Re: [Cooker] Licensing questions
On Mon 07 Jul 2003 07:25, Buchan Milne posted as excerpted below: Having the source to software which you distribute is useless if you cannot fix bugs and distributed the fixed software. Interesting discussion, here. I'm glad to read that it may soon be GPLed.. However, to the specific point addressed by the quote above.. I wouldn't call available source unable to be modified USELESS. Insufficient for Mdk, definitely. Insufficient philosophically to a Software Libre advocate, definitely. Useless, not entirely. At least one specific use (or lack of it in this example) that has been a complaint about MS-ware, for instance, is that it was impossible to security-verify it. MS has addressed that to a large extent with its shared source and government source review programs, thus muting to some extent at least one specific point of the Peruvian documents, that a government would be irresponsible if it chose to use closed source since it is entrusted with a large amount of private data of its citizens, and there was no way to verify that the data remained private, because the source was unavailable. Other points in those documents, including both the data hostage situation and the local economic impact of exporting those $$ vs. keeping them local, certainly remain, but the one point has been to some extent blunted, at minimum. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin
Re: [Cooker] Licensing questions
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Duncan wrote: On Mon 07 Jul 2003 07:25, Buchan Milne posted as excerpted below: Having the source to software which you distribute is useless if you cannot fix bugs and distributed the fixed software. Interesting discussion, here. I'm glad to read that it may soon be GPLed.. However, to the specific point addressed by the quote above.. I wouldn't call available source unable to be modified USELESS. Insufficient for Mdk, definitely. Insufficient philosophically to a Software Libre advocate, definitely. Useless, not entirely. Note that I was referring to software you distribute, and take responsibility for (no, not as in a computer shop selling a shrink-wrapped box, but in terms of a linux distributor selling an operating system). Maybe not totally useless, but very close. If *ever* a bug is filed on the software, what are you going to do, what are you going to do ... Buchan - -- |--Another happy Mandrake Club member--| Buchan MilneMechanical Engineer, Network Manager Cellphone * Work+27 82 472 2231 * +27 21 8828820x202 Stellenbosch Automotive Engineering http://www.cae.co.za GPG Key http://ranger.dnsalias.com/bgmilne.asc 1024D/60D204A7 2919 E232 5610 A038 87B1 72D6 AC92 BA50 60D2 04A7 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQE/C+OTrJK6UGDSBKcRAt64AJ9HhnceNpsVVetFBo5+kM5DIl0usgCgo8Jr rf18DmwjODvSgfN3aQE30wU= =wjSd -END PGP SIGNATURE- ** Please click on http://www.cae.co.za/disclaimer.htm to read our e-mail disclaimer or send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] for a copy. **
Re: [Cooker] Licensing questions
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Andi Payn wrote: I have one specific question and some general questions about Mandrake's licensing policies. Let me start with the specific question: Frodo (a C64 emulator) allows you to use, distribute, etc. Frodo binaries and source code, and to use Frodo's source in a compatibly-licensed larger work (anything non-commercial). So there are restrictions on distribution of non-modified packages. This violates the first requirement for OSI's open-source definition: http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php AFAIR, this is also FSF's freedom 2: http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-sw.html But you can't distributed a modified version of Frodo itself. Violates requirement 3 for OSI's open-source definition, and FSF's freedom 3. Is this appropriate for contribs? No, it's not free software (it seems more like shareware), and even if contrib allowed non-free software, Mandrakesoft sells copies of Mandrake including contrib for more than $5, violating the license agreement. It may or may not be suitable for PLF, although PLF mainly avoids non-free software. Of course, IANAL applies ... Regards, Buchan - -- |--Another happy Mandrake Club member--| Buchan MilneMechanical Engineer, Network Manager Cellphone * Work+27 82 472 2231 * +27 21 8828820x202 Stellenbosch Automotive Engineering http://www.cae.co.za GPG Key http://ranger.dnsalias.com/bgmilne.asc 1024D/60D204A7 2919 E232 5610 A038 87B1 72D6 AC92 BA50 60D2 04A7 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQE/CUV8rJK6UGDSBKcRAr/AAJ9DWG9DKVxgvf9B1NAVAZS5y6YThQCgk1vo FUDMR9/17Mj9EGIHxYWMYo4= =VfNT -END PGP SIGNATURE- ** Please click on http://www.cae.co.za/disclaimer.htm to read our e-mail disclaimer or send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] for a copy. **
Re: [Cooker] Licensing questions
