Re: A clarification with dual licensing
On 11/08/14 12:14, Paul Wise wrote: On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 4:50 AM, Riley Baird wrote: since releasing it under GPL-3+ would make it non-free, I think you mean non-distributable rather than non-free? It's really a matter of semantics, but I would argue that since being able to be distributed is one of the DFSG freedoms, then all non-distributable software is non-free software -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53e85d15.50...@bitmessage.ch
Re: A clarification with dual licensing
or the and word glues these two licenses together ? Yes, you can choose the license to be MIT. Typically, you would use both, but since releasing it under GPL-3+ would make it non-free, you should use only the MIT license. And what about a situation where: - package A MIT links to SSL - package B GPL links to package A - package B does not link to SSL in confgure.ac or during complation Yet, ldd package B shows libssl ? It is a violation ? -- Dariusz Dwornikowski, Institute of Computing Science, Poznań University of Technology www.cs.put.poznan.pl/ddwornikowski/ room 2.7.2 BTiCW | tel. +48 61 665 29 41 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140811090425.ga30...@blackstar.cs.put.poznan.pl
Re: A clarification with dual licensing
Dariusz Dwornikowski writes (Re: A clarification with dual licensing): And what about a situation where: - package A MIT links to SSL - package B GPL links to package A - package B does not link to SSL in confgure.ac or during complation Yet, ldd package B shows libssl ? It is a violation ? Yes, that is a violation. Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/21480.55955.519795.252...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
A clarification with dual licensing
Hi, I was advised to contact debian legal on this matter. A libstrophe software [1] claims to have dual license, as read from LICENSE.txt [2]: --- libstrophe XMPP client library Copyright (C) 2005-2009 Collecta, Inc. This program is dual licensed under the MIT and GPLv3 licenses. Please the files MIT-LICENSE.txt and GPL-LICENSE.txt for details. --- The package also links to openssl, so from obvious reasons MIT would be better for us. The question is, in this case, can I choose a license to be MIT or the and word glues these two licenses together ? [1] https://github.com/strophe/libstrophe [2] https://github.com/strophe/libstrophe/blob/master/LICENSE.txt PS: Please CC me in your responses, I am not a subscriber of debian-legal list. -- Dariusz Dwornikowski, Institute of Computing Science, Poznań University of Technology www.cs.put.poznan.pl/ddwornikowski/ room 2.7.2 BTiCW | tel. +48 61 665 29 41 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: A clarification with dual licensing
The question is, in this case, can I choose a license to be MIT or the and word glues these two licenses together ? Yes, you can choose the license to be MIT. Typically, you would use both, but since releasing it under GPL-3+ would make it non-free, you should use only the MIT license. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53e7dafb.6000...@bitmessage.ch
Re: A clarification with dual licensing
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 06:50:03AM +1000, Riley Baird wrote: [...] but since releasing it under GPL-3+ would make it non-free, you should use only the MIT license. Are GPL-3/GPL-3+ non DFSG free? Since when? signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: A clarification with dual licensing
On 11/08/14 07:26, Francesco Ariis wrote: On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 06:50:03AM +1000, Riley Baird wrote: [...] but since releasing it under GPL-3+ would make it non-free, you should use only the MIT license. Are GPL-3/GPL-3+ non DFSG free? Since when? They are normally DFSG free, but when linked with OpenSSL without an exception, they aren't. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53e7e3f4.3090...@bitmessage.ch
Re: A clarification with dual licensing
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 4:50 AM, Riley Baird wrote: since releasing it under GPL-3+ would make it non-free, I think you mean non-distributable rather than non-free? -- bye, pabs https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/CAKTje6HphCt6NA2km22-m23=Vz4pF7_0VvR0dm4M+XiBK=h...@mail.gmail.com
dual-licensing question
I was hoping to get a clarification on the implications of dual licensing. Many developers are under the impression that with dual-licensed software you can choose which license's terms you abide by. Some contend that when redistributing a project released under, for instance, BSD and LGPL licenses, one must abide by the terms of both licenses. Noah Slater asked me to bring this up with debian-legal as this is where he first learned of this latter viewpoint. Can someone more knowledgeable than myself speak to the actual implications of dual-licensing? Are there any restrictions placed on users redistributing software that was dual-licensed, or is dual-licensing specifically to address license compatibility (like GPLv2/ASF) and market segregation issues as wikipedia suggests?
Re: dual-licensing question
Dean Landolt d...@deanlandolt.com writes: I was hoping to get a clarification on the implications of dual licensing. There's no canonical definition of the term that I'm aware of. Many developers are under the impression that with dual-licensed software you can choose which license's terms you abide by. Yes; more precisely, a multi-license grant for a work means that the recipient can choose which of multiple license terms they received the work under. Having chosen, they are then bound by those license terms. Of course, the choice is often not explicitly made until a question arises of an action that could violate the terms of one of the licenses. This is consistent with the article and references at URL:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual-licensing. Some contend that when redistributing a project released under, for instance, BSD and LGPL licenses, one must abide by the terms of both licenses. That's an unusual interpretation, and is not coherent in the frequent case where the licenses are incompatible — that is, where satisfying the combined set of license terms is impossible. In such cases, that interpretation would result in no effective license. The easiest example of this URL:http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/ is perhaps one of the earliest well-known multi-licensed free software works: the Mozilla code base is licensed under the MPL and the GPL (and later the LGPL); the MPL is mutually incompatible with the other licenses. Are there any restrictions placed on users redistributing software that was dual-licensed, or is dual-licensing specifically to address license compatibility (like GPLv2/ASF) and market segregation issues as wikipedia suggests? I don't really understand what is being asked here; can you rephrase or expand? -- \ “My girlfriend has a queen sized bed; I have a court jester | `\ sized bed. It's red and green and has bells on it, and the ends | _o__) curl up.” —Steven Wright | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
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: [OT] Re: Gmail (was: Dual licensing)
On Tue, 15 May 2007 17:41:38 -0500 Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso wrote: On 15/05/07, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] Thank you. While one of those alternatives is a pay service, paying for webmail (that uses free software like squirrelmail on top) is not something I refuse to consider. You are *already* paying for a webmail service. By using Google Gmail, you're paying with your own privacy (and what is worse, with other people's privacy too): personal data have actual value, there are companies which indeed pay money in order to obtain people's personal data... OK, let's stop here: we are already OT for debian-legal. -- 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 pgp3P2pompBnS.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [OT] Re: Gmail (was: Dual licensing)
Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 14/05/07, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 14 May 2007 14:53:11 -0500 Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso wrote: What's a good webmail to use then? The URLs I referenced suggest some alternative e-mail services, IIRC. I see no such suggestions in the links provided. Where are they? Other ideas? I really want webmail; storage size, searching abilities, and threaded conversations are all features I can give up; but webmail is much too convenient to give it up. Careful not to specify googlemail, else the choice is prejudged. Some alternative lists should be at http://mjr.towers.org.uk/blog/2006/google#alternatives Hope that helps, -- 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: 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: [OT] Re: Gmail (was: Dual licensing)
On Mon, 14 May 2007 18:56:26 -0500 Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso wrote: On 14/05/07, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 14 May 2007 14:53:11 -0500 Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso wrote: On 11/05/07, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: P.S.: I recommend you against the use of Google Gmail. What's a good webmail to use then? The URLs I referenced suggest some alternative e-mail services, IIRC. I see no such suggestions in the links provided. Where are they? http://www.epic.org/privacy/gmail/faq.html#41 P.S.: I am subscribed to debian-legal, so please do *not* Cc: me, as long as debian-legal is in the loop! -- 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 pgpt6acOH1jEE.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [OT] Re: Gmail (was: Dual licensing)
On 15/05/07, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 14 May 2007 18:56:26 -0500 Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso wrote: On 14/05/07, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 14 May 2007 14:53:11 -0500 Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso wrote: On 11/05/07, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: P.S.: I recommend you against the use of Google Gmail. What's a good webmail to use then? The URLs I referenced suggest some alternative e-mail services, IIRC. I see no such suggestions in the links provided. Where are they? http://www.epic.org/privacy/gmail/faq.html#41 Thank you. While one of those alternatives is a pay service, paying for webmail (that uses free software like squirrelmail on top) is not something I refuse to consider. - 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: 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]
[OT] Re: Gmail (was: Dual licensing)
On 11/05/07, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: P.S.: I recommend you against the use of Google Gmail. What's a good webmail to use then? - Jordi G. H. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT] Re: Gmail (was: Dual licensing)
On Mon, 14 May 2007 14:53:11 -0500 Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso wrote: On 11/05/07, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: P.S.: I recommend you against the use of Google Gmail. What's a good webmail to use then? The URLs I referenced suggest some alternative e-mail services, IIRC. -- 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 pgpdMrZf07tRp.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [OT] Re: Gmail (was: Dual licensing)
