Re: help with crafting proper license header for a dual-licensing project
Shriramana Sharma wrote: The project developers want to distribute a single set of source files under both the licenses. They don't want to have to maintain two different directories with two different versions of the same files with merely the license headers differing. Please examine the attached latest draft of the license header and tell me whether it is appropriate to achieve the desired purpose. Thanks, as always. Shriramana Sharma. /* Copyright (C) 2007, Company X, Country Y. This file is part of Product A. Product A may be used under either the terms of the General Public License (GPL) version 2 or the Product A Professional License. Using Product A under the GPL requires that your work based on Product A, if distributed, must also be licensed under the GPL. If you have purchased a Product A Professional License, you may distribute your work based on Product A under any desired license, e.g. a closed-source license, so long as it is in accordance with the terms of the Product A Professional License. The complete text of the GPL can be found in the file LICENSE-GPL.TXT included along with this source distribution. If you have purchased a Product A Professional License you should have received the complete text of that license separately. Further information about Product A licensing, including the full terms of the Product A Professional License, can be obtained at the Company X website at http://www.companyx.com/licensing/ at by contacting Company X at [EMAIL PROTECTED] Product A is provided AS IS WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND; WITHOUT EVEN THE IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GPL or the Product A Professional License for more details. */
Re: help with crafting proper license header for a dual-licensing project
On Mon, 28 May 2007 22:29:27 +0100 Anthony W. Youngman wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes I still cannot see why proprietary should mean with secret source code: its basic common meaning is owned by a proprietor and does not refer to closeness or secrecy. Your own words condemn you :-) This is an accurate description of linux. Linux is owned by a proprietor, namely whoever (singular or plural) happens to own the copyright(s). I've already explained in which sense a piece of free software can be considered to be not really owned by anyone, so I won't repeat the argument here. And anyway, the Linux kernel indeed (and unfortunately) has some non-free parts... -- http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/testing_workstation_install.html Need to read a Debian testing installation walk-through? . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpcfDqB0r0FN.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: help with crafting proper license header for a dual-licensing project
On Mon, 28 May 2007, Francesco Poli wrote: On Sun, 27 May 2007 14:24:21 -0700 Don Armstrong wrote: Of course, but the usage of free there is merely an extension of its actual english meaning. A piece of free software is not able to act at will, nor is it exempt from subjection to the will of others. The whole point of free software is that it is exempt from subjection to the will of others. Your will does not impeed what I am able to do to Free Software, even if you hold the copyright upon it. A piece of non-free software belongs to a proprietor, in the sense that a monopoly over it is held by the copyright holder. Proprietary software is typically non-free, but the converse is not true. There are many pieces of software which are non-free but are decidedly not proprietary. Consider any of the pieces of software in non-free for which the source code is available. I still cannot see why proprietary should mean with secret source code: its basic common meaning is owned by a proprietor and does not refer to closeness or secrecy. If we are to use it in that sense, then it is completely meaningless in this discussion (unless you plan on distinguishing between PD and non-PD works) as every single copyrightable work has a copyright holder, and is therefore owned by a proprietor. Exclusivity is nearly a synonym for proprietary. Yes, exclusivity. When enough actions covered by your exclusive rights are permitted to everyone (as in Free Software), you have really little exclusivity left. That's why I don't think the use of the term proprietary as a synonym of non-free should be considered so strange or awkward. Because proprietary works are a subset of non-free works, a free work cannot also be proprietary. However, a non-free work does not necessarily have to be proprietary. This is why you should not use the terms interchangeably. This is the same reason why we talk about Free Software instead of merely talking about Open Source Software: a piece of free software cannot be closed, but an open work does not necessarily have to be free. It's not me. I'm not trying to invent new definitions, as I am not the only one who uses the term proprietary as equivalent to non-free. Many others seem to do so: one notable example is RMS and the FSF Neither RMS nor the FSF use proprietary interchangeably with non-free to the best of my knowledge. [At least, I've never heard RMS use it that way.] And frankly, even if they did, it wouldn't make their usage correct. Feel free to provide citations to back up your claims, though. Don Armstrong -- Personally, I think my choice in the mostest-superlative-computer wars has to be the HP-48 series of calculators. They'll run almost anything. And if they can't, while I'll just plug a Linux box into the serial port and load up the HP-48 VT-100 emulator. -- Jeff Dege, [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: help with crafting proper license header for a dual-licensing project
