Re: OpenLDAP Licenseing issues
Steven, The OpenLDAP Foundation believes it the Regents' statement grants a license to redistribute derived works and is confident that the University, who is quite aware of our actions (as they actively participate in them), does not consider our actions to infringe on their rights. You are welcomed to your opinions. I suggest, however, that before you rely on your or other people's opinions (including ours), that you consult with a lawyer familiar with applicable law and the particulars of your situation. The Foundation sees no reason for it to expend its limited resources seeking clarifications which it believes are unnecessary. You are, of course, welcomed to expend time and energy seeking clarifications you think are necessary. I suggest you contact University's general counsel office (http://www.umich.edu/~vpgc/). Regards, Kurt
Re: OpenLDAP Licenseing issues
* Kurt D. Zeilenga ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > There were a number of files in U-Mich LDAP software distribution > which contained no notice or a notice with no license statement. > The OpenLDAP Foundation considers each of these files to be > copyright by U-Mich and subject to the license which U-Mich provided > in the U-Mich LDAP distribution. A copy of that license remains > in the COPYRIGHT file now distributed with OpenLDAP Software. I have read the U-Mich license which is included in the COPYRIGHT file and it does not appear to grant the right to modify the work and redistribute the modified version. The lack of this right is of concern to us and I would think it would be of concern to the OpenLDAP Foundation as well. An example of where this might come up is shown at http://www.openldap.org/devel/cvsweb.cgi/libraries/liblutil/setproctitle.c?hideattic=1&sortbydate=0 where a file under the U-Mich license was modified and then distributed. Can you clarify this apparent discrepancy between the rights grants by the license and the acts of the OpenLDAP Foundation? My general feeling on this is that the right to redistribute modified works was intended to be granted by U-Mich and that they meant to imply it in their license and that is what the OpenLDAP Foundation has been operating under. Having this stated explicitly would benefit anyone looking at the licenseing for OpenLDAP when determining if they can use it or if they can include it in their distribution. Since I would expect this is of concern to the OpenLDAP Foundation I would hope that they might be willing to clarify it or to contact U-Mich to have them clarify it since they likely have a contact at U-Mich. If the OpenLDAP Foundation does not share my view then I would ask if they would be kind enough to point us in the right direction at U-Mich so that we might contact them to resolve this question. > And, as stated in the OpenLDAP COPYRIGHT file, some files may > be subject to additional restrictions. > > The OpenLDAP Foundation makes no assertion of compatibility or > incompatibility between terms placed upon OpenLDAP Software by > its copyright holders and terms placed upon other works by > their copyright holders which OpenLDAP Software may be combined > with. Our primary concern is to understand the licenseing under which OpenLDAP is distributed so that we may make an informed decision as to how it fits in our distribution. We do not ask the OpenLDAP Foundation to make the determination for us as to how OpenLDAP may fit into our distribution or how the OpenLDAP licenseing interacts with other licenses in our distribution but only to clarify the licenseing terms under which the OpenLDAP Foundation distributes OpenLDAP. Thanks, Stephen pgpQsyhUhaztS.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: OpenLDAP Licenseing issues
At 09:13 PM 5/27/2003, Steve Langasek wrote: >I am assuming that all files without copyright statements are >effectively under the OpenLDAP Public License. As Executive Director of The OpenLDAP Foundation, let me state that I believe your assumption to be incorrect. OpenLDAP Software is a combined, derived work. The COPYRIGHT file contained in the distribution details terms which apply to the work as a whole. The foundation generally regards the University of Michigan (U-Mich) to have significant rights to OpenLDAP Software as the primary copyright holder of the original U-Mich LDAP software distribution from OpenLDAP Software is derived. There were a number of files in U-Mich LDAP software distribution which contained no notice or a notice with no license statement. The OpenLDAP Foundation considers each of these files to be copyright by U-Mich and subject to the license which U-Mich provided in the U-Mich LDAP distribution. A copy of that license remains in the COPYRIGHT file now distributed with OpenLDAP Software. And, as stated in the OpenLDAP COPYRIGHT file, some files may be subject to additional restrictions. The OpenLDAP Foundation makes no assertion of compatibility or incompatibility between terms placed upon OpenLDAP Software by its copyright holders and terms placed upon other works by their copyright holders which OpenLDAP Software may be combined with. The OpenLDAP Foundation suggests that anyone redistributing software consult with legal counsel before doing so. Nothing in this message should be construed as legal advice. -- Kurt Zeilenga, Executive Director, The OpenLDAP Foundation.