On 14/05/07, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 14 May 2007 14:53:11 -0500 Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso wrote: On 11/05/07, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: P.S.: I recommend you against the use of Google Gmail. What's a good webmail to use then? The URLs I referenced suggest some alternative e-mail services, IIRC. I see no such suggestions in the links provided. Where are they? Other ideas? I really want webmail; storage size, searching abilities, and threaded conversations are all features I can give up; but webmail is much too convenient to give it up. - Jordi G. H. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dual licensing
Hi, If anyone should dual-license a code, lets say like [BSD+announcement clause] and [GPL], what should they better put in the header of the files? Are there examples of something like this in the archive? Thanks a lot, Miry PS: I'm not subscribed to the list, please CC me :)
Re: Dual licensing
On Fri, 11 May 2007 15:58:57 +0200 Miriam Ruiz wrote: Hi, Hi! :) If anyone should dual-license a code, lets say like [BSD+announcement clause] What do you mean by announcement clause?] Do you mean the Obnoxious Advertising Clause (OAC, hereinafter)? See[1] for more information about the OAC. [1] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html and [GPL], what should they better put in the header of the files? Are there examples of something like this in the archive? I did't searched hard in the list archive, but I think we can draft an appropriate permission notice, starting from the Perl one... Copyright (c) [] [author list] This work is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of either: a) the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2, or (at your option) any later version, or b) the 4-clause BSD license which is quoted below. This work is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License, or the 4-clause BSD license below for more details. You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License along with this work; if not, write to the Free Software Foundation, Inc., 51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301, USA The text of the 4-clause BSD license follows: Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. * All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display the following acknowledgement: This product includes software developed by the University of California, Berkeley and its contributors. * Neither the name of the copyright holders nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission. THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS AS IS AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. Of course, the usual disclaimers: IANAL, IANADD. Corrections and/or improvements from other debian-legal contributors are welcome! Thanks a lot, Miry You're welcome! PS: I'm not subscribed to the list, please CC me :) Done. P.S.: I recommend you against the use of Google Gmail. It's harmful for your own and your correspondents' privacy. See the following links for more details: http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/001398.php http://www.epic.org/privacy/gmail/faq.html http://www.gmail-is-too-creepy.com/ -- 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 pgpoImpVdJtJC.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Dual licensing
2007/5/11, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hi! :) Thanks for your reply :) What do you mean by announcement clause?] Do you mean the Obnoxious Advertising Clause (OAC, hereinafter)? See[1] for more information about the OAC. [1] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html Yep, I mean that one. Not my choice, but upstream's I did't searched hard in the list archive, but I think we can draft an appropriate permission notice, starting from the Perl one... Copyright (c) [] [author list] This work is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of either: a) the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2, or (at your option) any later version, or b) the 4-clause BSD license which is quoted below. This work is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License, or the 4-clause BSD license below for more details. You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License along with this work; if not, write to the Free Software Foundation, Inc., 51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301, USA The text of the 4-clause BSD license follows: Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. * All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display the following acknowledgement: This product includes software developed by the University of California, Berkeley and its contributors. * Neither the name of the copyright holders nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission. THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS AS IS AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. Of course, the usual disclaimers: IANAL, IANADD. Corrections and/or improvements from other debian-legal contributors are welcome! Thanks, I'll suggest it to upstream, it seems good to me :) P.S.: I recommend you against the use of Google Gmail. It's harmful for your own and your correspondents' privacy. See the following links for more details: http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/001398.php http://www.epic.org/privacy/gmail/faq.html http://www.gmail-is-too-creepy.com/ Thanks for the advice, at some point in the future I'll probably switch out to it, but right now It's much better for me to be using a webmail, and yahoo, the other one in which I have an account, works like hell lately. Greetings and thanks, Miry PS: I'm not subscribed to the list, so please CC me in your answers
help with crafting proper license header for a dual-licensing project
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 Thank you. Shriramana Sharma. /* Copyright (C) 2007, Company X, Country Y. All rights reserved. This file is part of Product A Open Source Edition. 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. 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. This file is provided AS IS with NO WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, INCLUDING THE WARRANTY OF DESIGN, MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 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. 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. The Professional Edition is content-identical to the Open Source Edition but it is licensed under a commercial license, 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. For details on this dual-licensing policy and the full terms of the commercial license, please visit: http://www.companyxwebsite.com/licensing/ 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. 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. */
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
Re: backporting and dual-licensing
Shriramana Sharma wrote: Say a person X writes a library libfoo. He licenses the library out under both the GPL and a commercial licence. I think you mean and a proprietary license. A person Y uses libfoo under the GPL. He goes and does a lot of improvements in the library since it is under the GPL. Now the modified version of libfoo is copyrighted by both X and Y. Assuming Y's improvements involved sufficient creativity to make them copyrightable, yes. In the absence of strong evidence to the contrary, you should assume they do. So X would not be able to import such improvements into the main distribution of libfoo since then he would not be able to dual-licence it - specifically he would not be able to licence it commercially, not owning it entirely. He must either take Y into his business or obtain a waiver from Y by one-time payment or whatever. Again, you mean proprietary, not commercial. X already has Y's permission to sell the software commercially, as long as X does so under the GPL. X just may not apply a proprietary license to the software without permission from Y. My question is: What would be considered a big enough difference/modification that X would need Y's permission for backporting the changes? Anything sufficiently creative for copyright to exist in it. You assume above that Y does hold copyright in the modified version, and if that holds true, X would need Y's permission. For the specific cases you gave, I agree with Andrew Donnellan's assessments. - Josh Triplett signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
backporting and dual-licensing
Say a person X writes a library libfoo. He licenses the library out under both the GPL and a commercial licence. A person Y uses libfoo under the GPL. He goes and does a lot of improvements in the library since it is under the GPL. Now the modified version of libfoo is copyrighted by both X and Y. So X would not be able to import such improvements into the main distribution of libfoo since then he would not be able to dual-licence it - specifically he would not be able to licence it commercially, not owning it entirely. He must either take Y into his business or obtain a waiver from Y by one-time payment or whatever. My question is: What would be considered a big enough difference/modification that X would need Y's permission for backporting the changes? 1. If Y fixes a bug (of whatever severity) with a patch? 2. If Y makes improvements to the library by optimizing some algorithms? 3. If Y adds new functionality to the library? 4. If Y just restructures the library in a more efficient manner. Shriramana Sharma. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: backporting and dual-licensing
On 4/21/07, Shriramana Sharma [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My question is: What would be considered a big enough difference/modification that X would need Y's permission for backporting the changes? Anything that is big enough to legally create a derivative. 1. If Y fixes a bug (of whatever severity) with a patch? Depends on the patch. If it's only a typo then maybe not, if it's bigger then maybe. 2. If Y makes improvements to the library by optimizing some algorithms? Depends on the optimisations, but usually, yes. 3. If Y adds new functionality to the library? Almost definitely. 4. If Y just restructures the library in a more efficient manner. I'd say yes. -- 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]
Question about GPL and non-free dual licensing
Shriramana Sharma [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Say someone creates a library libfoo in the C language. The library is dual-licenced -- under the GPL and under a commercial licence. Please note that the GPL *is* a commercial license. Nothing in it prevents anyone engaging in commerce -- selling the software or anything related to it -- and many organisations and individuals have been doing exactly that for many years. Free software *is* commercial software; any software with a license that restricted its sale is non-free by definition. Mistakenly using commercial as though it were the opposite of free spreads the fallacy. URL:http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/selling.html The distinction you may be looking for is under the GPL and under a non-free license. URL:http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/words-to-avoid.html#Commercial -- \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: Dual licensing [Was: Re: cdrtools]
On Saturday 08 July 2006 08:41, Don Armstrong wrote:
We've stepped into -legal territory now. MFT set to send messages only
to -legal; please respond there only.
Sure.