On Sun, 6 Jul 2003 17:39:45 -0700 Andi Payn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have one specific question and some general questions about Mandrake's licensing policies. Let me start with the specific question: Frodo (a C64 emulator) allows you to use, distribute, etc. Frodo binaries and source code, and to use Frodo's source in a compatibly-licensed larger work (anything non-commercial). But you can't distributed a modified version of Frodo itself. Mandrake is a commercial distro, so if it can only be distributed non-commercially, I guess that's a No-No. Unless you get written permission from the copyright holder, but I dunno what the policy of Mandrakesoft is on that. And what does modification mean? If you place the binary in /usr/bin instead of /usr/local/bin, is that modification? Or add an icon/menuentry to it? Or patch a Makefile? Or fix a (future) compilation bug? Maybe PLF is a better place for this then. Is this appropriate for contribs? (I've enclosed the complete license at the end). And, if so, what License tag should the RPM carry? It's not GPL or BSD compatible. Not even free software, if you cannot modify it. It's open source, but not free as in free speech. You could tag it as Freeware, which means free as in beer. Check /usr/share/rpmlint/TagsCheck.py for valid licenses. Anyway, here's the Frodo license: --- CUT HERE --- The program Frodo, this manual and the source code may be freely distributed as long as they remain unchanged (archiving and packing is allowed) and all files are included. You must not make any profit by selling Frodo, especially the price of a disk containing Frodo may not exceed US$ 5,- (or equivalent amounts in other currencies). Please feel free to distribute Frodo via bulletin board systems and networks and as part of shareware/freeware CD-ROMs. Anyone using this program agrees to incur the risk of using it for himself. In no way can the author be held responsible for any damage directly or indirectly caused by the use or misuse of this manual and/or the program. The rights on the source code remain at the author. It may not - not even in parts - used for commercial purposes without explicit written permission by the author. Permission to use it for non-commercial purposes is hereby granted als long as my copyright notice remains in the program. You are not allowed to use the source to create and distribute a modified version of Frodo. Frodo is not designed, intended, or authorized for use as a component in systems intended for surgical implant within the body, or other applications intended to support or sustain life, or for any other application in which the failure of Frodo could create a situation where personal injury or death may occur. -- Marcel Pol
Re: [Cooker] Licensing questions
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Marcel Pol wrote: It's not GPL or BSD compatible. Not even free software, if you cannot modify it. It's open source Not according to OSI (which is kind of the definitive open-source standard). It qualifies more as proprietary with source. Buchan - -- |--Another happy Mandrake Club member--| Buchan MilneMechanical Engineer, Network Manager Cellphone * Work+27 82 472 2231 * +27 21 8828820x202 Stellenbosch Automotive Engineering http://www.cae.co.za GPG Key http://ranger.dnsalias.com/bgmilne.asc 1024D/60D204A7 2919 E232 5610 A038 87B1 72D6 AC92 BA50 60D2 04A7 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQE/CUykrJK6UGDSBKcRAocWAJ4p6Y55AKvW9U5LgWWY2ht24r9u9QCgl/KE SKlcEMgs0FyGMVIg6CkJq8Q= =1Lfq -END PGP SIGNATURE- ** Please click on http://www.cae.co.za/disclaimer.htm to read our e-mail disclaimer or send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] for a copy. **
Re: [Cooker] Licensing questions
Andi Payn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I have one specific question and some general questions about Mandrake's licensing policies. Let me start with the specific question: Frodo (a C64 emulator) allows you to use, distribute, etc. Frodo binaries and source code, and to use Frodo's source in a compatibly-licensed larger work (anything non-commercial). But We can't include stuff with restriction for commercial use because we're (commercially) selling the distro. you can't distributed a modified version of Frodo itself. -- Guillaume Cottenceau - http://people.mandrakesoft.com/~gc/
Re: [Cooker] Licensing questions
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Andi Payn wrote: Let me start with the specific question: Frodo (a C64 emulator) allows you to use, distribute, etc. Frodo binaries and source code, and to use Frodo's source in a compatibly-licensed larger work (anything non-commercial). So there are restrictions on distribution of non-modified packages. This violates the first requirement for OSI's open-source definition: http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php Where in that paragraph did you see any restrictions on distribution of non-modified packages? I may have taken (anything non-commercial) in your paragraph to apply to redistribution, in light of the fact that there is such a restriction (the $5 rule), where you may only have been referring to the larger work aspect. Now, the $5 rule that appears later may well be a violation of OSI rule 1 or FSF freedom 2, but I want to make sure that this is you replying out of order, not me missing something vital. But you can't distributed a modified version of Frodo itself. This is the question I was most interested in. Given