Re: is the "lucent public license" DFSG-free?
Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [ please cc-me on replies, I'm not subscribed, thanks! ]
Done.
> Hi guys, I'm considering packaging Galax [1], which is licensed
> under the terms of the "Lucent Public License Version 1.0" [2]. Is
> that license considered DFSG-free?
Unlike the OSI, we consider the freedom status of works, not licenses.
When asking about the terms of a license, please post the text of the
license in the thread so we can discuss them in context.
I've done so below:
=
Lucent Public License Version 1.0
THE ACCOMPANYING PROGRAM IS PROVIDED UNDER THE TERMS OF THIS PUBLIC
LICENSE ("AGREEMENT"). ANY USE, REPRODUCTION OR DISTRIBUTION OF THE
PROGRAM CONSTITUTES RECIPIENT'S ACCEPTANCE OF THIS AGREEMENT.
1. DEFINITIONS
"Contribution" means:
a.in the case of Lucent Technologies Inc. ("LUCENT"), the Original
Program, and
b.in the case of each Contributor,
i.changes to the Program, and
ii.additions to the Program; where such changes and/or additions to
the Program originate from and are "Contributed" by that particular
Contributor.
A Contribution is "Contributed" by a Contributor only (i) if it was
added to the Program by such Contributor itself or anyone acting on
such Contributor's behalf, and (ii) the Contributor explicitly
consents, in accordance with Section 3C, to characterization of the
changes and/or additions as Contributions.
"Contributor" means LUCENT and any other entity that has Contributed a
Contribution to the Program.
"Distributor" means a Recipient that distributes the Program,
modifications to the Program, or any part thereof.
"Licensed Patents" mean patent claims licensable by a Contributor
which are necessarily infringed by the use or sale of its Contribution
alone or when combined with the Program.
"Original Program" means the original version of the software
accompanying this Agreement as released by LUCENT, including source
code, object code and documentation, if any.
"Program" means the Original Program and Contributions or any part
thereof
"Recipient" means anyone who receives the Program under this
Agreement, including all Contributors.
2. GRANT OF RIGHTS
a.Subject to the terms of this Agreement, each Contributor hereby
grants Recipient a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free copyright
license to reproduce, prepare derivative works of, publicly display,
publicly perform, distribute and sublicense the Contribution of such
Contributor, if any, and such derivative works, in source code and
object code form.
b.Subject to the terms of this Agreement, each Contributor hereby
grants Recipient a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free patent
license under Licensed Patents to make, use, sell, offer to sell,
import and otherwise transfer the Contribution of such Contributor, if
any, in source code and object code form. The patent license granted
by a Contributor shall also apply to the combination of the
Contribution of that Contributor and the Program if, at the time the
Contribution is added by the Contributor, such addition of the
Contribution causes such combination to be covered by the Licensed
Patents. The patent license granted by a Contributor shall not apply
to (i) any other combinations which include the Contribution, nor to
(ii) Contributions of other Contributors. No hardware per se is
licensed hereunder.
c.Recipient understands that although each Contributor grants the
licenses to its Contributions set forth herein, no assurances are
provided by any Contributor that the Program does not infringe the
patent or other intellectual property rights of any other entity. Each
Contributor disclaims any liability to Recipient for claims brought by
any other entity based on infringement of intellectual property rights
or otherwise. As a condition to exercising the rights and licenses
granted hereunder, each Recipient hereby assumes sole responsibility
to secure any other intellectual property rights needed, if any. For
example, if a third party patent license is required to allow
Recipient to distribute the Program, it is Recipient's responsibility
to acquire that license before distributing the Program.
d.Each Contributor represents that to its knowledge it has sufficient
copyright rights in its Contribution, if any, to grant the copyright
license set forth in this Agreement.
3. REQUIREMENTS
A. Distributor may choose to distribute the Program in any form under
this Agreement or under its own license agreement, provided that:
a.it complies with the terms and conditions of this Agreement;
b.if the Program is distributed in source code or other tangible form,
a copy of this Agreement or Distributor's own license agreement is
included with each copy of the Program; and
c.if distributed under Distributor's own license agreement, such
license agreement:
i.effectively disclaims on behalf of all Contributors all warranties
and conditions, express and implied, including warranties or
conditions of title and non-infringem
Re: is the "lucent public license" DFSG-free?
Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > [ please cc-me on replies, I'm not subscribed, thanks! ]
> Done.
> =
> Lucent Public License Version 1.0
> ...
> 2. GRANT OF RIGHTS
>
> a.Subject to the terms of this Agreement, each Contributor hereby
> grants Recipient a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free copyright
> license to reproduce, prepare derivative works of, publicly display,
> publicly perform, distribute and sublicense the Contribution of such
> Contributor, if any, and such derivative works, in source code and
> object code form.
