AFPL vs. GPL-like licenses?
Hi, I'm relatively new to open-source licensing issues and would like some "expert" opinion/advice on which license to choose for a new project. I have previously released some stuff under GPL without seriously giving thought to what the different licenses really "mean" but for this larger project I'd like to KNOW what I'm doing. I understand that SW released under Aladdin Free Public License (AFPL) (see for example http://dv.go.dlr.de/fresh/unix/src/misc/ghost/aladdin/PUBLIC) is not open-source or free software but I would like to know what is the current view of AFPL it in the open-source community. What are the drawbacks of using such a license? Will developers be put off and if so, why? What are the implications of using AFPL versus using GPL? From reading the interview with Peter Deutsch (http://devlinux.org/deutsch-interview.html) I'm inclined to using AFPL instead of the "standard" GPL. Can you convince me I should go with GPL? Here's an excerpt from the interview I found especially interesting: "STIG: I gather that some people, perhaps even many people, are disappointed by your decision to stop using the GPL for all versions of Ghostscript. PETER: Then perhaps the act is not properly understood. I put a lot of thought into what I saw as the flaw in the GNU license when formulating the Aladdin license. The essence of the Aladdin license I can describe in one sentence and it is very much about social contracts. Namely, if you are willing to play by what I think are the 1960s rules, then the Aladdin license gives you exactly the same rights and benefits as the GPL: it's free to use, it's free to copy, and you are free to modify it. All of those things. In a nutshell, I see the 1960s rules, or the cooperative rules, this way: "everybody contributes, so everybody benefits." Unlike the GPL I make a very solid distinction between distribution as part of a commercial endeavor and distribution not as part of a commercial endeavor. Distribution not as part of a commercial endeavor is covered by essentially the GPL rules, while distribution in any commercial endeavor is not permitted by the Aladdin free license. The philosophical weight of this is that if you want to play by cooperative rules, you get the benefits of Aladdin's work within the context of those rules. If you are not playing by the cooperative rules, then it's going to cost you something to have the rights to get the value from Aladdin software. " Best regards, Robert --- Robert Feldttel: +46-(0)31 772 5217 fax: +46-(0)31 772 3663 [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] MSc, Ph.D. student Chalmers Univ. of Technology, Dept. of Computer Engineering Hrsalsvgen 11, SE-412 96 Gothenburg, Sweden
Request for approval: IPL 1.0
Hi Everybody,
hereby we release our OpenSource license as announced in the last
Open magazine. We are sure that we fullfill the basics from the
http://www.opensource.org/osd.html
page, but we already got some feedback like:
"...there is no need for an additional license..."
from the german jurisdiction point of view, we totally disagree.
We kindly ask for serious comments.
--
best regards,
Ralf "puzzler" Schwoebel
CEO, intraDAT international inc.
11250 Roger Bacon Drive (#3)
Reston, VA 20190
Tel.: 703 796
** snip
intraDAT Public License
Version 1.0.0
---
Please read this Agreement carefully before using, copying, modifying or
distributing the intraDAT Public License Code ("IPL Code"). It will only
be
licensed to you if you first accept the terms of this Agreement. By
using,
copying, modifying or distributing the IPL Code, you indicate your
acceptance
of this license and all its terms and conditions for the IPL Code or
works based
on it. Nothing other than this license grants you permission to use,
copy,
modify or distribute the IPL Code or its derivative works. If you do not
agree
to the terms of this Agreement, promptly notify the provider of the IPL
Code
and delete the IPL Code and all copies of the IPL Code immediately from
any of
your storage media. You are not allowed to separate or to modify this
License
from the IPL Code.
Note: This license is not identical to any of the GNU Licenses published
by
the Free Software Foundation. Its terms are substantially different from
those
of the GNU Licenses.
Copyright of this Text: intraDAT, Wilhelm-Leuschner-Strae 9-11, 60329
Frankfurt am Main, Germany and Alexander Eichler, Graf von Westphalen
Fritze
Modest, Marsstrae 33, 80335 Mnchen
1. Definition
1.1. "Distribution" means to copy the IPL Code in part or total for or
to one
or several third parties. This includes both the active copying (e.g. in
form
of a transmission) as well as to place the IPL Code in part or total at
the
disposal of third parties (e.g. ftp server or CD-Rom).
