright, license, etc, reproduction requirement only applies to any Boost software, not any non-Boost portions. It doesn't matter what form the non-Boost portions are in; they aren't covered by the license. The inclusion of the of the Software phrase prevents the problem you are worried about AFAICS. Well, I hope so. I'm not a lawyer, so I can't decide. Personally, I think I understood and respect the spirit and boost and I don't fear to be sued. The problem is that lawyers have to accept it, but I think your interpretation of the Software should tame them. Thanks for clarifying. Regards, Daniel -- Daniel Frey aixigo AG - financial training, research and technology Schloß-Rahe-Straße 15, 52072 Aachen, Germany fon: +49 (0)241 936737-42, fax: +49 (0)241 936737-99 eMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED], web: http://www.aixigo.de ___ Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
[boost] Re: Draft of new Boost Software License
Beman Dawes wrote: At 01:50 PM 6/25/2003, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Beman Dawes wrote: [...] * Boosters (or their lawyers) from countries other than the US; do they spot any issues missed by Boost's US-centric legal team? They seem to have missed a whole bunch of issues surrounding implied patent license. THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED AS IS, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, TITLE AND NON-INFRINGEMENT. ^^ If I understand correctly, TITLE AND NON-INFRINGEMENT are basically legal code-words which covers a vast range of issues such as ownership, patents, trade secrets, etc. That's a disclaimer basically saying do your own patent search, etc. I'm talking about contributions from companies like IBM (my employer) that do have a whole bunch of patents to worry about... I mean, for example, enforcement right despite deliberate contribution that would infringe some contributor's patent(s). Consider: http://www.ohjelmisto.org/Legal_Aspects_of_OpenSource.PDF quote The Patent Issue - Patents implicitly licensed, to what extent? - Even worse: what if patents are not licensed? - GPL and exhaustion of certain exclusive distribution rights of the patent holder... - General misperception that relevance only for the bad software patents like Amazon one- click-patent - Problem of leak out of patent licenses through contributions - Reason for mushrooming of new licenses like Mozilla License, IBM licenses, Nokia OpenSource license (NOKOS) /quote regards, alexander. -- http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/en/indprop/comp/eicta.pdf Uhmm, ... New SCO Press Release by: martin_lvnv For Immediate Release: SCO has determined through further research that even IBM mainframes use propriety SCO methods and concepts without a license. Since almost all computer software derives from unix, and mainframes use software, we have determined that IBM mainframes use SCO IP. SCO hereby declares them all illegal and demands they be unplugged. IBM mainframes use usernames and passwords, concepts that were proprietary to SCO since they were in used the oldest version of SYSV unix. We were surprised to find IBM has been using these concepts without license since before SCO was even incorporated. Misuse dates back to some of IBMs earliest computers in the 1950s. We knew IBM had been transferring SCO technology from sys V Unix to Linux stated SCO CEO Daryl MacBride but we didn't realize they were transferring the technology to MVS, IBMs mainframe operating system too. SCO will be asking for damages going all the way back to the dawn of the computer era in the 1950s. It seems all of IBMs success over the decades has been from stealing SCO IP, so we're going to sue them for every dime they ever made. And then double it for punitive damages. Asked to comment on the new allegations, an IBM spokesman responded Blow Me. In other news SCO announces the licensing of the username and password concepts to Microsoft. A Microsoft spokesman admitted: We thought we stole it from IBM or Apple or acquired in from some company we crushed. As soon as we determined it was SCO's legitimate IP, we licensed these important concepts. Including Microsofts one time license fee of $84 million dollars, SCO announced they turned a small profit this quarter. -- SCOX board at yahoo ___ Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
[boost] Re: Draft of new Boost Software License
David Abrahams wrote: [...] Nothing is legally bullet-proof. People should not have illusions about that. Well, I'd say that opinions (dissents aside) issues by panels like http://www.supremecourtus.gov (and alike) are pretty bullet-proof. Oder? ;-) regards, alexander. -- SCO to sue Al Gore In a dramatic move, SCO today filed suit against Al Gore alleging misappropriations of trade secrets and unfair competition for inventing the Internet. SCO Executive Chris Sontag was quoted as saying This internet thing is a Unix derivative and our contracts from ATT clearly give us all IP rights to Unix derivatives. What Al Gore did is to transfer our rights to the world. Our lawsuit is aimed at preserving our intellectual property rights. When asked if he was on crack, Sontag replied, No, I'm on SCO, but crack is clearly a derivative of Unix and we intend to sue the Colombian cocaine cartel next.. -- bryan_w_taylor, SCOX board at yahoo ___ Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
[boost] Re: Draft of new Boost Software License
Matt Hurd wrote:
[...]