On Tue, 29 May 2007 03:15:37 -0700 Don Armstrong wrote: On Mon, 28 May 2007, Francesco Poli wrote: On Sun, 27 May 2007 14:24:21 -0700 Don Armstrong wrote: Of course, but the usage of free there is merely an extension of its actual english meaning. A piece of free software is not able to act at will, nor is it exempt from subjection to the will of others. The whole point of free software is that it is exempt from subjection to the will of others. Your will does not impeed what I am able to do to Free Software, even if you hold the copyright upon it. I see what you mean, but free software is not completely unrestricted by the will of its copyright holder(s) who can, for instance, prevent it from being merged with non-free code (by choosing a copyleft license). However, enough permissions are granted on free software, so that everyone has the right to fork it and adapt it to his/her own needs, even against the will of the original copyright holder, as I already said before. In this sense, free software is exempt from subjection to the will of others. In summary, I agree that the meaning of free in the context of software freedom is an extension of the common meaning of the word, but some interpretation and stretching has to be done in order to go from the latter to the former. A piece of non-free software belongs to a proprietor, in the sense that a monopoly over it is held by the copyright holder. Proprietary software is typically non-free, but the converse is not true. There are many pieces of software which are non-free but are decidedly not proprietary. Consider any of the pieces of software in non-free for which the source code is available. Again, I cannot see the direct link between the word proprietary and the concept of secrecy of source code. Since I am not an English native speaker, it could be just lack of English language knowledge. Anyway, the Italian language has the nouns proprietario (which means owner) and proprieta` (which means property): their definitions refer to the concepts of owning and exclusivity, but not to secrecy... I still cannot see why proprietary should mean with secret source code: its basic common meaning is owned by a proprietor and does not refer to closeness or secrecy. If we are to use it in that sense, then it is completely meaningless in this discussion (unless you plan on distinguishing between PD and non-PD works) as every single copyrightable work has a copyright holder, and is therefore owned by a proprietor. I don't use it in that sense, you were the one who insisted on consulting non-technical dictionaries and I simply did so. The first common meanings of the word proprietary seem to refer to the concept of property, owning, and trademark/patent/copyright. Exclusivity is nearly a synonym for proprietary. Yes, exclusivity. When enough actions covered by your exclusive rights are permitted to everyone (as in Free Software), you have really little exclusivity left. That's why I don't think the use of the term proprietary as a synonym of non-free should be considered so strange or awkward. Because proprietary works are a subset of non-free works, a free work cannot also be proprietary. However, a non-free work does not necessarily have to be proprietary. This is why you should not use the terms interchangeably. So, what's your definition of proprietary software, then? Software with source code kept secret? [...] It's not me. I'm not trying to invent new definitions, as I am not the only one who uses the term proprietary as equivalent to non-free. Many others seem to do so: one notable example is RMS and the FSF Neither RMS nor the FSF use proprietary interchangeably with non-free to the best of my knowledge. [At least, I've never heard RMS use it that way.] Just a nit-pick, not really interchangeably, because of semi-free software. I am deliberately neglecting semi-free software here. And frankly, even if they did, it wouldn't make their usage correct. Of course, as I said, my reference to FSF terminology was done just to show that I am not one who woke up early in the morning and came up with a brand-new definition of proprietary in the context of software freedom... My use of the term is similar to that of others. I obviously agree that RMS saying something does *not* necessarily make it true or correct. I am *against* appeal to authority. Feel free to provide citations to back up your claims, though. http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/categories.html#FreeSoftware http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/categories.html#non-freeSoftware http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/categories.html#semi-freeSoftware http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/categories.html#ProprietarySoftware -- http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/testing_workstation_install.html Need to read a Debian testing installation walk-through? .