On Sat, 08 Jul 2006, George Danchev wrote:
Well, I have the following 'and' vs. 'or' type of licensing
question. While it is clear now that Debian can not distribute a
product when some of its parts are under GPL and the rest are under
CDDL ('and'), is it fine to double-license {GPL|CDDL} the whole
product like Perl does with GPL | Artistic, so either the whole
thing is under GPL or the whole thing under CDDL as accepted by the
licensee. In short, could you double license under two incompatible
licenses ?
As far as I understand it (TINLA, IANAL, YHBW, etc.) so long as there
is a subset of licenses available which you can use to actually
distribute the work, you ignore the licenses which you don't
distribute under. It is a good practice to list the other licenses in
the copyright file as a service to our users, but strictly speaking
they are superfluous. [In the cases where they are not, you're not
actually dual licensing the work.]
That's fine and that is what I have in my /usr/share/doc/libqt3-mt/copyright
Qt 3.3 is dual licensed under the QPL and the GPL... So I see no worries to
distribute CDDL and GPL dual licensed works the same way, unless somebody
proves me wrong.
Of course, you have to actually own the copyright on the parts that
you are (re)licensing but that's probably obvious. ;-)
Yes, it is pretty obvious.
--
pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu
fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Dual licensing [Was: Re: cdrtools]
George Danchev a écrit :
On Saturday 08 July 2006 08:41, Don Armstrong wrote:
We've stepped into -legal territory now. MFT set to send messages only
to -legal; please respond there only.
Sure.
On Sat, 08 Jul 2006, George Danchev wrote:
Well, I have the following 'and' vs. 'or' type of licensing
question. While it is clear now that Debian can not distribute a
product when some of its parts are under GPL and the rest are under
CDDL ('and'), is it fine to double-license {GPL|CDDL} the whole
product like Perl does with GPL | Artistic, so either the whole
thing is under GPL or the whole thing under CDDL as accepted by the
licensee. In short, could you double license under two incompatible
licenses ?
As far as I understand it (TINLA, IANAL, YHBW, etc.) so long as there
is a subset of licenses available which you can use to actually
distribute the work, you ignore the licenses which you don't
distribute under. It is a good practice to list the other licenses in
the copyright file as a service to our users, but strictly speaking
they are superfluous. [In the cases where they are not, you're not
actually dual licensing the work.]
That's fine and that is what I have in my /usr/share/doc/libqt3-mt/copyright
Qt 3.3 is dual licensed under the QPL and the GPL... So I see no worries to
distribute CDDL and GPL dual licensed works the same way, unless somebody
proves me wrong.
Dual licensing is the best way to increase the liberty of the license.
Users can choice to use the best license for them, and if all
contributions are under the same dual license, the whole source code
will be compatible with both license. Double licensing under two
incompatible license is the only interesting practice, because they
become compatible. If you choose to dual license two compatible license
(LGPL/GPL; BSD/GPL), it is useless because the compatibility already
exist. Sorry for my bad English.
Of course, you have to actually own the copyright on the parts that
you are (re)licensing but that's probably obvious. ;-)
Yes, it is pretty obvious.
...
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Dual licensing [Was: Re: cdrtools]
Dual licensing is certainly workable for incompatible licenses, example MYSQL using GPL and Commercial licenses
Dual licensing [Was: Re: cdrtools]
We've stepped into -legal territory now. MFT set to send messages only
to -legal; please respond there only.
On Sat, 08 Jul 2006, George Danchev wrote:
Well, I have the following 'and' vs. 'or' type of licensing
question. While it is clear now that Debian can not distribute a
product when some of its parts are under GPL and the rest are under
CDDL ('and'), is it fine to double-license {GPL|CDDL} the whole
product like Perl does with GPL | Artistic, so either the whole
thing is under GPL or the whole thing under CDDL as accepted by the
licensee. In short, could you double license under two incompatible
licenses ?
As far as I understand it (TINLA, IANAL, YHBW, etc.) so long as there
is a subset of licenses available which you can use to actually
distribute the work, you ignore the licenses which you don't
distribute under. It is a good practice to list the other licenses in
the copyright file as a service to our users, but strictly speaking
they are superfluous. [In the cases where they are not, you're not
actually dual licensing the work.]
Of course, you have to actually own the copyright on the parts that
you are (re)licensing but that's probably obvious. ;-)
Don Armstrong
--
THERE IS NO GRAVITY THE WORLD SUCKS
-- Vietnam War Penquin Lighter
http://gallery.donarmstrong.com/clippings/vietnam_there_is_no_gravity.jpg
http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Would you consider dual-licensing the sed docs?
Hello again Paulo -- and hi Ken. For the sed docs to be considered free enough for Debian main, it would be best if they were dual-licensed under the GPL as well as the GFDL (since the GFDL is problematic). This can be done in one of two ways: (1) getting the FSF to agree to it (Getting the FSF to agree to any such changes has proven difficult for what I can only describe as political reasons.) OR (2) getting all the copyright-worthy contributors to agree to it I checked with the FSF a while back, and under the copyright assignments we fill out for the FSF, we retain the right to dual-license our contributions under the GPL. It appears that the only contributors of significant amounts to the manual are you two (Paolo Bonzini and Ken Pizzini). So, if you two are both willing to dual-license the manual under the GPL, please say so! It would be ideal if dual-licensing statements went in the upstream package, but we could also just put your statements in the debian package. GFDL-only docs are being removed from Debian main for the next release, until we can work out the little bugs in the license with the FSF (which is taking much longer than it should), and it would be nice if we could keep the sed docs in Debian main. Sincerely, Nathanael Nerode -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: dual licensing (was: Re: [no subject])
On Sun, Nov 06, 2005 at 01:28:36AM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote: I mean the *developer* must comply with both licenses, eg if you d/l under the GPL and MIT, then the developer must still put the written offer for source code and meet all the distribution requirements of the GPL, but anyone else can choose between the GPL and the MIT license. In opened software, We are all developers. I think he meant to say the copyright holder. In free software, we are not all the copyright holder. -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: dual licensing (was: Re: [no subject])
Yes. I meant the copyright holder. Andrew On 11/6/05, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Nov 06, 2005 at 01:28:36AM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote: I mean the *developer* must comply with both licenses, eg if you d/l under the GPL and MIT, then the developer must still put the written offer for source code and meet all the distribution requirements of the GPL, but anyone else can choose between the GPL and the MIT license. In opened software, We are all developers. I think he meant to say the copyright holder. In free software, we are not all the copyright holder. -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- This space for rent. Enquire within. Terms and conditions apply. See store for details. Get free domains - http://www.ezyrewards.com/?id=23484
Re: dual licensing
On Sat, 5 Nov 2005 00:40:31 -0500 Justin Pryzby wrote: On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 11:30:03PM -0600, Christofer C. Bell wrote: [...] Are you saying it's possible for a developer to release GPL covered software in binary form without releasing the source code as long as he's the copyright holder? That sounds awfully bizarre... That's my understanding. So is mine. The copyright holder can do whatever they want. As long as (s)he is the sole copyright holder (or, more generally, as long as all the copyright holders agree), yes. Yes, doing such a thing is bizarre, I would say inconsistent. and I can't think of a reason why anyone would do it. To fool people into thinking (s)he is releasing free software or open source software, while (s)he's not actually doing that. In other words, misleading PR: (s)he states it's open sourced under the GPL! and some people can be tricked into believing her/his claims... Fortunately other people may be paying more attention and uncloak her/him... (be vigilant!). -- :-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-) .. Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgp4ap2CMChVs.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: dual licensing
Scripsit Justin Pryzby [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 11:30:03PM -0600, Christofer C. Bell wrote: Are you saying it's possible for a developer to release GPL covered software in binary form without releasing the source code as long as he's the copyright holder? That sounds awfully bizarre... That's my understanding. The copyright holder can do whatever they want. Yes, doing such a thing is bizarre, and I can't think of a reason why anyone would do it. There are several actual instances where hardware manufacturers have distributed firmware modules in raw binary formats, keeping the source code a trade secret while still purporting to license the raw binary under the terms of the GPL. -- Henning Makholm We will discuss your youth another time. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: dual licensing (was: Re: [no subject])
