Re: Looking for an open source license..
Lasse Reichstein Nielsen wrote: [...] Hardly. No GPL licensed software is being distributed with further restrictions. Or dear. How much will you pay me for a CD full of GPL'd binaries (and no source code at all) which I'm going to distribute to you under contractual agreement imposing forbearance from exercising the rights granted to you under the GPL by the copyright owners? 17 USC 109, aka first sale (also known as doctrine of copyright exhaustion in Europe), dear. It's just amazing how many folks are being brainwashed by the FSF. The GPL gives freedom as in the GNU Republic where software belongs to state (and hence it is regulated by state permits akin to lottery or gun dealership which are neither contracts nor property rights), and both 17 USC 109 and 17 USC 117 are simply nonexistent. But apart from the GNU Republic, the copyright and contract laws (IP licenses are contract, not state permits) don't contemplate copyleft. regards, alexander. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Looking for an open source license..
Or dear. How much will you pay me for a CD full of GPL'd binaries (and no source code at all) which I'm going to distribute to you under contractual agreement imposing forbearance from exercising the rights granted to you under the GPL by the copyright owners? You are free to distribute a CD or any other media containing GPLed software. The GPL explicitly allows this. But you have to do one of the following if you do so, from section 3 of the GNU GPL version 2: | a. Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable |source code, which must be distributed under the terms of |Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for |software interchange; or, | b. Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three |years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your |cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete |machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be |distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a |medium customarily used for software interchange; or, | c. Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer |to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is |allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you |received the program in object code or executable form with |such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Looking for an open source license..
David Kastrup wrote: [...] Cf. URL:http://gpl-violations.org/ for examples. http://www.macnewsworld.com/story/43996.html quote It's a Small Welte After All Across the wide ocean, other enforcement of the GPL runs along a different trail. Harald Welte, a self-appointed enforcer of the GPL who operates a GPL Web site filed two actions with the District Court of Munich to enforce the license. In both cases, Welte was the author of code that had appeared in the defendant's product. The court granted Welte an injunction against Sitecom Deutschland GmbH, prohibiting Sitecom from distributing a wireless networking router until it complied with the GPL. /quote Well, the injunction was about netfilter/iptables code and nothing else. No word about the router. http://groups.google.com/group/gnu.misc.discuss/msg/f80709afd63b125a http://groups.google.com/group/gnu.misc.discuss/msg/cba0154ba16f2117 quote Sitecom appealed the injunction, but lost, /quote Sitecom's objection (not really appeal) to the injunction had really nothing to do with the GPL. Sitecom basically told the court that Welte sued wrong defendant and that the injunction makes no sense at all given that Sitecom's German call center doesn't distribute anything. And the subsequent ruling by the same district court discussing the GPL (as presented by Welte's attorney) was so bizarre that nobody over here in his right mind believes that it could have withstand the scrutiny of Hauptverfahren, real appeals aside for a moment. quote and Sitecom later posted the terms of the GPL on its FAQ Web page for the router. Welte also filed for an injunction against Fortinet UK Ltd. based on its firewall products, with similar results. Though much has been made of these two cases, there are reasons why Welte has already obtained injunctions in Germany while the FSF has not yet sought one in the US. Injunctive enforcement in Germany is so simple and quick that it makes Americans suspicious about piddling legal details like legal due process. In Germany, a preliminary injunction can be obtained ex parte -- in other words, without giving the defendant the chance to defend itself. (This has the appropriately scary sounding name einstweilige Verfuegung.) /quote And here's some feedback from Appellate Judge (Court of Appeal of Dusseldorf, Copyright Senate), Professor in Intellectual Property Law at the University of Muenster, Member of Task Force Group on Intellectual Property Law, European Commission, and etc. etc. http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/resources/feedback/OIIFB_GPL3_20040903.pdf quote 1. The decision of the District Court of Munich is celebrated as the first-ever judgement on the validity of the GPL. That is surprising. The decision is the judgement of only a single district court in Germany. And it is only a summary and preliminary decision based on injunctive remedies. Furthermore, the judgement refers to only one special case within the Open Source scene. There was only one main developer involved in this project, so there was no need to decide, for example, on the complicated questions of rights ownership involved in Linux. 2. Given the high importance that the Open Source community attributed to the judgement, the Court's legal arguments are extremely poor. I do not want to deal with the many spelling and grammatical mistakes in the original version of the decision; such things happen in the heat of the moment. But it is even more astonishing that most of the relevant legal literature has not been considered. The Court essentially refers only to an essay from Metzger/Jäger written in 1999, apart from two essays from Omsels and Plaß. None of the critical voices about the effectiveness of the GPL have been heard. 