Re: NEW ocaml licence proposal by upstream, will be part of the 3.08.1 release going into sarge.
On Thu, Sep 16, 2004 at 05:18:36PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > Sven Luther wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 12:30:31PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > >>Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >>>On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 12:13:31PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >>BSD license, C has freedom with respect to the code and could freely > >>contribute it to Debian. > >> > >>If we got the Caml code that way, that would be great. > > > >Indeed, but this is not going to happen. I also would 100x prefer a GPLed > >ocaml over a BSSDish one though. > > It's hard to call the GPL a more free license than the QPL -- even if > the QPL is called non-free for the sake of argument. They provide > different freedoms under different conditions. Licenses are only a > partially ordered set. > >>> > >>>Indeed. i was just expressing my personal preference. > >> > >>I understand, and even agree. But I was referring to your proposed > >>"QPL or any more free license" -- and the GPL probably wouldn't > >>qualify. I can't see INRIA going for a QPL/GPL split either, sadly. > > > > Ok, what about QPL or DFSG-free licence ? > > To clarify: if INRIA did accept a QPL/GPL dual-license, that would be > wonderful. I believe Brian was simply stating that they might be > hesitant to do so. Please let this thread die as it should. I don't even remember the full background of this thread. I also seriously doubt that they would go with the GPL, altough i think it more probable than a BSDed ocaml. Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: NEW ocaml licence proposal by upstream, will be part of the 3.08.1 release going into sarge.
Sven Luther wrote: > On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 12:30:31PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: >>Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>>On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 12:13:31PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>BSD license, C has freedom with respect to the code and could freely >>contribute it to Debian. >> >>If we got the Caml code that way, that would be great. > >Indeed, but this is not going to happen. I also would 100x prefer a GPLed >ocaml over a BSSDish one though. It's hard to call the GPL a more free license than the QPL -- even if the QPL is called non-free for the sake of argument. They provide different freedoms under different conditions. Licenses are only a partially ordered set. >>> >>>Indeed. i was just expressing my personal preference. >> >>I understand, and even agree. But I was referring to your proposed >>"QPL or any more free license" -- and the GPL probably wouldn't >>qualify. I can't see INRIA going for a QPL/GPL split either, sadly. > > Ok, what about QPL or DFSG-free licence ? To clarify: if INRIA did accept a QPL/GPL dual-license, that would be wonderful. I believe Brian was simply stating that they might be hesitant to do so. - Josh Triplett signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Debian and Mozilla Trademarks
Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 11:33:59PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > >>>I don't think many people are seriously advocating that the DFSG only >>>applies to restrictions made under copyright law. >> >>In that thread, several people suggested that a restriction such as "You >>may not use this logo, or any confusingly similar logo, to refer to >>anything else in a way which might cause confusion with Debian." was >>Free, and furthermore that it was as free as a trademark license could be. > > With a straight face? I believe so, yes. :) Try the subthread starting at http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/07/msg00657.html for some examples. - Josh Triplett signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: most liberal license
Harald Geyer wrote: >Joachim Breitner wrote: >>Harald Geyer wrote: >>>Is there some other "as free as public domain" license? I don't like >>>to reinvent the wheel, but I haven't found one yet.\ >> >>I ususally recommend and use the MIT-Licence for that, it essentially >>says the same stuff as yours, is the shortest of all on opensource.org, >>and is well known and widely used. > > Yes, I know the MIT-License and it is the option if there are any > objections against my draft. > > However there are some things I dislike about the MIT-License: > * You are forced to include the original copyright notice, in > whatever "substantial portions of the Software" are. True. > * Even worse, you are required to include the permission notice, thus > it is half way towards copyleft. (I.e. it doesn't affect other > software, but still you can't sell it in a proprietary way.) You must include it; that does not mean it must actually be the license used on the software. It can simply be a note about the original. This requirement is primarily for reasons of credit, I believe. > * It is an enumerate style license, which means that > - you might forget something > - it is water on the mills of those who write wired legal text saying > you might do everything, but afterwards try to define what everything is. > - it is based upon US copyright law and the rights enumerated therein, > but there might exist other juristdictions with additional/other rights. > > Ideally I would put my software in the public domain, but I've been told, > that this isn't possible in all jurisdictions (I don't even know about > my own), so I thought to circumwent this by licensing it to give the > same rights *as* public domain. First of all, I believe your impression of the MIT license is not accurate. Nevertheless, if you really want to release public domain software, while still dealing with strange jurisdictions in which such a thing does not exist, then I suggest reading http://lists.debian.org/debian-x/2004/05/msg00235.html , in particular the part starting with "I refuse to assert copyright in this modification.". - Josh Triplett signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
All my apologise !