Re: help with crafting proper license header for a dual-licensing project
On Tue, 29 May 2007, Francesco Poli wrote: The first common meanings of the word proprietary seem to refer to the concept of property, owning, and trademark/patent/copyright. They refer to the concept of property which is *exclusively* owned and controlled, such that a single entity is able to market and sell it. what's your definition of proprietary software, then? Software with source code kept secret? Software whose use, modification, selling, or distribution is controlled exclusively by a single party, generally by restricting access to the source code and/or restrictive licencing agreements. Just a nit-pick, not really interchangeably, because of semi-free software. I am deliberately neglecting semi-free software here. Well, that's the root of our contention then. As proprietary software does not encompass the entire set of non-free software, you should not use the terms interchangeably. Don Armstrong -- All bad precedents began as justifiable measures. -- Gaius Julius Caesar in The Conspiracy of Catiline by Sallust http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: help with crafting proper license header for a dual-licensing project
On Tue, 29 May 2007 14:12:55 -0700 Don Armstrong wrote: On Tue, 29 May 2007, Francesco Poli wrote: [...] what's your definition of proprietary software, then? Software with source code kept secret? Software whose use, modification, selling, or distribution is controlled exclusively by a single party, generally by restricting access to the source code and/or restrictive licencing agreements. Seems very close to catch *all* non-free software. Even when access to the source code is granted, if restrictive licensing agreements are in place, it's proprietary software. As soon as *one* action among use, modification, selling and distribution, is controlled exclusively by a single party, it's proprietary software. Just a nit-pick, not really interchangeably, because of semi-free software. I am deliberately neglecting semi-free software here. Well, that's the root of our contention then. As proprietary software does not encompass the entire set of non-free software, you should not use the terms interchangeably. I simply consider semi-free software not *so* better than other non-free software. Consequently I do not insist that much on the distinction between semi-free software and the rest of non-free software: I just call it all proprietary software, more or less interchangeably with non-free software. But please note that the distinction you seem to have made so far is a different one: you have linked proprietary software with closeness and unavailability of source. The concept of semi-free software (as defined by the FSF) is instead based on for non-profit purposes only restrictions. -- http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/testing_workstation_install.html Need to read a Debian testing installation walk-through? . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpKq85YeASBv.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: help with crafting proper license header for a dual-licensing project
Hello people. One question about the header I recently sent for final approval -- The project developers want to distribute a single set of source files under both the licenses. They don't want to have to maintain two different directories with two different versions of the same files with merely the license headers differing. So this means that the header must be appropriate for both the GPL and the Professional License. I presume it is sufficient if it indicates that the source file can be used under both licenses. For the GPL the disclaimer of warranty is a must, A similar disclaimer is still applicable to their Professional License. So how should I change the latest draft I sent so that the same source files can be distributed to both GPL and Professional License users? Shriramana Sharma. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: help with crafting proper license header for a dual-licensing project
On Sun, 27 May 2007 14:24:21 -0700 Don Armstrong wrote:
On Sun, 27 May 2007, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Sun, 27 May 2007 02:43:41 -0700 Don Armstrong wrote:
On Sun, 27 May 2007, Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
If you consult a dictionary you won't find any reference to the FSD
or to the DFSG in the definition of the adjective free.
Of course, but the usage of free there is merely an extension of its
actual english meaning.[1] We use free in our conversations about
licensing and software because of the meaning that it already
posseses, not the other way around.
The first meaning can be:
From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48
[gcide]:
Free \Free\ (fr[=e]), a. [...]
1. Exempt from subjection to the will of others; not under
restraint, control, or compulsion; able to follow one's
own impulses, desires, or inclinations; determining one's
own course of action; not dependent; at liberty.
[1913 Webster]
From WordNet (r) 2.0 [wn]:
free
adj 1: able to act at will; not hampered; not under compulsion or
restraint; free enterprise; a free port; a free
country; I have an hour free; free will; free of
racism; feel free to stay as long as you wish; a
free choice [ant: {unfree}]
A piece of free software is not able to act at will, nor is it
exempt from subjection to the will of others.
Rather, some important freedoms are granted over a piece of
free software.
So you are right that the technical meaning is related to the
common one, but some interpretation and stretching has to be
done in order to go from the latter to the former.
Likewise, the first meaning of proprietary can be:
From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48
[gcide]:
Proprietary \Pro*prie*ta*ry\, a. [L. proprietarius.]
Belonging, or pertaining, to a proprietor; considered as
property; owned; as, proprietary medicine.