PS: does #include boost/any_old_header.hpp make you a derived work?
I'd say that in the context of new boost license, derivative work is
a work that includes some {transformed} copyrighted expressions of ideas
such that the result would constitute an infringement if made without
authorization of the owner(s) of the copyright in the original work. The
distinction between idea and expression may be difficult and in order to
understand recursion you must first understand recursion. IANALBIPOOTN.
regards,
alexander.
___
Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Re: [boost] Re: Draft of new Boost Software License
At 05:24 AM 6/26/2003, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Beman Dawes wrote: At 01:50 PM 6/25/2003, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Beman Dawes wrote: [...] * Boosters (or their lawyers) from countries other than the US; do they spot any issues missed by Boost's US-centric legal team? They seem to have missed a whole bunch of issues surrounding implied patent license. THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED AS IS, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, TITLE AND NON-INFRINGEMENT. ^^ If I understand correctly, TITLE AND NON-INFRINGEMENT are basically legal code-words which covers a vast range of issues such as ownership, patents, trade secrets, etc. That's a disclaimer basically saying do your own patent search, etc. Yes, among other things. I'm talking about contributions from companies like IBM (my employer) that do have a whole bunch of patents to worry about... I mean, for example, enforcement right despite deliberate contribution that would infringe some contributor's patent(s). You really need to talk to IBM's lawyers to get their views. I know they have looked at the current Boost licenses, because they were kind enough to report some ambiguous wording, but I have no idea what else they may be concerned about. There are certainly legal issues with regards to contributions, but those issues are being dealt with separately. They appear to be separate from issues regarding the license. Thanks, --Beman ___ Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
[boost] Re: Draft of new Boost Software License
Beman Dawes wrote: [...] You really need to talk to IBM's lawyers to get their views. I know they have looked at the current Boost licenses, because they were kind enough to report some ambiguous wording, but I have no idea what else they may be concerned about. I'm pretty sure that IBM's lawyers (and RedHat's*** too, BTW) would be quite happy if you'd adopt the CPL. ***) http://www.redhat.com/legal/patent_policy.html regards, alexander. ___ Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
[boost] Re: Draft of new Boost Software License
Howard Hinnant wrote: Since boost is a spring board for standardization of a library, I'm wondering if the boost license requires the copyright notice to follow for other implementations which follow the interface of the boost library, but independently develop the implementation? In other words, if we standardize a boost library, will the library's copyright notice have to be in all implementations of that std::lib? http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise23.html http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise27.html Will the copyright need to appear in the standard itself? Uhmm, why would you care? regards, alexander. ___ Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
[boost] Re: Draft of new Boost Software License
Howard Hinnant wrote: In other words, if we standardize a boost library, will the library's copyright notice have to be in all implementations of that std::lib? Will the copyright need to appear in the standard itself? The copyright holder can always choose to grant an alternative license to the committee, free from any such restriction. I'd say it is a matter for the committee and proposer to reach the appropriate arrangement. Of course, this hits problems if someone proposes a library in boost that they are not the copyright holder for (say boost::array...) -- AlisdairM ___ Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Re: [boost] Re: Draft of new Boost Software License
on 6/26/03 1:24 PM, Alexander Terekhov at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Howard Hinnant wrote: Since boost is a spring board for standardization of a library, I'm wondering if the boost license requires the copyright notice to follow for other implementations which follow the interface of the boost library, but independently develop the implementation? In other words, if we standardize a boost library, will the library's copyright notice have to be in all implementations of that std::lib? http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise23.html http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise27.html Will the copyright need to appear in the standard itself? Uhmm, why would you care? Howard writes the standard library for Metrowerks as well as sitting on the standards committee so I'm sure he's wondering about what happens in the future. Chris ___ Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Re: [boost] Re: Draft of new Boost Software License
On Thursday, June 26, 2003, at 01:24 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Howard Hinnant wrote: Since boost is a spring board for standardization of a library, I'm wondering if the boost license requires the copyright notice to follow for other implementations which follow the interface of the boost library, but independently develop the implementation? In other words, if we standardize a boost library, will the library's copyright notice have to be in all implementations of that std::lib? http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise23.html http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise27.html Will the copyright need to appear in the standard itself? Uhmm, why would you care? My job is to implement the std::lib for Metrowerks. Why would I /not/ care? -Howard ___ Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Re: [boost] Re: Draft of new Boost Software License
