Bug#840616: ITP: node-umd -- Universal Module Definition for use in automated
Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Sruthi Chandran <s...@disroot.org> X-Debbugs-CC: debian-devel@lists.debian.org * Package name: node-umd Version : 3.0.1 Upstream Author : ForbesLindesay * URL : https://github.com/ForbesLindesay/umd * License : Expat Programming Lang: JavaScript Description : Universal Module Definition for use in automated build systems
Re: definition of use
On Tue, 2005-04-26 at 16:51 -0300, Margarita Manterola wrote: That's fine, but as you probably do realize, the word use is too wide and too unspecific. Having a license that doesn't state specifically what rights are or aren't granted is due to bring misunderstandings. I agree, in part. Primarily, the latter part. A recent(well, a month ago) example being some of the discussions that transpired on -legal and -devel regarding the license. If what you want to say is that the person gets all the benefits of owning the software (this is sort of weird, because software is kind of hard to 'own'), then you should say that. If the definition holds true, I did just that. However, your point is taken. As far as ownership is concerned, I see someone else already responded to that point. So, my suggestion is: rephrase the license to convey to every person the meaning you want it to convey. Then the problem ends. I have been thinking about this. Actually, I even thought about it before submitting the license to the OSI, but I figured I'd give 'use' a test and see who said what. Little or nothing was said. Although, the recent update I submitted did invoke a response with a concern of clarity, but that was only one mention, so there was not much cause for alarm until I ran into these threads. Anyways, I do plan to rephrase the license. It is better to be safe than sorry. It will mostly expand the first instance of 'use' to the previously cited definition. I think I will post it to debian-legal, as well as license-discuss, looking for criticisms. -- Regards, James William Pye -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
definition of use
Greetings(Please be sure to CC me!),
First, my apologies for not joining the conversation around the time
that it transpired, but it was not until recently that I had noticed it.
Second, my apologies to Mr. Welch for suffering from the controversy
created by the license that I wrote.
That's right, it's me, random Joe off the street as Mr. Palmer put it.
And, yes, IANAL(Of course IANAL. Lawyers would not consider brevity to
be a value in an instrument, and for good reason, I know(Despite the
lack of any indication of such knowledge). ;).
Before I get into any details, this discussion is about the definition
of the word 'use' in the context of copyright law (U.S.C. Title 17[1]),
and perhaps whatever extra insights the connotations of the fair license
might provide within its single, compound sentence.
This license hangs on the idea that the definition of the word 'use' in
the context of copyright law is as follows:
6: (law) the exercise of the legal right to enjoy the benefits
of owning property; we were given the use of his boat
[syn: {enjoyment}]
(From WordNet 2.0)
(dict.org, dict use, also google'ing will reveal it in other areasof the
net)
There are, obviously, many other definitions for the word 'use', and I
am not sure if this is the accepted definition within copyright law. I
admit that that is an assumption that I made. Although, throughout
debian-devel and debian-legal's criticisms of this license, I have seen
nothing but statements that do not even consider that as a possibility,
and all without giving references to resources that would further
substantiate their position by showing 'use' not does mean the above.
Mostly, It doesn't specifically specify, therefore it doesn't include.
*If* this is the accepted definition of the word 'use' within the
context copyright law, then there is should be no shadows of doubt that
this is not a free license, as the enjoyment of the benefits of owning
copyrighted works should include the exclusive rights granted by Title
17 Chapter 1[2], as those are the benefits of ownership.
(I know, pretty big if.)
So, if one is to continue entertaining the idea that the fair license is
not a free license, then they must hold true that the above is *not* the
definition of 'use' in the context of copyright law. If that is the
case, what is the definition of the word 'use' in the context of
copyright law? If you feel compelled to provide an answer, please
provide the source of the definition as well.
I am very interested in knowing the truth here.
(Conclusion after responses)
On Sun, Mar 06, 2005 at 07:59:11AM +0100, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
That licence does not grant any permission to modify,
redistribute, or otherwise deal in the work in a Free manner. For
it to be
judged as satisfying the Open Source Definition is ludicrous.
The ludicrousness of the idea depends entirely on one's definition of
the word 'use'.