Appears to grant all the necessary permissions for the work. Good.
> b.Subject to the terms of this Agreement, each Contributor hereby
> grants Recipient a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free patent
> license under Licensed Patents to make, use, sell, offer to sell,
> import and otherwise transfer the Contribution of such Contributor, if
> any, in source code and object code form. The patent license granted
> by a Contributor shall also apply to the combination of the
> Contribution of that Contributor and the Program if, at the time the
> Contribution is added by the Contributor, such addition of the
> Contribution causes such combination to be covered by the Licensed
> Patents. The patent license granted by a Contributor shall not apply
> to (i) any other combinations which include the Contribution, nor to
> (ii) Contributions of other Contributors. No hardware per se is
> licensed hereunder.
Strange to be putting patent terms into a copyright license, but I
suppose it's less uncommon these days to try to combine everything
into an űberlicense.
> c. ... As a condition to exercising the rights and licenses granted
> hereunder, each Recipient hereby assumes sole responsibility to
> secure any other intellectual property rights needed, if any. For
> example, if a third party patent license is required to allow
> Recipient to distribute the Program, it is Recipient's
> responsibility to acquire that license before distributing the
> Program.
This is a restriction that could make the work non-GPL-compatible. I
don't think it fails the DFSG though. Maybe okay.
> ...
> 3. REQUIREMENTS
>
> A. Distributor may choose to distribute the Program in any form under
> this Agreement or under its own license agreement, provided that:
>
> a. ...
> b. ...
> c. ...
None of these conditions appear to impose non-free restrictions. Good.
> B. Each Distributor must include the following in a conspicuous
> location in the Program:
>
> Copyright (C) 2003, Lucent Technologies Inc. and others. All Rights
> Reserved.
So long as "in the Program" can mean "in the source code to the
program" and no requirement further than that. Maybe okay.
> C. In addition, each Contributor must identify itself as the
> originator of its Contribution, if any, and manifest its intent that
> the additions and/or changes be a Contribution, in a manner that
> reasonably allows subsequent Recipients to identify the originator of
> the Contribution. Once consent is granted, it may not thereafter be
> revoked.
Requiring attribution and clear indication of changes are both
definitely DFSG-free. Good.
> 4. COMMERCIAL DISTRIBUTION
>
> Commercial distributors of software may accept certain
> responsibilities with respect to end users, business partners and the
> like. While this license is intended to facilitate the commercial use
> of the Program, the Distributor who includes the Program in a
> commercial product offering should do so in a manner which does not
> create potential liability for Contributors. Therefore, if a
> Distributor includes the Program in a commercial product offering,
> such Distributor ("Commercial Distributor") hereby agrees to defend
> and indemnify every Contributor ("Indemnified Contributor") against
> any losses, damages and costs (collectively "Losses") arising from
> claims, lawsuits and other legal actions brought by a third party
> against the Indemnified Contributor to the extent caused by the acts
> or omissions of such Commercial Distributor in connection with its
> distribution of the Program in a commercial product offering. The
> obligations in this section do not apply to any claims or Losses
> relating to any actual or alleged intellectual property
> infringement. ...
This appears to be an entirely non-free restriction. Bad.
Disclaiming all warranty for the licensor is fine; I think requiring
that a redistributor accept the burden to act legally on one's behalf
is too far for the licensor to ask.
> 8. GENERAL
> ...
> If Recipient institutes patent litigation against a Contributor with
> respect to a patent applicable to software (including a cross-claim or
> counterclaim in a lawsuit), then any patent licenses granted by that
> Contributor to such Recipient under this Agreement shall terminate as
> of the date such litigation is filed. In addition, if Recipient
> institutes patent litigation against
Re: is the "lucent public license" DFSG-free?
Short summary, two potential freeness issues:
* the contributor indemnification clause,
* the patent retaliation clause.
Le vendredi 21 septembre 2007 à 00:03 +1000, Ben Finney a écrit :
> 2. GRANT OF RIGHTS
This section is OK.
> 3. REQUIREMENTS
> B. Each Distributor must include the following in a conspicuous
> location in the Program:
>
> Copyright (C) 2003, Lucent Technologies Inc. and others. All Rights
> Reserved.
It seems reasonable enough, we have accepted much more intrusive things.
> 4. COMMERCIAL DISTRIBUTION
This section as a whole is quite annoying and badly worded. First of
all, commercial distribution is not correctly defined.