I must apologize for my noisy unsubscription to the lists. I'm moving tomorrow morning and won't have access to the internet for a while... And thinking at things at one time is something it seems i'am not very good at. So please forgive me. Cordially, Nicolas CANIART. ADSL ILLIMITE TISCALI + TELEPHONE GRATUIT Surfez 40 fois plus vite pour 30EUR/mois seulement ! Et téléphonez partout en France gratuitement, vers les postes fixes (hors numéros spéciaux). Tarifs très avantageux vers les mobiles et l'international ! Pour profiter de cette offre exceptionnelle, cliquez ici : http://register.tiscali.fr/adsl (voir conditions sur le site)
unsubscribe
ADSL ILLIMITE TISCALI + TELEPHONE GRATUIT Surfez 40 fois plus vite pour 30EUR/mois seulement ! Et téléphonez partout en France gratuitement, vers les postes fixes (hors numéros spéciaux). Tarifs très avantageux vers les mobiles et l'international ! Pour profiter de cette offre exceptionnelle, cliquez ici : http://register.tiscali.fr/adsl (voir conditions sur le site)
unsubscribe
ADSL ILLIMITE TISCALI + TELEPHONE GRATUIT Surfez 40 fois plus vite pour 30EUR/mois seulement ! Et téléphonez partout en France gratuitement, vers les postes fixes (hors numéros spéciaux). Tarifs très avantageux vers les mobiles et l'international ! Pour profiter de cette offre exceptionnelle, cliquez ici : http://register.tiscali.fr/adsl (voir conditions sur le site)
Re: Open Software License v2.1
On Thu, Sep 16, 2004 at 01:43:57PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > I don't see any free way of terminating a license for reasons other than > non-compliance. That's pretty much a tautology. If a license requires that you never brush your teeth, and you brush your teeth, you're not complying with the license. -- Raul
Re: Open Software License v2.1
Brian Thomas Sniffen writes: > I don't see any free way of terminating a license for reasons other than > non-compliance. You are leaving out some important words or conditions here, but I'm not sure what they are -- a copyright-based license can include restrictions that are prohibited by the DFSG, such as only copying the program on Mondays. I agree with the idea that free licenses must only terminate if the licensee does X (or does not do Y) -- rather than allowing the licensor to unilaterally terminate it -- but that does not distinguish the patent termination case from other forms of "non-compliance." Michael Poole
Re: Open Software License v2.1
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > No. The GPL terminates only for non-compliance, and places no > restrictions beyond those imposed by law. That's free. Attempts to > bargain in a license, to say "I'll give you a license to this stuff, > but only if you give me a license to stuff you already own" are > non-free. All this messing about with termination clauses is just an > attempt to strike that bargain. It's a pretty fair bargain, too -- > it's just not free. I'm not sure what you're talking about, but it doesn't seem to be any of the licenses we've mentioned here. None of them require you to grant a patent license to the licensor of the software you're using, as far as I can tell. In any case, I don't think that argument follows. The GPL says "You may distribute this code, providing you don't fail to provide the source" (assuming 3a rather than any other form of distribution). The MPL says "You may use this code, providing you don't sue us for patent infringement related to this code". Both place limitations on your ability to exercise rights. We allow the GPL's limitation because we believe it furthers free software. We haven't had a proper discussion about whether termination clauses of this nature help or hinder free software. If you'd like to have that discussion, then -project is the right place to see it happen. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Open Software License v2.1
Andrew Suffield writes: > > By way of example, you have no right to distribute a GPLed work if you > > attempt to charge users for patent licenses related to the work. > > This is not true, nor does it approximate something which is true. 4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. Do you believe that attempting to extract any sort of license fee (or other conditions) for a program -- whether based on patent, copyright, trademark, or the vague term "IP" -- is something other than a sublicense as meant by that paragraph? I can imagine that SCO will claim it is different, but I also imagine that argument will fail. I think it should be obvious that asserting patent infringement in a lawsuit is