[2003-06-26] Chris Little wrote: on 6/26/03 1:24 PM, Alexander Terekhov at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Howard Hinnant wrote: Since boost is a spring board for standardization of a library, I'm wondering if the boost license requires the copyright notice to follow for other implementations which follow the interface of the boost library, but independently develop the implementation? In other words, if we standardize a boost library, will the library's copyright notice have to be in all implementations of that std::lib? http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise23.html http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise27.html Will the copyright need to appear in the standard itself? Uhmm, why would you care? Howard writes the standard library for Metrowerks as well as sitting on the standards committee so I'm sure he's wondering about what happens in the future. I would think that since the Library Proposal of the interface is a separate document than the Boost implementation+docs of that interface they would have different licenses. And therefore not present a problem when the Library Proposal is accepted as then some sort of license transfer to the standards organization would happen. But I guess Beman should bring that up with the lawyers also ;-) -- grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- rrivera (at) acm.org - grafik (at) redshift-software.com -- 102708583 (at) icq ___ Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Re: [boost] Re: Draft of new Boost Software License
At 03:29 PM 6/26/2003, Rene Rivera wrote: I would think that since the Library Proposal of the interface is a separate document than the Boost implementation+docs of that interface they would have different licenses. And therefore not present a problem when the Library Proposal is accepted as then some sort of license transfer to the standards organization would happen. But I guess Beman should bring that up with the lawyers also ;-) Ha! You've never dealt with ISO, I guess. They are a world unto themselves and their views on copyrights are pretty high-handed. At one time standards at least acknowledged all the people who contributed. But ISO doesn't even allow that nowadays, let alone acknowledging that a lot of what goes into a standard is closely related to if not downright derived from copyrighted works. The point of the Boost license is to grant various permissions to everyday users. Special uses such as ISO standardization, or maybe some corporation that wants a different license, can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. That's a nice aspect of the developer retaining copyright. The developer can cut a special deal if he or she wishes (but of course is under no obligation to do so). --Beman ___ Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
[boost] Re: Draft of new Boost Software License
Beman Dawes [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió en el mensaje news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Thanks to Dave Abrahams, Diane Cabell, Devin Smith, and Eva Chen, we now have a pretty close to final draft of a new Boost Software License. Congratulations! Excelent work!! * Boosters for whom English isn't their primary language; is the license understandable? I'm from Argentina so Spanish if my first language. I had no problem at all reading and understanding the license, though I've trained myself at reading licenses way ago, just to make sure I don't infringe copyrights while using Open Source/Free code. * Boosters (or their lawyers) from countries other than the US; do they spot any issues missed by Boost's US-centric legal team? None that I can tell. * Boost developers; if there are aspects of the license that make you hesitate about adopting it, what are the issues? I'd like to see the issue of the coverage of the term Software resolved. Motivated by A. Terekhov concerns, I think the license should, if at all possible, expressely PROHIBIT anyone, including the copyright holder, from patenting the covered Software and any implied intellectual production. Just my 0.02... BTW, make sure to express our gratitude to those lawers for their time and great work!! Fernando Cacciola ___ Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Re: [boost] Re: Draft of new Boost Software License
[2003-06-26] Beman Dawes wrote: At 03:29 PM 6/26/2003, Rene Rivera wrote: I would think that since the Library Proposal of the interface is a separate document than the Boost implementation+docs of that interface they would have different licenses. And therefore not present a problem when the Library Proposal is accepted as then some sort of license transfer to the standards organization would happen. But I guess Beman should bring that up with the lawyers also ;-) Ha! You've never dealt with ISO, I guess. They are a world unto themselves and their views on copyrights are pretty high-handed. No I haven't. And I get the fealing that I should run away if said beast approaches ;-) -- grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- rrivera (at) acm.org - grafik (at) redshift-software.com -- 102708583 (at) icq ___ Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
[boost] Re: Draft of new Boost Software License
