RE: BSD / GPL compatibility - Derived vs. Fair Use
On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: > 2.To focus on discussion of derivative works. Making derivative works is a > right reserved to the original copyright holder, and so a license is indeed > required to make one. And this is all provided for under copyright law. In > particular, there is no implied right to make a derivative work by someone > who is not the copyright holder, so what a copyright license says about it > is highly pertinent. In terms of copyright law (and not in terms of programming usage), is an application that links to a library considered derivative? I would say that static linking is derivation and runtime linking is not. But I'm not sure about dynamic linking. RMS brings up some good cases against it, but on the other side there are the arguments that the two are created and distributed separately, and that the only differences between dynamic and runtime linking are purely mechanistic. -- Arandir... _ http://www.meer.net/~arandir/
Re: BSD / GPL compatibility
On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, Alex Nicolaou wrote: > In general, any "meta-use" of a portion of the source code should be > acceptable, that is, any re-use of a portion of the code whose purpose > is to provide commentary or insight into the original and not replace > the use or function of the original. Excellent! That just about sums up Fair Use in relation to software. -- Arandir... _ http://www.meer.net/~arandir/
RE: License Approval Process
I think I understand how this works. Let me check it with your thinking: A. The Angels group produces a software work, X, distributing it under an OSD-consistent copyright license that permits derivative works and does not require that they be distributed under the same license or even be licensed at all. There is no back-licensing requirement in the license that accompanies copies of X. B. Borg, Inc., makes a derived work Y:X as a closed-source commercial product. They distribute the commercial product. Distribution of Y satisfies any other conditions that might govern the use of X and the Angels license is satisfied. C. The Cavaliers create Z:X as an open-source derivative and Z is distributed under the GPL. Again, all conditions of the Angels license on X are satisfied. AB. The Angels have nothing to say about Y. Furthermore, absent a specific separate agreement, the Angels have no right in Y different than anyone else who legitimately possesses a copy of work Y. In particular, they cannot do anything with aspects of Y not in X that conflicts with the terms of any copyright and licensing of Y. AC. The Angels also have nothing to say about Z. Furthermore, absent a specific separate agreement, the Angels have no right in Z different than anyone else who possesses a copy of work Z. In particular, they cannot do anything with aspects of Z not in X that conflicts with the GPL. AA. The Angels right to make their own derivative works of X is diminished to the extent that the Angels do not have an automatic license to take additions and modifications from the derivative works produced by others. The Angels can certainly make new, original derivative works of X, under cover of the original license form. In doing so, there needs to be care to avoid infringing the intellectual property rights of Borg, Inc. and the Cavaliers. Such care to avoid infringement is always warranted, but it would now seem somewhat easier for there to be an appearance of infringement considering that all are building derivatives of X. (AD. When the Dogmatics make a derivative work U:X, and license it in a way that is consistent with the Angel license, there is no such problem. The Angels and the Dogmatics can mutually derive from each others stuff and it all works.) Interesting, huh? Let's have "M admits-derivative N" represent that license N is automatically admissible on derivatives of works for which license M is automatically available. Then MIT admits-derivative GPL MIT admits-derivative MIT MIT admits-derivative closed GPL admits-derivative x if-and-only-if x = GPL where closed is an exit state [the chain is ended], and GPL is clearly a steady state [the chain is trapped]. I suppose this illustrates what is meant by the viral nature of GPL. For me, it also illustrates the cooperative nature of the MIT license and all of those, x, for which MIT admits-derivative x is a symmetrical relationship. Relation admits-derivative is transitive; it is neither reflexive nor symmetrical. -- Dennis -- Dennis E. Hamilton InfoNuovo mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] tel. +1-206-779-9430 (gsm) fax. +1-425-793-0283 http://www.infonuovo.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of John Cowan Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2000 13:06 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: License Approval Process "Matthew C. Weigel" wrote: > > On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, John Cowan wrote: > > > The "new BSD" and the equivalent MIT license are compatible with the > > GPL; the "old BSD" license with the advertising requirement is not. > > In general, a license is compatible with the GPL if it imposes the > > same, or fewer, restrictions than the GPL. > > Ummm... I don't think so. For one, Nothing is commutatively compatible with > the GPL -- software can't be redistributed under different terms[1]. Also, > if another license is as restrictive as the GPL, you probably can't license > it under different terms either, and thus you can't redistribute under the > GPL. Oh, you are talking about relicensing. I was using "compatibility" in the sense of distributing a derived work parts of which are under two different licenses. Thus, no derived work can be partly under the GPL and partly under the MPL (or at least you can make such a thing, but not distribute it): thus GPL and MPL are incompatible. Not so GPL and MIT/new BSD. -- Schlingt dreifach einen Kreis vom dies! || John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Schliesst euer Aug vor heiliger Schau, || http://www.reutershealth.com Denn er genoss vom Honig-Tau, || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan Und trank die Milch vom Paradies.-- Coleridge (tr. Politzer)
