Re: FW: FW: Qt and the GPL
Nelson Rush wrote: Also, there is no legal distinction between dynamic and static linking, so the issues are the same for both. In principle, no. But static linking is often done by the distributor of a program, whereas dynamic linking is invariably done by the person executing the program. In the latter case, de minimis and first-sale issues arise: technically, scribbling marginal notes in your copy of a book is making a derivative work, but as long as you do not distribute it, a copyright lawsuit against you will not get far. The practical use of this is that Trent may write a program under the GPL, and Alice may license Bob to use some of her proprietary software that is meant to be linked to Trent's program. Bob is creating a derivative work and is technically in violation of the GPL, but as long as he does not distribute the executable, Trent has little or no case. -- There is / one art || John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] no more / no less|| http://www.reutershealth.com to do / all things || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan with art- / lessness \\ -- Piet Hein
Board Approvals
At its past two meetings, the OSI board of directors approved the following licenses: * Apache Software License: http://www.apache.org/LICENSE * Mozilla Public License 1.1 (MPL 1.1): http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/MPL-1.1.html * Jabber Open Source License: http://www.rosenlaw.com/html/Jabber.PDF * Sun Internet Standards Source License (SISSL): http://openoffice.org/project/www/sissl_license.html * SGI OpenVault Public License: www.sgi.com/software/opensource/openvault/license.html * Vovida Software License v. 1.0: http://www.vovida.org/license.html * Python License: http://hdl.handle.net/1895.22/1011 A complete list of approved and pending licenses will be sent by separate email. /Larry Rosen Executive Director, OSI 650-216-1597 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
OpenSales Dev. Agreement (was Re: License List -- as of 9-11-00)
On Mon, Sep 11, 2000 at 09:18:08AM -0700, Lawrence E. Rosen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Listed below are all the licenses approved by OSI and all the licenses I'm aware of that have been submitted to OSI for its approval. Please let me know if there are any changes, additions or deletions to these lists. /Larry Rosen Executive Director, OSI 650-216-1597 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... LIST OF SUBMITTED LICENSES FOLLOWS ... * OpenSales Developer Agreement: http://www.opensales.org/html/devagree.shtml This was posted to license-discuss for, er, license discussion, not for OSI certification per se. I don't believe the agreement falls within the scope of OSI cert, unless someone wants to tell me differently, in which case I'll raise the issue at OpenSales. -- 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: License List -- as of 9-11-00
Here are two SPL diffs (a "hacker's" one that looks like a diff file, and a
"lawyer's" one that looks like a redline) as well as the full text of the
SPL. Thanks as always for your consideration.
Danese
- Original Message -
From: Brian Behlendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Danese Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Lawrence E. Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2000 1:33 PM
Subject: Re: License List -- as of 9-11-00
We've already said that changing names on a license doesn't affect OSD
conformance, so if that were all that were changed, then no problem. To
be safe, though, I don't know how we can allow other kinds of changes
without exposing ourselves to the risk of a small change that does end up
affecting OSD conformance. The flip side is that if the change is simple,
OSI certification should be relatively fast. I'll try and bring it up on
the board list to see if we can approve it at our next board meeting at
the end of the month.
Patches provided in "diff" format against other OSI-approved licenses are
always appreciated. =)
Brian
On Mon, 11 Sep 2000, Danese Cooper wrote:
Our "Sun Public License" is a verbatim copy of the MozPL 1.1, except
that we
substituted the word "Sun" everywhere for "Mozilla" and "Netscape", and
we
added documentation to the list of covered things (as separate from
source
code).
So, are we automatically covered because MozPL 1.1 is okay now? Do we
need
to submit separately?
Danese
Title: www.netbeans.org
$ diff -bi mpl-1.1.txt spl-1.0.txt
1c1
< MOZILLA PUBLIC LICENSE Version 1.1
---
> SUN PUBLIC LICENSE Version 1.0
17c17,18
< including portions thereof.
---
> including portions thereof and corresponding documentation released
> with the source code.
60c61
< any associated interface definition files, scripts used
---
> any associated documentation, interface definition files, scripts used
202c203
< interface and Contributor has knowledge of patent licenses
---
> interface ("API") and Contributor has knowledge of patent licenses
287c288
< Netscape Communications Corporation ("Netscape") may publish revised and/or new versions
---
> Sun Microsystems, Inc. ("Sun") may publish revised and/or new versions
296,297c297,298
< of any subsequent version of the License published by Netscape. No one
< other than Netscape has the right to modify the terms applicable to Covered
---
> of any subsequent version of the License published by Sun. No one
> other than Sun has the right to modify the terms applicable to Covered
305c306
< the phrases "Mozilla", "MOZILLAPL", "MOZPL", "Netscape", "MPL", "NPL" or any confusingly
---
> the phrases "Sun," "Sun Public License," or "SPL" or any confusingly
309c310
< Mozilla Public License and Netscape Public License. (Filling in the name of the Initial Developer,
---
> Sun Public License. (Filling in the name of the Initial Developer,
440c441
< Your choice of the NPL or the alternative licenses, if any, specified by the
---
> Your choice of the alternative licenses, if any, specified by the
443c444
< EXHIBIT A -Mozilla Public License.
---
> Exhibit A -Sun Public License Notice.
445,453c446,449
< The contents of this file are subject to the Mozilla Public License
< Version 1.1 (the "License"); you may not use this file except in
< compliance with the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at
< http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/
<
< Software distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS"
< basis, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, either express or implied. See the
< License for the specific language governing rights and limitations
< under the License.
