Re: EllisLab, Inc. CodeIgniter license
Le samedi 01 novembre 2008 à 17:59 +0100, Francesco Poli a écrit : First of all, a no-name-including-this-string clause may well be more restrictive than default trademark law. A case where this is particularly apparent is the PHP one: I am not allowed to use any name including the string PHP for a derivative work of PHP, not even something like RALPHPANTHER or TELEGRAPHPOLE! Those example names are not confusingly similar to PHP, as far as I can tell, and trademark laws usually insist on avoiding confusion, rather than on substrings... On the other hand, it should also be noted that a clause in a copyright license cannot prevent me from writing a (non-derivative) work from scratch and calling it PHP++: so maybe such clauses do not even fully reach their goal... This is annoying for PHP, which is a short name, but frankly I fail to see how this could be a problem for CodeIgniter. Secondly, one thing is having something forbidden by trademark law, one different thing is adding copyright violation to the picture. If trademark law already forbids something, why should I prevent it through copyright law as well? I’m not questioning the uselessness of this clause. Nevertheless, its practical consequences are limited enough so that we can reasonably say it doesn’t violate the DFSG. -- .''`. : :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code. `. `' We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to `-our own. Resistance is futile. signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: EllisLab, Inc. CodeIgniter license
Got following reply from ellislab: -- Hi Carl, Our license is quite simple: Keep the notices we have intact. Document changes you make (a simple comment in the code is sufficient). Don't brand any products with the name CodeIgniter unless you ask us first. That's basically it. We would be thrilled to be included in a Debian release, and are grateful for your interest in doing so, but I'm not sure we're willing to modify our license to enable this to happen. Our license is very lenient, offering a great deal of user freedom, while giving us some trademark and copyright protection. Regards, Rick Ellis - -- /Carl Fürstenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: EllisLab, Inc. CodeIgniter license
Carl Fürstenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Got following reply from ellislab: -- Hi Carl, Our license is quite simple: Keep the notices we have intact. Document changes you make (a simple comment in the code is sufficient). Don't brand any products with the name CodeIgniter unless you ask us first. That's basically it. If that *were* basically it (and if the license actually made it clear that those are the only restrictions), IMO there would be no problem. Your interlocutor hasn't addressed the issues raised by the wording in the license that makes it do *more* than the above. We would be thrilled to be included in a Debian release, and are grateful for your interest in doing so, but I'm not sure we're willing to modify our license to enable this to happen. Perhaps they could be convinced, instead, to modify their license so it actually says what they claim above that it says. -- \ “To stay young requires unceasing cultivation of the ability to | `\ unlearn old falsehoods.” —Robert Anson Heinlein | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: EllisLab, Inc. CodeIgniter license
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] In conclusion, I think this license has three main issues: * clause 4, which could force identity disclosure (thus failing DFSG#1) * clause 6, which goes beyond what is permitted by DFSG#4 * indemnification clause, which could possibly fail some DFSG I broadly agree with the above conclusion. Clause 4 and the indemnification clause seem like lawyerbombs (things which would be unpredictable until decided in court), but I think clause 6 is more specific than the three-letter PHP combination, so not as much of a problem. My advice is to try and persuade upstream to adopt a well-known and widespread Free Software license, such as the 3-clause BSD license, for instance. Yes, I'd try that. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: EllisLab, Inc. CodeIgniter license
On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 11:01:18 +0100 Josselin Mouette wrote: Le mercredi 29 octobre 2008 à 23:34 +0100, Francesco Poli a écrit : [...] nor may CodeIgniter appear in their name, without prior written permission from EllisLab, Inc. IMHO, this goes beyond what is permitted (as a compromise!) by DFSG#4, since it forbids an infinite set of names, rather than a single one. I cannot use any of the following names for a derived product: CodeIgniterNG, CodeIgniter++, SuperCodeIgniter, TinyCodeIgniter, ... In all cases you will not be allowed to use such names unless you obtain a trademark exception, so I don’t think this is problematic either. There are some important differences between just avoiding to grant any special trademark-related permission and putting a specific no-name-including-this-string clause in a copyright license. First of all, a no-name-including-this-string clause may well be more restrictive than default trademark law. A case where this is particularly apparent is the PHP one: I am not allowed to use any name including the string PHP for a derivative work of PHP, not even something like RALPHPANTHER or TELEGRAPHPOLE! Those example names are not confusingly similar to PHP, as far as I can tell, and trademark laws usually insist on avoiding confusion, rather than on substrings... On the other hand, it should also be noted that a clause in a copyright license cannot prevent me from writing a (non-derivative) work from scratch and calling it PHP++: so maybe such clauses do not even fully reach their goal... Secondly, one thing is having something forbidden by trademark law, one different thing is adding copyright violation to the picture. If trademark law already forbids something, why should I prevent it through copyright law as well? [...] Warning: indemnification clause: is it acceptable? It smells as non-free, but I would like to know the opinion of other debian-legal regulars... At least this is already accepted in main, see e.g. postfix. I don't like the IBM public license either, but that's another story... -- On some search engines, searching for my nickname AND nano-documents may lead you to my website... . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpetVJAsEnXq.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: EllisLab, Inc. CodeIgniter license
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Sean Kellogg [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes On Wednesday 29 October 2008 06:45:19 pm Ben Finney wrote: Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 21:08:54 +0100 Carl Fürstenberg wrote: This license is a legal agreement between you and EllisLab Inc. for the use of CodeIgniter Software (the Software). By obtaining the Software you agree to comply with the terms and conditions of this license. I don't particularly love licenses that claim they must be agreed upon just to *obtain* the Software. Indeed. I don't know of any jurisdictions where these grasping clauses are enforcible; one can't be held to an “agreement” that one had no option to view or negotiate before the stated condition occurs. Sure they can. If you don't agree to the terms of the license, then you don't have the right to have a copy of the work. In fact, you didn't even have the right to make the copy in the first place. Now, I'm not claiming you can agree to something you haven't seen, but if you DO NOT agree, then you don't have the right to have it in the first place, and so at a minmum a rights's holder can enforce their right to deny you a copy. Francesco says he doesn't like licenses that require you to agree before you *obtain*... but one has to have permission to get the copy right from the get-go. Reductio ad absurdam ... In order to get a copy of the software you need to agree to the licence. In order to agree to the licence, you need to be able to read the licence. In order to read the licence you need to get a copy of the software. Repeat ad nauseam. In many/most jurisdictions, this is called a contract of adhesion, and is void ... as Ben said, you can't (in most circumstances) be held to an agreement where you were unable to provide informed consent (ESPECIALLY if the counter-party was responsible for that inability!). Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: EllisLab, Inc. CodeIgniter license
Anthony W. Youngman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Sean Kellogg [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes On Wednesday 29 October 2008 06:45:19 pm Ben Finney wrote: […] one can't be held to an “agreement” that one had no option to view or negotiate before the stated condition occurs. Sure they can. If you don't agree to the terms of the license, then you don't have the right to have a copy of the work. In fact, you didn't even have the right to make the copy in the first place. Yet these conditions are presented on works where, often, the recipient *didn't* make the copy; they received it from some other party through sale or other distribution, and the terms were *not* offered as a condition of sale but instead discovered afterward (if at all). Now, I'm not claiming you can agree to something you haven't seen, but if you DO NOT agree, then you don't have the right to have it in the first place You seem to be claiming that such conditions can be applied retroactively: after legitimately obtaining the work and agreeing to all conditions presented at that time, one can then be held to an *extra* “agreement” that one was unaware of? Reductio ad absurdam ... This is another argument, yes. Though, at this point, I suspect Sean (or someone else with legal experience) will point out the common fallacy of assuming the law operates logically :-) -- \“The errors of great men are venerable because they are more | `\ fruitful than the truths of little men.” —Friedrich Nietzsche | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: EllisLab, Inc. CodeIgniter license
Le mercredi 29 octobre 2008 à 23:34 +0100, Francesco Poli a écrit : 4. Any files that have been modified must carry notices stating the nature of the change and the names of those who changed them. An obligation to maintain a sort of change-log is normally acceptable. The second part of the clause is more troublesome: depending on how it should be interpreted, it could meet the DFSG or fail to do so. If I am allowed to modify a file, document the nature of the change and put a nickname (or a pseudonym, or even the term anonymous) as the name of the modifier, then I think this clause complies with the DFSG. On the other hand, if I am compelled to disclose my own identity in order to distribute a file modified by me, then I think that this clause fails DFSG#1, since being forced to disclose one's own identity can be a fee. See also http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/05/msg00015.html for a more detail explanation of the issue (found in another license). This may depend on local law, but I don’t think this prevents you from using a pseudonym as name. A name is different from an identity, so I don’t think this clause causes any trouble. 