[1913 Webster]
From WordNet (r) 2.0 [wn]:
proprietary
adj : protected by trademark or patent or copyright; made or
produced or distributed by one having exclusive rights;
`Tylenol' is a proprietary drug of which
`acetaminophen' is the generic form [ant:
{nonproprietary}]
A piece of non-free software belongs to a proprietor, in the sense
that a monopoly over it is held by the copyright holder.
On the other hand free software (even when copyrighted) grants enough
freedoms that everyone has the right to fork it and adapt it to his/her
own needs, even against the will of the original copyright holder: in
this sense we could say that a piece of free software is not really
owned by anyone (even though there are still copyright holders).
A piece of non-free software is aggressively and excessively
protected by trademark or patent or copyright.
Free software can still be protected by copyright, but in a way
that grants enough freedoms to everyone: in this sense it's not
proprietary, because enough actions covered by exclusive rights
are permitted to everyone.
Please bear in mind that we are talking about technical meanings
that have to be defined in their field: a non-technical dictionary
won't help.
The word proprietary has a perfectly well defined meaning in this
field. It means closed or exclusive. That people mistakenly conflate
it with being non-freeness has little to do with its actual meaning.
Things that are non-proprietary are perfectly capable of being
non-free. See for example the works in non-free for which we actually
have source code. They are clearly not proprietary, but are definetly
not free.
I still cannot see why proprietary should mean with secret source
code: its basic common meaning is owned by a proprietor and does
not refer to closeness or secrecy.
I've sometimes seen the closed/open distinction used to refer to the
availability of source code (which is a necessary, but
non-sufficient, condition for freeness).
It can refer to that, but it can also refer to specifications,
standards, protocols, goods, etc. Exclusivity is nearly a synonym for
proprietary.
Yes, exclusivity. When enough actions covered by your exclusive rights
are permitted to everyone (as in Free Software), you have really little
exclusivity left.
That's why I don't think the use of the term proprietary as a
synonym of non-free should be considered so strange or awkward.
[...]
What you're attempting to do is not comparable; it's inventing new
definitions for words which are not commonly or historically agreed
upon.
It's not me. I'm not trying to invent new definitions, as I am not
the only one who uses the term proprietary as equivalent to
non-free. Many others seem to do so: one notable example is RMS
and the FSF (I'm certainly *not* claiming that RMS is always right,
he's very far from being always right actually, but, in this regard,
I think his terminology is not bad).
--
Re: help with crafting proper license header for a dual-licensing project
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes I still cannot see why proprietary should mean with secret source code: its basic common meaning is owned by a proprietor and does not refer to closeness or secrecy. Your own words condemn you :-) This is an accurate description of linux. Linux is owned by a proprietor, namely whoever (singular or plural) happens to own the copyright(s). Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: help with crafting proper license header for a dual-licensing project
On Sun, 27 May 2007 02:43:41 -0700 Don Armstrong wrote: On Sun, 27 May 2007, Francesco Poli wrote: [...] Whatever the its origin is[1], the term proprietary is now a well-established[2] word used as opposed to free (as in freedom). And no, it's not a well-established word in that regard. Like many terms in the Copyright/Trademark/Patent rights space, it gets missused by people who are not familiar with it and haven't bothered to consult a dictionary. If you consult a dictionary you won't find any reference to the FSD or to the DFSG in the definition of the adjective free. Please bear in mind that we are talking about technical meanings that have to be defined in their field: a non-technical dictionary won't help. Free == grants all the important freedoms (see the FSD or the DFSG) Proprietary == non-free If you mean non-free, just say non-free. Don't use confusing terms like proprietary, which belongs on the closed/open axis, not the free/non-free axis. It seems we are talking different jargons here... :-( I've sometimes seen the closed/open distinction used to refer to the availability of source code (which is a necessary, but non-sufficient, condition for freeness). More often I see the term open source used and abused and misused for any kind of meaning, hence I won't comment any further on it. I don't see the term proprietary as more confusing than free. Once they are defined in the context of software freedom, they are perfectly clear to me. If, on the other hand, you insist that a dictionary must be consulted, then you will find many meanings for the term free (including gratuitous), none of which specifies which freedoms should be granted over a piece of software in order to call it free software. Consequently, if you want to avoid any possibility of confusion, you have to replace the terms proprietary and free with some newly invented words (weruqilaztic? yuprrsabbbysh? xxawrothent'jasa? ...). I don't think that would be a good idea. -- http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/testing_workstation_install.html Need to read a Debian testing installation walk-through? . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgplP0X4uPLtE.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: help with crafting proper license header for a dual-licensing project