Beman Dawes wrote: Thanks to Dave Abrahams, Diane Cabell, Devin Smith, and Eva Chen, we now have a pretty close to final draft of a new Boost Software License. For as many Boost libraries as possible, the plan is to replace the individual licenses with the official Boost license. Of course, the developers who hold the copyrights for each library must agree. We'll also submit the Boost license to the OSI (http://www.opensource.org/) for certification. This draft represents a lot of discussion between the lawyers and Boost moderators, and both groups are quite happy with the results. So now it's time to open it up for comments from the whole Boost community. Nice work and I appreciate it. I hope that something as a single boost license will be adopted soon. For more background, including rationale, a FAQ, and acknowledgements, see http://boost.sourceforge.net/misc/license-background.html The draft license itself is at http://boost.sourceforge.net/misc/LICENSE.txt I read the FAQ but I still have a question about the machine-executable object code generated by a source language processor. The Software we sell and distribute contains config files in XML, HTML files, documentation in various formats and other non-binary files. Even worse, some part are written in JavaScript/Java (jsp) or PHP. So there are parts that are distributed as source-code, but still it doesn't contain C++ sources. From my current understanding, this is not against the Booster's intentions and the current licenses. I think that the term used in the suggested new boost license could be a problem here. Could someone please explain why - as the FAQ put it - More detailed wording was rejected as not being legally necessary, and reducing readability. and how this covers the above case. Or is it actually intended that we cannot use boost for our project? While we are interested in comments from any Booster, we would particularly like to hear from: * Boosters for whom English isn't their primary language; is the license understandable? I'm from Germany (Old Europe, ya know ;) and I don't have problems to understand it. And I'm not an expert in real languages as you might have noticed from my other postings already :o) * Boosters (or their lawyers) from countries other than the US; do they spot any issues missed by Boost's US-centric legal team? Can't really comment on this one as I'm not a lawyer - just a laymen. * Boost developers; if there are aspects of the license that make you hesitate about adopting it, what are the issues? Sadly, yes. See above... Regards, Daniel -- Daniel Frey aixigo AG - financial training, research and technology Schloß-Rahe-Straße 15, 52072 Aachen, Germany fon: +49 (0)241 936737-42, fax: +49 (0)241 936737-99 eMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED], web: http://www.aixigo.de ___ Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
[boost] Re: Draft of new Boost Software License
Beman Dawes wrote: [...] * Boosters (or their lawyers) from countries other than the US; do they spot any issues missed by Boost's US-centric legal team? They seem to have missed a whole bunch of issues surrounding implied patent license. regards, alexander. ___ Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
[boost] Re: Draft of new Boost Software License
Matt Hurd wrote: The author of a derivative work can put in a more restrictive license right? In this case, wording that gives the full Boost permission must still be included according to the draft license. This would lead to a license text like: snip I am a little confused. Like Jaarko, I read it as viral. If you produced a derivative work, or copy paste a little code, then you are bound to include the boost license which makes your source open as well... Seems akin to LGPL. Is this the intention or have I misread it? derivative works of the Software != the Software well... unless you work for SCO. ;-) regards, alexander. -- With SCO's announcement of upping the ante in its lawsuit against IBM (now seeking up to $50 billion in damages), the world is in agreement that SCO owns the world of comedy. As such, SCO is rightfully claiming that all jokes, humor, and laugher is derived from their lawsuit with IBM and belongs to SCO's IP. Furthermore, SCO has sent out letters to over 1,500 well know comics, comedians, and talk show hosts indicating that they may be infringing on SCO'c IP and may be subject to damage claims by SCO. As all humor belongs to SCO, SCO has also sent a letter to R. Dangerfield demanding that he stop being funny or he may face legal action. -- unknown ___ Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
RE: [boost] Re: Draft of new Boost Software License
Matt Hurd wrote: The author of a derivative work can put in a more restrictive license right? In this case, wording that gives the full Boost permission must still be included according to the draft license. This would lead to a license text like: snip I am a little confused. Like Jaakko, I read it as viral. If you produced a derivative work, or copy paste a little code, then you are bound to include the boost license which makes your source open as well... Seems akin to LGPL. Is this the intention or have I misread it? derivative works of the Software != the Software Sorry, I must be having a bad hair day... I still read it as including the copyright in derivative works from the second paragraph... I would prefer to see acknowledgement of the origin/author(s) as viral. Still confused but I am a little slow, Matt. ___ Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
[boost] Re: Draft of new Boost Software License