3. Apart from these formalities, the argumentation of the judges raises many questions and prompts many criticisms. a. The homepage of the plaintiff included a link to the GPL version 2 (June 1991), an American document of the FSF. However, the US version of the GPL was not considered by the Court. Instead the Court used an unofficial German translation without devoting even a single sentence to justifying this approach. The judges also did not mention the history of the GPL, nor did they ask how the GPL might be interpreted under US rules on the interpretation of contractual documents. They simply applied German methodology and concepts to a document whose legal roots are deeply intermingled with US law and the US Open Source mentality. b. The court interpreted the GPL in the light of the German model of condition subsequent based upon Sect. 158 of the German Civil Act (BGB). The court argued that infringements of the GPL would lead to an automatic loss of rights, based upon a condition subsequent. The user of open source products gets the license to use the product only on the condition that, and as long as, he sticks to the rules of the GPL. The Court held that this extremely tight link between the use right and the GPL would not
Re: Looking for an open source license..
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: Or dear. How much will you pay me for a CD full of GPL'd binaries (and no source code at all) which I'm going to distribute to you under contractual agreement imposing forbearance from exercising the rights granted to you under the GPL by the copyright owners? You are free to distribute a CD or any other media containing GPLed software. The GPL explicitly allows this. But you have to do one of the following if you do so, from section 3 of the GNU GPL version 2: I don't give a damn what it says. I'm not a party in GPL contract regarding works embodied on that CD. 5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it. The GNU GPL is a copyright license, not a contract. You are free to not accept the terms of the license, but if you do not accept them default copyright law is in force, and you may not distribute or modify the Program. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Looking for an open source license..
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: [...] not accept the terms of the license, but if you do not accept them default copyright law is in force, and you may not distribute or modify the Program. Go read the default copyright law is in force, idiot. Both actions are permitted by the default copyright law is in force. 17 USC 109 and 17 USC 117. regards, alexander. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Looking for an open source license..
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: [...] not accept the terms of the license, but if you do not accept them default copyright law is in force, and you may not distribute or modify the Program. Go read the default copyright law is in force, idiot. Both actions are permitted by the default copyright law is in force. 17 USC 109 and 17 USC 117. Be sure to keep the sales receipt for the copy you choose to _pass_ _on_ in order to show that you bought a copy from the copyright holder or someone acting in his behalf. Creating your own copies is not covered under first sale. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Looking for an open source license..
David Kastrup wrote: [...] Creating your own copies is not covered under first sale. First sale covers lawfully made copies. To quote Hollaar, - As for the reproduction right (1) implying the distribution right (3), it's not an implication, but a special rule in United States copyright law spelled out in Section 109. (It is commonly called first sale, but the actual parameters of the rule are specified in the statute and not some lay reading of first, sale, or even first sale.) The heart of the provision is its first sentence: Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106(3), the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord. But it goes on to state exceptions to this rule (primarily for the rental of phonorecords and software) and exceptions to these exceptions, not part of the original Copyright Act of 1976. But if one has permission to make lawful copies, one does not need any additional permission to distribute those copies to the public. The Copyright Office has noted an interesting potential quirk in the way this provision is worded. The test is whether the copy was lawfully MADE indicating that we look only to the time of the creation of a copy to determine whether this provision applies. The Supreme Court said in the Sony Betamax decision that copies of TV programs made for purposes of time-shifting were lawfully made because they were a fair use. Can those copies then be sold under the rule of Section 109? Note that the GPL does not acknowledge Section 109 when it states However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. It also ignores Section 117 when, which gives the owner of a copy of a computer program the right to make or authorize the making of another copy OR ADAPTATION of that computer program if it is an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine. As for Eben Moglen's assertion that Licenses are not contracts in http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/enforcing-gpl.html (previously cited), he offers little justification for the statement: the work's user is obliged to remain within the bounds of the license not because she voluntarily promised, but because she doesn't have any right to act at all except as the license permits. In light of Sections 109 and 117 (and possibly other exceptions), that statement is wrong with respect to United States copyright law. Just look at the wording of Section 109 -- is entitled, WITHOUT THE AUTHORITY OF THE COPYRIGHT OWNER. - Finally, here's what copyright.gov had to say on the subject: There is no dispute that section 109 applies to works in digital form. Physical copies of works in a digital format, such as CDs or DVDs, are subject to section 109 in the same way as physical copies in analog form. Similarly, a lawfully made tangible copy of a digitally downloaded work, such as a work downloaded to a floppy disk, Zip disk, or CD-RW, is clearly subject to section 109. regards, alexander. P.S. http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/01/msg00166.html ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Looking for an open source license..