Re: OpenLDAP Licenseing issues
On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 12:23:30PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > In the HC (Howard Chu) and PM (Pierangelo Masarati) there is 'should' > do this and a 'should' do that. If those are to be interpreted as > 'must' then they conflict with the GPL. 'should', however, can also > be interpreted as a request, in which case there isn't a conflict. > The UoC, JC (Juan C. Gomez) and MA (Mark Adamson) licenses don't grant > the right to distributed modified versions, which is in conflict with > the GPL. The OL2 (OpenLDAP License 2) license doesn't grant > modification either but only covers one file > (./contrib/ldapc++/LICENSE). Well, the foray into the side question of the HC and PM licenses is at an end; Howard has pointed out to me that none of the affected code is *part* of the LDAP libraries, and therefore GPL-compatibility is not a concern. After taking Stephen's ldap-license-notes.txt file and cutting out all but the include and libraries directories (based on the contents of libraries/libldap/Makefile and libraries/liblber/Makefile), then grepping out a list of licenses that are GPL-compatible, I have the following results: ./include/rewrite.h Pierangelo Masarati - PM license ./libraries/libldap/open.c Regents of the University of Michigan - All rights reserved - NOT DISTRIBUTABLE ./libraries/libldap/abandon.c Regents of the University of Michigan - All rights reserved - NOT DISTRIBUTABLE ./libraries/libldap/getdn.c Regents of the University of Michigan - All rights reserved - NOT DISTRIBUTABLE ./libraries/libldap/delete.c Regents of the University of Michigan - All rights reserved - NOT DISTRIBUTABLE ./libraries/libldap/getattr.c Regents of the University of Michigan - All rights reserved - NOT DISTRIBUTABLE ./libraries/libldap/addentry.c Regents of the University of Michigan - All rights reserved - NOT DISTRIBUTABLE ./libraries/libldap/result.c Regents of the University of Michigan - All rights reserved - NOT DISTRIBUTABLE ./libraries/libldap/free.c Regents of the University of Michigan - All rights reserved - NOT DISTRIBUTABLE ./libraries/libldap/compare.c Regents of the University of Michigan - All rights reserved - NOT DISTRIBUTABLE ./libraries/libldap/kbind.c Regents of the University of Michigan - All rights reserved - NOT DISTRIBUTABLE ./libraries/libldap/sbind.c Regents of the University of Michigan - All rights reserved - NOT DISTRIBUTABLE ./libraries/libldap/getvalues.c Regents of the University of Michigan - All rights reserved - NOT DISTRIBUTABLE ./libraries/libldap/getentry.c Regents of the University of Michigan - All rights reserved - NOT DISTRIBUTABLE ./libraries/libldap/url.c Regents of the University of Michigan - All rights reserved - NOT DISTRIBUTABLE ./libraries/libldap/cache.c Regents of the University of Michigan - All rights reserved - NOT DISTRIBUTABLE ./libraries/libldap/search.c Regents of the University of Michigan - All rights reserved - NOT DISTRIBUTABLE ./libraries/libldap/os-local.c Regents of the University of Michigan - All rights reserved - NOT DISTRIBUTABLE ./libraries/libldap/bind.c Regents of the University of Michigan - All rights reserved - NOT DISTRIBUTABLE ./libraries/libldap/ldap-int.h Regents of the University of Michigan - All rights reserved - NOT DISTRIBUTABLE ./libraries/libldap/unbind.c Regents of the University of Michigan - All rights reserved - NOT DISTRIBUTABLE ./libraries/libldap/modrdn.c Regents of the University of Michigan - All rights reserved - NOT DISTRIBUTABLE Juan C. Gomez - JC License ./libraries/libldap/filter.c Regents of the University of Michigan - All rights reserved - NOT DISTRIBUTABLE ./libraries/libldap/os-ip.c Regents of the University of Michigan - All rights reserved - NOT DISTRIBUTABLE ./libraries/libldap/modify.c Regents of the University of Michigan - All rights reserved - NOT DISTRIBUTABLE ./libraries/libldap/add.c Regents of the University of Michigan - All rights reserved - NOT DISTRIBUTABLE ./libraries/libldap/request.c Regents of the University of Michigan - All rights reserved - NOT DISTRIBUTABLE ./libraries/librewrite/subst.c Pierangelo Masarati - PM License ./libraries/librewrite/rewrite-map.h Pierangelo Masarati - PM License ./libraries/librewrite/config.c Pierangelo Masarati - PM License ./libraries/librewrite/rule.c Pierangelo Masarati - PM License ./libraries/librewrite/parse.c Pierangelo Masarati - PM License ./libraries/librewrite/map.c Pierangelo Masarati - PM License ./libraries/librewrite/ldapmap.c Pierangelo Masarati - PM License ./libraries/librewrite/rewrite-int.h Pierangelo Masarati - PM License ./libraries/librewrite/rewrite.c Pierangelo Masarati - PM License ./libraries/librewrite/session.c Pierangelo Masarati - PM License ./libraries/librewrite/params.c Pierangelo Masarati - PM License ./libraries/librewrite/context.c Pierangelo Masarati - PM License ./libraries/librewrite/Copyright Piera
Re: OpenLDAP Licenseing issues
On Friday, May 23, 2003, at 10:26 PM, Howard Chu wrote: I used to have an additional clause in my freeware licenses - "A copy of all modifications must be sent back to the author." Please be aware that clause fails the DFSG. Its OK to request that, of course.
