RE: License Approval Process
I've seen may requests for OSI license certification over the past year. I would be helpful if you could publish a list of licenses pending review, and their priority, so those of us that have submitted a license can know where it is in the process. Richard Brice WSDOT -Original Message- From: Lawrence E. Rosen [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2000 6:10 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:License Approval Process To the Open Source community: The board of directors of OSI, which has responsibility to approve licenses, is composed of volunteers. They are doing their best to catch up with the backlog of submitted licenses. Given their other activities, this is taking more time than we'd like. I hope you can all be patient. As OSI's new executive director, I am taking seriously the job of processing license review requests in a timely manner. At last month's board meeting, six licenses were discussed and two approved (the CNRI license submitted by Python and the Apache license submitted by the Apache Software Foundation). The board has scheduled a meeting later this month to review licenses, and they plan to meet on a regular basis in coming months to try to work their way through the backlog of submitted licenses. The community can help by considering carefully whether a new license is really needed. There are several very good licenses already approved. Will "yet another" license help? Make sure you clearly explain your objectives for creating your new license when you submit it for approval, so that the OSI board can prioritize appropriately. We're also trying to improve our procedures so that we can update our web site more frequently as new licenses are submitted for review and then either approved or disapproved. If any of you know of someone in the California Bay Area who'd like to be OSI's webmaster, please let me know. OSI always welcomes suggestions for improvement. Please feel free to contact me, or you may write directly to members of the board of directors. /Larry Rosen Executive Director, OSI 650-366-3457 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.rosenlaw.com www.opensource.org
RE: Does linux use GPL or not??
Sometimes I overstate I guess... -Original Message- From: David Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Tue, 08 Aug 2000, SamBC wrote: SNIP The Redhat boxed set contains proprietary and non-redistributable software (and some proprietary but still redistributable software). I had overlooked this in my earlier post, as I have never acquired Redhat from anywhere other than Cheapbytes :-) I never bought a boxed distro myself... But to quibble even more, *every* distribution contains non-GPL components, the most prominant of which is XFree86. Dozens or hundreds of others exist in all distros. I guess I was committing the heinous semi-crime of using GPL as a synonym for redsitributable - sorry! You can however duplicate the downloadable ISO till your hearts content, you would still have to be careful of word usage when selling though You could say "RedHat Linux 6.2 GPL", just don't use the word 'Official', which implies they get the technical support. I seem to recall that Redhat was urging distributors not to use the "Redhat GPL" wording. (I can't remember what wording they did want) Personally, I never liked the "GPL" suffix, as it implies that everything included is under the GPL. "GPL" should not be used as a synonym for "redistributable". 'Download Version' perhaps... Also I really wish people did interpret free as "freedom" not free as in "free lunch" or "beer" Yes, people are free to do what they want with it - including copy sell it, as long as it is all GPL'd, as it is in many distributions (eg Debian) [sputter - sputter - choking on my Sierra Nevada Pale Ale - sputter] You cannot do whatever you want with GPL software... Only public domain has that distinction, and even there you can't claim authorship. I overstated - you can do *most* what you want - most people wouldn't want to do the things they can't! SamBC
RE: BH Fonts and XFree86
The 'license' statement sounds to me (IANAL) as though use and distribution in all forms is okay provided that the fonts are not altered, and that you may use the trademarked names of the fonts only to identify the font/typeface. IANAL, but it seems logical to me. SamBC -Original Message- From: David Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 09 August 2000 03:49 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: BH Fonts and XFree86 I got pulled into a discussion on a non-software mailing list regarding fonts. It was claimed that redistributing the Lucida fonts was illegal. This surprised me since these are included with XFree86, which I still consider to be freely redistributable. The dispute involved trying to acquire these fonts in order to reproduce the style of a certain publisher. Copying part of the legal notice that comes with the XFree86 source regarding the Lucida fonts from Bigelow and Holmes: NOTICE TO USER: The source code, including the glyphs or icons forming a par of the OPEN LOOK TM Graphic User Interface, on this tape and in these files is copyrighted under U.S. and international laws. Sun Microsystems, Inc. of Mountain View, California owns the copyright and has design patents pending on many of the icons. ATT is the owner of the OPEN LOOK trademark associated with the materials on this tape. Users and possessors of this source code are hereby granted a nonexclusive, royalty-free copyright and design patent license to use this code in individual and commercial software. A royalty-free, nonexclusive trademark license to refer to the code and output as "OPEN LOOK" compatible is available from ATT if, and only if, the appearance of the icons or glyphs is not changed in any manner except as absolutely necessary to accommodate the standard resolution of the screen or other output device, the code and output is not changed except as authorized herein, and the code and output is validated by ATT. Bigelow Holmes is the owner of the Lucida (R) trademark for the fonts and bit-mapped images associated with the materials on this tape. Users are granted a royalty-free, nonexclusive license to use the trademark only to identify the fonts and bit-mapped images if, and only if, the fonts and bit-mapped images are not modified in any way by the user. Questions: Is it permissable to redistribute the Lucida fonts? Is an electronic document considered software? Is it permissable to distribute printouts using these fonts? Thanks, -- David Johnson _ http://www.usermode.org