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Finally, here's what copyright.gov had to say on the subject: There is no dispute that section 109 applies to works in digital form. Physical copies of works in a digital format, such as CDs or DVDs, are subject to section 109 in the same way as physical copies in analog form. Similarly, a lawfully made tangible copy of a digitally downloaded work, such as a work downloaded to a floppy disk, Zip™ disk, or CD-RW, is clearly subject to section 109. I think that the problem here is one of ownership. How can you claim the ownership of a copy if there is no payment and the content has not been donated in any kind of way? The law talks about copies made under this title. But I don't see how this title applies without any recompensation or consideration towards the copyright holder. Anyway, big companies try to avoid getting before court with that, and up to now violations have lead to settlement or injunctions leading to compliance. So all your theory may be very nice, but in practice lawyers and legal departments are not too eager ignoring the GPL. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Looking for an open source license..
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David Kastrup wrote: [...] Be sure to keep the sales receipt for the copy you choose to _pass_ _on_ in order to show that you bought a copy from the copyright holder or someone acting in his behalf. Sales receipt is not needed. You would have to prove that my copy was not lawfully made (and you have no chance). But even if receipts were needed, you're still doomed. It's not that hard to buy a CD full of GPL'd stuff. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html, after all. Sure, and you can then resell this CD if you want to. What you can't do is make additional copies and sell those without adhering to the license. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Looking for an open source license..
David Kastrup wrote: [...] I think that the problem here is one of ownership. How can you claim the ownership of a copy if there is no payment and the content has not http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/01/msg00166.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/01/msg00174.html been donated in any kind of way? The law talks about copies made under this title. But I don't see how this title applies without any recompensation or consideration towards the copyright holder. You're persistently being dense. To quote Hollaar... http://groups.google.com/group/gnu.misc.discuss/msg/54e86da699867eab - In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lee Hollaar) writes: In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: First sale applies if there is a sale. It doesn't if there isn't. Copyright defines the minimum set of rights that can be _sold_ to you. It does not apply to items to which you have no right in the first place, but to which you are unilaterally granted a conditional license to use and redistribute, without any exchange of consideration from your side. Wrong, wrong, wrong, at least under United States copyright law. First sale is just a shorthand for the judicially-created doctrine that is now codified in 17 USC 109. It does not require a sale but applies to anyone who is the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title. What about made under this title don't you understand? I seem to understand it a bit more than you do, it appears. The phrase essentially means that the copy is not infringing, either because it was made with the permission of the copyright owner or it falls within one of the exceptions to the copyright owner's reproduction rights. I can become the lawful owner of a copy by gift or similar things that are not a sale. Which then is not obtained under this title. More nonsense. If the owner of the copyright gives me a copy, then I am the owner of a copy made (not obtained) under this title. - http://groups.google.com/group/gnu.misc.discuss/msg/db2c65b3a11f83ca - In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lee Hollaar) writes: I can become the lawful owner of a copyrighted work without any exchange of consideration. It's called a gift. But then copyright does not apply. If I write a letter with a poem in it to you, you are not allowed to pass it on to somebody else without my permission. If I _sell_ a letter with a poem in it to you, you are. Wrong, again. Copyright always applies in the United States for works that have been fixed in a tangible medium of expression. It has NOTHING to do with sale. A work is still protected by copyright, even if I find it in the street. If I am the lawful owner of a copy of a letter, perhaps because it was sent to me, then I can tranfer my ownership to another without the permission of the writer. That's what 17 USC 109 says. - See also http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/2nd/039303p.pdf