Rene Rivera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [2003-06-25] Beman Dawes wrote: For more background, including rationale, a FAQ, and acknowledgements, see http://boost.sourceforge.net/misc/license-background.html Nice. * Boosters for whom English isn't their primary language; is the license understandable? Spanish is my first, but English is a very close second. The impression I got is that it's somewhat hard to parse as it is. I had to read the second paragraph a few times before I managed to parse out the different parts of it. The main difficulty in the first part (the first two paragraphs) is the the lists in it are inconsistent and hard to see which are the items. For example, the switching from simple items to adding and in some of them threw me. I was expecting the list to end, but it did not. The second paragraph is long; and without any separators other than the commas it's hard to read. Here's an edited version which might be better for non-english readers to understand: Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person or organization obtaining a copy of the software covered by this license (the Software) to: use, reproduce, display, distribute, execute, transmit, This part of the list lacks a subject The Software. prepare derivative works of the Software, Which you want to avoid confusing with this. This part of the license has been fairly carefully worked out. It's good to make things read more easily, but they must retain their unambiguous meaning.** and to permit third-parties to whom the Software is furnished to do so, I prefer and to permit others to do so. This phrase has just been approved by the lawyers as legally equivalent, and it's much easier to read, so I hope we'll use it. all subject to the following: The copyright notice in the Software and this entire statement, including the above license grant, this restriction, and the following disclaimer, must be included, in whole or in part, in all copies of the Software, and That makes it sounds like it's OK to include just part of the copyright, license, etc. Once again my remarks (**) apply here. all derivative works of the Software. Unless such copies or derivative works are solely in the form of machine-executable object code generated by a source language processor. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com ___ Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
[boost] Re: Draft of new Boost Software License
Maciej Sobczak [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Let's imagine the following situation (it can apply to any developer on this planet): I write some code and want it to get public. It is outside of mainstream Boost interest, so I do not intend to submit it to Boost. Being concerned with the legal issues, I want to have a license text that is proven to be OK from the lawyers' viewpoint. That's a very fuzzy notion. This license is only proven to be OK relative to certain goals and notions of acceptable risk. Those parameters may not apply to you. Of course, a lot of people (Boosters and lawyers) have spent their time preparing and reviewing the Boost license and ensuring that it meets the high standards of today's open software. Is it OK if I just copy-n-paste the Boost license into my own work? Is it OK if I use only part of it? This can have many implications, including legal precedents - for example, when some of my users abuse the license or just asks me what he can do with the software, I can just point him to Boost pages, FAQs, etc. In other words, I may hide behind the curtains sewed by people who just never took me and my work into account. Is it OK if I do it? Short version: Is there any copyright on the Boost license text? What license protects the Boost license? :) Ugh, meta-licensing. I'm not sure about this. I've Bcc'd the lawyers to see what they say about this. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com ___ Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Re: [boost] Re: Draft of new Boost Software License
At 01:50 PM 6/25/2003, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Beman Dawes wrote: [...] * Boosters (or their lawyers) from countries other than the US; do they spot any issues missed by Boost's US-centric legal team? They seem to have missed a whole bunch of issues surrounding implied patent license. THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED AS IS, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, TITLE AND NON-INFRINGEMENT. ^^ If I understand correctly, TITLE AND NON-INFRINGEMENT are basically legal code-words which covers a vast range of issues such as ownership, patents, trade secrets, etc. Thanks, --Beman ___ Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Re: [boost] Re: Draft of new Boost Software License
[2003-06-25] David Abrahams wrote: Rene Rivera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person or organization obtaining a copy of the software covered by this license (the Software) to: use, reproduce, display, distribute, execute, transmit, This part of the list lacks a subject The Software. prepare derivative works of the Software, Which you want to avoid confusing with this. Then perhaps two separate sentences would make that distinction clear. This part of the license has been fairly carefully worked out. It's good to make things read more easily, but they must retain their unambiguous meaning.** I see that all of it was carefully crafted (not being sarcastic, just in case). I was just trying to portray what I understood. Which, since it is different than what the Lawyers meant is a problem IMO. and to permit third-parties to whom the Software is furnished to do so, I prefer and to permit others to do so. This phrase has just been approved by the lawyers as legally equivalent, and it's much easier to read, so I hope we'll use it. Shorter is good :-) all subject to the following: The copyright notice in the Software and this entire statement, including the above license grant, this restriction, and the following disclaimer, must be included, in whole or in part, in all copies of the Software, and That makes it sounds like it's OK to include just part of the copyright, license, etc. Once again my remarks (**) apply here. Yes I saw, and I thought my later reply pointed that out. But perhaps it also didn't :-\ I'll say it again more directly... It's good work from the Lawyers. Being easily understood and still legally accurate are very hard things to reconcile. -- grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- rrivera (at) acm.org - grafik (at) redshift-software.com -- 102708583 (at) icq ___ Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