RE: BSD / GPL compatibility - Derived vs. Fair Use
I want to clear up something that seems to be clouding this discussion. Here is my personal assessment: (IANAL, I just sound like one.) 1. Fair use is an application of a copyrighted work that does not require any permission or license to perform. In the past, the U.S. Copyright Act has given legal definition to fair use and stipulated what those usages are. There is, in effect, a statutory automatic permission regardless of the copyright status of a literary work. (There are other parts of the Copyright Act that establish mandatory licenses for certain acts, and also charter payment mechanisms for those acts.) Fair use is very limited and does not include creation of derivative works. In addition, the recent tendency has been to limit fair use even more. (For example, it can be a copyright infringement to exhibit a copy of a protected work that you own but have defaced in some way, even though it could still be found by a court that freedom of speech takes precedence in a specific disputed case.) 2. The making of a derivative work is one of the subdividable rights that come with copyright. The copyright holder has the exclusive and complete say in creation of derivative works. Period. If that weren't the case, it would be meaningless to say anything about it in creating a free, non-exclusive, royalty free copyright license such as the GPL. 3. Although much software is licensed and not simply sold as publication of a copyrighted work, the GPL and other open-source licenses are copyright licenses. Most software publishers are careful to place copyright notices and also to assert their copyright. The use of a "licensed not sold stipulation" is above and beyond the protection of copyright and is, I suppose, a matter of a contract between the purchaser of the license and the software publisher. (Which is why you have to declare you have read and understood that you are entering into such an agreement on various click-through arrangements.) As far as I can tell, that simply doesn't apply to the GPL (though people who deal in GPL'd distributions can certainly engage in additional licenses -- e.g., for maintenance and support and even warranty protection -- but those licenses can't alter or circumvent the GPL of the copyrighted subject matter in any way). In the context of these discussions, I suggest that it is valuable 1. To omit consideration of fair use. Making a derivative work of software doesn't qualify. The conditions under which fair use might arise with software are simply not useful for this discussion. 2. To focus on discussion of derivative works. Making derivative works is a right reserved to the original copyright holder, and so a license is indeed required to make one. And this is all provided for under copyright law. In particular, there is no implied right to make a derivative work by someone who is not the copyright holder, so what a copyright license says about it is highly pertinent. 3. To ignore other kinds of licenses as relevant to open-source licensing. OSD-satisfying licenses seem pretty clearly oriented to the licensing of acts that are specifically protected by copyright. Nothing else seems to be required. -- Dennis -Original Message- From: Ian Grigg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2000 13:46 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: BSD / GPL compatibility > > OK, so does the same apply in reverse? I guess it does, so > > I can take any part of a GPLed work and shove it into my code > > and distrubute it as BSD. > > No, this is not possible. While programs distributed under the GPL may use > BSD (minux advertising clause) code the reverse does not apply. The GPL is > viral in this situation. I'm sorry if I didn't make myself clear, here's a rehash. Derived works are a concept of law of copyright. They are fairly broad, and applicable to all published works. AFAIK, IANAL. They are designed to protect the property rights of the author, whilst giving access to portions for fair use. If the feature of derived works applies to BSD covered code, then it probably equally well applies to GPL code. If, indeed, copyright law is applicable and provides access and protections, then it would normally apply equally to all publishers. It's not really a concept that a publisher can restrict the offering when publishing. Of course the big IF is whether copyright law has anything to do with it. I believe it doesn't, in which case the concept of derived works do not apply to any licence-covered code. iang
Re: License Approval Process
On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, Alex Nicolaou wrote: > My conclusion: skip the certification. Write your code. If people want > it, they'll read your license after they're using it and send you > complaints. Spend the time on the important part ... the software. We in the Eiffel community have struck a problem with our `open source' licence (note it has not been through OSI certification) called the Eiffel Forum Freeware Licence (EFFL): http://www.eiffel-forum.org/license/ under which the bulk of `open source' Eiffel software is released. See the Eiffel Forum Archive: http://www.eiffel-forum.org/archive/ The EFFL was created to workaround a problem with the LGPL which as the licence page above states: Sometimes you will see software released under the Gnu Library GPL. This license is designed to be less restrictive than the Gnu GPL. However, its wording is based on the compilation and linkage model used for C, and I cannot see how it can be applied to Eiffel software. We have now struck a problem with sourceForge who are keen to see the EFFL certified through the OSI processes, which are now being discussed on this list. What has happened with sourceForge is they ultimately accept the library into the sourceForge facilities after some negotiating with the library maintainer. Obviously it would be better for everyone if we could get the EFFL OSI certified, but based on the discussion on this list it seems like the OSI has stalled. Hopefully, we will be putting our EFFL through the processes as described on this page: http://www.opensource.org/certification-mark.html Just one situation where an alternative licence to the main stream is required. BTW, the EFFL was drafted in early 1998 around the time of the popularising of the term open source. The EFFL has been incredibly successful in motivating Eiffel library writers to release their code so that others can use their efforts and at the same time ensure that improvements are fedback into the library. Geoff Eldridge -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BSD / GPL compatibility