What it is says is that even under contractual restrictions, 17 USC 117 bars cause of action for copyright infringement when the party exercises sufficient incidents of ownership over a copy of the program to be sensibly considered the owner of the copy for purposes of § 117(a). Same as with 17 USC 109. Now, that, of course, doesn't preclude cause of action for breach of contract (provided that the contract formalities like assent were fulfilled, and that agreement contains clear wording regarding contractual forbearance from rights under 17 USC 109 and/or 17 USC 117 -- blatant misstatements of statutes like the GPL does it regarding the copyright act don't count)... but here comes totally idiotic GNUtians claim that the GPL is not a contract... heck, feel free to plead yourself out of court. - Citing Bennett the court noted that in some cases, it is possible for a plaintiff to plead himself out of court by alleging facts that render success on the merits impossible. - Guess why FSF's enforcement motto is Don't go to court?! http://novalis.org/talks/lsm-talk-2004/slide-31.html No-brainer. regards, alexander. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Looking for an open source license..
David Kastrup wrote: [...] Sure, and you can then resell this CD if you want to. What you can't do is make additional copies and sell those without adhering to the license. Another legal persons makes copies. And he is in total compliance. I just distribute those lawfully made copies (he doesn't impose any restrictions on me because the GPL doesn't require to propagate the contract along with each copy and make me assent to the GPL). Without sources, any written offers, and under contractual terms requiring forbearance from right granted under the GPL to works embodied in my copies. It basically turns the GPL stuff into binary only all rights reserved with contractual remedies and damages for breach of contract that I can enforce. Wanna test it in court, dak? regards, alexander. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Looking for an open source license..
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David Kastrup wrote: [...] Sure, and you can then resell this CD if you want to. What you can't do is make additional copies and sell those without adhering to the license. Another legal persons makes copies. And he is in total compliance. I just distribute those lawfully made copies (he doesn't impose any restrictions on me because the GPL doesn't require to propagate the contract along with each copy and make me assent to the GPL). Without sources, any written offers, and under contractual terms requiring forbearance from right granted under the GPL to works embodied in my copies. It basically turns the GPL stuff into binary only all rights reserved with contractual remedies and damages for breach of contract that I can enforce. Wanna test it in court, dak? Not really. Judges don't cherish circumvention, which makes them different from machines. For example, claiming that I should not get sued for firing a pistol because gravity was at fault for moving the bullet on which I only intended to go for two feet, is not going to fly. One problem is that this another legal person is likely acting as your agent. And that makes the whole another legal idea fall down. If it didn't, corporate lawyers would long since have been fixed onto such schemes. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Looking for an open source license..
David Kastrup wrote: [...] Not really. Judges don't cherish circumvention, There's no circumvention. Remember that another legal person is in full compliance. And there's no contract between me and copyright owners in GPL'd stuff that would prevent distribution of my copies as I see fit (in effect turning them into proprietary binary only copies) under 17 USC 109. So there's nothing to circumvent on my side. regards, alexander. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Looking for an open source license..
David Kastrup wrote: [...] One problem is that this another legal person is likely acting as your agent. Uh. For the sake of argument, let's assume that you can even prove existence of agreement between us two. Cry conspiracy. Won't help. There was no law or contract broken. All actions are lawful so you won't have a case. In US, 12(b)(6). Case dismissed. regards, alexander. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Looking for an open source license..
Karen Hill wrote: Take a look at my Freedom License. The GPL is vulnerable in one particular way. The GPL does not suit everyones' needs. There are some people who just feel happier with M$ software complete with a EULA including a freedom clause - one that allows the BSA to bang down your door at all hours. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Looking for an open source license..