> Commercial distributors of software may accept certain
> responsibilities with respect to end users, business partners and the
> like. While this license is intended to facilitate the commercial use
> of the Program, the Distributor who includes the Program in a
> commercial product offering should do so in a manner which does not
> create potential liability for Contributors. Therefore, if a
> Distributor includes the Program in a commercial product offering,
> such Distributor ("Commercial Distributor") hereby agrees to defend
> and indemnify every Contributor ("Indemnified Contributor") against
> any losses, damages and costs (collectively "Losses") arising from
> claims, lawsuits and other legal actions brought by a third party
> against the Indemnified Contributor to the extent caused by the acts
> or omissions of such Commercial Distributor in connection with its
> distribution of the Program in a commercial product offering. The
> obligations in this section do not apply to any claims or Losses
> relating to any actual or alleged intellectual property
> infringement. In order to qualify, an Indemnified Contributor must: a)
> promptly notify the Commercial Distributor in writing of such claim,
> and b) allow the Commercial Distributor to control, and cooperate with
> the Commercial Distributor in, the defense and any related settlement
> negotiations. The Indemnified Contributor may participate in any such
> claim at its own expense.
This clause is really borderline. It could be seen as an additional
cost, but it clearly protects only against consequences of the
distributor's own actions, something for which a contributor shouldn't
be liable anyway.
> For example, a Distributor might include the Program in a commercial
> product offering, Product X. That Distributor is then a Commercial
> Distributor. If that Commercial Distributor then makes performance
> claims, or offers warranties related to Product X, those performance
> claims and warranties are such Commercial Distributor's responsibility
> alone. Under this section, the Commercial Distributor would have to
> defend claims against the Contributors related to those performance
> claims and warranties, and if a court requires any Contributor to pay
> any damages as a result, the Commercial Distributor must pay those
> damages.
... and the contributor would have to go to court to obtain
indemnification according to this clause, etc.
> 5. NO WARRANTY
> 6. DISCLAIMER OF LIABILITY
> 7. EXPORT CONTROL
Usual blablah.
> 8. GENERAL
> If Recipient institutes patent litigation against a Contributor with
> respect to a patent applicable to software (including a cross-claim or
> counterclaim in a lawsuit), then any patent licenses granted by that
> Contributor to such Recipient under this Agreement shall terminate as
> of the date such litigation is filed. In addition, if Recipient
> institutes patent litigation against any entity (including a
> cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the Program
> itself (excluding combinations of the Program with other software or
> hardware) infringes such Recipient's patent(s), then such Recipient's
> rights granted under Section 2(b) shall terminate as of the date such
> litigation is filed.
Patent retaliation clause, applicable to patents unrelated to the
software. IIRC this was already declared non-free.
> This Agreement is governed by the laws of the State of New York and
> the intellectual property laws of the United States of America.
Choice of law, OK.
> No
> party to this Agreement will bring a legal action under this Agreement
> more than one year after the cause of action arose. Each party waives
> its rights to a jury trial in any resulting litigation.
I'm not sure I understand what this clause means. What if there is no
jury for the trial?
--
.''`.
: :' : 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: is the "lucent public license" DFSG-free?
On Thu, Sep 20, 2007 at 04:52:46PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Short summary, two potential freeness issues: > * the contributor indemnification clause, > * the patent retaliation clause. Thanks Josselin and Ben for the replies so far. > This clause is really borderline. It could be seen as an additional > cost, but it clearly protects only against consequences of the > distributor's own actions, something for which a contributor shouldn't > be liable anyway. Ok, so if the latter part of your reasoning is right I don't have to worry to much about this, do I? > Patent retaliation clause, applicable to patents unrelated to the > software. IIRC this was already declared non-free. Comments from other on this? /me hoping your memory is faulty :) Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli -*- PhD in Computer Science ... now what? [EMAIL PROTECTED],debian.org,bononia.it} -%- http://www.bononia.it/zack/ (15:56:48) Zack: e la demo dema ?/\All one has to do is hit the (15:57:15) Bac: no, la demo scema\/right keys at the right time signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: is the "lucent public license" DFSG-free?
* Josselin Mouette: >> 8. GENERAL > >> If Recipient institutes patent litigation against a Contributor with >> respect to a patent applicable to software (including a cross-claim or >> counterclaim in a lawsuit), then any patent licenses granted by that >> Contributor to such Recipient under this Agreement shall terminate as >> of the date such litigation is filed. In addition, if Recipient >> institutes patent litigation against any entity (including a >> cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the Program >> itself (excluding combinations of the Program with other software or >> hardware) infringes such Recipient's patent(s), then such Recipient's >> rights granted under Section 2(b) shall terminate as of the date such >> litigation is filed. > > Patent retaliation clause, applicable to patents unrelated to the > software. IIRC this was already declared non-free. This is the standard patent clause in the IBM Common Public Licsense. It's DFSG-free. The whole license is CPL-based. I wonder if Lucent's license itself infringes upon IBM's copyright on the license. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: is the "lucent public license" DFSG-free?