David Johnson wrote: > You cannot argue that the GPL forbids Fair Use because of its derivation > clauses. If you do so, you are arguing against yourself, since the GPL is not a > contract. A much better tack would be to define what Fair Use is in relation to > source code. Fair use for source code should include: - writing a book with example code taken from open source projects in order to highlight good or poor programming technique - gathering together open-sourced implementations of algorithms in order to compare them against each other and asses their merits In general, any "meta-use" of a portion of the source code should be acceptable, that is, any re-use of a portion of the code whose purpose is to provide commentary or insight into the original and not replace the use or function of the original. alex
Re: License Approval Process
G'day all. On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 08:07:07PM -0800, David Johnson wrote: > Actually, my dictionary has 17 definitions. Yes. That's why I said "at least three". I think those three definitions are the ones most likely to be confused by the term "free software". It could mean "free" as opposed to "costly" (freeware), "free" as opposed to "encumbered" (MIT/new BSD) or "free" as opposed to "enslaved" (GPL). > Using Richard's definitions, "Free Software" is as unrelated to "Free Speech" > as it is to "Free Beer". "Free speech" is closest to what he is trying to achieve. At the risk of looking like wanting to have the last word, I hereby mention Hitler and thereby close this thread before the inevitable flamefest from my little soapbox speech gets out of control. Back to the OSI certification process discussion... Cheers, Andrew Bromage
Re: Offer of help
Raymond Luk wrote: > I have about 50 programmers here ready to volunteer some time if OSI needs some > sort of application/database to help them out. Of course, we'd use only OSI > compliant tools :) I don't think software is the bottleneck here. Maybe if your 50 developers all read this list and posted comments on all the licenses and started a real review of the good candidates for certification that would be a help. alex
Re: License Approval Process
David Johnson wrote: > And you're also forgetting the "idiot filter" quality of this list. Someone > submits a license. Everyone proceeds to call in the question the submitter's > ancestry or proclivities. The submitters leaves in disgust. Those that do > manage to stick around after the first two rounds of abuse end up getting a > good hearing. Let's add the idiot filter comment to the opensource.org WWW pages. That way the filter won't even have to process any input ... Please name two licenses that have received what you consider a "good hearing" on this mailing list. thanks, alex
Re: License Approval Process
"Brice, Richard" wrote: > > I agree with most of the points made on this discussion. The more licenses > that exist, the more splintered the open source community will become. You > can't use source code licensed with License X with source code licensed with > License Z (ok, that's a generalization but I don't think it is too far off > the mark). This is indeed an argument that has been posted against many open source licenses, but I'm afraid that it holds little water. First and foremost, if the software is released under a license that allows combination with other software written under different licenses, there's no real problem. The BSD/MIT style licenses are pretty liberal in this regard. In fact, most of the licenses are pretty liberal in this regard except for the GPL/LGPL. My own SOS license attempts to be very liberal in this regard, but is seen as "not offering any value over the GPL" - meaning that licenses that don't enforce copyleft don't add value? But I digress. Secondly, the main point of "free software" is to preserve the user's ability to read, understand, and fix the software. These goals don't require mixing codebases from different sources ... isn't everyone's ideal to have a lot of .so files that each provide some services and mix them together at runtime? Even if you actually need to merge two pieces of source for some reason, there's nothing stopping you from going back to the copyright holder to get permission to include License X code in your License Z code, which seems likely to be a request that will easily be granted. Finally, and perhaps most amusingly, the point of OSI Certified Open Source is to allow the end user to use software with varying licenses that all conform to the same underlying principles (the OSD). If diversity is a problem, then why have a certification process at all? It's contradictory to say "We have certification to support diversity, but we oppose diversity because it's bad". My conclusion: skip the certification. Write your code. If people want it, they'll read your license after they're using it and send you complaints. Spend the time on the important part ... the software. alex
Re: BSD / GPL compatibility