On Sat, Nov 05, 2005 at 06:47:03AM +1100, Andrew Donnellan wrote: On 11/5/05, Justin Pryzby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 06:28:02PM +1100, Andrew Donnellan wrote: On 11/4/05, Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Emmanuel Colbus wrote: My main concern about this was that such relicensed copies could have been considered not free, but undistributable, as the GPL is supposed to apply to software, not to documents. Any collection of bits is software. The GPL works very well for any collection of bits. Some people think that it, particularly the requirement for provision of source code and the nature of permission to distribute in forms other than source code, may have problems when applied to dead-tree printed material. This is easily dealt with by dual-licensing under the GPL and a printing-friendly license of your choice. Well actually no it doesn't solve the problem as you have to comply with both licenses when dual-licensing. Thats not what the phrase dual-licensing is typically used to mean. For example, a thing released under dual GPL/MIT license means that that thing is released under the GPL and under the MIT license. So if you want, you can use it under the terms of the MIT license. And, if you prefer, you can use it under the terms of the GPL license. I mean the *developer* must comply with both licenses, eg if you d/l under the GPL and MIT, then the developer must still put the written offer for source code and meet all the distribution requirements of the GPL, but anyone else can choose between the GPL and the MIT license. In opened software, We are all developers. In something like the proposed mozilla trilicensing scheme, the requirements are extremely loose; something to the effect of: You can do whatever you want, in any one of 3 different ways d/l == download? -- Clear skies, Justin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
dual licensing (was: Re: [no subject])
On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 06:28:02PM +1100, Andrew Donnellan wrote: On 11/4/05, Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Emmanuel Colbus wrote: My main concern about this was that such relicensed copies could have been considered not free, but undistributable, as the GPL is supposed to apply to software, not to documents. Any collection of bits is software. The GPL works very well for any collection of bits. Some people think that it, particularly the requirement for provision of source code and the nature of permission to distribute in forms other than source code, may have problems when applied to dead-tree printed material. This is easily dealt with by dual-licensing under the GPL and a printing-friendly license of your choice. Well actually no it doesn't solve the problem as you have to comply with both licenses when dual-licensing. Thats not what the phrase dual-licensing is typically used to mean. For example, a thing released under dual GPL/MIT license means that that thing is released under the GPL and under the MIT license. So if you want, you can use it under the terms of the MIT license. And, if you prefer, you can use it under the terms of the GPL license. You get to choose. Its like the gpl version 2 or later clause: at your option. -- Clear skies, Justin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: dual licensing (was: Re: [no subject])
On 11/5/05, Justin Pryzby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 06:28:02PM +1100, Andrew Donnellan wrote: On 11/4/05, Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Emmanuel Colbus wrote: My main concern about this was that such relicensed copies could have been considered not free, but undistributable, as the GPL is supposed to apply to software, not to documents. Any collection of bits is software. The GPL works very well for any collection of bits. Some people think that it, particularly the requirement for provision of source code and the nature of permission to distribute in forms other than source code, may have problems when applied to dead-tree printed material. This is easily dealt with by dual-licensing under the GPL and a printing-friendly license of your choice. Well actually no it doesn't solve the problem as you have to comply with both licenses when dual-licensing. Thats not what the phrase dual-licensing is typically used to mean. For example, a thing released under dual GPL/MIT license means that that thing is released under the GPL and under the MIT license. So if you want, you can use it under the terms of the MIT license. And, if you prefer, you can use it under the terms of the GPL license. I mean the *developer* must comply with both licenses, eg if you d/l under the GPL and MIT, then the developer must still put the written offer for source code and meet all the distribution requirements of the GPL, but anyone else can choose between the GPL and the MIT license. Andrew -- This space for rent. Enquire within. Terms and conditions apply. See store for details. Get free domains - http://www.ezyrewards.com/?id=23484
Re: dual licensing (was: Re: [no subject])
On Sat, Nov 05, 2005 at 06:47:03AM +1100, Andrew Donnellan wrote: So if you want, you can use it under the terms of the MIT license. And, if you prefer, you can use it under the terms of the GPL license. I mean the *developer* must comply with both licenses, eg if you d/l under the GPL and MIT, then the developer must still put the written offer for source code and meet all the distribution requirements of the GPL, but anyone else can choose between the GPL and the MIT license. This is true for any developer who releases under both licenses, but any developer may release under just one license and then only comply with that one. In the effort for expanding understanding, here's why that is, by looking at the way the GPL works... The GPL has it's legal enforceability from copyright law. GPL'ed software is copyrighted, which restricts all but the most fringe fair uses to the software. No user has the right to use or redistribute the software in most ways under this state of non-license. The GPL, being a license, also serves as a sort of unsigned contract between the two parties. The author, by releasing per software under the GPL, offers in writting to provide certain things to 3rd parties, including source code, which is what prevents deceptive authors from releasing under the GPL but not complying with it themselves. Then the copyright holder provides a license which permits non-exclusive, royalty-free access to the software under certain conditions. We're all probobally very familiar with what the GPL provides, so I'll leave it there. Now, with dual licensing, the copyright holder offers two different licenses. The purpose of any license is to permit activity which the copyright, by itself, will not. It cannot legally restrict beyond what copyright already does. Nothing in the MIT license, using this as an example (there's a number of proprietary licenses used too, see MySQL or ReiserFS for good examples), says you must also comply with the GPL license. Nothing in the GPL license says that you must also comply with the MIT license. Therefore, you have a choice, since both of these licenses independently grant you access to the code. If you, as a developer, user, reseller, etc choose to only use one license, that is your right, as granted by the original copyright holder. When you slap your copyright on your contributions, assuming you're adding or changing it, you may choose to only license your changes under the GPL, or under the MIT, as both permit changes to be added and redistributed. Now, most dual licensed software requires that, in order for your changes to make it back into the main distro, you must license under both licenses. Some also require that you give the copyright of your changes to the original author. See reiserfsprogs/README for an example of this, where you're allowed not only to keep your copyright but, if you dual license for commercial/proprietary sale (ie, company wants to use reiserfs in non-free software) he may cut you a check for non-trivial contributions. None of this is required. You can, in the above example of GPL+MIT, release a fork of the code under the GPL exclusivly (or MIT exclusivly) if the author won't accept your contribution unless it's also dual licensed. That is, if you write a really great new optimized search routine for MySQL but you don't want your additions to be anything but GPL, MySQL won't accept it, but that doesn't mean you can't offer a fork or patchset for others to use. Now, having a single software package where two or more different licenses cover different parts of the code is a different issue, one that was hinted to earlier on the thread. In this case, those licenses apply only to the parts of the package which they cover, and this may or may not be in violation of the GPL depending on how those pieces fit together. If they're ment to be compiled into a single binary, or linked against each other, and the licenses aren't compatable, the maintainer for that package needs to be schooled. It's perfectly fine, however, for a library to be released under a BSD license with an example mini-app which uses the library licensed under the GPL and documentation licensed under the FDL (or CC Attrib-AsIs or any other combo). A GPL'ed application can link against BSD-licensed library and the docs, which are entirely seperate, can be licensed however the author chooses. A similar situation can arise from patent licenses, which are similar but of an animal all their own. If the patent license (a license which grants access to some patented method or procedure) is GPL-incompatable the author must be very careful that whatever software implements it not be linked directly against either the GPL or LGPL, as section 7 of the GPL and section 11 of the LGPL would render such software illegal for 3rd parties to distribute, as enforced by the copyright holder
Re: dual licensing (was: Re: [no subject])
Just to make myself clear: if you can't determine sourcecode you still can't release under the GPL, even if you dual-license. Andrew On 11/5/05, Arc Riley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Nov 05, 2005 at 06:47:03AM +1100, Andrew Donnellan wrote: So if you want, you can use it under the terms of the MIT license. And, if you prefer, you can use it under the terms of the GPL license. I mean the *developer* must comply with both licenses, eg if you d/l under the GPL and MIT, then the developer must still put the written offer for source code and meet all the distribution requirements of the GPL, but anyone else can choose between the GPL and the MIT license. This is true for any developer who releases under both licenses, but any developer may release under just one license and then only comply with that one. In the effort for expanding understanding, here's why that is, by looking at the way the GPL works... The GPL has it's legal enforceability from copyright law. GPL'ed software is copyrighted, which restricts all but the most fringe fair uses to the software. No user has the right to use or redistribute the software in most ways under this state of non-license. The GPL, being a license, also serves as a sort of unsigned contract between the two parties. The author, by releasing per software under the GPL, offers in writting to provide certain things to 3rd parties, including source code, which is what prevents deceptive authors from releasing under the GPL but not complying with it themselves. Then the copyright holder provides a license which permits non-exclusive, royalty-free access to the software under certain conditions. We're all probobally very familiar with what the GPL provides, so I'll leave it there. Now, with dual licensing, the copyright holder