1.2. "Distributor" means somebody who distributes, different from
intraDAT.
1.3. "Documentation" means the documentation given in electronic or
paper form
for users and/or developers. Documentation will be provided in English
language.
There is no obligation for any other language, but parts of the
Documentation
might be given additionally in other languages.
1.4. "IPL Code" (intraDAT Public License Code) means the Software as
licensed
by intraDAT under these clauses in form of source and/or object code.
User will
find the exact definition of "IPL Code" in form of program names and
version
numbers on www.intradat.com.
1.5. "Source Code": The source code for a work means the preferred form
of the
work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete
source
code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any
associated
interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation
and
installation of the executable code. However, the source code
distributed need
not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or
binary
form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the
operating
system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself
accompanies
the executable code;
1.6. "User" means anyone who receives, uses or develops the IPL Code,
different
from intraDAT and anybody else acting in behalf of intraDAT.
1.7. "Modifications" means any changes made to IPL Code.
2. License
2.1. The IPL Code is copyrighted by intraDAT under national and
international
law.
2.2. For the IPL Code and Documentation intraDAT hereby grants you a
world-wide, non-exclusive license, subject to third party intellectual
property
claims:
(a) to use, reproduce, modify, display, and perform the IPL Code
and/or
Documentation; and
(b) to use parts of the IPL Code in your own software you shall always
state
at least in remarks of the Source Code, which lines of code are
directly or
indirectly from intraDAT, always giving the address www.intradat.com
and you
have to apply this intraDAT Public License for the program in total as
long
as you have no written consent by intraDAT to apply a different
license
agreement.
(c) under patents now or hereafter owned or controlled by intraDAT, to
make,
have made and use ("Utilize") the IPL Code (or portions thereof), but
solely
to the extent that any such patent is reasonably necessary to enable
you to
Utilize the IPL Code (or portions thereof) and not to any greater
extent
that may be necessary to Utilize further Modifications, combinations
or
software code different from IPL Code.
3. License Key
3.1. User may have to get one or several License Keys for using parts of
the
IPL Code from intraDAT. Please refer to
Re: Request for approval: IPL 1.0
Ralf Schwoebel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Everybody,
hereby we release our OpenSource license as announced in the last
Open magazine. We are sure that we fullfill the basics from the
http://www.opensource.org/osd.html
page, but we already got some feedback like:
"...there is no need for an additional license..."
from the german jurisdiction point of view, we totally disagree.
We kindly ask for serious comments.
My first comment is that we don't need an additional
license.
My second comment is that if this meets the open
source definition then that is a flaw in the
definition.
My third comment is that 2.2.a (that people with
this license can use the software appears to me
to be in serious conflict with 3.1 (that people
may need license keys from IPL to run this
software). You may claim that is because the
section in 2.2.a is subject to other intellectual
property claims. Be that as it may, but your
requirement conflicts with item 7 of the open
source definition. (You may not require an
additional license.)
My fourth comment is that 3.3 (that the code for
license keys cannot be deleted and must be
included in anything that copies from the software)
may or may not meet item 3 of the open source
definition (derived works) but to the extent it
does shows a flaw in the wording of that section.
My fifth comment is that section 5.2 (requiring
fees from anyone doing modification and support
for third parties) is particuarly awful, and IMO
violates sections 5 and 6 of the open source
definition.
I could go on, but let me summarize.
I am not a lawyer. But I do not believe that you
have met the open source definition. If your
license is by some miracle accepted by the OSI as
being compliant, I will consider that a failure
of the process and not a recommendation for your
license. I will refuse to use or recommend any
software produced under this license. I suspect
from your license that you are unclear on what
this whole open-source thing is.
Regards,
Ben Tilly
best regards,
Ralf "puzzler" Schwoebel
CEO, intraDAT international inc.