On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, Nick Moffitt wrote: > begin Ian Grigg quotation: > > OK, so does the same apply in reverse? I guess it does, so I can > > take any part of a GPLed work and shove it into my code and > > distrubute it as BSD. > > No, because the GPL explicitly covers derived works. Copyright law gives the author certain rights to his works. Any rights not specifically given to him are given to the world at large. For example, only the author has the right to sell the work for profit. But everyone else has the right to make copies for their personal use. Note: I am arguing on the basis of "classic" copyright law, and not that monstrosity known as the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. In order to change this state of affairs, software authors have used licenses. These licenses can grant additional rights to the users. However, they cannot take any rights away from the user without violating copyright law, which already gave them away. Thus, a typical license cannot forbid a user from making copies for their personal use. To get around this, and impose additional restrictions upon the user, a software license cannot be used. Instead, there must be a voluntary contract betweent he author and the user. This is why so-called "one click" licensing is so controversial. The authors claim that such a license is indeed a contract, however the users have not signed any legal documents, electronic or otherwise. Getting back to the GPL... The GPL is the traditional software license. It is not a contract. Therefore, at can give away all the rights and permissions it wants to. But it cannot take back any right that copyright law has already given. In fact, the GPL specifically states that it operates under copyright law. One of the earlier posts in this thread mentioned Fair Use. This is a right that the users already have under copyright. The GPL cannot take it away, even if it tried. You cannot argue that the GPL forbids Fair Use because of its derivation clauses. If you do so, you are arguing against yourself, since the GPL is not a contract. A much better tack would be to define what Fair Use is in relation to source code. -- Arandir... _ http://www.meer.net/~arandir/
Re: License Approval Process
On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, Andrew J Bromage wrote: > > Contrary to popular belief, "free speech" (as RMS describes it) is not > the same as "free time". "Free time" has no strings attached, whereas > "free speech" has implied responsibilities. Unfortunately, the FSF > have never AFAIK noted that English has at least _three_ definitions of > the word "free", which makes the term "free software" that much more > confusing. > Actually, my dictionary has 17 definitions. Consider "free verse", "free electon", "free nation", "free to use", etc. Although most of these 17 definitions are only slight variations of others, there are certainly more than three broad definitions of "free" in the english language. Using Richard's definitions, "Free Software" is as unrelated to "Free Speech" as it is to "Free Beer". -- Arandir... _ http://www.meer.net/~arandir/
Re: BSD / GPL compatibility
On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, Nick Moffitt wrote: > It's all a matter of derived work. Some may say that using > chunks of BSD code in a GPLed work is "fair use". But the reverse is not? Okay, my hackles are raised now... Using a chunk of GPLd code in my BSD application would ensure mailbombings and dire announcements on legal letterhead. Although the BSD license liberally allows use of chunks of code in other applications, to call this "fair use" implies that I can do the same with *ANY* other licensed source code. -- Arandir... _ http://www.meer.net/~arandir/
Re: License Approval Process
On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, John Cowan wrote: > > The "new BSD" and the equivalent MIT license are compatible with the > GPL; the "old BSD" license with the advertising requirement is not. > In general, a license is compatible with the GPL if it imposes the > same, or fewer, restrictions than the GPL. To be specific, I think you mean fewer of the *same* restrictions than the GPL. If a license had absolutely no restrictions except for an advertisment clause, most would not consider it compatible, even though it was less restrictive overall. However, "compatibility" with the GPL is still being debated in some quarters. Although RMS considers the BSD and MIT licenses to be compatible, some legalists question this. And then there are some BSD and MIT adherents who claim that their licenses do not allow relicensing their original code under the GPL. Although everyone agrees on the broad points of the GPL, there are a thousand interpretations of its finer points. -- Arandir... _ http://www.meer.net/~arandir/
Re: License Approval Process
G'day all. On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, Michael Stutz wrote: > > Is it *possible* for a license to be compatible with another? Offhand > > I can think of just two possibilities for the GPL: the LGPL, and code > > that has no license and is in the public domain. On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 07:35:57PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > It's certainly possible. The GPL is particularly restrictive in this > sense. Contrary to popular belief, "free speech" (as RMS describes it) is not the same as "free time". "Free time" has no strings attached, whereas "free speech" has implied responsibilities. Unfortunately, the FSF have never AFAIK noted that English has at least _three_ definitions of the word "free", which makes the term "free software" that much more confusing. > What I would like to see as a variation of the GPL is one which allows > modifications to be placed under any certified Open Source license (this > is assuming a good certification process, which is being called into > question). I think this would make a good license to allow your code to > be used with the maximum amount of open source software, but still > disallow closed source software. (This would be a middle ground between > the GPL and the LGPL.) This sounds like inserting another condition into the MIT licence would do the trick. I'm not good at legal wording, but how about this? Any distributed or published work which is, in whole or in part, derived from the Software shall be licensed as a whole under an OSI Certified Open Source licence. Cheers, Andrew Bromage
RE: BSD / GPL compatibility