Re: OpenLDAP Licenseing issues
On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 10:49:59PM -0700, Howard Chu wrote: > > As I understand it, the "must" requirement of your license is entirely > > GPL-compatible, as the GPL also stipulates that one may not > > misrepresent > > the origin of the work. The problem arises if we understand your > > license to require a specific interpretation of "misrepresentation by > > omission". If your "should" can be understood as a recommendation > > rather than a binding requirement, and you are willing to leave the > > final determination of "misrepresentation by omission" to the > > courts, I > > see no reason why this license couldn't be regarded as GPL-compatible. > Since I'm not a lawyer I seem to be missing where the conflict arises. Having > just read thru the text of the GPL at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html I > see nothing in that license that conflicts with these terms. The GPL's > distribution terms require you to distribute source code or make source code > available when you distribute a Program. It's primary concern is ensuring > free access to source code. There is nothing in my license statement that > restricts anyone's ability to distribute source code. Nor is there anything > in the GPL that talks about the documentation that accompanies a Program; as > such I see these issues as completely orthogonal. The precise chain is: - We distribute binaries of a GPL app, e.g. Samba, that are linked against libldap. - Section 3 of the GPL says that to do this, we must distribute the source code to the application and "all modules it contains" under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 of the GPL. - Sections 1 and 2 do not include a requirement that authors be mentioned in the documentation of the work; therefore - Distribution of parts of the GPL-mandated source code under a license that contains such a requirement is not equivalent to distribution of the source code *under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 of the GPL*, and - We are not in compliance with the GPL when we ship such binaries. I imagine the point you overlooked, as many people do, was that it's not sufficient to distribute the source code; the source code must be distributed under terms that give the user the precise freedoms that the GPL grants. Since this does include the freedom to not list the author's name in the documentation, and does not include the freedom to misrepresent the origin of the work, the question of GPL compatibility hinges on whether you're making a request, or stipulating a requirement. Regards, -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer pgp2lnWC0enax.pgp Description: PGP signature
RE: OpenLDAP Licenseing issues
> -Original Message- > From: Steve Langasek [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Hi Howard, Hello there > As I understand it, the "must" requirement of your license is entirely > GPL-compatible, as the GPL also stipulates that one may not > misrepresent > the origin of the work. The problem arises if we understand your > license to require a specific interpretation of "misrepresentation by > omission". If your "should" can be understood as a recommendation > rather than a binding requirement, and you are willing to leave the > final determination of "misrepresentation by omission" to the > courts, I > see no reason why this license couldn't be regarded as GPL-compatible. Since I'm not a lawyer I seem to be missing where the conflict arises. Having just read thru the text of the GPL at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html I see nothing in that license that conflicts with these terms. The GPL's distribution terms require you to distribute source code or make source code available when you distribute a Program. It's primary concern is ensuring free access to source code. There is nothing in my license statement that restricts anyone's ability to distribute source code. Nor is there anything in the GPL that talks about the documentation that accompanies a Program; as such I see these issues as completely orthogonal. > Please note that Debian is more than happy to respect your wishes > regarding acknowledgement so long as we're distributing your code; the > issue only comes up because the GPL imposes contradictory requirements > that could prevent us from shipping LDAP-enabled binaries of many GPL > applications. I thank you for your conscientious attention to these matters, but I believe in this case there is no reason for concern. -- Howard Chu Chief Architect, Symas Corp. Director, Highland Sun http://www.symas.com http://highlandsun.com/hyc Symas: Premier OpenSource Development and Support
Re: OpenLDAP Licenseing issues