a rather narrower condition than "sublicens[ing]... except as expressly provided under this License." > > > > > A restriction saying "You may not sue me for patent issues" is > > > > > non-free. > > > > > > > > If any licenses said that, it might be relevant. > > > > > > Congratulations, you missed the point. > > > > I rather think you were the one who misses the point, but how is it > > productive to make an unsupported insult like that? > > Because it might cause you to think about what I wrote *before* you > reply, rather than replying without comprehension. > > I cannot be the one who missed the point; it was my point. That's just > nuts. Besides setting up a strawman, what WAS your point? I'm not going to try to guess what you want to accomplish by introducing a strawman, and I'm not going to treat it as a serious argument. Michael Poole
Re: Open Software License v2.1
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Bernhard R. Link <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> * Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [040915 19:31]: >>> RMS is quoted as saying "Misusing a GPL-covered program permanently >>> forfeits the right to distribute the code at all", which implies that >>> the GPL doesn't protect the rights of people who have violated it in the >>> past. >> >> The GPL still protects the rights of those, only not to this specific >> code. You still have rights to use any other GPLed code, even from the >> same author. > > So you'd have no objection to licenses which terminate the copyright > license to that specific bit of code in the event of patent action? (The > MPL is an example of one of these) No. The GPL terminates only for non-compliance, and places no restrictions beyond those imposed by law. That's free. Attempts to bargain in a license, to say "I'll give you a license to this stuff, but only if you give me a license to stuff you already own" are non-free. All this messing about with termination clauses is just an attempt to strike that bargain. It's a pretty fair bargain, too -- it's just not free. I don't see any free way of terminating a license for reasons other than non-compliance. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Open Software License v2.1
On Wed, Sep 15, 2004 at 05:57:49PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote: > Andrew Suffield writes: > > > On Wed, Sep 15, 2004 at 09:00:39AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote: > > > Andrew Suffield writes: > > > > > > > Long-standing conclusions, summarised: > > > > > > > > Terminating licenses (copyright, patent, trademark, dog-humping, or > > > > whatever else might interfere with distribution/modification/use) for > > > > any reason other than non-compliance is a bit of legal insanity to get > > > > contract-like provisions into a license. These provisions have to be > > > > considered like any other restriction (invert the sense of the > > > > conditional to get the restriction). > > > > > > > > Anything that requires a contract-like construct, rather than a simple > > > > license, is probably non-free. DFSG-free licenses give things to the > > > > licensee, not to the copyright holder. They are not a trade (although > > > > the grant of permissions does not have to be the most generous > > > > possible), even if their social behaviour resembles one. > > > > > > > > (Corollary of these two: terminating a license for any reason other > > > > than non-compliance is probably non-free) > > > > > > Other corollary: Claiming something is a "contract-like provision" is > > > a useful wedge to make something like the GPL a non-free license. > > > > That's a summary of an old discussion which apparently you didn't > > read. Redefining it arbitrary to something else will obviously > > generate an arbitrary result. > > Then please stop arbitrarily defining "contract-like provision" to > what is convenient for you. Why? It's just a label which I introduced to reference something. There is nothing special about the label. I could have called it "Fortesque" for all that it matters. It is invalid for you to change the definitions of my labels around and then claim that the argument doesn't hold. > I think you are extending the conclusion of that discussion beyond the > point where it is supportable; there are fairly clear differences > between "You must do X to get these rights" and "You lose these rights > if you do Y," especially when Y prevents others from exercising those > same rights. No there aren't. It's a trivial inversion. > By way of example, you have no right to distribute a GPLed work if you > attempt to charge users for patent licenses related to the work. This is not true, nor does it approximate something which is true. > > > > A restriction saying "You may not sue me for patent issues" is > > > > non-free. > > > > > > If any licenses said that, it might be relevant. > > > > Congratulations, you missed the point. > > I rather think you were the one who misses the point, but how is it > productive to make an unsupported insult like that? Because it might cause you to think about what I wrote *before* you reply, rather than replying without comprehension. I cannot be the one who missed the point; it was my point. That's just nuts. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: most liberal license
If we need to discuss MIT-License in length, there probably should be a new thread about this. However I'm still looking forward to recieve answers to my initial question. > > It says you have to include the permission notice in any "substantial > > portions of the Software" no matter if source or binary only. > > I think this make merging the Software into some proprietary product > > quite difficult. > > Software under that license is distributed as part of Windows XP. > Clearly it's not insurmountable. That permission notice applies only > to the code covered by the licensor's copyright, not to other works > merged with it. I never said it's insurmountable, but that it is a serious burden. Also Microsoft is not known for respecting others IP very well. > > Perhaps you can't claim copyright of a copy of something you are not > > the copyright holder, because simply copying is no intellectual work > > at all. But proprietary software is often not only restricted by > > copyright but by an EULA which actually is a contract. > > > > By such a contract you can restrict copying of something you actually > > are not the copyright holder. But I don't see how you could do this > > while still including the permission notice. > > Sure you can. The permission notice is included. But I'll pet this > cat here for you if you agree not to exercise it. Well, that might be one interpretation. If one interprets "include the permisssion notice" in this way, than it's just some strange kind of advertisement clause: Text with no legal effect hast to be included in a derived work. But I think the interpretation that including the permission notice means not restricting the covered rights is as valid as yours. In fact we have seen crazier interpretations of license texts. (pine, dynamic linking, ...) > No. It really is just a public license. You're objecting to the > parts which make it such -- the fact that the license to the MIT > licensed code is extended to anyone who receives it. I've listed several issues, which I dislike about MIT-License. One is discussed no at length. However I don't see how I object to the above. > But that's not a > copyleft, just your inability to mess with the license granted by MIT. I guess that is true, hence this disussion. Harald
Re: Open Software License v2.1
Bernhard R. Link <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > * Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [040915 19:31]: >> RMS is quoted as saying "Misusing a GPL-covered program permanently >> forfeits the right to distribute the code at all", which implies that >> the GPL doesn't protect the rights of people who have violated it in the >> past. > > The GPL still protects the rights of those, only not to this specific > code. You still have rights to use any other GPLed code, even from the > same author. So you'd have no objection to licenses which terminate the copyright license to that specific bit of code in the event of patent action? (The MPL is an example of one of these) -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Open Software License v2.1
* Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [040915 19:31]: > > An elementary point of Free Software is to protect the rights of the > > users, not excluding "bad" ones. (Or will GPL3 have a section > > termination the licence if you breach any FSF copyright?) > > RMS is quoted as saying "Misusing a GPL-covered program permanently > forfeits the right to distribute the code at all", which implies that > the GPL doesn't protect the rights of people who have violated it in the > past. The GPL still protects the rights of those, only not to this specific code. You still have rights to use any other GPLed code, even from the same author. Hochachtungsvoll, Bernhard R. Link -- Sendmail is like emacs: A nice operating system, but missing an editor and a MTA.