COMMENTS APPRECIATED...ON MY ARTICLE SOON TO BE PUBLISHED.. When Efforts to Conceal May Actually Reveal:Whether First Amendment Protection of Encryption Source Code and the OPEN SOURCE MOVEMENT Support Re-drawing the Constitutional Line Between the First Amendment and Copyright for Authors of Computer Software. http://www.cyberspaces.org/Effortstoconceal.htm Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. www.cyberspaces.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -Original Message- > From: Ian Grigg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2000 4:46 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: BSD / GPL compatibility > > > > > OK, so does the same apply in reverse? I guess it does, so > > > I can take any part of a GPLed work and shove it into my code > > > and distrubute it as BSD. > > > > No, this is not possible. While programs distributed under the > GPL may use > > BSD (minux advertising clause) code the reverse does not apply. > The GPL is > > viral in this situation. > > I'm sorry if I didn't make myself clear, here's a rehash. > > Derived works are a concept of law of copyright. They are > fairly broad, and applicable to all published works. AFAIK, > IANAL. They are designed to protect the property rights of > the author, whilst giving access to portions for fair use. > > If the feature of derived works applies to BSD covered code, > then it probably equally well applies to GPL code. If, indeed, > copyright law is applicable and provides access and protections, > then it would normally apply equally to all publishers. It's > not really a concept that a publisher can restrict the offering > when publishing. > > Of course the big IF is whether copyright law has anything to > do with it. I believe it doesn't, in which case the concept of > derived works do not apply to any licence-covered code. > > iang >
Re: License Approval Process
On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, Michael Stutz wrote: > Richard Brice wrote: > > > You can't use source code licensed with License X with source code > > licensed with License Z (ok, that's a generalization but I don't > > think it is too far off the mark). > > Is it *possible* for a license to be compatible with another? Offhand > I can think of just two possibilities for the GPL: the LGPL, and code > that has no license and is in the public domain. It's certainly possible. The GPL is particularly restrictive in this sense. What I would like to see as a variation of the GPL is one which allows modifications to be placed under any certified Open Source license (this is assuming a good certification process, which is being called into question). I think this would make a good license to allow your code to be used with the maximum amount of open source software, but still disallow closed source software. (This would be a middle ground between the GPL and the LGPL.) > Might dual-licensing apply for some of the organizations who are > toying with writing a GPL clone -- as copyright holder, couldn't they > release their code under both the GPL (or whatever license they > chose), and also license the program under some other terms as needed? One problem with this is that a lot of organizations wish to specifically avoid the GPL, since there's some concern that it isn't clear enough to stand up in court. For instance, it uses many terms without defining them, and it's often not clear just want counts as a modification or derivative work. So dual-licensing with the GPL seems kind of pointless to me - might as well just release your code under the GPL in the first place. Joe
License Compatability
Hello all; Michael Stutz wrote: > > Richard Brice wrote: > > > You can't use source code licensed with License X with source code > > licensed with License Z (ok, that's a generalization but I don't > > think it is too far off the mark). > > Is it *possible* for a license to be compatible with another? Offhand Some licenses are explicitly relaxed about the introduction of multi-licensed code. The Netscape/Mozilla Public License was written with this consideration in mind. It also depends on what you mean by 'compatible'. [..] > [Can anyone point me to any resources on the issue of license > compatibility?] No, but I can tell you that I'm trying to work on it :) Just as a note to all YA License people -- License compatability problems do not go up in a linear fashion, per-license. They rise quadratically. Every license introduces a whole raft of potential conflicts of terms. Good motivations for YAL: * This license exposes us to significant legal risk * This license will force us to break contracts/licenses we have already agreed to Bad Motivations for YAL: * We need a proprietary advantage this license doesn't give * We want to get media attention with a new license Feel free to extend this list. be well; JC.
Re: License Approval Process
Hello all; Martin Konold wrote: [..] > The only acceptable license for RMS is finally the GPL. This means that > according to RMS in the end everything shall be licensed under the GPL > without exceptions. I look on this as a bit of a strawman. It's easy to be confused by Richard's subtle distinction between "Free Software" and "Copyleft Software". Free Software means you may redistribute, alter etc the software at will. This includes the BSD, MIT, X, Artistic licenses, amongst others. Copyleft is the 'next level', adding the two major conditions of the GPL: that if you distribute a changed version of the software, you must also distribute the changes; and that software including copylefted code must itself be copylefted. Just as a copyright protects the holder from their property being abused, copyleft is meant to prevent abuse of free software code. Everyone has motivations for their licenses. The GPL has a valid motivation, as do the BSD and MPL (and other) crowds. > This is the reason why all other currently (according to RMS) compatible > licenses allow for non reversal converting to the GPL at any time. RMS is RMS. I suspect he'll be banging on the lid of his coffin if it wasn't designed with copylefted software :) > Yours, > -- martin be well; JC.