11250 Roger Bacon Drive (#3)
Reston, VA 20190
Tel.: 703 796
** snip
intraDAT Public License
Version 1.0.0
---
Please read this Agreement carefully before using, copying, modifying or
distributing the intraDAT Public License Code ("IPL Code"). It will only
be
licensed to you if you first accept the terms of this Agreement. By
using,
copying, modifying or distributing the IPL Code, you indicate your
acceptance
of this license and all its terms and conditions for the IPL Code or
works based
on it. Nothing other than this license grants you permission to use,
copy,
modify or distribute the IPL Code or its derivative works. If you do not
agree
to the terms of this Agreement, promptly notify the provider of the IPL
Code
and delete the IPL Code and all copies of the IPL Code immediately from
any of
your storage media. You are not allowed to separate or to modify this
License
from the IPL Code.
Note: This license is not identical to any of the GNU Licenses published
by
the Free Software Foundation. Its terms are substantially different from
those
of the GNU Licenses.
Copyright of this Text: intraDAT, Wilhelm-Leuschner-Straße 9-11, 60329
Frankfurt am Main, Germany and Alexander Eichler, Graf von Westphalen
Fritze
Modest, Marsstraße 33, 80335 München
1. Definition
1.1. "Distribution" means to copy the IPL Code in part or total for or
to one
or several third parties. This includes both the active copying (e.g. in
form
of a transmission) as well as to place the IPL Code in part or total at
the
disposal of third parties (e.g. ftp server or CD-Rom).
1.2. "Distributor" means somebody who distributes, different from
intraDAT.
1.3. "Documentation" means the documentation given in electronic or
paper form
for users and/or developers. Documentation will be provided in English
language.
There is no obligation for any other language, but parts of the
Documentation
might be given additionally in other languages.
1.4. "IPL Code" (intraDAT Public License Code) means the Software as
licensed
by intraDAT under these clauses in form of source and/or object code.
User will
find the exact definition of "IPL Code" in form of program names and
version
numbers on www.intradat.com.
1.5. "Source Code": The source code for a work means the preferred form
of the
work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete
source
code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any
associated
interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation
and
installation of the executable code. However, the source code
distributed need
not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or
binary
form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the
operating
system on which the executable runs, unless
Re: Request for approval: IPL 1.0
Ralf,
There are many entities who release what they claim are "OpenSource" licenses,
but differ from the GPL or LGPL. Each such license places additional burdens on
the entire open source community. Those burdens devolve from the inevitable
interactions between software licensed under various licensing terms. In the
case of your proposed "IPL" license, there are even more serious concerns. It
appears that many sections of the license were not written by either a native
English language speaker, or someone with any training or experience in U.S. law.
Incorrect use of grammar, tense, and terminology which carries specific legal
meaning in U.S. law, will create a nightmare for anyone who tries to interpret the
intention of your document.
If you really feel that you need a new license, and you feel that the text must be
in English, I suggest you work with a good U.S. lawyer.
Regards,
Frank
Ralf Schwoebel wrote:
Hi Everybody,
hereby we release our OpenSource license as announced in the last
Open magazine. We are sure that we fullfill the basics from the
http://www.opensource.org/osd.html
page, but we already got some feedback like:
"...there is no need for an additional license..."
from the german jurisdiction point of view, we totally disagree.
We kindly ask for serious comments.
--
best regards,
Ralf "puzzler" Schwoebel
CEO, intraDAT international inc.
11250 Roger Bacon Drive (#3)
Reston, VA 20190
Tel.: 703 796
** snip
intraDAT Public License
Version 1.0.0
---
Please read this Agreement carefully before using, copying, modifying or
distributing the intraDAT Public License Code ("IPL Code"). It will only
be
licensed to you if you first accept the terms of this Agreement. By
using,
copying, modifying or distributing the IPL Code, you indicate your
acceptance
of this license and all its terms and conditions for the IPL Code or
works based
on it. Nothing other than this license grants you permission to use,
copy,
modify or distribute the IPL Code or its derivative works. If you do not
agree
to the terms of this Agreement, promptly notify the provider of the IPL
Code
and delete the IPL Code and all copies of the IPL Code immediately from
any of
your storage media. You are not allowed to separate or to modify this
License
from the IPL Code.