On Sun, 27 May 2007, Francesco Poli wrote: On Sun, 27 May 2007 02:43:41 -0700 Don Armstrong wrote: On Sun, 27 May 2007, Francesco Poli wrote: [...] Whatever the its origin is[1], the term proprietary is now a well-established[2] word used as opposed to free (as in freedom). And no, it's not a well-established word in that regard. Like many terms in the Copyright/Trademark/Patent rights space, it gets missused by people who are not familiar with it and haven't bothered to consult a dictionary. If you consult a dictionary you won't find any reference to the FSD or to the DFSG in the definition of the adjective free. Of course, but the usage of free there is merely an extension of its actual english meaning.[1] We use free in our conversations about licensing and software because of the meaning that it already posseses, not the other way around. Please bear in mind that we are talking about technical meanings that have to be defined in their field: a non-technical dictionary won't help. The word proprietary has a perfectly well defined meaning in this field. It means closed or exclusive. That people mistakenly conflate it with being non-freeness has little to do with its actual meaning. Things that are non-proprietary are perfectly capable of being non-free. See for example the works in non-free for which we actually have source code. They are clearly not proprietary, but are definetly not free. I've sometimes seen the closed/open distinction used to refer to the availability of source code (which is a necessary, but non-sufficient, condition for freeness). It can refer to that, but it can also refer to specifications, standards, protocols, goods, etc. Exclusivity is nearly a synonym for proprietary. I don't see the term proprietary as more confusing than free. Once they are defined in the context of software freedom, they are perfectly clear to me. If, on the other hand, you insist that a dictionary must be consulted, then you will find many meanings for the term free (including gratuitous), none of which specifies which freedoms should be granted over a piece of software in order to call it free software. English has a great deal of words which have multiple definitions on which generations of english speakers have agreed upon and/or abused. The meaning of a word which has multiple definitions is generally clarified from context, and if not, it's trival to ask. What you're attempting to do is not comparable; it's inventing new definitions for words which are not commonly or historically agreed upon. Don Armstrong 1: Not surpisingly, the meaning we use is actually the first meaning in most dictionaries; gratis typically is found farther down. -- The sheer ponderousness of the panel's opinion ... refutes its thesis far more convincingly than anything I might say. The panel's labored effort to smother the Second Amendment by sheer body weight has all the grace of a sumo wrestler trying to kill a rattlesnake by sitting on it--and is just as likely to succeed. -- Alex Kozinski in Silveira V Lockyer http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: help with crafting proper license header for a dual-licensing project
On Wed, 23 May 2007 22:05:54 +0100 Anthony W. Youngman wrote: [...] If you use the word proprietary, you are merely echoing the terminology used/popularised by Microsoft - do you remember their marketing slogan Unix is proprietary, Windows is open? If you use the word proprietary correctly, then linux is proprietary. proprietary means has an owner (which ALL copyrighted works do). The opposite of proprietary is Public Domain. Sorry, but I have to disagree. Whatever the its origin is[1], the term proprietary is now a well-established[2] word used as opposed to free (as in freedom). There are already enough people who are mistaken about the two *orthogonal* distinctions commercial/non-commercial and proprietary/free. Let's not add to the confusion, please! Free == grants all the important freedoms (see the FSD or the DFSG) Proprietary == non-free Commercial == is created/distributed for profit Non-commercial == is created/distributed in a not-for-profit manner [1] please note that I am *not* claiming that you're wrong about its Microsoft-ish descendancy [2] at least in the free software community -- http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/testing_workstation_install.html Need to read a Debian testing installation walk-through? . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgprFDOrMblcc.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: help with crafting proper license header for a dual-licensing project
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Shriramana Sharma [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes As many people have pointed out, I realize I should be saying proprietary when I used the word commercial. I also realize that the GPL does not preclude commercial == for profit usage. I was merely echoing the terminology used by Trolltech. I do not condone it however. If you use the word proprietary, you are merely echoing the terminology used/popularised by Microsoft - do you remember their marketing slogan Unix is proprietary, Windows is open? If you use the word proprietary correctly, then linux is proprietary. proprietary means has an owner (which ALL copyrighted works do). The opposite of proprietary is Public Domain. Thanks as always for all your feedback. You're welcome :-) Shriramana Sharma. Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: help with crafting proper license header for a dual-licensing project