Hi Howard, On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 07:26:06PM -0700, Howard Chu wrote: > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Stephen Frost > > > Of those 15 licenses there are a few questions when it comes to GPL > > interaction. In the UoC license (Regents of the University of > > California Berkley) there is the infamous 'advertising clause'. The > > Regents have however, from my understanding, retroactively > > removed that > > clause from all of their licenses, at the request of the FSF. > > In the HC > > (Howard Chu) and PM (Pierangelo Masarati) there is 'should' do this > > and a 'should' do that. If those are to be interpreted as 'must' then > > they conflict with the GPL. 'should', however, can also be > > interpreted > > as a request, in which case there isn't a conflict. > For the licenses that I have explicitly used, clauses (2) and (3) both > include a "must" before the "should." The main point is that the origin of > the software MUST NOT be misrepresented, either by explicit claim or by > omission. If you can address the omission responsibility without providing > credit in your documentation, you're welcome to do so, though I find it hard > to imagine how this might be possible without having annoying credits listed > at runtime on every execution... As I understand it, the "must" requirement of your license is entirely GPL-compatible, as the GPL also stipulates that one may not misrepresent the origin of the work. The problem arises if we understand your license to require a specific interpretation of "misrepresentation by omission". If your "should" can be understood as a recommendation rather than a binding requirement, and you are willing to leave the final determination of "misrepresentation by omission" to the courts, I see no reason why this license couldn't be regarded as GPL-compatible. Please note that Debian is more than happy to respect your wishes regarding acknowledgement so long as we're distributing your code; the issue only comes up because the GPL imposes contradictory requirements that could prevent us from shipping LDAP-enabled binaries of many GPL applications. Regards, -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer pgp4cWrqZxLcC.pgp Description: PGP signature
RE: OpenLDAP Licenseing issues
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Stephen Frost > Of those 15 licenses there are a few questions when it comes to GPL > interaction. In the UoC license (Regents of the University of > California Berkley) there is the infamous 'advertising clause'. The > Regents have however, from my understanding, retroactively > removed that > clause from all of their licenses, at the request of the FSF. > In the HC > (Howard Chu) and PM (Pierangelo Masarati) there is 'should' do this > and a 'should' do that. If those are to be interpreted as 'must' then > they conflict with the GPL. 'should', however, can also be > interpreted > as a request, in which case there isn't a conflict. For the licenses that I have explicitly used, clauses (2) and (3) both include a "must" before the "should." The main point is that the origin of the software MUST NOT be misrepresented, either by explicit claim or by omission. If you can address the omission responsibility without providing credit in your documentation, you're welcome to do so, though I find it hard to imagine how this might be possible without having annoying credits listed at runtime on every execution... I note that a number of files that I authored in the source base have no UCB or UM code in them, but I copied the opening comments from some other file just as a matter of expedience. It would take some careful auditing of CVS logs to go back and accurately change these headers. Generally I haven't felt the need to do so as my intent was simply to make this code available under the OpenLDAP license. I used to have an additional clause in my freeware licenses - "A copy of all modifications must be sent back to the author." I frequently found that people would download code I'd written, find bugs and fix them, but never tell me about them. This was an attempt to address that problem, but some people got annoyed because they thought I was trying to steal their proprietary enhancements. Nothing of the sort, just (futilely) trying to get people to cooperate to improve things. As it stands, I see no compelling reason to change the restrictions on any code that I have explicitly marked. -- Howard Chu Chief Architect, Symas Corp. Director, Highland Sun http://www.symas.com http://highlandsun.com/hyc Symas: Premier OpenSource Development and Support
Re: OpenLDAP Licenseing issues
>./libraries/libldap/os-local.c > OpenLDAP Foundation - OpenLDAP Public License > Regents of the University of Michigan - All rights reserved - NOT > DISTRIBUTABLE > PADL Software Pty Ltd - No Statement The intention was for this file to be distributable under the terms of the OpenLDAP Public License. -- Luke -- Luke Howard | PADL Software Pty Ltd | www.padl.com