Note: This license is not identical to any of the GNU Licenses published
by
the Free Software Foundation. Its terms are substantially different from
those
of the GNU Licenses.
Copyright of this Text: intraDAT, Wilhelm-Leuschner-Strae 9-11, 60329
Frankfurt am Main, Germany and Alexander Eichler, Graf von Westphalen
Fritze
Modest, Marsstrae 33, 80335 Mnchen
1. Definition
1.1. "Distribution" means to copy the IPL Code in part or total for or
to one
or several third parties. This includes both the active copying (e.g. in
form
of a transmission) as well as to place the IPL Code in part or total at
the
disposal of third parties (e.g. ftp server or CD-Rom).
1.2. "Distributor" means somebody who distributes, different from
intraDAT.
1.3. "Documentation" means the documentation given in electronic or
paper form
for users and/or developers. Documentation will be provided in English
language.
There is no obligation for any other language, but parts of the
Documentation
might be given additionally in other languages.
1.4. "IPL Code" (intraDAT Public License Code) means the Software as
licensed
by intraDAT under these clauses in form of source and/or object code.
User will
find the exact definition of "IPL Code" in form of program names and
version
numbers on www.intradat.com.
1.5. "Source Code": The source code for a work means the preferred form
of the
work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete
source
code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any
associated
interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation
and
installation of the executable code. However, the source code
distributed need
not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or
binary
form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the
operating
system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself
accompanies
the executable code;
1.6. "User" means anyone who receives, uses or develops the IPL Code,
different
from intraDAT and anybody else acting in behalf of intraDAT.
1.7. "Modifications" means any changes made to IPL Code.
2. License
2.1. The IPL Code is copyrighted by intraDAT under national and
international
law.
2.2. For the IPL Code and Documentation intraDAT hereby grants you a
world-wide, non-exclusive license, subject to third party intellectual
property
claims:
(a) to use, reproduce, modify, display, and perform the IPL Code
and/or
RE: AFPL vs. GPL-like licenses?
Hi, What are the implications of using AFPL versus using GPL? Finally, I can give something back to this mailing list! Some months ago I was looking for a license for a "open source" project as well. I was willing to use GPL until I discovered this 'flaw'. What struck me as odd was the fact that third parties are allowed to make money of a product that they get for free. It reminds of something I did in my childhood (I must have been 12 years old or so). Somebody gave me a collection of comics that he knew I liked. I read most but when I got tired of them I try to sell them in a yard sale. Then my brother pointed out to me that I shouldn't sell anything that I got as a present. I understood the mistake I made and waived from selling them. Now that I have my own 'present' to give to 'the software society', I'm afraid that some people might _willingly_ make the same 'mistake' I made. They are allowed to do so under the GPL. Somebody pointed out the AFPL to me. I was immediately convinced the first time I read it. I've added a clause covering potential patent infringements and that's the license my company is going to use for our game toolkit: http://www.mondobizzarro.com/MBFPL.html Hope this helps, Lionello Lunesu Bizzarrista Originale. MONDO BIZZARRO B.V. MARKT 22A P.O. BOX 475 5600 AL EINDHOVEN NETHERLANDS TEL +31(0)40-2960886 FAX +31(0)40-2960881 Visit us on the web: www.mondobizzarro.com Mondo Bizzarro: where pigs can fly!