Re: BSD / GPL compatibility
begin Ian Grigg quotation: > OK, so does the same apply in reverse? I guess it does, so I can > take any part of a GPLed work and shove it into my code and > distrubute it as BSD. No, because the GPL explicitly covers derived works. -- CrackMonkey.Org - Non-sequitur arguments and ad-hominem personal attacks LinuxCabal.Org - Co-location facilities and meeting space
BSD / GPL compatibility
> > OK, so does the same apply in reverse? I guess it does, so > > I can take any part of a GPLed work and shove it into my code > > and distrubute it as BSD. > > No, this is not possible. While programs distributed under the GPL may use > BSD (minux advertising clause) code the reverse does not apply. The GPL is > viral in this situation. I'm sorry if I didn't make myself clear, here's a rehash. Derived works are a concept of law of copyright. They are fairly broad, and applicable to all published works. AFAIK, IANAL. They are designed to protect the property rights of the author, whilst giving access to portions for fair use. If the feature of derived works applies to BSD covered code, then it probably equally well applies to GPL code. If, indeed, copyright law is applicable and provides access and protections, then it would normally apply equally to all publishers. It's not really a concept that a publisher can restrict the offering when publishing. Of course the big IF is whether copyright law has anything to do with it. I believe it doesn't, in which case the concept of derived works do not apply to any licence-covered code. iang
Re: BSD / GPL compatibility
On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, Ian Grigg wrote: > > It's all a matter of derived work. Some may say that using > > chunks of BSD code in a GPLed work is "fair use". > > OK, so does the same apply in reverse? I guess it does, so > I can take any part of a GPLed work and shove it into my code > and distrubute it as BSD. No, this is not possible. While programs distributed under the GPL may use BSD (minux advertising clause) code the reverse does not apply. The GPL is viral in this situation. Yours, -- martin // Martin Konold, Stauffenbergstr. 107, 72074 Tuebingen, Germany // KDE: The most advanced GUI for a reliable OS.
Re: License Approval Process
Rob Edgeworth writes: > > > > >The only other reason I can think of to get OSI approval for your > >license is for advertising purposes. In that case, I guess you'll > >just have to wait until somebody from the OSI speaks up. I'm no > >expert, but, personally, I don't think it's worth the trouble. So you > >can't put ``open source'' on your ads. Just say ``source code > >available'' instead. Big deal. > > > >Ian > > > > > I'm not certain this is the case. I recall something a few months ago > suggesting the application for a trademark on open source was rejected. Can > anyone confirm this? If so it would certainly explain the lack of > certifications. "Open Source" was not accepted as a registered trademark. Because there is an Open Source Definition, and for other historical reasons, it is still in most cases meaningful to say that it's factually correct that a particular license (and distribution practice!) "is Open Source" or "is not Open Source". When someone says "I have an Open Source license", that claim can be _false_ (and people can point out that it's false), but it can't be a trademark infringement. The OSI's new trademark is "OSI Certified Open Source". OSI certification is not necessarily important to everyone, and there are other ways to have an open source license. I don't believe that OSI certification is _necessary_ to anyone (it's _always_ been possible to use an existing open source license, including traditional and useful ones from long before the term "Open Source" existed; and goodness knows that all sorts of people have written Open Source licenses or attempts at Open Source licenses without any comment from the OSI). I do believe that OSI certification can be, and has been, useful in many cases. Among other things, the OSI certification process has helped identify and eliminate problems in some proposed licenses before projects were released under them. This is not to say, of course, that the certification process is free of problems, including most obviously significant delays. I'm going to be talking to the OSI Board about some of the problems which people have for some time identified in the OSI's certification process. -- Seth David Schoen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | And do not say, I will study when I Temp. http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | have leisure; for perhaps you will down: http://www.loyalty.org/ (CAF) | not have leisure. -- Pirke Avot 2:5
BSD / GPL compatibility
> > Does the BSD licence give a user the right to distribute covered
> > code under the GPL?...
>
> It's all a matter of derived work. Some may say that using
> chunks of BSD code in a GPLed work is "fair use".
OK, so does the same apply in reverse? I guess it does, so
I can take any part of a GPLed work and shove it into my code
and distrubute it as BSD.
If that's the case - I can use "fair use" on GPL, then what
are the limitations or paramaters? The old rule was something
like a chapter / 10% for copying, and brief snippets for distribution?
Actually I'm skeptical. Software is not published in the
literary sense, it is licensed, and is thus available under
the law of contract, not the law of copyright.
> Some say that the
> BSD license doesn't put any restrictions on derived work
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, ...
are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
Redistributions of {source|binary} code must retain
the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and ...
I would interpret this as "you must include this licence."
If that is excepted, I think it is fairly clear that you
have no permission to distribute under any other licence.
Of course, a court or lawyer may disagree, and I'd be interested
to hear what interpretations there are.
> (including
> RMS, whom I asked this very question when I was thinking of using
> GNU readline to enhance a BSD app).