RE: License Approval Process
-Original Message- From: Brice, Richard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] I've seen may requests for OSI license certification over the past year. I would be helpful if you could publish a list of licenses pending review, and their priority, so those of us that have submitted a license can know where it is in the process. I agree. I appreciate that the OSI panel are busy people, but it would be nice to have received even an acknowledgement of receipt for my license submission. The only time I received any mail was when I sent an (accidentally) ratty follow-up enquiring what was going on, had it been received, etc. I then got a much more ratty response from ESR, replied with an apology, and have heard nothing since. It would certainly be nice to see what is going on with my license, publicly or emailed to me. Any chance of this little bit of extra work even if it slows down processing, OSI-people? SamBC
Re: StarOffice under the GPL ?
On Tue, 8 Aug 2000, Brian Behlendorf wrote: There *is* a Sun Public License modeled after the NPL, pretty much s/Netscape/Sun/, which Netbeans was released under (www.netbeans.org). Sorry, my bad, the Sun Public License is a verbatim (except for substitution of the terms "Mozilla" and "Netscape" with the term "Sun" and addition of "documentation" to the list of covered items) copy of the Mozilla Public License, NOT the Netscape Public License. The NPL is not an open source license, because it has language that carves out some redistribution rights for Netscape, which the MPL does not. Brian
List of Open Source Licenses
To all OSI license reviewers: I have listed below all "open source" licenses that have been submitted to OSI for approval. If you have submitted a license that does not appear on this list, please let me know. I also list those licenses that have already been approved. You'll note that many of the licenses are simply entered as text within an email sent to the distribution list. This is an awkward procedure that makes it easy for readers to lose track of your license. (I'm also guilty of this; I submitted a license for approval that was hidden in email.) Those of you who have done this, please resubmit your license with a URL to the place where the license can be displayed with a browser; PDF or HTML formats generally work. Obviously the OSI board cannot review all these licenses immediately. The license reviewers must set some priority. We welcome suggestions on how to prioritize this list. For example, if your license is basically a copy of an already approved license with minor changes, you can save us work by identifying those changes. Alternatively, just use an existing license! Thanks for your cooperation and understanding as we clean up the license approval backlog. /Larry Rosen Executive Director, OSI 650-366-3457 [EMAIL PROTECTED] LIST OF APPROVED LICENSES FOLLOWS * GNU General Public License: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/gpl-license.html * GNU Library or 'Lesser" Public License: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/lgpl-license.html * BSD License: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.html * MIT License: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.html * Artistic License: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/artistic-license.html * Mozilla Public License v. 1.0: http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/MPL-1.0.html * Qt Public License: http://www.trolltech.com/products/download/freelicense/ * IBM Public License v. 1.0: http://www.research.ibm.com/jikes/license/license3.htm * MITRE Collaborative Virtual Workspace (CVW) License: http://cvw.mitre.org/cvw/licenses/source/license.html * Ricoh Source Code Public License: http://www.risource.org/RPL/RPL-1.0A.shtml * Python License: http://www.python.org/doc/Copyright.html * zlib/libpng License: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/zlib-license.html * Apache Software License: http://www.apache.org/LICENSE LIST OF SUBMITTED LICENSES FOLLOWS * Apple Public Source License: http://publicsource.apple.com/apsl * SGI OpenVault Public License: www.sgi.com/software/opensource/openvault/license.html * XML4C Distribution License Agreement: www.alphaworks.ibm.com/xml4c.nsf * YAOSL (Foobar Softwware, Inc.): (in email on license-discuss) * MeepZor Consulting Public License: www.meepzor.com/packages/LICENSE.txt * XXX Public License: (in email on license-discuss) * GPL for Ftwalk: (in email on license-discuss) * XITE: not posted? * ATT Graphviz: not posted? * IBM Public License: (in email on license-discuss) * Zeratec Public License: (in email on license-discuss) * Larson CGM Generator Free Edition License: (in email on license-discuss) * ATT Source code Agreement Version 1.2D: (in email on license-discuss) * SOS Simple Open Source License: (in email on license-discuss) * Integrity Open Source License: (in email on license-discuss) * OpenDesk.com Public Source License: (in email on license-discuss) * 3dfx GLIDE Source Code General Public License: (in email on license-discuss) * WinGrid Free Public License: (in email on license-discuss) * Kennedy Open License (KOL): (in email on license-discuss) * Free World Licence [sic] V1: www.ross.net/fwl/version_1.shtml * Simple Public License v0.20: (in email on license-discuss) * Chebucto Suite License Agreement: (in email on license-discuss) * SGI Free Software License B: http://russnelson.com/SGIFreeSWLicB_1_1.html * Eiffel Forum License: (in email on license-discuss) * Sun Internet Standards Source License: http://openoffice.org/project/www/sissl_license.html * Jabber Open Source License: http://www.rosenlaw.com/html/Jabber.PDF * Design Science License: (in email on license-discuss) * Alternate Route Open Source License (AROSL): (in email on license-discuss) * Alternate Route Library Open Source License (ARLOSL): (in email on license-discuss)
Re: StarOffice under the GPL ?