Karen Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Here is how the Freedom License works. Suppose a person creates a program under the BSD license and then someone comes along, modifies it a bit and releases the result as GPL. Here's how the Freedom License works. You create a piece of really valuable software to the original BSD licensed software which incorporates goodies that GPL software authors wants. You license it under the Freedom License. The freedom license states that if you own the copyright a piece of GPL software, you have permission to relicense the Freedom License Software to the GPL but in exchange you must release a Freedom Licensed version of your GPL software. Quid Pro Quo. Other than that clause, the Freedom License is exactly like the BSD license. It is also GPL-incompatible. 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. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Looking for an open source license..
Amanjit Gill wrote: - I am looking for a BSD-style license, that is as BSD-compatible as possible but practically prohibits relicensing the work under the GPL or GPL-compatible licenses. I basically found bits of code that was initially released under a BSD license, but somehow years afterwards someone made a GPL version of that software (same name, but only bugfixes or compiler changes in the code). I want to prevent this side-effect in an open source software I am about to write. Any Ideas? Hi Amanjit, Take a look at my Freedom License. The GPL is vulnerable in one particular way. The way is this: A person who owns the copyright can relicense a work under any/as many licenses they want! You can then entice that person to dual license his GPL work to a license called the Freedom License. This in effect creates a fork of the software, a GPL one without the goodies because you cannot impose restrictions on the GPL (turning a GPL strength into a fundemental weakness), and a Freedom licensed one with the new goodies. Here is how the Freedom License works. Suppose a person creates a program under the BSD license and then someone comes along, modifies it a bit and releases the result as GPL. Here's how the Freedom License works. You create a piece of really valuable software to the original BSD licensed software which incorporates goodies that GPL software authors wants. You license it under the Freedom License. The freedom license states that if you own the copyright a piece of GPL software, you have permission to relicense the Freedom License Software to the GPL but in exchange you must release a Freedom Licensed version of your GPL software. Quid Pro Quo. Other than that clause, the Freedom License is exactly like the BSD license. This is a bit confusing but turns a fundemental GPL strength into a weakness. Here is a step by step tutorial on how it works. 1. Person A creates a piece of BSD Licensed software. 2. Person B modifies that software and releases it under the GPL. 3. Person C modifies person A's software and releases under the Freedom license. 4. Person B loves person A's software and wants to use it in his GPL version. 5. Person B agrees to dual license his software per the Freedom License in exchange for the ablity to release person C's software under the GPL with no restrictions. That transaction creates a Freedom Licensed software version of person B's software! ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Looking for an open source license..
The Modifed BSD license are in no way `incompatible' with the GNU GPL. It is listed as a GPL-Compatible, Free software licenses. The [...] Here is a kind of a hint for you... A hint which has not relation to the Modifed BSD license and its compatibility with the GNU GPL. And the BSD doesn't allow conversion to the GPL. So how the heck could it be compatible? Compatibility has nothing to do with `conversion', it is about mixing two differently licensed works. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Looking for an open source license..
John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I wrote: From the BSD license: 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. 2. 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. Thus when you distribute a program that includes BSD-licensed material (and comply with the license) you are distributing that material under the terms of the BSD license. David Kastrup writes: But that does not mean that I have to give the recipient the same rights I received unless I wish to do so. You have nothing to say in the matter. Nonsense. The recipient gets his rights the same place you did: from the copyright owner, Nonsense. Copyright concerns tangible copies, and the recipient gets the copy from me. I can't, for example, make a copy of Microsoft Windows and pass it to some customer, and that means that he gets the same rights from Microsoft that I did. who required you to attach the license to the copy you gave the recipient. Wrong: must retain the list of conditions. The trick is that further conditions may be attached. In each case, however, it is the list of conditions _I_ choose under which I license the stuff on. I can even leave off conditions of the original (in violation of the license I got), and the recipient may not reattach them at his whim. He can only bring the case to the attention of the original copyright holder who has standing to bring me into compliance. And I might have strong inclination not to do so, like if the one giving me the license having mentioned that he will stop doing business with me if I sublicense under the BSD. Then he would not have used the BSD in the first place. He might have had reasons to do so. Not every business transaction is completely controlled by what you can get away with before court. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Looking for an open source license..