a package with a similar license, but without the $5 rule--in particular, if you were allowed to distribute unmodified source and binaries freely (at any charge), and you were also allowed to use any part of the source code (or binary, where that makes sense) in any other work, and you were allowed to include it as part of an aggregate product, but you were not allowed to distribute a modified version of the original, would that be (according to Mandrake) open source/free/acceptable? No, violates OSI rule 3. At present the OSI requirements are probably the best test for Mandrake, since there isn't a comprehensive policy (as Debian has). The problem is that if we were to find a bug in the software which crashes a machine and causes data loss, but aren't allowed to fix it, why would we want to distribute such software? Having the source to software which you distribute is useless if you cannot fix bugs and distributed the fixed software. For private use, it may be sufficient, but then this discussion would be off-topic on this list. (Since IANAL either, I don't quite know how you distinguish between using pieces of the source in a different project vs. distributing a modified version of the original project. Which is a good reason not to try to write your own restrictions that prevent one use and not the other. And yet, developers try anyway.) Is this appropriate for contribs? No, it's not free software (it seems more like shareware), Shareware means software that you have to pay to use. Not necessarily. Shareware typically means that under certain conditions (non-commercial use, trial period) you may ue the software without paying for it, but under other conditions (commecial use, extended use etc) you may either not use it, or must pay. Most freeware allows redistribution of binaries commercially, which is why I would consider this shareware as opposed to freeware. You don't have to pay to use Frodo. You don't have to pay to distribute it. You don't have to pay to get or distribute the source code. You don't have to pay to pay to use pieces of the source code in other open source projects. No, not open-source (which you can sell), non-commercial (which you can't). Huge difference!!! So I don't see how this is anything like shareware. You do need permission to use pieces of the source code in commercial works, but then the same is true of anything under the GPL. GPL doesn't allow proprietary (well, anything but GPL) works, but it doesn't prevent you from selling anything. Regards, Buchan - -- |--Another happy Mandrake Club member--| Buchan MilneMechanical Engineer, Network Manager Cellphone * Work+27 82 472 2231 * +27 21 8828820x202 Stellenbosch Automotive Engineering http://www.cae.co.za GPG Key http://ranger.dnsalias.com/bgmilne.asc 1024D/60D204A7 2919 E232 5610 A038 87B1 72D6 AC92 BA50 60D2 04A7 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQE/CYLorJK6UGDSBKcRAhbmAJ0fNilj99hEd4rx0sWSnUpF6jEJggCcDK4o gGPUNE0tetzVwD+UI/H1KTE= =zU38 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ** Please click on http://www.cae.co.za/disclaimer.htm to read our e-mail disclaimer or send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] for a copy. **
Re: [Cooker] Licensing questions
On 2003.07.07 09:40, Andi Payn wrote: That was my main question, actually: Does Mandrake sell contrib CDs. Yes... the largest boxed set comes with a contribs CD, and I seem to remember a DVD version with contribs on it. Austin -- Austin Acton Hon.B.Sc. Synthetic Organic Chemist, Teaching Assistant Department of Chemistry, York University, Toronto MandrakeClub Volunteer (www.mandrakeclub.com) homepage: www.groundstate.ca
Re: [Cooker] Licensing questions
On Monday 07 July 2003 16:11, Austin wrote: On 2003.07.07 09:40, Andi Payn wrote: That was my main question, actually: Does Mandrake sell contrib CDs. Yes... the largest boxed set comes with a contribs CD, and I seem to remember a DVD version with contribs on it. Austin Hello, I have just learned from a friend of mine, who developed Dream-Frodo (Dreamcast port of Frodo), that the license will probably change to GPL, if the maintainer manages to contact all contributors and get an approval for it. So I think, it is better to wait a bit and then this discussion will be moot. Regards, Jan pgp0.pgp Description: signature
Re: [Cooker] Licensing questions
Buchan Milne wrote: I may have taken (anything non-commercial) in your paragraph to apply to redistribution... Yes, it's my fault for not being clear enough. At present the OSI requirements are probably the best test for Mandrake, since there isn't a comprehensive policy (as Debian has). It would be a good idea to mention this in the contribution instructions. In fact, it would give Mandrake a comprehensive policy in one line: Unless otherwise specified, Mandrake distributes only software that unambiguously conforms to the OSD, is OSI-certified, and/or uses one of the following licenses: Or, more simply, Mandrake distributes open source software, as defined by the OSI. If that, or something like it, is the (de facto) Mandrake policy, then that answers all of my questions. I could clarify that I was talking about non-modifiable meaning patches must be kept separate (see