Le samedi 22 septembre 2007 à 13:18 +0200, Florian Weimer a écrit : > The whole license is CPL-based. Indeed. I guess that settles the issue. -- .''`. : :' : 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: is the "lucent public license" DFSG-free?
"Josselin Mouette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] No party to this Agreement will bring a legal action under this Agreement more than one year after the cause of action arose. Each party waives its rights to a jury trial in any resulting litigation. I'm not sure I understand what this clause means. What if there is no jury for the trial? All this means is that should a trial arise, neither side will request a jury to decide the questions of Fact. If no jury is requested, the default is a bench trial, where the judge decides the questions of fact in addition to the questions of law. Jury trials have advantages and drawbacks. Specifically one needs to convince many people of your veiw, none of whom have a written record that may indicate what type of argument may best persuade them. As such some companies view juries as a bit of a wildcard. Therefore they prefer bench trials. Lastly, juries can sometimes be pursuaded to rule in a way incositant with the law given the facts. This can be entirely untintential on the part of the jury. This is generally not an issue with a bench trial. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: is the "lucent public license" DFSG-free?
On Sat, Sep 22, 2007 at 02:38:56PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: > > The whole license is CPL-based. > Indeed. I guess that settles the issue. Many thanks guys then! Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli -*- PhD in Computer Science ... now what? [EMAIL PROTECTED],debian.org,bononia.it} -%- http://www.bononia.it/zack/ (15:56:48) Zack: e la demo dema ?/\All one has to do is hit the (15:57:15) Bac: no, la demo scema\/right keys at the right time signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: is the "lucent public license" DFSG-free?
Le samedi 22 septembre 2007 à 12:06 -0400, Joe Smith a écrit : > >I'm not sure I understand what this clause means. What if there is no > >jury for the trial? > > All this means is that should a trial arise, neither side will request a > jury to decide > the questions of Fact. If no jury is requested, the default is a bench > trial, where the judge > decides the questions of fact in addition to the questions of law. Thanks for the explanation. My point is that this clause doesn't make any sense e.g. in France, where civil cases are never decided by a jury. -- .''`. : :' : 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: is the "lucent public license" DFSG-free?
Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 20, 2007 at 04:52:46PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: > > Patent retaliation clause, applicable to patents unrelated to the > > software. IIRC this was already declared non-free. > > Comments from other on this? /me hoping your memory is faulty :) It's utterly DFSG-busting, contaminating other software. However, if no patents are being granted, it's also utterly irrelevant, so need not stop software getting into debian. This is an example of why to examine *software* not just licences. Regards, -- 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: is the "lucent public license" DFSG-free?
On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 14:38:56 +0200 Josselin Mouette wrote: > Le samedi 22 septembre 2007 à 13:18 +0200, Florian Weimer a écrit : > > The whole license is CPL-based. > > Indeed. I guess that settles the issue. I have to disagree. Unfortunately I do not have the time to do a detailed license analysis, at present. But you yourself, as well as others on this list, found some issues in the license. Nonetheless, as soon as a similar license which seems to be accepted is pointed out, you seem to be ready to close your eyes and pretend the issues have vanished, magically. I cannot understand the rationale for that... IANADD, TINASOTODP. -- 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 pgpfYR47FoGVZ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: is the "lucent public license" DFSG-free?
Le vendredi 05 octobre 2007 à 01:10 +0200, Francesco Poli a écrit : > On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 14:38:56 +0200 Josselin Mouette wrote: > > > Le samedi 22 septembre 2007 à 13:18 +0200, Florian Weimer a écrit : > > > The whole license is CPL-based. > > > > Indeed. I guess that settles the issue. > > I have to disagree. I couldn't expect any different reaction from you. > Unfortunately I do not have the time to do a detailed license analysis, > at present. But you yourself, as well as others on this list, found > some issues in the license. And I explicitly used the word "borderline". > Nonetheless, as soon as a similar license which seems to be accepted > is pointed out, you seem to be ready to close your eyes and pretend > the issues have vanished, magically. I don't think the issues have vanished, and I would certainly not use such a license myself. Still, the contributor indemnification clause is very bad in spirit, but, as I already explained, I don't think it has practical consequences, so we can pragmatically accept it. The patent retaliation clause has more real-world implications, but frankly I couldn't care less of some random company being bitten for using software patents. -- .''`. : :' : 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