Re: IPL as a burden
Frank LaMonica wrote: but differ from the GPL or LGPL. Each such license places additional burdens on the entire open source community. Those burdens devolve from the inevitable Dear Frank, thanks for the input, but I have to disagree. The lack of the word money is the burden of the OpenSource community and even companies like VA or RedHat have to feel that these days. And the GPL comes from a time when students changed the world and coolness was a skill. Now we have 2001 and the idea of Open Source needs a kick, because we need applications now and everybody thinks its cooler to work on an operating system, not an application. We see no other possibility than enabling people to charge money for sources without violating the basics of OpenSource: Anyone is allowed to use the software, everybody has access to the sources, etc. pp. This money goes to the developers and they can pay their bills. And by the way: Our license is approved by a very good and accepted lawyer in Washington DC (some senators and HUGE software vendors agree to that) and is suitable for the Virginia law, since software licenses have to fit the state laws, not the federal law in the US. -- best regards, Ralf "puzzler" Schwoebel CEO, intraDAT international inc. 11250 Roger Bacon Drive (#3) Reston, VA 20190 Tel.: 703 796
Re: Request for approval: IPL 1.0
Sorry, but I stopped reading the "IPL" about half-way through. There is no way that this is Open Source. If you are going to try to extract license fees from people who do customization of your code, you'd better not do it under the Open Source banner. Sorry, Mark
Re: IPL as a burden
begin Ralf Schwoebel quotation: Now we have 2001 and the idea of Open Source needs a kick yawn Possibly, but _not_ an on-the-fly redefinition to suit your convenience. You have now been cited numerous fundamental aspects in which your licence does not follow the principles of the Open Source Definition (http://www.opensource.org/osd.html). Therefore, although your licence may, as Mr. Lincoln said, be the sort of thing that will be enjoyed by those who enjoy that sort of thing, it is not an open source licence. Thus, please do not refer to it that way; that will save the open source community a great deal of work contradicting your firm's assertions to the contrary at every turn, and save your firm a public-relations problem. -- Cheers, "Because film is the pre-eminent American art form. You don't hear Rick Moen people saying 'You know, this movie would make a really great epic [EMAIL PROTECTED] poem.'" -- Orson Scott Card, book signing, 7 Jan 2001
Re: IPL as a burden
Ralf Schwoebel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Frank LaMonica wrote: but differ from the GPL or LGPL. Each such license places additional burdens on the entire open source community. Those burdens devolve from the inevitable Dear Frank, thanks for the input, but I have to disagree. The lack of the word money is the burden of the OpenSource community and even companies like VA or RedHat have to feel that these days. And the GPL comes from a time when students changed the world and coolness was a skill. It is clear that you don't understand open source. Now we have 2001 and the idea of Open Source needs a kick, because we need applications now and everybody thinks its cooler to work on an operating system, not an application. We see no other possibility than enabling people to charge money for sources without violating the basics of OpenSource: You are not producing open source. You are producing something that violates every principle of open source and then lying by calling it open source. If you wish to produce proprietary software, go ahead. But don't try to lie and call it open source. Anyone is allowed to use the software, everybody has access to the sources, etc. pp. They are only allowed if they have your license key. I am not allowed to take my knowledge of your software and freely start a consulting business if I think that you have been doing a piss-poor job. This is not open source. This money goes to the developers and they can pay their bills. And by the way: Our license is approved by a very good and accepted lawyer in Washington DC (some senators and HUGE software vendors agree to that) and is suitable for the Virginia law, since software licenses have to fit the state laws, not the federal law in the US. UCITA is generally detested by all except organizations whose attitudes towards intellectual property are also generally detested. Once again, your license is not open source. Nor will you find that people in the open source community generally willing to accept it. Regards, Ben _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Misunderstanding of the basics?