Are you an Laywer, is that based on research?
No, and yes.
What research did you do? Can you provide specific references to the
resources that favor your position?
I mean, for me Use of source code does include all those freedoms.
That's nice. But irrelevant. The fair licence doesn't even require
source
code, so it can quite easily apply to a work for which there is no
source.
And the problem is?
In the past, some copyright holders have decided to interpret even
widely-known and free licences like the MIT licence in non-free ways
(cite:
pine), so having the wording of a licence be explicit and clear is a
definite advantage. This licence is neither.
This only reaffirms my resolve to test this license. Anything can be
misinterpreted. Even books with thousands of pages. Don't make me give
the obvious examples.
The fair license simply provides less to be misinterpreted; thus the
beauty of it.
Therfore I feel like accepting OSI's decision and accepting the fact
that it
is free.
I feel like an icecream sundae.
Perhaps you should join the license-discuss list and participate.
In conclusion,
While the length of my response might not indicate it, I am not married
to this license. I wrote it in an attempt to create a *very* concise
authorization of I.P. use. BSD and MIT licenses satisfy my needs, save
brevity and generality. For instance, BSD and MIT refer to 'source
code', 'software', and 'documentation', which I would gather refer to
computer programs, but how do images and other kinds of works fall
into those terms(I guess SVG might fall into source code ;)? What if I
wanted to open source other kinds of works? I thought it would be more
fitting to have a license that actually uses the terminology of the laws
that specify the restrictions of the granted exclusive rights. It really
is a shame that 'use' is not defined in Title 17.
The only useful conclusion that I have been able to directly draw from
these discussions
Re: definition of use
James William Pye wrote:
Greetings(Please be sure to CC me!),
First, my apologies for not joining the conversation around the time
that it transpired, but it was not until recently that I had noticed it.
Second, my apologies to Mr. Welch for suffering from the controversy
created by the license that I wrote.
That's right, it's me, random Joe off the street as Mr. Palmer put it.
And, yes, IANAL(Of course IANAL. Lawyers would not consider brevity to
be a value in an instrument, and for good reason, I know(Despite the
lack of any indication of such knowledge). ;).
Before I get into any details, this discussion is about the definition
of the word 'use' in the context of copyright law (U.S.C. Title 17[1]),
and perhaps whatever extra insights the connotations of the fair license
might provide within its single, compound sentence.
This license hangs on the idea that the definition of the word 'use' in
the context of copyright law is as follows:
6: (law) the exercise of the legal right to enjoy the benefits
of owning property; we were given the use of his boat
[syn: {enjoyment}]
(From WordNet 2.0)
(dict.org, dict use, also google'ing will reveal it in other areasof the
net)
This definition does not match the definition of usar (=to use) in
Brazilian Law, which is based on possession, not ownership.
lots of stuff here
While the length of my response might not indicate it, I am not married
to this license. I wrote it in an attempt to create a *very* concise
authorization of I.P. use. BSD and MIT licenses satisfy my needs, save
brevity and generality. For instance, BSD and MIT refer to 'source
code', 'software', and 'documentation', which I would gather refer to
computer programs, but how do images and other kinds of works fall
into those terms(I guess SVG might fall into source code ;)? What if I
wanted to open source other kinds of works? I thought it would be more
fitting to have a license that actually uses the terminology of the laws
that specify the restrictions of the granted exclusive rights. It really
is a shame that 'use' is not defined in Title 17.
The only useful conclusion that I have been able to directly draw from
these discussions is that it is not *self evident* that 'use'
constitutes the exercising/enjoyment of the bundle of rights given to
the owner of copyrighted works by U.S.C. Title 17 Chapter 1[2].
So, what is the definition of the word 'use'? Does it *only* mean to
execute a program? Or to *only* read a book? Or to *only* listen to that
music?
In Brazilian computer programs law, what we *do* have is that using a
program is defined by its use license contract terms, meaning the
execution of the program under those terms -- limited by our fair use
clauses (art. 6ยบ Computer Programs Law [L.9609/98]: one backup copy;
citation with source in context of education; similarity by
functionality; integration on/to other systems) and by our (very heavy)
consumer-protection law.