6. Products derived from the Software may not be called CodeIgniter, This is considered acceptable (as a compromise!) per DFSG#4. nor may CodeIgniter appear in their name, without prior written permission from EllisLab, Inc. IMHO, this goes beyond what is permitted (as a compromise!) by DFSG#4, since it forbids an infinite set of names, rather than a single one. I cannot use any of the following names for a derived product: CodeIgniterNG, CodeIgniter++, SuperCodeIgniter, TinyCodeIgniter, ... In all cases you will not be allowed to use such names unless you obtain a trademark exception, so I don’t think this is problematic either. INDEMNITY You agree to indemnify and hold harmless the authors of the Software and any contributors for any direct, indirect, incidental, or consequential third-party claims, actions or suits, as well as any related expenses, liabilities, damages, settlements or fees arising from your use or misuse of the Software, or a violation of any terms of this license. Warning: indemnification clause: is it acceptable? It smells as non-free, but I would like to know the opinion of other debian-legal regulars... At least this is already accepted in main, see e.g. postfix. Cheers, -- .''`. : :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code. `. `' We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to `-our own. Resistance is futile. signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: EllisLab, Inc. CodeIgniter license
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 11:01, Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Le mercredi 29 octobre 2008 à 23:34 +0100, Francesco Poli a écrit : 4. Any files that have been modified must carry notices stating the nature of the change and the names of those who changed them. An obligation to maintain a sort of change-log is normally acceptable. The second part of the clause is more troublesome: depending on how it should be interpreted, it could meet the DFSG or fail to do so. If I am allowed to modify a file, document the nature of the change and put a nickname (or a pseudonym, or even the term anonymous) as the name of the modifier, then I think this clause complies with the DFSG. On the other hand, if I am compelled to disclose my own identity in order to distribute a file modified by me, then I think that this clause fails DFSG#1, since being forced to disclose one's own identity can be a fee. See also http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/05/msg00015.html for a more detail explanation of the issue (found in another license). This may depend on local law, but I don't think this prevents you from using a pseudonym as name. A name is different from an identity, so I don't think this clause causes any trouble. 6. Products derived from the Software may not be called CodeIgniter, This is considered acceptable (as a compromise!) per DFSG#4. nor may CodeIgniter appear in their name, without prior written permission from EllisLab, Inc. IMHO, this goes beyond what is permitted (as a compromise!) by DFSG#4, since it forbids an infinite set of names, rather than a single one. I cannot use any of the following names for a derived product: CodeIgniterNG, CodeIgniter++, SuperCodeIgniter, TinyCodeIgniter, ... In all cases you will not be allowed to use such names unless you obtain a trademark exception, so I don't think this is problematic either. INDEMNITY You agree to indemnify and hold harmless the authors of the Software and any contributors for any direct, indirect, incidental, or consequential third-party claims, actions or suits, as well as any related expenses, liabilities, damages, settlements or fees arising from your use or misuse of the Software, or a violation of any terms of this license. Warning: indemnification clause: is it acceptable? It smells as non-free, but I would like to know the opinion of other debian-legal regulars... At least this is already accepted in main, see e.g. postfix. Cheers, -- .''`. : :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code. `. `' We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to `-our own. Resistance is futile. I have notified Ellislab about this discussion, and asked them for their stance in the matter. hopefully a reply is made :) -- /Carl Fürstenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
EllisLab, Inc. CodeIgniter license
Had a short discussion on #debian-mentors about this license, and it was found out that it probably failed the dissident test. But as I'm unsure, I would like help from you reviewing the following license: Copyright (c) 2008, EllisLab, Inc. All rights reserved. This license is a legal agreement between you and EllisLab Inc. for the use of CodeIgniter Software (the Software). By obtaining the Software you agree to comply with the terms and conditions of this license. PERMITTED USE You are permitted to use, copy, modify, and distribute the Software and its documentation, with or without modification, for any purpose, provided that the following conditions are met: 1. A copy of this license agreement must be included with the distribution. 2. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice in all source code files. 3. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. 4. Any files that have been modified must carry notices stating the nature of the change and the names of those who changed them. 5. Products derived from the Software must include an acknowledgment that they are derived from CodeIgniter in their documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. 