I have applied corrections based on your comments and herewith enclose the new draft of the header for the source files. If it is approved by this list as no faults are found, I will go ahead and use it. Please if there are any faults that must be corrected, tell me. If I do not receive any such reports by the end of this month, I will assume that the list has approved it and go ahead and apply it. Thank you, as always. Shriramana Sharma. /* Copyright (C) 2007, Company X, Country Y. All rights reserved. This file is part of Product A. You may at your option receive a license to Product A under either the terms of the GNU General Public License (GPL) or the Product A Professional License, as explained in the note below. Product A may be used under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as published by the Free Software Foundation and appearing in the file LICENSE.GPL included in the packaging of this file. Product A is provided AS IS WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License for more details. NOTE: Using Product A under the GPL requires that your work based on Product A, if distributed, must be licensed under the GPL. If you wish to distribute a work based on Product A but desire to license it under your own terms, e.g. a closed source license, you may purchase a Product A Professional License. The Professional License, gives you -- under certain conditions -- the right to use any license you wish for your work based on Product A. For the full terms of the Professional License, please visit: http://www.companyx.com/licensing/ */
Re: help with crafting proper license header for a dual-licensing project
As many people have pointed out, I realize I should be saying proprietary when I used the word commercial. I also realize that the GPL does not preclude commercial == for profit usage. I was merely echoing the terminology used by Trolltech. I do not condone it however. Thanks as always for all your feedback. Shriramana Sharma. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: help with crafting proper license header for a dual-licensing project
Shriramana Sharma [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: As many people have pointed out, I realize I should be saying proprietary when I used the word commercial. I also realize that the GPL does not preclude commercial == for profit usage. I was merely echoing the terminology used by Trolltech. I do not condone it however. Take this as an opportunity to be an agent of change in Trolltech :-) Thanks as always for all your feedback. Best of luck getting the work licensed under GPL, and thanks for your efforts in that regard. -- \ Not using Microsoft products is like being a non-smoker 40 or | `\50 years ago: You can choose not to smoke, yourself, but it's | _o__)hard to avoid second-hand smoke. -- Michael Tiemann | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: help with crafting proper license header for a dual-licensing project
On 5/1/07, Shriramana Sharma [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A company X which creates a product A, has decided to dual-license their project under the GPL and a commercial-license. They have asked not to publicise this until the official release which is why I am using generic terms - i.e. this is a real question with immediate relevance, and not a hypothetical one. They want the source tree to be the same for both editions -- the Open Source Edition and the Professional Edition. They have called for help in rewriting the license declaration in their source files. I have crafted the attached license declaration for this purpose. Please check and say whether: 1. the license declaration is sufficient for the desired purpose or it is lacking in any way 2. the license declaration does not conflict with the GPL 3. the license declaration contains anything superfluous which is already mentioned by the GPL 4. the product so licensed is DFSG-free -- i.e. product A may be packaged for Debian Looks OK to me, so long as there's nothing prohibiting the removal of the note at the end. -- Andrew Donnellan ajdlinuxATgmailDOTcom (primary)ajdlinuxATexemailDOTcomDOTau (secure) http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.wordpress.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58 http://linux.org.auhttp://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 Spammers only === [EMAIL PROTECTED] === -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: help with crafting proper license header for a dual-licensing project
On 5/4/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Looks OK to me, so long as there's nothing prohibiting the removal of the note at the end. I forgot to mention: while this is OK, it would be even better to use the standard GPL header with your note at the end. -- Andrew Donnellan ajdlinuxATgmailDOTcom (primary)ajdlinuxATexemailDOTcomDOTau (secure) http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.wordpress.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58 http://linux.org.auhttp://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 Spammers only === [EMAIL PROTECTED] === -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: help with crafting proper license header for a dual-licensing project
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 5/4/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Looks OK to me, so long as there's nothing prohibiting the removal of the note at the end. I forgot to mention: while this is OK, it would be even better to use the standard GPL header with your note at the end. Well actually I based my header on Qt's header. So I think it should be allright. If no one else has any objections, I'll go ahead and do this. Shriramana Sharma. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: help with crafting proper license header for a dual-licensing project