David Kastrup writes: The original copyright owner is still able to sue if his software is used without license. The license he granted to the person using it in the GPLed software (which might have been bought at a high price) does not magically extend to third recipients unless the redistributor chooses to sublicense under BSD. From the BSD license: 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. 2. 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. Thus when you distribute a program that includes BSD-licensed material (and comply with the license) you are distributing that material under the terms of the BSD license. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI USA ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Looking for an open source license..
I wrote: From the BSD license: 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. 2. 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. Thus when you distribute a program that includes BSD-licensed material (and comply with the license) you are distributing that material under the terms of the BSD license. David Kastrup writes: But that does not mean that I have to give the recipient the same rights I received unless I wish to do so. You have nothing to say in the matter. The recipient gets his rights the same place you did: from the copyright owner, who required you to attach the license to the copy you gave the recipient. The fact that the copy may be embedded in work of your own which is differently licensed is irrelevant. And I might have strong inclination not to do so, like if the one giving me the license having mentioned that he will stop doing business with me if I sublicense under the BSD. Then he would not have used the BSD in the first place. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI USA ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Looking for an open source license..
Amanjit Gill [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: - I really like the GNU GPL and LGPL for software that corresponds to infrastructure (i.e. things that should be provided on any system, and must be free and interoperatable because it is so easy for software to be incompatible (you only need to change one byte). That is the wrong reason to like the GPL/LGPL, since both of them guarantee the freedom to change the code. - I pretty much dislike the GPL (and LGPL because of the clause that you can relicense the work under the GPL) for everything else, i.e. Applications. Your likings and dislikings are somewhat peculiar. - I am looking for a BSD-style license, that is as BSD-compatible as possible but practically prohibits relicensing the work under the GPL or GPL-compatible licenses. This is nonsense. The whole purpose of BSD-style licenses is to _permit_ relicensing, as proprietary, or as GPL or other. I basically found bits of code that was initially released under a BSD license, but somehow years afterwards someone made a GPL version of that software (same name, but only bugfixes or compiler changes in the code). I want to prevent this side-effect in an open source software I am about to write. Any Ideas? You need to get your ideas sorted out. The purpose of the BSD license is to _permit_ relicensing to different licenses (including proprietary licenses). The purpose of the GPL is to _not_ permit relicensing to different licenses. If you _don't_ want people to be able to change the associated freedoms in relicensing, you need to use the _GPL_, not a BSD license. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Looking for an open source license..
Amanjit Gill writes: I pretty much dislike the GPL (and LGPL because of the clause that you can relicense the work under the GPL) for everything else, i.e. Applications. So use the LGPL with an added restriction (which will make it incompatible with the GPL). I am looking for a BSD-style license, that is as BSD-compatible as possible but practically prohibits relicensing the work under the GPL or GPL-compatible licenses. So you want to distribute your code under term that permit it to be redistributed under closed-source terms such as the Microsoft EULA that forbid resale, reverse engineering, etc, or loony licenses that do things like forbid use by certain organizations, but you want to make it GPL incompatible. Ok. Use the BSD license and add a GPL-incompatible restriction (BTW it isn't relicensing). I basically found bits of code that was initially released under a BSD license, but somehow years afterwards someone made a GPL version of that software (same name, but only bugfixes or compiler changes in the code). You can also find bits of code that was initially released under a BSD license but was later included in works distributed by Microsoft under the Microsoft EULA. So what? I want to prevent this side-effect in an open source software I am about to write. It isn't a side-effect. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI USA ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Looking for an open source license..
So use the LGPL with an added restriction (which will make it incompatible with the GPL). Yeah, so I could do LGPL+restriction / GPL dual licensing. Hmm not nice. First of all I will reconsider if GPL is really a no-no for me. incompatible. Ok. Use the BSD license and add a GPL-incompatible restriction (BTW it isn't relicensing). Thanks for that opinion. I You can also find bits of code that was initially released under a BSD license but was later included in works distributed by Microsoft under the Microsoft EULA. So what? I just wanted to make sure that in future my glorious ;) (piece of software can be used in a commercial app without any problems. I do not care if it ends up in a commercial app. Nobody is going to make millions out of it. closed souce _is_ a dead end for sourcecode and people know that. People think in a ten years perspective. They want the code for that thing that drives their business. So closed source usage does not bother me, but it must be possible Thank you for your time ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Looking for an open source license..