6. Products derived from the Software may not be called CodeIgniter, nor may CodeIgniter appear in their name, without prior written permission from EllisLab, Inc. INDEMNITY You agree to indemnify and hold harmless the authors of the Software and any contributors for any direct, indirect, incidental, or consequential third-party claims, actions or suits, as well as any related expenses, liabilities, damages, settlements or fees arising from your use or misuse of the Software, or a violation of any terms of this license. DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTY THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED AS IS, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, WARRANTIES OF QUALITY, PERFORMANCE, NON-INFRINGEMENT, MERCHANTABILITY, OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. LIMITATIONS OF LIABILITY YOU ASSUME ALL RISK ASSOCIATED WITH THE INSTALLATION AND USE OF THE SOFTWARE. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS OF THE SOFTWARE BE LIABLE FOR CLAIMS, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY ARISING FROM, OUT OF, OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE. LICENSE HOLDERS ARE SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR DETERMINING THE APPROPRIATENESS OF USE AND ASSUME ALL RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH ITS USE, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE RISKS OF PROGRAM ERRORS, DAMAGE TO EQUIPMENT, LOSS OF DATA OR SOFTWARE PROGRAMS, OR UNAVAILABILITY OR INTERRUPTION OF OPERATIONS. -- /Carl Fürstenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: EllisLab, Inc. CodeIgniter license
On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 21:08:54 +0100 Carl Fürstenberg wrote: Had a short discussion on #debian-mentors about this license, and it was found out that it probably failed the dissident test. But as I'm unsure, I would like help from you reviewing the following license: Let's take a look at each part of the license, then. My usual disclaimers apply: IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP. Copyright (c) 2008, EllisLab, Inc. All rights reserved. All rights reserved is technically false, since many permissions are granted in the following. This sentence was probably added just to follow some absurd rules that apply (or maybe used to apply) in some strange jurisdiction... Anyway, its presence is harmless, AFAIK. This license is a legal agreement between you and EllisLab Inc. for the use of CodeIgniter Software (the Software). By obtaining the Software you agree to comply with the terms and conditions of this license. I don't particularly love licenses that claim they must be agreed upon just to *obtain* the Software. I think downloading and using the Software should be unrestricted, while the license should kick in only when one wants to copy or redistribute, with or without modification. Anyway, I don't think that this flaw means *by itself* that the license fails to meet the DFSG. PERMITTED USE You are permitted to use, copy, modify, and distribute the Software and its documentation, with or without modification, for any purpose, provided that the following conditions are met: The important permissions are here granted, but with the restrictions that follow. Let's examine them. 1. A copy of this license agreement must be included with the distribution. 2. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice in all source code files. 3. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. No problem that I can see, so far. 4. Any files that have been modified must carry notices stating the nature of the change and the names of those who changed them. An obligation to maintain a sort of change-log is normally acceptable. The second part of the clause is more troublesome: depending on how it should be interpreted, it could meet the DFSG or fail to do so. If I am allowed to modify a file, document the nature of the change and put a nickname (or a pseudonym, or even the term anonymous) as the name of the modifier, then I think this clause complies with the DFSG. On the other hand, if I am compelled to disclose my own identity in order to distribute a file modified by me, then I think that this clause fails DFSG#1, since being forced to disclose one's own identity can be a fee. See also http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/05/msg00015.html for a more detail explanation of the issue (found in another license). 5. Products derived from the Software must include an acknowledgment that they are derived from CodeIgniter in their documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. This is acceptable, IMHO. 6. Products derived from the Software may not be called CodeIgniter, This is considered acceptable (as a compromise!) per DFSG#4. nor may CodeIgniter appear in their name, without prior written permission from EllisLab, Inc. IMHO, this goes beyond what is permitted (as a compromise!) by DFSG#4, since it forbids an infinite set of names, rather than a single one. I cannot use any of the following names for a derived product: CodeIgniterNG, CodeIgniter++, SuperCodeIgniter, TinyCodeIgniter, ... Please note that the PHP license (up to version 3.01) has a clause to the same effect. I personally think that the PHP License (up to version 3.01), fails to meet the DFSG (even for PHP itself). This is my own opinion and was stated several times on debian-legal, but other people seem to disagree and/or don't seem to care much. See my analysis of the license at