offers two different licenses. The purpose of any license is to permit activity which the copyright, by itself, will not. It cannot legally restrict beyond what copyright already does. Nothing in the MIT license, using this as an example (there's a number of proprietary licenses used too, see MySQL or ReiserFS for good examples), says you must also comply with the GPL license. Nothing in the GPL license says that you must also comply with the MIT license. Therefore, you have a choice, since both of these licenses independently grant you access to the code. If you, as a developer, user, reseller, etc choose to only use one license, that is your right, as granted by the original copyright holder. When you slap your copyright on your contributions, assuming you're adding or changing it, you may choose to only license your changes under the GPL, or under the MIT, as both permit changes to be added and redistributed. Now, most dual licensed software requires that, in order for your changes to make it back into the main distro, you must license under both licenses. Some also require that you give the copyright of your changes to the original author. See reiserfsprogs/README for an example of this, where you're allowed not only to keep your copyright but, if you dual license for commercial/proprietary sale (ie, company wants to use reiserfs in non-free software) he may cut you a check for non-trivial contributions. None of this is required. You can, in the above example of GPL+MIT, release a fork of the code under the GPL exclusivly (or MIT exclusivly) if the author won't accept your contribution unless it's also dual licensed. That is, if you write a really great new optimized search routine for MySQL but you don't want your additions to be anything but GPL, MySQL won't accept it, but that doesn't mean you can't offer a fork or patchset for others to use. Now, having a single software package where two or more different licenses cover different parts of the code is a different issue, one that was hinted to earlier on the thread. In this case, those licenses apply only to the parts of the package which they cover, and this may or may not be in violation of the GPL depending on how those pieces fit together. If they're ment to be compiled into a single binary, or linked against each other, and the licenses aren't compatable, the maintainer for that package needs to be schooled. It's perfectly fine, however, for a library to be released under a BSD license with an example mini-app which uses the library licensed under the GPL and documentation licensed under the FDL (or CC Attrib-AsIs or any other combo). A GPL'ed application can link against BSD-licensed library and the docs, which are entirely seperate, can be licensed however the author chooses. A similar situation can arise from patent licenses, which are similar but of an animal all their own. If the patent license (a license which grants access to some patented method or procedure) is GPL-incompatable the author must be very careful that whatever software
Re: dual licensing (was: Re: [no subject])
Please don't top-post. On Sat, Nov 05, 2005 at 07:42:10AM +1100, Andrew Donnellan wrote: Just to make myself clear: if you can't determine sourcecode you still can't release under the GPL, even if you dual-license. I don't know what you mean by determine sourcecode, but I can take my program, release it under the GPL and not release source if I want. (Nobody else could redistribute it, so it'd be a silly thing to do, but I could do it.) -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: dual licensing (was: Re: [no subject])
On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 04:08:01PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote: I don't know what you mean by determine sourcecode, but I can take my program, release it under the GPL and not release source if I want. (Nobody else could redistribute it, so it'd be a silly thing to do, but I could do it.) I disagree. By licensing software under the GPL, the author has made a written offer to provide the source code, and if they later refuse to provide the source code, it's quite conceivable that a lawyer could force them to in court. After all, a license is a form of a contract, and the GPL grants rights to the source code, so it's pretty clear to even a layman. If you want a more definite answer, email Eben Moglen [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Diversity is the Fuel of Evolution, Conformity its Starvation. Be Radical. Be New. Be Different. Feed Evolution with Everything You Are. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: dual licensing
Scripsit Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED] I mean the *developer* must comply with both licenses, eg if you d/l under the GPL and MIT, then the developer must still put the written offer for source code By developer, do you mean copyright holder? He can legally do whatever he pleases. In particular, he can offer the general public a licence under terms that he does not himself comply with. -- Henning MakholmJeg køber intet af Sulla, og selv om uordenen griber planmæssigt om sig, så er vi endnu ikke nået dertil hvor ordentlige mennesker kan tillade sig at stjæle slaver fra hinanden. Så er det ligegyldigt, hvor stærke, politiske modstandere vi er.
Re: dual licensing (was: Re: [no subject])
The GPL is not a contract, but one clause states that there must be source code provided, so while a copyright holder can violate the GPL by releasing under a different license, but the copyright holder can't release under the GPL and at the same time violate the GPL. Andrew On 11/5/05, Arc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 04:08:01PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote: I don't know what you mean by determine sourcecode, but I can take my program, release it under the GPL and not release source if I want. (Nobody else could redistribute it, so it'd be a silly thing to do, but I could do it.) I disagree. By licensing software under the GPL, the author has made a written offer to provide the source code, and if they later refuse to provide the source code, it's quite conceivable that a lawyer could force them to in court. After all, a license is a form of a contract, and the GPL grants rights to the source code, so it's pretty clear to even a layman. If you want a more definite answer, email Eben Moglen [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Diversity is the Fuel of Evolution, Conformity its Starvation. Be Radical. Be New. Be Different. Feed Evolution with Everything You Are. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- This space for rent. Enquire within. Terms and conditions apply. See store for details. Get free domains - http://www.ezyrewards.com/?id=23484
Re: dual licensing (was: Re: [no subject])
On Sat, Nov 05, 2005 at 08:50:13AM +1100, Andrew Donnellan wrote: The GPL is not a contract, but one clause states that there must be source code provided, so while a copyright holder can violate the GPL by releasing under a different license, but the copyright holder can't release under the GPL and at the same time violate the GPL. The idea is that the copyright holder doesn't need a license to do anything, so they can do whatever they want, including doing something which doesn't allow other people to do anything because of some inconsistency. Justin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: dual licensing
On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 10:20:14PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: Scripsit Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED] I mean the *developer* must comply with both licenses, eg if you d/l under the GPL and MIT, then the developer must still put the written offer for source code By developer, do you mean copyright holder? He can legally do whatever he pleases. In particular, he can offer the general public a licence under terms that he does not himself comply with. This is my favorite! Oh, wait, no, its better: http://justinpryzby.com/sla/ The fortran version is GPL, but the C source version is proprietary, but the obscured C source (*cough*) is GPL (actually, the GPL header may have been pasted there by a 3rd party to placate me). If I weren't on so many mailing lists I might be able to concentrate and figure out C/Fortran calling conventions to fix this.. -- Clear skies, Justin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: dual licensing (was: Re: [no subject])
There's no policy requiring real names on Debian lists, but it should be noted that you'll be taken less seriously by many people if you don't. (My impression is he doesn't trust what he says enough to even attach his name to it?.) Just FYI. On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 01:38:21PM -0800, Arc wrote: By licensing software under the GPL, the author has made a written offer to provide the source code, and if they later refuse to provide the source code, it's quite conceivable that a lawyer could force them to in court. No, he hasn't. He has said you have permission to do A and B provided you do C; nothing in the GPL says I, the author, will do the same, or even I promise to make it possible for you to do C. For example, the copyright holder of a GPL-licensed work can distribute binaries statically linked against GPL-incompatible libraries, such as BSD-with-OAC, but nobody else can. What you claim might be more plausible if the licensee paid money for his license. It's reasonable that if I agree to let you use my pool for $50, and then put a lock on my fence (you can use it, but you can't get in! Sucker!), you could enforce that contract against me--but you've given me nothing for your license under the GPL. After all, a license is a form of a contract, and the GPL grants rights to the source code, so it's pretty clear to even a layman. Whether the GPL is a contract is a widely debated topic (and I promise that if you open that discussion, it'll subvert the thread entirely), but the GPL makes no promises from the licensor to the licensee--except, perhaps, I won't sue you if you follow these rules. If you want a more definite answer, email Eben Moglen [EMAIL PROTECTED] You're free to invite whoever you wish to the discussion, but please don't ask me to do it for you. (As one of your premeses is that the GPL is a contract, and Eben Moglen's public position, last I heard[1], was that the GPL is not a contract, I doubt he'd agree with your conclusion.) [1] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/enforcing-gpl.html Licenses are not contracts. -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: dual licensing (was: Re: [no subject])