Hi Ben, thanks for the open :) reply... Ben Tilly wrote: My first comment is that we don't need an additional license. Mine would be: we finally need one that works (even in such small and unimportant countries like Germany)... My second comment is that if this meets the open source definition then that is a flaw in the definition. Or intented to be like that? I see nowhere the sentence: "Do not charge money for software under the license XXXPL) requirement conflicts with item 7 of the open source definition. (You may not require an additional license.) I do not see a point there, there are a lot of companies out there, which mix GPL and MPL or like Lutris who mixes closed source with GPL parts. If you markup these parts, it's fine. My fourth comment is that 3.3 (that the code for license keys cannot be deleted and must be included in anything that copies from the software) = if there is a license key check you are not allowed to do that with GPL either... but GPL is so weak that it is not even mentioned... may or may not meet item 3 of the open source definition (derived works) but to the extent it does shows a flaw in the wording of that section. Definitly not, the license GARANTEES the openess of the source and covers more eventuality than the GPL in that part. Seriously: the IPL is capitalism for OpenSource with the whole philosophy and ideas behind the GPL. I just got the feeling that everybody is afraid of using that ugly word "money" in combination with the word "OpenSource". If you use the IPL, and we will encourage everybody to, you can or you can't charge license fees for that. If you do, you are a "classical" software company that delivers the source with the application, if you do not, you are an real OpenSource company. My fifth comment is that section 5.2 (requiring fees from anyone doing modification and support for third parties) is particuarly awful, and IMO violates sections 5 and 6 of the open source definition. That is again not true, because the license fee could be ZERO and then it is like you want it... GPL comes from the other end and now has problems to reach the capitalism level. software produced under this license. I suspect from your license that you are unclear on what this whole open-source thing is. On the contrary, I think we are involved for a very long time, invested a lot of money into a lot of projects (against senseless US patent laws in Europe, e.g.) and we are serious and OPEN with our opinion that somebody has to pay the developers. It is obvious that this "consulting, training support" approach for software companies is not working and that this damn question "How to earn money" with Open Source can not be answered by hardware vendors who do a lot of cultural sponsoring to abuse the word for their value on the stock market. We spent a lot of time to enable companies to survive in that field by finally paying the developers. That is the whole background. Even LI is thinking about that with the new fund, but do you think we can uphold that hobbiest approach and convice ORACLE to open the source for their DB? -- best regards, Ralf "puzzler" Schwoebel CEO, intraDAT international inc. 11250 Roger Bacon Drive (#3) Reston, VA 20190 Tel.: 703 796
Re: IPL as a burden
Ralf Schwoebel wrote: [...] Now we have 2001 and the idea of Open Source needs a kick, because we need applications now and everybody thinks its cooler to work on an operating system, not an application. It is my perception that the majority of Open Source/Free Software hackers work on applications rather than operating systems. You might want to take a look at koffice.kde.org, mozilla.org. gimp.org, sendmail.org, apache.org, abisource.com, etc. etc. We see no other possibility than enabling people to charge money for sources without violating the basics of OpenSource: There is nothing in "the basics of OpenSource" that stands in the way of people asking money for their software. Anyone is allowed to use the software, everybody has access to the sources, etc. pp. Those are only 2 of the 4 basic freedoms. There is also the freedom to redistribute copies, as well as the freedom to improve the program and release your improvements to the public. Your license violates those freedoms. This money goes to the developers and they can pay their bills. And by the way: Our license is approved by a very good and accepted lawyer in Washington DC (some senators and HUGE software vendors agree to that) and is suitable for the Virginia law, since software licenses have to fit the state laws, not the federal law in the US. Let's not start about that Virginia law... :-) While I believe that you are well-intentioned, I think you are proposing a very wrong solution to a problem that doesn't exist. In other words, fixing "problems" with Open Source / Free Software by making the software only half-free is not the way to go. Mark
Re: IPL as a burden
Ralf, I think you have misunderstood my comments. I have no problem with companies making money in an open source environment. My comments did not refer to money in any way, they were directed at the human element - i.e.,, time - that it takes to negotiate the interactions between all of the licenses used by players in our community when many pieces of software are used as components of larger projects. I also deliberately avoided stating my personal opinions regarding the use of the GPL, LGPL, or any open source license. For the record, I believe that only API's, data formats, and OS infrastructure code needs to be open source. Any time company A has to pay a toll to company B for the right to interact with company C, then there is a problem. That has nothing to do with the license discussion at hand, but is just in reply to your divergence to philosophy.Back to your IPL proposal. The license