Amanjit Gill [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David Kastrup schrieb: That is the wrong reason to like the GPL/LGPL, since both of them guarantee the freedom to change the code. Yes, but again nobody really changes platform / infrastructure code _behaviour_ or high level interface _contracts_ on a daily basis. So what? People wanting to promulgate standards tend to use a BSD style license _exactly_ because it can be embedded into stuff with wildly different licenses. That's the deal that makes certain that your example implementation of some interface will get the largest distribution. You do not gain anything, even as an OS vendor. There is a common consensus what an mainstream OS should offer from a functional perspective to the application programmer. I am talking about the way malloc / free is supposed to work and things like a file system, process etc (very system specific thigns vary, for example threads). So you are confusing licenses and standards. Your likings and dislikings are somewhat peculiar. And of course, irrelevant. This is nonsense. The whole purpose of BSD-style licenses is to _permit_ relicensing, as proprietary, or as GPL or other. Yes, but as soon as it ends up as being GPL it can never go back to BSD. These are just the rules of this licensing game. Well, as soon as it ends up in Microsoft, it can never go back to BSD. The whole point of the BSD license is that it may end up as any number of different licenses. You need to get your ideas sorted out. The purpose of the BSD license I just want to release code under the BSD license and ensure that it stays under the BSD license as long as it is redistributed / published in source form. But that's not the purpose of the BSD license. The purpose of the BSD license is to permit relicensing under whatever license the recipient may desire, just with a restriction of keeping attributions intact. If you _don't_ want people to be able to change the associated freedoms in relicensing, you need to use the _GPL_, not a BSD license. Hmm basically I can choose whatever license _I_ want to, I do not need to use any of the licenses you mentioned here at all. Sure. But it looks like you want a self-preserving license (in order not to allow relicensing). And the BSD is not a self-preserving license. Both GPL and LGPL are. So you effectively want GPL or LGPL, except that it should not be called that. Sounds like you have an ax to grind rather than a case to make. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Looking for an open source license..
Amanjit Gill writes: Yes, but as soon as it ends up as being GPL it can never go back to BSD. No. Code released under the BSD license remains under the BSD license. The derivative work created by combining BSD and GPL code may only be distributed under the GPL, but you can pull out the BSD stuff (assuming you can't find the original BSD code elsewhere) and redistribute it under the BSD. Hmm basically I can choose whatever license _I_ want to, I do not need to use any of the licenses you mentioned here at all. Yes, you can make up your own license. I suggest you learn a bit more about copyright and software licensing first, though. I will look into the way mozilla handled it (MPL/GPL/LGPL triple licensing) I thought you didn't want your work to be available under the GPL. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI USA ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Looking for an open source license..
John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Amanjit Gill writes: Yes, but as soon as it ends up as being GPL it can never go back to BSD. No. Code released under the BSD license remains under the BSD license. The derivative work created by combining BSD and GPL code may only be distributed under the GPL, but you can pull out the BSD stuff (assuming you can't find the original BSD code elsewhere) and redistribute it under the BSD. Says who? A license is something governing the transfer of a physical copy. If I don't have a license to distribute a received copy under the BSD (and the BSD license allows to pass on code without passing on the same distribution rights), then I can't just magically wish to have been granted the same rights as somebody else had been someplace else. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Looking for an open source license..
John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I wrote: The derivative work created by combining BSD and GPL code may only be distributed under the GPL, but you can pull out the BSD stuff (assuming you can't find the original BSD code elsewhere) and redistribute it under the BSD. David Kastrup writes: Says who? Copyright law. If I don't have a license to distribute a received copy under the BSD (and the BSD license allows to pass on code without passing on the same distribution rights), then I can't just magically wish to have been granted the same rights as somebody else had been someplace else. Only the copyright owner has standing to sue for copyright infringement. If I pull a chunk of BSD-licensed code owned by UC out of your GPLd work (being careful not to copy anything you wrote) and distribute it under the BSD what are you going to sue me for? I've copied nothing of yours. The original copyright owner is still able to sue if his software is used without license. The license he granted to the person using it in the GPLed software (which might have been bought at a high price) does not magically extend to third recipients unless the redistributor chooses to sublicense under BSD. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