---
> The contents of this file are subject to the Sun Public License
> Version 1.0 (the "License"); you may not use this file except in
> compliance with the License. A copy of the License is available at
> http://www.sun.com/
466c462
< version of this file under the MPL, indicate your decision by deleting
---
> version of this file under the SPL, indicate your decision by deleting
470c466
< either the MPL or the [___] License.
---
> either the SPL or the [___] License."
NetBeans Projects
The Core |
CVS |
Debugger |
Experimental |
Form Editor |
Java |
OpenIDE |
Source Editor |
Tools |
Web
Title: www.netbeans.org
MPL-SPL Differences
The following is the full text of the MPL/SPL, with differences marked
as follows :
Text struck out - such as this text
- is text that was originally in the MPL, and which has been removed
from the SPL.
Bold text - such as this text -
is text which is not in the MPL, and has been added in the SPL.
MOZILLA SUN PUBLIC LICENSE Version 1.1 1.0
1. Definitions.
1.0.1. "Commercial Use" means distribution or otherwise making the
Covered Code available to a third party.
1.1. "Contributor" means each entity that creates or contributes to
the
Re: License List -- as of 9-11-00
On Mon, Sep 11, 2000 at 09:17:32AM -0700, Danese Cooper ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Larry, Our "Sun Public License" is a verbatim copy of the MozPL 1.1, except that we substituted the word "Sun" everywhere for "Mozilla" and "Netscape", and we added documentation to the list of covered things (as separate from source code). So, are we automatically covered because MozPL 1.1 is okay now? Do we need to submit separately? I've already responded privately to Danese. It's also been mentioned to the CLWG. Anyone know if Mitchel is subscribed to license-discuss? One suggestion I've made in the past regarding the Mozilla license is, that as it appears to be emerging as a standard (and is a good choice of licenses to do so, particularly when dualed with [L]GPL), it might make sense to institute an organization implement something along the lines of the following. Principle degrees of freedom on MozPL variants are: 1. Occurances of "Netscape Communications Corporation" and "Netscape" in section 6, "Versions of the License". 2. "California", "Northern District of California", and "Santa Clara County, California", in section 11, "Miscellaneous". Nowhere else is there specific language as far as I can see. (BTW: I've noticed what appears to be a typo referencing the "NPL" in section 13 of the MozPL). A principal concern of companies and organizations is ceding authoring authority for the license itself to an external company or organization, including possible competitors. Simultaneously, there is a concern that trivially differing licenses might be considered different, leading to license balkanization. As a remedy to both concerns, a standards organization is charged with drafting a reference license, and indicating what variances to the two items of language above may be allowed. Licenses which have these and only these variances from the standard are considered conformant, allowing for code compatibility (aka license transitivity). Eg: software licensed under one set of terms is considered equally validly covered under any of the variant licenses. This issue itself could be addressed either in contractual language or via a certification process similar to OSI. Companies or organizations adopting the standard *retain right of versioning* -- the right is *not* ceded to the central authority. Rather, as new versions of the reference license are drafted, co-licensees have the option of adopting the new language or continuing on their own track. It is, of course, hoped that conformance will be maintained. Previously issued code will continue to be covered under original (and any subsequent) licensing terms. This will allow for conformant license forking of existing projects to maintain conformance in the event any subset of co-licensees attempts to hijack the standard, minimizing hijacking risk. This proposal also allows for continued input into licensing terms and a continued evolution of language, which has been IMO useful to free software licensing in the past. This language does retain a certain US-Centric perspective, however, it should significantly broaden the prospects for license standardization. -- 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: FW: FW: Qt and the GPL
The real question is whether either the dynamic or static linking of a program to a copyrighted work creates a "derivative work," as that term is defined in 17 U.S.C. 101: A "derivative work" is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a "derivative work." In some situations the static linking of two programs creates a derivative work, but I cannot imagine any scenario under which the dynamic linking of two programs -- particularly where the end user is doing the dynamic linking in accordance with published procedures (e.g., a published API) -- creates a derivative work. In no way is the original work being modified. At most, dynamic linking might fall under the definitions of "collective work" or "compilation." Those terms are also defined in 17 U.S.C. 101: A "collective work" is a work, such as a periodical issue, anthology, or encyclopedia, in which a number of contributions, constituting separate and independent works in themselves, are assembled into a collective whole. A "compilation" is a work formed by the collection and assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship. The term "compilation" includes collective works. When the author of piece of software that uses dynamic linking to integrate itself with other programs (e.g., to load drivers or special subprograms) licenses his program for reasonable use, he cannot thereby force the third party programs to lose their own license characteristics. He may be able to say "you are not licensed to create a compilation or collective work with third party software unless that third party software is licensed the way I want it to be." But he cannot say that "the third party software automatically inherits the license characteristics of my software." In any event, I doubt that the original author could ever enforce any such restrictive license terms against end users of his software who are merely doing the dynamic linking for which purpose his program was designed. /Larry Rosen -Original Message- From: David Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, September 11, 2000 6:50 PM To: John Cowan Cc: License-Discuss Subject: Re: FW: FW: Qt and the GPL On Mon, 11 Sep 2000, John Cowan wrote: Nelson Rush wrote: Also, there is no legal distinction between dynamic and static linking, so the issues are the same for both. In principle, no. But static linking is often done by the distributor of a program, whereas dynamic linking is invariably done by the person executing the program. In the latter case, de minimis and first-sale issues arise: technically, scribbling marginal notes in your copy of a book is making a derivative work, but as long as you do not distribute it, a copyright lawsuit against you will not get far. Does copyright law make a distinction between refering to a work and incorporating the work? If so, the dynamic and static linking have another big difference. In the case of dynamic linking only references into the library are used (the interface) while the actual library is not incorporated. -- David Johnson _ http://www.usermode.org