In the case of non-computer-programs-stuff, what we do have is a statute
limitation clause (art. 46 Author's Rights Act [L.9610/98]: lots of
stuff, among them musical execution in your home or in schools).
So, yes, one can suppose safely that the word use in the case of a
computer program license means executing such program; in the case of a
music, means listening to it in a private/familiar environment or in a
school; and in the case of a computer library, the execution of its API
by other programs.
Anyways, I'm getting too tired to think; perhaps when I hear back, I
will have more positions and points. That is, if you or someone else
doesn't provide something fatal.
[1]http://uscode.house.gov/download/title_17.php
[2]http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/17C1.txt
IANAL, TINLA, this is just MHO.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: definition of use
On 4/26/05, James William Pye [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Before I get into any details, this discussion is about the definition
of the word 'use' in the context of copyright law (U.S.C. Title 17[1]),
and perhaps whatever extra insights the connotations of the fair license
might provide within its single, compound sentence.
This license hangs on the idea that the definition of the word 'use' in
the context of copyright law is as follows:
6: (law) the exercise of the legal right to enjoy the benefits
of owning property; we were given the use of his boat
[syn: {enjoyment}]
(From WordNet 2.0)
(dict.org, dict use, also google'ing will reveal it in other areasof the
net)
That's fine, but as you probably do realize, the word use is too
wide and too unspecific. Having a license that doesn't state
specifically what rights are or aren't granted is due to bring
misunderstandings.
If what you want to say is that the person gets all the benefits of
owning the software (this is sort of weird, because software is kind
of hard to 'own'), then you should say that.
You could go on dealing what does the copyright law defines and what
it doesn't, but since there's not one but many different copyright
laws (every country has it's own) it's always better to be as specific
as possible.
So, my suggestion is: rephrase the license to convey to every person
the meaning you want it to convey. Then the problem ends.
--
Besos,
Marga
Re: definition of use
On Tue, 2005-04-26 at 09:23 -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
This license hangs on the idea that the definition of the word 'use' in
the context of copyright law is as follows:
6: (law) the exercise of the legal right to enjoy the benefits
of owning property; we were given the use of his boat
[syn: {enjoyment}]
(From WordNet 2.0)
(dict.org, dict use, also google'ing will reveal it in other areasof the
net)
This definition does not match the definition of usar (=to use) in
Brazilian Law, which is based on possession, not ownership.
Ignoring the context of the source is no way to make an appropriate
translation. If the above is the definition of 'use' in the context of
copyright law, then usar is an inappropriate translation as it fails
to carry the same effect/meaning.
To give a more extreme example of the above, if instrument were to be
translated into a word that means a device used to make audible music,
then the entire license would become ridiculous.
So, what is the definition of the word 'use'? Does it *only* mean to
execute a program? Or to *only* read a book? Or to *only* listen to that
music?
In Brazilian computer programs law, what we *do* have is that using a
program is defined by its use license contract terms, meaning the
execution of the program under those terms -- limited by our fair use
clauses (art. 6 Computer Programs Law [L.9609/98]: one backup copy;
citation with source in context of education; similarity by
functionality; integration on/to other systems) and by our (very heavy)
consumer-protection law.
In the case of non-computer-programs-stuff, what we do have is a statute
limitation clause (art. 46 Author's Rights Act [L.9610/98]: lots of
stuff, among them musical execution in your home or in schools).
Yes, Title 17 has similar limitations on the exclusive rights.
So, yes, one can suppose safely that the word use in the case of a
computer program license means executing such program; in the case of a
music, means listening to it in a private/familiar environment or in a
school; and in the case of a computer library, the execution of its API
by other programs.
I think one could safely say that of usar in the context of Brazilian
law, but, apparently, not of use in the context of U.S. copyright law
and Title 17.
--
Regards, James William Pye
Re: definition of use
Margarita Manterola writes: If what you want to say is that the person gets all the benefits of owning the software (this is sort of weird, because software is kind of hard to 'own'), then you should say that. One can (and usually does) own a copy of a piece of software. US copyright law grants specific rights to the owner of a copy of a piece of software. Better to be more specific, though. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