On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 06:21:10PM -0800, Arc Riley wrote: What makes you think Arc isn't my real name? It's a gaelic name that died out after the romans invaded and most of the male gaelic names were replaced by happy christian names. There's a certain amount of cultural sensitivity here, noting the difference between handles and names is important. It's not generally important to be able to tell the difference between an alias and an obscure name. (And, frankly, I don't mind if someone finds it insensitive that I don't recognize names like that, because I find that expectation unreasonable. :) In any case, posting first-name-only is little different than using an alias. (Though, it's better than using an absurd alias--I've seen someone posting to a technical list as Elvis Presley. Right ...) Read the preamble: When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things. Sorry, I don't understand the relevance. The preamble explains the FSF's goals in the GPL; it doesn't make promises on behalf of the licensor. If you did manage to convince people that the GPL could be used as a stick against the copyright holders themselves, I'd suspect many people--at least, those paying attention--would quickly run away from it. You'd have uphill convincing to do, though, since common understanding is the opposite of your claim. It'd be interesting to see what Eben Moglen would say on the subject. Feel free to ask him. I'd need to be convinced further before I'd consider taking up his time with this, though. (By the way, I seem to recall that Eben is no longer general counsel for the FSF, and it may be more appropriate to ask the FSF directly.) -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: dual licensing (was: Re: [no subject])
On 11/5/05, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry, I don't understand the relevance. The preamble explains the FSF's goals in the GPL; it doesn't make promises on behalf of the licensor. If you did manage to convince people that the GPL could be used as a stick against the copyright holders themselves, I'd suspect many people--at least, those paying attention--would quickly run away from it. You'd have uphill convincing to do, though, since common understanding is the opposite of your claim. It'd be interesting to see what Eben Moglen would say on the subject. Feel free to ask him. I'd need to be convinced further before I'd consider taking up his time with this, though. (By the way, I seem to recall that Eben is no longer general counsel for the FSF, and it may be more appropriate to ask the FSF directly.) Eben is still legal counsel of the FSF. I'm going to contact the FSF and ask them about this. andrew
Re: dual licensing
On 11/4/05, Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Scripsit Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED] I mean the *developer* must comply with both licenses, eg if you d/l under the GPL and MIT, then the developer must still put the written offer for source code By developer, do you mean copyright holder? He can legally do whatever he pleases. In particular, he can offer the general public a licence under terms that he does not himself comply with. Are you saying it's possible for a developer to release GPL covered software in binary form without releasing the source code as long as he's the copyright holder? That sounds awfully bizarre... -- Chris `The enemy we fight has no respect for human life or human rights. They don't deserve our sympathy,' he said. `But this isn't about who they are. This is about who we are. These are the values that distinguish us from our enemies.' - Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona
Re: dual licensing
On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 11:30:03PM -0600, Christofer C. Bell wrote: On 11/4/05, Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Scripsit Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED] I mean the *developer* must comply with both licenses, eg if you d/l under the GPL and MIT, then the developer must still put the written offer for source code By developer, do you mean copyright holder? He can legally do whatever he pleases. In particular, he can offer the general public a licence under terms that he does not himself comply with. Are you saying it's possible for a developer to release GPL covered software in binary form without releasing the source code as long as he's the copyright holder? That sounds awfully bizarre... That's my understanding. The copyright holder can do whatever they want. Yes, doing such a thing is bizarre, and I can't think of a reason why anyone would do it. It doesn't actually grant anyone else any modify+distribute rights, and is arguably suficiently inconsistent to not grant anyone any rights. But it could be done and I don't see that its illegal. If it is, just use a my interpretation of the GPL is that this is not illegal clause. :) Justin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: dual licensing
Here's a response from an FSF volunteer: -- begin -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Fri Nov 04 22:35:22 2005]: Are copyright holders who license software under the GPL compelled to release source code? e.g. Person A writes a program. Person A says it is under the GPL. Person A gives a copy of the software to Person B, but does not make the program available by other means (eg internet, mail order) Person B wants source code Is person A required to give person B the source code to a GPL program he holds full copyright on? Dear Andrew, In this specific case, while B should be able to receive the source code under the terms of the agreement that A shared the software with them, there is no one to force A to actually share the source code. (Unless, perhaps, legal action were taken regarding the misleading nature of the offer that A was making.) If the code includes any other GPL'd code from a different copyright holder, then they are required to release all the source - either with the software or via a written offer valid for all third parties. Cheers! -- Zak Greant --end-- So person A can withhold the source as long as the program doesn't contain other GPL code. However person B could begin legal action over a misleading deal. Andrew On 11/5/05, Justin Pryzby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 11:30:03PM -0600, Christofer C. Bell wrote: On 11/4/05, Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Scripsit Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED] I mean the *developer* must comply with both licenses, eg if you d/l under the GPL and MIT, then the developer must still put the written offer for source code By developer, do you mean copyright holder? He can legally do whatever he pleases. In particular, he can offer the general public a licence under terms that he does not himself comply with. Are you saying it's possible for a developer to release GPL covered software in binary form without releasing the source code as long as he's the copyright holder? That sounds awfully bizarre... That's my understanding. The copyright holder can do whatever they want. Yes, doing such a thing is bizarre, and I can't think of a reason why anyone would do it. It doesn't actually grant anyone else any modify+distribute rights, and is arguably suficiently inconsistent to not grant anyone any rights. But it could be done and I don't see that its illegal. If it is, just use a my interpretation of the GPL is that this is not illegal clause. :) Justin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- This space for rent. Enquire within. Terms and conditions apply. See store for details. Get free domains - http://www.ezyrewards.com/?id=23484
Re: Need advice for dual licensing
On Fri, 2005-05-13 at 15:25 -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: [NB: Please follow Debian list policy and do not Cc: people unless they explicitly request a Cc. The canonical method of requesting a Cc: is to set a Mail-Followup-To: header that includes your addres. Also, you'll have much better luck if you refrain from top posting.] I'm very sorry, the top posting was not intentional. I will also try not to Cc: to people who don't want an extra copy. On Fri, 13 May 2005, Svante Signell wrote: I just wanted to know if dual licensing is possible. It is possible, but when we talk about dual licensing we typically mean that two licenses are applied to a work, and the user can (at the user's option) pick a specific license to use the work under. OK, so this is the case e.g. with mozilla and openoffice? What you seemed to be asking for was two licenses for different (disjoint) sets of users, which isn't going to be DFSG Free unless both licenses are DFSG Free. [And possibly not even then... we'd have to look at it very closely.] Is it possible to release the code as GPL and if necessary relicense at a later stage? Do all contributors to the improved version have to agree on this change of licence. What about copyright issues for contributed code? Don Armstrong -- Svante Signell -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Need advice for dual licensing
On Sun, May 15, 2005 at 12:38:20PM +0200, Svante Signell wrote: in response to Don Armstrong I'm very sorry, the top posting was not intentional. I will also try not to Cc: to people who don't want an extra copy. On Fri, 13 May 2005, Svante Signell wrote: I just wanted to know if dual licensing is possible. It is possible, but when we talk about dual licensing we typically mean that two licenses are applied to a work, and the user can (at the user's option) pick a specific license to use the work under. OK, so this is the case e.g. with mozilla and openoffice? Exactly so. OpenOffice is (some Sun licence) and GPL, Mozilla is MPL in parts and GPL - if I recall correctly. A better instance is Perl - which explicitly offers you the GPL or the Perl Artistic licence at your option. What you seemed to be asking for was two licenses for different (disjoint) sets of users, which isn't going to be DFSG Free unless both licenses are DFSG Free. [And possibly not even then... we'd have to look at it very closely.] Is it possible to release the code as GPL and if necessary relicense at a later stage? Do all contributors to the improved version have to agree on this change of licence. What about copyright issues for contributed code? All contributors would have to agree - in practice, it's very unlikely to happen. Much better is to produce a minimal closed source licence for your commercial/private code - then open it after a period as GPL. This is how Ghostscript worked/works: I think it's also how CUPS works. You can only really do this if you have private code of significant value to begin with. It may also be worth looking at MySQL's way of doing things, or of providing the code free under the GPL but charging for support - and insisting that commercial use requires a support licence to include rights to use your logo and brand [which is more or less what Red Hat is doing at the moment - once your licence terminates, not only can you not get updates but you probably should remove all RH logos/artwork and so on. The RH clones - CentOS, White Box Linux - have to get around this by not including any of the logos/artwork at the beginning.] Not good really, software/information wants to be free :) Andy -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Need advice for dual licensing