RMS has a peculiarly one-sided view of what other people's
contracts mean; I think you would be taking your legal life
in your hands to trust his judgement on a question that effects
the GPL. Not that I'd advise you to ask me either
iang
Re: License Approval Process
> >The only other reason I can think of to get OSI approval for your >license is for advertising purposes. In that case, I guess you'll >just have to wait until somebody from the OSI speaks up. I'm no >expert, but, personally, I don't think it's worth the trouble. So you >can't put ``open source'' on your ads. Just say ``source code >available'' instead. Big deal. > >Ian > I'm not certain this is the case. I recall something a few months ago suggesting the application for a trademark on open source was rejected. Can anyone confirm this? If so it would certainly explain the lack of certifications. Rob
Re: License Approval Process
"Matthew C. Weigel" wrote: > > On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, John Cowan wrote: > > > The "new BSD" and the equivalent MIT license are compatible with the > > GPL; the "old BSD" license with the advertising requirement is not. > > In general, a license is compatible with the GPL if it imposes the > > same, or fewer, restrictions than the GPL. > > Ummm... I don't think so. For one, Nothing is commutatively compatible with > the GPL -- software can't be redistributed under different terms[1]. Also, > if another license is as restrictive as the GPL, you probably can't license > it under different terms either, and thus you can't redistribute under the > GPL. Oh, you are talking about relicensing. I was using "compatibility" in the sense of distributing a derived work parts of which are under two different licenses. Thus, no derived work can be partly under the GPL and partly under the MPL (or at least you can make such a thing, but not distribute it): thus GPL and MPL are incompatible. Not so GPL and MIT/new BSD. -- Schlingt dreifach einen Kreis vom dies! || John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Schliesst euer Aug vor heiliger Schau, || http://www.reutershealth.com Denn er genoss vom Honig-Tau, || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan Und trank die Milch vom Paradies.-- Coleridge (tr. Politzer)
Re: BSD / GPL compatibility
begin Ian Grigg quotation: > Does the BSD licence give a user the right to distribute covered > code under the GPL? That is what it needs to permit, if the GPL > is to be satisfied, AFAIK. And neither the new nor old permit > you to do that, just use it according to the restrictions. It's all a matter of derived work. Some may say that using chunks of BSD code in a GPLed work is "fair use". Some say that the BSD license doesn't put any restrictions on derived work (including RMS, whom I asked this very question when I was thinking of using GNU readline to enhance a BSD app). -- CrackMonkey.Org - Non-sequitur arguments and ad-hominem personal attacks LinuxCabal.Org - Co-location facilities and meeting space
BSD / GPL compatibility
> The "new BSD" and the equivalent MIT license are compatible with the > GPL; the "old BSD" license with the advertising requirement is not. > In general, a license is compatible with the GPL if it imposes the > same, or fewer, restrictions than the GPL. Does the BSD licence give a user the right to distribute covered code under the GPL? That is what it needs to permit, if the GPL is to be satisfied, AFAIK. And neither the new nor old permit you to do that, just use it according to the restrictions. (Some distributed versions of BSD covered code included a comment at the end clarifying that you didn't have the right to change the licence.) I'd appreciate a definitive answer on this, as it seems to be a continuing source of confusion. iang
Re: License Approval Process
On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, John Cowan wrote: > GPL; the "old BSD" license with the advertising requirement is not. > In general, a license is compatible with the GPL if it imposes the > same, or fewer, restrictions than the GPL. According to newest RMS clarifications: The only way to be compatible with the GPL is to be either GPL or allow to relicense under the GPL. Even a license which would have the _exact_ restrictions/rights/conditions like the GPL but which dissallows to rename it to the GPL (or sublicense to the GPL) is _incompatible_ with the GPL. The only acceptable license for RMS is finally the GPL. This means that according to RMS in the end everything shall be licensed under the GPL without exceptions. This is the reason why all other currently (according to RMS) compatible licenses allow for non reversal converting to the GPL at any time. Yours, -- martin // Martin Konold, Stauffenbergstr. 107, 72074 Tuebingen, Germany // KDE: The most advanced GUI for a reliable OS.
Re: License Approval Process
On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, John Cowan wrote: > The "new BSD" and the equivalent MIT license are compatible with the > GPL; the "old BSD" license with the advertising requirement is not. > In general, a license is compatible with the GPL if it imposes the > same, or fewer, restrictions than the GPL. Ummm... I don't think so. For one, Nothing is commutatively compatible with the GPL -- software can't be redistributed under different terms[1]. Also, if another license is as restrictive as the GPL, you probably can't license it under different terms either, and thus you can't redistribute under the GPL. As far as I know only software licensed under the X and new BSD licenses can be redistributed under the GPL without changes, but I thought some software licensed under the old BSD had been redistributed under the GPL with a caveat. Matthew Weigel Programmer/Sysadmin/Student [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License Approval Process
Michael Stutz wrote: > Is it *possible* for a license to be compatible with another? Offhand > I can think of just two possibilities for the GPL: the LGPL, and code > that has no license and is in the public domain. The "new BSD" and the equivalent MIT license are compatible with the GPL; the "old BSD" license with the advertising requirement is not. In general, a license is compatible with the GPL if it imposes the same, or fewer, restrictions than the GPL. -- Schlingt dreifach einen Kreis vom dies! || John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Schliesst euer Aug vor heiliger Schau, || http://www.reutershealth.com Denn er genoss vom Honig-Tau, || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan Und trank die Milch vom Paradies.-- Coleridge (tr. Politzer)
RE: License Approval Process