may be approved by some Washington law firm, and if you feel it is adequate, then it is obviously your decision. I just gave you my opinion - an opinion you solicited. If you were just looking for an endorsement of your proposed license, then I apologize for interfering. Regards, Frank Ralf Schwoebel wrote: Frank LaMonica wrote: but differ from the GPL or LGPL. Each such license places additional burdens on the entire open source community. Those burdens devolve from the inevitable Dear Frank, thanks for the input, but I have to disagree. The lack of the word money is the burden of the OpenSource community and even companies like VA or RedHat have to feel that these days. And the GPL comes from a time when students changed the world and coolness was a skill. Now we have 2001 and the idea of Open Source needs a kick, because we need applications now and everybody thinks its cooler to work on an operating system, not an application. We see no other possibility than enabling people to charge money for sources without violating the basics of OpenSource: Anyone is allowed to use the software, everybody has access to the sources, etc. pp. This money goes to the developers and they can pay their bills. And by the way: Our license is approved by a very good and accepted lawyer in Washington DC (some senators and HUGE software vendors agree to that) and is suitable for the Virginia law, since software licenses have to fit the state laws, not the federal law in the US. -- best regards, Ralf "puzzler" Schwoebel CEO, intraDAT international inc. 11250 Roger Bacon Drive (#3) Reston, VA 20190 Tel.: 703 796 begin:vcard n:LaMonica;Frank tel;fax:1 (512) 378-3004 tel;home:1 (512) 378-3003 tel;work:1 (512) 378-3003 x-mozilla-html:FALSE org:VA Linux Systems Inc.;Marketing adr:;;114 South Prize Oaks Dr.;Cedar Park;TX;78613;USA version:2.1 email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] title:Strategic Director of Multi-Media x-mozilla-cpt:;-1184 fn:Frank LaMonica end:vcard
Re: Misunderstanding of the basics?
Ian Lance Taylor wrote: But if you look at http://www.opensource.org/osd.html you will see that there are some sentences which you are ignoring. Specifically, the license must allow modified and derived works. Your license does not allow them--it requires the licensing bits to be unmodified. Thanks Ian, to get back to the text :-), that is not true: 2.2.: ...intraDAT hereby grants you a) to use, reproduce, modify, display and perform the IPL code so? If code with a license key check is released under the GPL, I certainly am allowed to remove or modify the check for the license key. What makes you believe otherwise? You have to mark that: GPL 2.a) "You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change." IPL 2.2.b) "...right... to use parts of the IPL Code in your software you shall always state...which lines..." And here it comes: We are less strict than the GPL, you SHALL and GPL says you MUST, I can not see why the OSI should not accept that? Hardly. We're just afraid to use the ugly word ``proprietary'' in combination with the words ``open source.'' You are showing a proprietary license and calling it open source. You don't get to redefine words like that. If you compare the IPL with the other licenses, you will find that most of the definitions are the same or have the same intentions from the point of view of the lawyers. This is why I am so irritated by that discussion... Most of the things mentioned in the earlier mails where against definitions you find in the other licenses as well. Hello? Hey, if you want to say that open source can't work, I may disagree with you, but you are entitled to your opinion. But if you want to hihihi, this company employs a lot OpenSource fanatics (me included) and is working in that area for around 4 years now (we only have Linux products), that is why we try to start this discussion here. But the immediate response was more than hostile. I wonder if somebody did the comparison work and is entitled to point out exact problems. All I got were critics against the other licenses on opensource.org. promulgate a new definition of open source because you believe the current one can't work, then I'm afraid that I have to disagree. That is not what we are doing. We are posting a license, approved for our strange german laws, combined with the essence out of other licenses and run into a: This is evil! I will not mention all the paragraphs that are almost identical with the other licenses on opensource.org, but the fight against us is strange, if you do a "diff" with some of these :-/ -- best regards, Ralf "puzzler" Schwoebel CEO, intraDAT international inc. 11250 Roger Bacon Drive (#3) Reston, VA 20190 Tel.: 703 796
Re: Misunderstanding of the basics?
begin Ralf Schwoebel quotation: This is why I am so irritated by that discussion... Most of the things mentioned in the earlier mails where against definitions you find in the other licenses as well. Hello? No, sir. You were referred (relevantly and appropriately) to particular points of the Open Source Definition with which your licence does not comply. Since you assert that your IPL is an open-source licence (and are asking on OSI's mailing list), that is the appropriate metric. hihihi, this company employs a lot OpenSource fanatics (me included) and is working in that area for around 4 years now (we only have Linux products), that is why we try to start this discussion here. But the immediate response was more than hostile. Ignore any hostility. Deal with the OSD. -- Cheers, "Because film is the pre-eminent American art form. You don't hear Rick Moen people saying 'You know, this movie would make a really great epic [EMAIL PROTECTED] poem.'" -- Orson Scott Card, book signing, 7 Jan 2001
RE: Misunderstanding of the basics?