Hi, Anybody got a good advice for how to dual license some of the software I've developed. I would like to use GPL for non-commercial use (e.g. private persons and universities) and a commercial license for companies. Please Cc: me since I'm not subscribed to this list. Thanks, Svante -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Need advice for dual licensing
On May 13, 2005, at 10:36 AM, Svante Signell wrote: Anybody got a good advice for how to dual license some of the software I've developed. I would like to use GPL for non-commercial use (e.g. private persons and universities) and a commercial license for companies. I could be wrong, but I see no means of doing this. The reason being that once someone has received the code under the GPL you have no control over them redistributing it via the GPL license they go it under. Thus the following scenario: - private individual receives your software under the GPL - private individual posts it on a web server for download under the GPL - commercial organization downloads the GPL version. -- Jamin W. Collins -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Need advice for dual licensing
On Fri, May 13, 2005 at 06:36:53PM +0200, Svante Signell wrote: Hi, Anybody got a good advice for how to dual license some of the software I've developed. I would like to use GPL for non-commercial use (e.g. private persons and universities) and a commercial license for companies. Please Cc: me since I'm not subscribed to this list. Can I suggest something similar to the Aladdin model for Ghostscript - release the current version as paid for, for commercial use, supported by us: after a year GPL it and put support into the community. If your code base is substantially similar from one release to the next - 1.) Bugs will be fixed when noticed by the wider community on the GPL version: if the bugs are still in your Professional/Supported version they're fixed for free, effectively. 2.) Feature requests from the GPL'd version can be rolled into your supported version. 3.) You get free advertising for your pro version and kudos from the rest of the world by releasing slightly older code under the GPL. Be careful how you advertise/plug the paid for version: Aladdin fell out with the FSF because the FSF thought that the free GPL'd version advertised the commercial version too much. Just a thought, Andy -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Need advice for dual licensing
Sorry for making inroads to other peoples territories. I just wanted to know if dual licensing is possible. Obviously is is not possible to combine GPL and other licences, but why are people talking about it? I've seen several notes about this on the web: Note that I have not releasesd any (code or binary whatever) yet, so whatever choice made about dual licensing is for you to advise on, not me I'm just the copyright holder so far On Fri, 2005-05-13 at 10:15 -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: None of the following is legal advice, or should be construed as legal advice. On Fri, 13 May 2005, Svante Signell wrote: Anybody got a good advice for how to dual license some of the software I've developed. I would like to use GPL for non-commercial use (e.g. private persons and universities) and a commercial license for companies. First off, he GPL would apply to both non-commercial and commercial users alike, unless the user(s) had a license that was more permissive. Furthermore, restricting a license to non-commercial use only is quite definetly not DFSG Free, so such a work would not be eligible for inclusion in Debian. As far as doing a dual license, there's really nothing stoping you from offering different terms to people who find the GPL problematic if they're willing to pay, so long as you're the actual copyright holder. Some authors of GPLed works do this. As far as the actual text of the licenses/copyright grants, you'll need to retain professional legal advice if you stray from the recommended verbiage given in the GPL, as we can't supply it to you. Don Armstrong -- Svante Signell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
the GNU GPL, and dual-licensing
(Half off-topic--this is referring to a Windows program, but the question is probably of interest to people here anyway.) On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 12:23:38PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: Actually, that's not the case. CUPS *is* licensed under the GNU GPL, as far as anyone can tell. Easy Software Products has also elected to extend additional *permissions*, which a copyright holder is permitted to do, that do not exist in the GNU GPL license text. The GNU GPL permits modification and redistribution under any terms less restrictive than its own, and forbids the addition of terms *more* restrictive than its own: 6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License. Review the text of the GNU GPL and note the many times it makes reference to this License. The GNU GPL is a self-contained license document. A copyright holder is well within his rights to distribute a work under the terms of the GNU GPL and an arbitrary number of alternative terms, but those alternative terms cannot restrict the licensing of the work under the GPL, or the application of the GPL is void. In short, *any* addition or subtraction to the license terms of the GPL made by an author is an act of dual-licensing. A copyright holder can, of course, cease distributing a work under the terms of the GNU GPL if that is incompatible with a larger licensing strategy. Does this apply to the software at http://www.physics.ucla.edu/~grosenth/jfc.html where the author puts the software under the GPL, and then (separately) says: Whenever a specific copyright notice conflicts with the GNU General Public License, the specific copyright provision(s) will take precedence over the GNU General Public License. No part(s) of JFC may be included in any commercial product, nor may any commercial product include portion(s) derived from part(s) of JFC, without the explicit permission of the respective copyright holder(s). (This program has a larger problem: many source files start with the text // JFC Copyright (C) Glenn Rosenthal, 1999,2000,2001. // // All rights reserved. // which is contradictory, but that's a different issue.) -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: the GNU GPL, and dual-licensing
Scripsit Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 12:23:38PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: In short, *any* addition or subtraction to the license terms of the GPL made by an author is an act of dual-licensing. A copyright holder can, of course, cease distributing a work under the terms of the GNU GPL if that is incompatible with a larger licensing strategy. Does this apply to the software at where the author puts the software under the GPL, and then (separately) says: Whenever a specific copyright notice conflicts with the GNU General Public License, the specific copyright provision(s) will take precedence over the GNU General Public License. One supposes so. However, if those specific copyright notices give *less* rights than the GPL, the whole thing is inconsistently licensed, and probably illegal to distribute at all. (This program has a larger problem: many source files start with the text // JFC Copyright (C) Glenn Rosenthal, 1999,2000,2001. // // All rights reserved. // which is contradictory, but that's a different issue.) Not really. If I'm correctly informed, the All rights reserved is a magic incantation that once was requred for *claiming* copyright (some say it still is, under the Pan-American Copyright Treaty which supposedly has signees who haven't signed the Berne Convention. But I haven't checked). Once you have reserved all your rights, you are in possession of a copyright which you can *then* use to put the softare under GPL. It is true that Copyright N.N., all rights reserved *by itself* is equivalent to no license, but that is because it *is* no licence, and therefore it cannot conflict with another statement by the same author that GPL applies. -- Henning Makholm og de står om nissen Teddy Ring. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: the GNU GPL, and dual-licensing
On Fri, 2002-05-31 at 15:34, Glenn Maynard wrote: On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 12:23:38PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: In short, *any* addition or subtraction to the license terms of the GPL made by an author is an act of dual-licensing. A copyright holder can, of course, cease distributing a work under the terms of the GNU GPL if that is incompatible with a larger licensing strategy. Does this apply to the software at http://www.physics.ucla.edu/~grosenth/jfc.html where the author puts the software under the GPL, and then (separately) says: Whenever a specific copyright notice conflicts with the GNU General Public License, the specific copyright provision(s) will take precedence over the GNU General Public License. No part(s) of JFC may be included in any commercial product, nor may any commercial product include portion(s) derived from part(s) of JFC, without the explicit permission of the respective copyright holder(s). The software is clearly in the same legal morass as KDE was, only more so. He includes Jim Breen's data in his program, which as I recall has been discussed here before and is non-free. By itself, that contradicts the GPL. On top of that, he issues contradictory statements about the licensing. The program is supposedly free to be used, distributed, and modified for any purpose, without the possibility of limitation (section 6 of the GPL); on the other hand, no one may use it for commercial purposes. It's not clear what rights he has granted. By one interpretation, he could have created a hybrid license, with the noncommercial clause inserted into the GPL. The problem with this is his comment about the license for any part overriding the rest; by this statement, either there's the potential that each file has a different subset of the GPL's rights (meaning that all their licenses conflict with each other by section 6), or that you have to take the aggregate of all the licenses as the total license of the whole (meaning that there is no single license statement to agree to). His blurb about what all this basically means indicates that he is likely confused. He's probably never read the GPL, and has used it only because it's a hip license. (This program has a larger problem: many source files start with the text // JFC Copyright (C) Glenn Rosenthal, 1999,2000,2001. // // All rights reserved. // which is contradictory, but that's a different issue.) Not necessarily. It would be better if he put a specific license in the source files themselves, but as long as you receive the source in a tarball with a valid license granted, you should be OK. Whether you have a valid license in this case is a different question. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CUPS, the GNU GPL, and dual-licensing