Dual licensing makes perfect sense, it all depends on why you are licensing your software. I believe there's a discussion somewhere online as to the "whys and wherefores" that Larry Wall chose to license Perl (for example) under multiple licenses. (Where to find it is left as an exercise to the reader because in my quick search I could not locate it after 2 minutes). :) D At 10:56 AM 2/15/00 -0800, Brice, Richard wrote: >Dual licensing doesn't make sense. If a licensee can choose which license to >use, the will chose the one to their advantage. The software we are >producing is used for the design of highway bridge structures. Our lawyer >though the GPL didn't provide us enough protection against tort claims from >third parties. If someone had the choice of GPL and Alternate Route, and >they wanted to sue us, they would choose GPL. So what good is the dual >license? None. > > -Original Message- > From: Michael Stutz [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2000 10:49 AM > To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > Subject:Re: License Approval Process > > Richard Brice wrote: > > > You can't use source code licensed with License X with source code > > licensed with License Z (ok, that's a generalization but I don't > > think it is too far off the mark). > > Is it *possible* for a license to be compatible with another? >Offhand > I can think of just two possibilities for the GPL: the LGPL, and >code > that has no license and is in the public domain. > > Might dual-licensing apply for some of the organizations who are > toying with writing a GPL clone -- as copyright holder, couldn't >they > release their code under both the GPL (or whatever license they > chose), and also license the program under some other terms as >needed? > > [Can anyone point me to any resources on the issue of license > compatibility?] > > > > We support all of the concepts of in the GPL, however the > > disclaimers and "lack of warranty" statements aren't specific >enough > > (at least that is what the lawyer told me). > > Did the lawyer mean that it was not specific enough about your > particular organization or software, or that it was not specific > enough about exactly what is being disclaimed? If the latter, I'd >like > to hear what the lawyer had to say!
RE: License Approval Process
Dual licensing doesn't make sense. If a licensee can choose which license to use, the will chose the one to their advantage. The software we are producing is used for the design of highway bridge structures. Our lawyer though the GPL didn't provide us enough protection against tort claims from third parties. If someone had the choice of GPL and Alternate Route, and they wanted to sue us, they would choose GPL. So what good is the dual license? None. -Original Message- From: Michael Stutz [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2000 10:49 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject:Re: License Approval Process Richard Brice wrote: > You can't use source code licensed with License X with source code > licensed with License Z (ok, that's a generalization but I don't > think it is too far off the mark). Is it *possible* for a license to be compatible with another? Offhand I can think of just two possibilities for the GPL: the LGPL, and code that has no license and is in the public domain. Might dual-licensing apply for some of the organizations who are toying with writing a GPL clone -- as copyright holder, couldn't they release their code under both the GPL (or whatever license they chose), and also license the program under some other terms as needed? [Can anyone point me to any resources on the issue of license compatibility?] > We support all of the concepts of in the GPL, however the > disclaimers and "lack of warranty" statements aren't specific enough > (at least that is what the lawyer told me). Did the lawyer mean that it was not specific enough about your particular organization or software, or that it was not specific enough about exactly what is being disclaimed? If the latter, I'd like to hear what the lawyer had to say!
Re: License Approval Process
Richard Brice wrote: > You can't use source code licensed with License X with source code > licensed with License Z (ok, that's a generalization but I don't > think it is too far off the mark). Is it *possible* for a license to be compatible with another? Offhand I can think of just two possibilities for the GPL: the LGPL, and code that has no license and is in the public domain. Might dual-licensing apply for some of the organizations who are toying with writing a GPL clone -- as copyright holder, couldn't they release their code under both the GPL (or whatever license they chose), and also license the program under some other terms as needed? [Can anyone point me to any resources on the issue of license compatibility?] > We support all of the concepts of in the GPL, however the > disclaimers and "lack of warranty" statements aren't specific enough > (at least that is what the lawyer told me). Did the lawyer mean that it was not specific enough about your particular organization or software, or that it was not specific enough about exactly what is being disclaimed? If the latter, I'd like to hear what the lawyer had to say!
Re: License Approval Process
I agree with most of the points made on this discussion. The more licenses that exist, the more splintered the open source community will become. You can't use source code licensed with License X with source code licensed with License Z (ok, that's a generalization but I don't think it is too far off the mark). I too have submitted a license for approval with no luck. The Alternate Route Open Source License, drafted by the Washington State Attorney General's Office, is simply a modification of the GPL. We based this license on the GPL with the permission of the Free Software Foundation. We support all of the concepts of in the GPL, however the disclaimers and "lack of warranty" statements aren't specific enough (at least that is what the lawyer told me). This is why we drafted our own license. I can appreciate why OSI hasn't certified our license. Does the world really need another GPL derivative? However, I fail to see why the OSI does not take the time to tell me that the Alternate Route Open Source License will not be certified. I have taken considerable time and effort to embrace open source concepts and to make open source software a reality in government. As a minimum, I expect a notice of rejection that details why a license that satisfied all the requirements of the OSD is not worthy of OSI certification. Richard Brice, Software Applications Engineer WSDOT Bridge and Structures Office