OSD #4) vs. non-modifiable meaning patches are not allowed, etc., but that's all irrelevant. As for shareware: Shareware means software that you have to pay to use. Not necessarily. Shareware typically means that under certain conditions (non-commercial use, trial period) you may ue the software without paying for it, but under other conditions (commecial use, extended use etc) you may either not use it, or must pay. As a former member of the Association of Shareware Professionals, I always used their definition: Shareware is not a type of software, or a distribution method, but a marketing method. A shareware program is a functioning evaluation version of a program which you can try out to make sure that it meets your needs before buying it In other words, shareware is commercial, non-free (neither free speech nor free beer) software. Just like Windows or Office or Civilization. The only difference is that you can evaluate it without paying for it; you still have to pay if you decide to keep and use it. That's what makes it shareware. Shareware, like any other commercial software, may have any exemptions the developer wants--free for non-commercial use, free for academic use, etc.--but these are entirely separate from whether or not it's shareware. IIRC, SGI used to let universities copy Irix for free (of course you had to buy/borrow/whatever Indy's to run it on...), but that didn't mean it wasn't a commercial product. Most freeware allows redistribution of binaries commercially, which is why I would consider this shareware as opposed to freeware. From the same file: Like freeware, shareware usually allows non-commercial distribution: You can download shareware software from BBS's or the Internet, or copy it from a friend or a users' groups. Like freeware, shareware also often allows commercial distribution: You may find shareware software on a CD you buy, or included with a book or magazine. However, buying that CD, book, or magazine does not mean that you have bought the software In other words, both shareware and freeware often allow unrestricted commercial distribution, but they may restrict commercial distribution, or not allow it at all. The only difference is that freeware is free to use, shareware is not. And, by the way, from Frodo's contact page: Frodo is _not_ a shareware program, but I won't reject any gifts.
Re: [Cooker] Licensing questions
I should know better than to tie a general question to a specific one, as it always confuses people, but I did it again anyway Let me jump to the end first: Buchan Milne wrote: Andi Payn wrote: ... and even if contrib allowed non-free software, Mandrakesoft sells copies of Mandrake including contrib for more than $5, violating the license agreement. That was my main question, actually: Does Mandrake sell contrib CDs. Thanks for reading my mind and answering my question, even though I apparently forgot to ask it! (Somehow I deleted the paragraph about this before sending.) Regardless of anything else, that in itself means that Frodo isn't appropriate. Let me start with the specific question: Frodo (a C64 emulator) allows you to use, distribute, etc. Frodo binaries and source code, and to use Frodo's source in a compatibly-licensed larger work (anything non-commercial). So there are restrictions on distribution of non-modified packages. This violates the first requirement for OSI's open-source definition: http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php Where in that paragraph did you see any restrictions on distribution of non-modified packages? Now, the $5 rule that appears later may well be a violation of OSI rule 1 or FSF freedom 2, but I want to make sure that this is you replying out of order, not me missing something vital. But you can't distributed a modified version of Frodo itself. This is the question I was most interested in. Given a package with a similar license, but without the $5 rule--in particular, if you were allowed to distribute unmodified source and binaries freely (at any charge), and you were also allowed to use any part of the source code (or binary, where that makes sense) in any other work, and you were allowed to include it as part of an aggregate product, but you were not allowed to distribute a modified version of the original, would that be (according to Mandrake) open source/free/acceptable? (Since IANAL either, I don't quite know how you distinguish between using pieces of the source in a different project vs. distributing a modified version of the original project. Which is a good reason not to try to write your own restrictions that prevent one use and not the other. And yet, developers try anyway.) Is this appropriate for contribs? No, it's not free software (it seems more like shareware), Shareware means software that you have to pay to use. You don't have to pay to use Frodo. You don't have to pay to distribute it. You don't have to pay to get or distribute the source code. You don't have to pay to pay to use pieces of the source code in other open source projects. So I don't see how this is anything like shareware. You do need permission to use pieces of the source code in commercial works, but then the same is true of anything under the GPL.