On 30/04/07, Shriramana Sharma [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A company X which creates a product A, has decided to dual-license their project under the GPL and a commercial-license. I think you've already been nitpicked about this, but I'll do it again anyways: the GPL *is* a commercial license. Don't confuse commercial with proprietary. The two concepts are not synonymous. - Jordi G. H. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: help with crafting proper license header for a dual-licensing project
Shriramana Sharma [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: A company X which creates a product A, has decided to dual-license their project under the GPL and a commercial-license. The GPL *is* a commercial license; all free software is entirely open to commercial activity, by definition. To imply otherwise is to confuse the issues of free software, for yourself and all you converse with. You've made this error here before and been corrected; please, don't propagate it further. You should instead be contrasting GPL and a proprietary license, or some other term that describes properties of the other license that *are* opposite to the GPL. As for the header itself, one overall comment is: it's trying to say too much, especially repeating things that don't need to be in the header of every file. The more wordy you make this header the less likely people will read it at all. /* Copyright (C) 2007, Company X, Country Y. All rights reserved. This file is part of Product A Open Source Edition. Good so far; clear and concise. You would be best to make clear the fact that there are multiple license choices before presenting them; this would also reduce the verbiage when you transition later in the text. Perhaps follow the above statements with You may, at your option, receive a license to this work under either the GNU General Public License or the FooCorp Proprietary License, as explained below: This file may be used under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2.0 as published by the Free Software Foundation and appearing in the file LICENSE.GPL included in the packaging of this file. You should change references to this file to this work, so that it's clear the license applies to many files in aggregate, not just file-by-file. There's no version 2.0 of the GPL, only version 2. You might want to consider a version 2 or, at your option, any later version clause. Please visit http://www.companyxwebsite.com/licensing/ to ensure that the use you have in mind for this file will meet the requirements of the GPL. The company's website is probably not the best place to direct the reader for ensur[ing] the use you have in mind ... will meet the requirements of the GPL. Better would be to point them to the GPL FAQ at the FSF website. Really, though, this isn't something that should be in a license declaration at all; I'd leave it out. The following disclaimer should be prefixed to make explicit that it is conditional only on licensing the work under the GNU GPL; e.g. When receiving this work under the GNU GPL, ... This file is provided AS IS with NO WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, INCLUDING THE WARRANTY OF DESIGN, MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. This file - This work. NOTE: The most important requirement for using Product A under the GPL is that any works based on Product A -- whether dependent on Product A or derived from Product A -- must also be licensed under the GPL. This is commentary that can be read in the GPL text. It's cruft to put it here. If you wish to base a work on Product A but desire to license it under your own terms, e.g. a closed source license, you may purchase Product A Professional Edition from Company X. Strictly, one would purchase a specific *license* to Product A. The Professional Edition is content-identical to the Open Source Edition but it is licensed under a commercial license, commercial does not distinguish it from the GPL, as noted above. Please don't put this error into the file header. commercial - proprietary. which gives you -- under certain conditions -- the right to use any license you wish for your work based on Product A. It also fetches you limited support from Company X. Again, cruft. Since this part isn't legally binding, simply direct them to the place where they can read about it, instead of making the header larger. For details on this dual-licensing policy and the full terms of the commercial license, commercial - proprietary; or, better, the full name of the license, e.g. FooCorp Proprietary License. please visit: http://www.companyxwebsite.com/licensing/ This is probably best, since if you include the license text *in* the product, it may confuse the user into thinking they already have received that license to the work. (This is unlike the GPL, which *should* be included in the package, since by receiving the work at all they have it licensed under the GPL.) Users of the Product A Open Source Edition may also purchase support for Product A as a service, provided the developers' time schedule and workload allows it. Cruft, remove. The names of the authors or of the copyright holder (Company X) must not be used for promoting any product or service which uses or contains Product A. However, the trademark names 'Product A' and 'Product A Inside' may be used for promoting such products or services. */ Utterly irrelevant in a copyright statement, and no need to state any of this for it to