On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 11:02:28AM -0400, Michael Sweet wrote: Could someone fork CUPS and remove that exception from the fork? I think that would be needed for GPL-compatibility I think any fork would need to preserve the original license conditions under the GPL, but IANAL. Actually, that's not the case. CUPS *is* licensed under the GNU GPL, as far as anyone can tell. Easy Software Products has also elected to extend additional *permissions*, which a copyright holder is permitted to do, that do not exist in the GNU GPL license text. The GNU GPL permits modification and redistribution under any terms less restrictive than its own, and forbids the addition of terms *more* restrictive than its own: 6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License. Review the text of the GNU GPL and note the many times it makes reference to this License. The GNU GPL is a self-contained license document. A copyright holder is well within his rights to distribute a work under the terms of the GNU GPL and an arbitrary number of alternative terms, but those alternative terms cannot restrict the licensing of the work under the GPL, or the application of the GPL is void. In short, *any* addition or subtraction to the license terms of the GPL made by an author is an act of dual-licensing. A copyright holder can, of course, cease distributing a work under the terms of the GNU GPL if that is incompatible with a larger licensing strategy. Thus, CUPS is effectively dual-licensed at present. Anyone who dual-licenses a work under the GNU GPL and some other license is therefore doing one of two things: 1) sanctioning and maintaining a GPL'ed fork of the work, which may well happen to be identical to the work under the alternative license(s); or 2) abandoning development on the GPL'ed version of the work, which effectively invites the community to continue development. The GNU GPL was written in a defensive manner to protect the freedoms of users of software, by using the monopoly power of copyright law to achieve ends not traditionally exercised by copyright holders. That's why it is called (initially as a whimsical statement) a copyleft. Easy Software Products could certainly employ language that makes it clearer that dual-licensing is what is going on. For instance, I wrote an additional license for Debian's apt program a few years back and gave it to Jason Gunthorpe (apt author and copyright holder) to use because we noticed that Corel was linking the (at the time) GPL-incompatible Qt library against apt's GPL'ed library. At the time Corel did this they were in violation of the license terms on apt. Jason wanted to legitimize what Corel was doing in a limited way, but also encourage them to get right with the GPL, so the alternative license included a sunset clause: Apt is copyright 1997, 1998, 1999 Jason Gunthorpe and others. Apt is licened under the terms of the GNU General Public License (GPL), version 2.0 or later, as published by the Free Software Foundation. See the file COPYING.GPL [included], /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL, or http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.txt for the terms of the latest version of the GNU General Public License. In addition, prior to November 15th, 2000, apt may be distributed under terms identical to the above with the following addition: Works using apt may link against the GUI library libqt, copyright by Troll Tech AS, Norway, provided that: 1. The version of libqt is licensed under the terms of the Qt Free Edition License published by Troll Tech AS. The license terms identified as the Qt Free Edition License below are the only such terms under which distribution of works derived from both apt and libqt are permitted; and 2. The source code of the version of libqt used is a) Distributed with the binary version; or b) Downloadable by anyone, without fee, using a publicly-announced URL on the Internet, for a duration of at least three years starting with distribution of the binary version. On and after November 15th, 2000, the above additional terms lose all force, and apt will be licensed only under the terms of the GNU General Public License, version 2.0 or later. [snip] Notice the wording. The above text explicitly recognizes the existence of two licenses
Re: CUPS, the GNU GPL, and dual-licensing
Branden Robinson wrote: ... The bottom line is that a work is either licensed under the GNU GPL or it is not. By all accounts, CUPS is licensed under the GNU GPL. It just so happens that it is also licensed under other terms, presumably to parties to whom the GNU GPL is unpalatable. Custom-tailored, non-exlcusive licenses specific to particular clients or segements of the market are, as I understand it, not uncommon in proprietary software circles. There is no particular reason to believe that such tactics lose legal legitimacy when applied by free software developers. ... OK, for the purposes of clarification, how does the following additional sentence sound: No developer is required to provide these exceptions in a derived work. I've put the ammended license agreement up on the CUPS server for your complete review: http://www.cups.org/new-license.html -- __ Michael Sweet, Easy Software Products [EMAIL PROTECTED] Printing Software for UNIX http://www.easysw.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CUPS, the GNU GPL, and dual-licensing
On Wed, 2002-05-15 at 14:20, Michael Sweet wrote: OK, for the purposes of clarification, how does the following additional sentence sound: No developer is required to provide these exceptions in a derived work. I've put the ammended license agreement up on the CUPS server for your complete review: http://www.cups.org/new-license.html As far as I can tell, this seems to meet all concerns. The placement is key, I think. (The sentence applies to all of the GPL exceptions, not just the Apple one.) But, I'm probably biased. :-) Hopefully, someone else will chime in. Thanks for working with us on this, BTW. Not all upstream authors are this easy to work with. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CUPS, the GNU GPL, and dual-licensing
On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 03:20:37PM -0400, Michael Sweet wrote: OK, for the purposes of clarification, how does the following additional sentence sound: No developer is required to provide these exceptions in a derived work. Sounds great. It sounds like we're utterly on the same page, it's just that some folks are easily confused by dual-licensing and what it means. I've put the ammended license agreement up on the CUPS server for your complete review: http://www.cups.org/new-license.html Looks fine to me; in fact that's one of the best license pages I've ever seen from a company (well, not just a company -- anyone, period). Here's what I like about it: 1) a plain English introduction for people whose eyes glaze over at the first mention of a software license (there are many such people :) ); 2) a grant of extra permissions above and beyond the GPL's terms, clearly noted and separate from the GPL text itself; 3) explicit notice that third parties are not compelled to adopt those additional exceptions in their own redistributions (for those who really understand the GPL, this goes without saying, but it seldom harmful to be perfectly clear and I appreciate your efforts); 4) You deal with trademarks without commingling them with copyright concepts; this is a subtle point that many people screw up, but any intellectual property attorney can tell you that copyrights and trademarks just ain't the same thing. It's refreshing to see a command of that fact from a software company, where the norm appears to be assertion of trade secret, copyright, patent, and trademark protection all for the same product. Who needs Adam Smith's invisible hand when you can have the mailed fist of TROs, PIs, summary judgements, and forced settlements? 5) explicit notice that alternative licensing arrangements are available to those who are uncomfortable with the GPL; too many people hold the mystical belief that the GPL somehow precludes a copyright holder from relicensing his or her own work, and call the GPL not free as a result. My kudos to you for all of the above. It's refreshing to see a company that has a solid grasp of free licensing, applies it to their products, and puts things in plain language on their website instead of leaving things ambiguous and using weasel words per their lawyers' advice so as to keep open future possibilities of customer exploitation. Is ESP a privately held corporation? It's rare to see such levels of integrity in a publicly traded company. You can probably guess that I'm a difficult person to impress; my thanks to you and your company for your forthrightness and responsiveness. That on top of the merits of your software, and I'm starting to see why one of my co-workers is such a strong advocate for CUPS. :) I am satisfied that any software licensed under the terms on http://www.cups.org/new-license.html as of the date of this message is DFSG-free. Does anyone on debian-legal disagree? -- G. Branden Robinson|I just wanted to see what it looked Debian GNU/Linux |like in a spotlight. [EMAIL PROTECTED] |-- Jim Morrison http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgpNDCbKCirux.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: CUPS, the GNU GPL, and dual-licensing
Branden Robinson wrote: ... My kudos to you for all of the above. It's refreshing to see a company that has a solid grasp of free licensing, applies it to their products, and puts things in plain language on their website instead of leaving things ambiguous and using weasel words per their lawyers' advice so as to keep open future possibilities of customer exploitation. Thanks! :) Is ESP a privately held corporation? It's rare to see such levels of integrity in a publicly traded company. It's actually a little 'ol General Partnership, which means me and my partner get to take the blame/heat/etc. for everything directly. :) You can probably guess that I'm a difficult person to impress; my thanks to you and your company for your forthrightness and responsiveness. That on top of the merits of your software, and I'm starting to see why one of my co-workers is such a strong advocate for CUPS. :) :) -- __ Michael Sweet, Easy Software Products [EMAIL PROTECTED] Printing Software for UNIX http://www.easysw.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