http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/11/msg00272.html for further details. INDEMNITY You agree to indemnify and hold harmless the authors of the Software and any contributors for any direct, indirect, incidental, or consequential third-party claims, actions or suits, as well as any related expenses, liabilities, damages, settlements or fees arising from your use or misuse of the Software, or a violation of any terms of this license. Warning: indemnification clause: is it acceptable? It smells as non-free, but I would like to know the opinion of other debian-legal regulars... DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTY [...] LIMITATIONS OF LIABILITY [...] Typical stuff for warranty disclaimer and limitation of liability... I didn't notice anything special. In conclusion, I think this license has three main issues: * clause 4, which could force identity disclosure (thus failing DFSG#1) * clause 6, which goes beyond what is permitted by DFSG#4 *
Re: EllisLab, Inc. CodeIgniter license
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 21:08:54 +0100 Carl Fürstenberg wrote: This license is a legal agreement between you and EllisLab Inc. for the use of CodeIgniter Software (the Software). By obtaining the Software you agree to comply with the terms and conditions of this license. I don't particularly love licenses that claim they must be agreed upon just to *obtain* the Software. Indeed. I don't know of any jurisdictions where these grasping clauses are enforcible; one can't be held to an “agreement” that one had no option to view or negotiate before the stated condition occurs. It's best for the clause to simply be removed, since AFAIK what it says simply isn't true. I think downloading and using the Software should be unrestricted, while the license should kick in only when one wants to copy or redistribute, with or without modification. More fundamentally, the license should *not* be an “agreement” at all; it should be a unilateral grant of license. The copyright holder by default has a massive amount of power over the work, and the license is supposed to be granting some of that to the recipient. Anyway, I don't think that this flaw means *by itself* that the license fails to meet the DFSG. Dubious. It would be far better if the clause were removed. INDEMNITY You agree to indemnify and hold harmless the authors of the Software and any contributors for any direct, indirect, incidental, or consequential third-party claims, actions or suits, as well as any related expenses, liabilities, damages, settlements or fees arising from your use or misuse of the Software, or a violation of any terms of this license. Warning: indemnification clause: is it acceptable? It smells as non-free, but I would like to know the opinion of other debian-legal regulars... Totally non-free, IMO. The right to seek action in court is an important one, and a requirement to waive that right is a non-free restriction. My advice is to try and persuade upstream to adopt a well-known and widespread Free Software license, such as the 3-clause BSD license, for instance. I'm in full agreement with this advice. -- \ “There's a certain part of the contented majority who love | `\anybody who is worth a billion dollars.” —John Kenneth | _o__)Galbraith, 1992-05-23 | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: EllisLab, Inc. CodeIgniter license
On Wednesday 29 October 2008 06:45:19 pm Ben Finney wrote: Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 21:08:54 +0100 Carl Fürstenberg wrote: This license is a legal agreement between you and EllisLab Inc. for the use of CodeIgniter Software (the Software). By obtaining the Software you agree to comply with the terms and conditions of this license. I don't particularly love licenses that claim they must be agreed upon just to *obtain* the Software. Indeed. I don't know of any jurisdictions where these grasping clauses are enforcible; one can't be held to an “agreement” that one had no option to view or negotiate before the stated condition occurs. Sure they can. If you don't agree to the terms of the license, then you don't have the right to have a copy of the work. In fact, you didn't even have the right to make the copy in the first place. Now, I'm not claiming you can agree to something you haven't seen, but if you DO NOT agree, then you don't have the right to have it in the first place, and so at a minmum a rights's holder can enforce their right to deny you a copy. Francesco says he doesn't like licenses that require you to agree before you *obtain*... but one has to have permission to get the copy right from the get-go. It's best for the clause to simply be removed, since AFAIK what it says simply isn't true. I think downloading and using the Software should be unrestricted, while the license should kick in only when one wants to copy or redistribute, with or without modification. More fundamentally, the license should *not* be an “agreement” at all; it should be a unilateral grant of license. The copyright holder by default has a massive amount of power over the work, and the license is supposed to be granting some of that to the recipient. General consensus among my law school profs was that even the GPL is not a unilateral grant of license. You've got a warranty disclaimer and a limitations on liability. That's something the recipient of the software must give up, and thus it is an exchange and thus it is a contract. But, yeah... the license is problematic at best on account of the points Francesco made and the prevailing interpretation of the DSFG. -Sean -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