[Cooker] Licensing questions
I have one specific question and some general questions about Mandrake's licensing policies. Let me start with the specific question: Frodo (a C64 emulator) allows you to use, distribute, etc. Frodo binaries and source code, and to use Frodo's source in a compatibly-licensed larger work (anything non-commercial). But you can't distributed a modified version of Frodo itself. Is this appropriate for contribs? (I've enclosed the complete license at the end). And, if so, what License tag should the RPM carry? And this leads to the general question: what to put in the License tags if nothing in the official list fits (that is, if rpmlint complains), but the package should be compatible with Mandrake anyway? Here are some common cases: * Artistic-or-GPL (very common on perl modules): you can redistribute it in whole or in part under Artistic, GPL, or Artistic-or-GPL. * Embedded-variant Artistic License (usually on perl modules written by academic types): Artistic, but with the extra no overt attempt is made to make this Package's interfaces visible to the end user of a non-compatible larger work clause. no overt attempt is made to make this Package's interfaces visible to the end user of the commercial distribution * BSD-or-GPL (common on small libraries): like Aristic-or-GPL, or sometimes slightly different--the package as-is is under BSD (or X11 or MIT), but you can relicense any part of it under GPL and/or LGPL to use in a larger work. * BSD-like and MIT-like licenses (common all over the place): A license which is functionally equivalent to BSD or MIT but worded differently (which may even make reference to its intended equivalence to BSD or MIT). * Sloppily-written licenses that make no sense (common on programs that originated as shareware or closed-source freeware, and on small libraries that originated in the Windows world): My favorite example is, I retain the copyright, but you can do whatever you want with the code anyway, with no silly GPL or BSD restrictions. No BSD restrictions is probably supposed to mean MIT-like, but (as the author of the quoted license acknowledged) the actual effect is that you can make an exact copy of the source and relicense it any way you want (including releasing it to the public domain). What do we call such a thing? Or, is it nicer to the author to give it an MIT-or-GPL license or something like that? I think I've seen at least BSD-like and Artistic-or-GPL on contrib packages, but I'm not sure (there doesn't seem to be a urpmf --license or anything equivalent...). And, in the case of Artistic-or-GPL and the simple BSD-or-GPL, should we put the one-liner or clause in a license file and refer to common-licenses for the Artistic, GPL, BSD, etc.? (Usually, Artistic-or-GPL packages have a license file that has the one-liner plus the Artistic license, then the GPL license in a separate file--or everything in one file. The same goes for BSD-or-GPL licenses.) Anyway, here's the Frodo license: --- CUT HERE --- The program Frodo, this manual and the source code may be freely distributed as long as they remain unchanged (archiving and packing is allowed) and all files are included. You must not make any profit by selling Frodo, especially the price of a disk containing Frodo may not exceed US$ 5,- (or equivalent amounts in other currencies). Please feel free to distribute Frodo via bulletin board systems and networks and as part of shareware/freeware CD-ROMs. Anyone using this program agrees to incur the risk of using it for himself. In no way can the author be held responsible for any damage directly or indirectly caused by the use or misuse of this manual and/or the program. The rights on the source code remain at the author. It may not - not even in parts - used for commercial purposes without explicit written permission by the author. Permission to use it for non-commercial purposes is hereby granted als long as my copyright notice remains in the program. You are not allowed to use the source to create and distribute a modified version of Frodo. Frodo is not designed, intended, or authorized for use as a component in systems intended for surgical implant within the body, or other applications intended to support or sustain life, or for any other application in which the failure of Frodo could create a situation where personal injury or death may occur.