On Wed, Aug 09, 2000 at 04:32:01PM -0700, Brian Behlendorf wrote: On Tue, 8 Aug 2000, Brian Behlendorf wrote: There *is* a Sun Public License modeled after the NPL, pretty much s/Netscape/Sun/, which Netbeans was released under (www.netbeans.org). Sorry, my bad, the Sun Public License is a verbatim (except for substitution of the terms "Mozilla" and "Netscape" with the term "Sun" and addition of "documentation" to the list of covered items) copy of the Mozilla Public License, NOT the Netscape Public License. The NPL is not an open source license, because it has language that carves out some redistribution rights for Netscape, which the MPL does not. Thanks for 'fessing up. That was my general understanding. I'll have to give it a closer read, but I believe there's also a definition of what it is to be an API in the Sun version of the license. I'm talking through my hat as I'm not looking at SISSL at the moment. -- Karsten M. Self [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.netcom.com/~kmself Evangelist, Opensales, Inc.http://www.opensales.org What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? Debian GNU/Linux rocks! http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/K5: http://www.kuro5hin.org GPG fingerprint: F932 8B25 5FDD 2528 D595 DC61 3847 889F 55F2 B9B0 PGP signature
Re: Does linux use GPL or not??
On Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 09:57:48PM -0700, David Johnson wrote: On Mon, 07 Aug 2000, Kristiono Setyadi wrote: On Mon, 7 Aug 2000, David Johnson wrote: If you modified the kernel and distributed it under a different license, you will get in serious trouble. It is not a crime exactly, but a copyright violation. When you go to court it will be to a civil court not a criminal court. What about the other version of Linux (like RedHat, Slackware, etc.)? Can we say that the Kernel of the Linux have been changed? All of the different Linux distributions use the same kernel. Some will use different patches or modifications that the others don't, but all of these patches are also under the GPL. So far, the kernel has not forked, and I doubt that it will unless there is a technical reason to do so. Not strictly true, nor relevant to the discussion. What all Linux distributions *do* use is a kernel which is derived from the one Linus Torvalds (and other kernel hackers) have released under the terms of the GNU GPL. Ownership of copyright transmits through derived works (the laywers here may want to wordsmith that, but I believe the gist is correct). The various Linux kernels, and the distributions they are distributed with, contain copyrighted code written by Torvalds and others. The license by which the code is allowed to be distributed is the GPL. All kernels need not be identical. They are, however, a set of derived works under copyright law. IANAL. -- Karsten M. Self [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.netcom.com/~kmself Evangelist, Opensales, Inc.http://www.opensales.org What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? Debian GNU/Linux rocks! http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/K5: http://www.kuro5hin.org GPG fingerprint: F932 8B25 5FDD 2528 D595 DC61 3847 889F 55F2 B9B0 PGP signature
Re: Does linux use GPL or not??
On Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 09:57:48PM -0700, David Johnson wrote: On Mon, 07 Aug 2000, Kristiono Setyadi wrote: On Mon, 7 Aug 2000, David Johnson wrote: In some countries, the copyright is some of the most frequently violated. Most of the microsoft (and other commercial software..) are pirated. Have you heard about Linux pirated?? There is no point in pirating Linux. It is already free with no cost. There is nothing wrong with purchasing a $80 boxed set of Redhat and making a million copies of it, selling them for $1 each. There may be a trademark violation if these copies are sold as "official" Redhat distributions, but there is still very little reason to do this. Overall, there is very little incentive to pirate Linux. It is a completely different class of software than Windows. As I like to say, "you can't steal what is free". There is a possible incentive, if it's believed that by practicing "embrace and extend" tactics, a specific distributor could gain a stranglehold on the Linux market. It's also possible to effectively pirate the brand or trademarks of a Linux distribution. Several years ago, RedHat practiced some pretty liberal branding and distribution agreements, which were later significantly tightened up. There's a branding statement on their website (the URL keeps drifting, I'll find it on request though) which goes into length on what can and cannot be done with the "RedHat" brand. Generally it's ok to refer to RedHat as an inspiration for a distribution, but this cannot be done in such a way that the "RedHat" mark or text stands out from other body text. So you have CheapBytes selling a RedHat 6.2 CD for $4.95, but that's just "RedHat 6.2", not bold or otherwise distinctive type. -- Karsten M. Self [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.netcom.com/~kmself Evangelist, Opensales, Inc.http://www.opensales.org What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? Debian GNU/Linux rocks! http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/K5: http://www.kuro5hin.org GPG fingerprint: F932 8B25 5FDD 2528 D595 DC61 3847 889F 55F2 B9B0 PGP signature
Re: Does linux use GPL or not??
On Tue, Aug 08, 2000 at 05:59:04PM +0100, SamBC wrote: -Original Message- From: Kristiono Setyadi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] SNIP What about the other version of Linux (like RedHat, Slackware, etc.)? Can we say that the Kernel of the Linux have been changed? They do not modify the kernel (except for the odd proprietary patch which is unusual). However, they distribute under the GPL also (mostly), and they charge for documentation, support, and media, not for the software itself The TurboLinux clustering software is, I believe, an example of this. -- Karsten M. Self [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.netcom.com/~kmself Evangelist, Opensales, Inc.http://www.opensales.org What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? Debian GNU/Linux rocks! http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/K5: http://www.kuro5hin.org GPG fingerprint: F932 8B25 5FDD 2528 D595 DC61 3847 889F 55F2 B9B0 PGP signature
Re: BH Fonts and XFree86
On Tue, Aug 08, 2000 at 07:48:50PM -0700, David Johnson wrote: I got pulled into a discussion on a non-software mailing list regarding fonts. It was claimed that redistributing the Lucida fonts was illegal. This surprised me since these are included with XFree86, which I still consider to be freely redistributable. The dispute involved trying to acquire these fonts in order to reproduce the style of a certain publisher. Data point, and I'm not sure it's relevant. The Plan 9 OS license from Lucent has a specific carve-out for fonts. I don't know if these are the same fonts in question or others. Note that in general there is a distinction made between fonts as they are printed and appear on paper, and the program used to generate fonts. The only instances I'm aware of in which copyright is applied to fonts applies specifically to the programs generating the typeface, not the typeface itself. -- Karsten M. Self [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.netcom.com/~kmself Evangelist, Opensales, Inc.http://www.opensales.org What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? Debian GNU/Linux rocks! http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/K5: http://www.kuro5hin.org GPG fingerprint: F932 8B25 5FDD 2528 D595 DC61 3847 889F 55F2 B9B0 PGP signature
Re: StarOffice under the GPL ?
Brian Behlendorf wrote: On Tue, 8 Aug 2000, Brian Behlendorf wrote: There *is* a Sun Public License modeled after the NPL, pretty much s/Netscape/Sun/, which Netbeans was released under (www.netbeans.org). Sorry, my bad, the Sun Public License is a verbatim (except for substitution of the terms "Mozilla" and "Netscape" with the term "Sun" and addition of "documentation" to the list of covered items) copy of the Mozilla Public License, NOT the Netscape Public License. The NPL is not an open source license, because it has language that carves out some redistribution rights for Netscape, which the MPL does not. Brian This comment surprised me. I had thought the NPL was an open-source license. I certainly understand the position that the NPL is an inequitable license because Netscape has rights that other contributors do not, but I just looked at the OSD and see what part of it the NPL fails to satisfy. Even RMS considers the NPL a free software license (a flawed free software license, but a free software license, nevertheless - at least according to http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/netscape-npl.html). Could someone please clarify exactly what is unacceptable about the NPL? - Ravi Nanavati