From: Ralf Schwoebel [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] And here it comes: We are less strict than the GPL, you SHALL and GPL says you MUST, I can not see why the OSI should not accept that? [DJW:] In typical compliance language, SHALL is the most strict level of compliance. I'd normally treat MUST as a synonym. In any case, the GPL is only requiring that you record the removal of the code, whereas you are forbidding its removal, in this clause, not the one you quoted: 3.3. You are not allowed to modify, delete or suspend the IPL code concerning the License Key. If you use parts of the IPL Code in your own software you are obliged to include all IPL Code concerning License Key in your code in a way that any user of your software has to have a License Key from intraDAT. This clause shall only be applicable for IPL Code which includes code for License Keys or for such code for which on www.intradat.com is stated a License Key is required. In fact, I would interpret any restriction that a licence key check be retained as being a conflicting licence, making the GPL void. [ IANAL ] -- --- DISCLAIMER - Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of BTS.
Re: Misunderstanding of the basics?
Ralf Schwoebel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ian Lance Taylor wrote: But if you look at http://www.opensource.org/osd.html you will see that there are some sentences which you are ignoring. Specifically, the license must allow modified and derived works. Your license does not allow them--it requires the licensing bits to be unmodified. Thanks Ian, to get back to the text :-), that is not true: 2.2.: ...intraDAT hereby grants you a) to use, reproduce, modify, display and perform the IPL code so? I was not referring to that paragraph. I was referring to these paragraphs: 6.3. In each case of distribution or using parts of the IPL Code in your own software, you must meet all of the following conditions with respect to the distribution of any work based on the IPL Code or Documentation which is distributed under this license: ... 6.3.3. You are not allowed to modify, delete or suspend the IPL code concerning the License Key. You have to include this part in your own software if you use any part of the IPL Code in your own software unless you have written consent by intraDAT to leave the License Key part of the IPL Code out (see 3.3). These paragraphs say to me that the IPL does not follow the OSD. What is the truth here? Am I permitted to modify the licensing code, or not? The text seems more or less clear to me, and it seems clear to me that it does not follow the OSD. The rest of your message does not seem relevant to me. I think that you are misunderstanding the nature of the objections which people are making. I don't know why. Do you sincerely believe that your license meets the Open Source Definition at http://www.opensource.org/osd.html If you do, you need to answer people's objections. If you do not, then your license is not open source. Your protestations about earning money are irrelevant. If you want to change the Open Source Definition, please state specifically what changes you would like to make. Otherwise, please don't waste our time. Ian
Re: IPL as a burden
Manfred Schmid wrote: Hi Mark, [...] sendmail.org, apache.org, abisource.com, etc. etc. Whatever they are working on, at the end of the day everybody has to pay his bills. That applies to Open Source Developers as well. Developing software requires a serious amount of investment concerning time, money, brain etc. If enough enthusiasts are willing to pledge that investment, fine. This has brought Linux, Apache etc. to where it is now and it has been a great job. But this does not scale to the extent needed in the future. For a company, an investment has to pay off. The Support Consulting approach may work well for established products like Apache etc. for the time being. But who will fund the investments in future? Designated sponsors forever? Enthusiasts pouring time in it to allow BIG companies to do the Support Consulting thing? We are proposing a new structure to give a commercially viable answer to a simple question: Who pays the developers? You seem to labor under a very strange idea. That idea is that open source developers are "not paid." Exactly where did this idea come from? Every open source developer i know is quite well compensated and generally gets paid a certain amount of their time to work exclusively on their open source projects of their choice. Any consulting group will set aside research and development costs to further their code base. This is one of the persistent myths that non open source companies have about the open source software movement ie the developers are largely college students who are not paid. All the open source developers I know are highly compensated professionals. Programming skills are rare and highly prized. I doubt very much that there are legions of unpaid starving programmers out there. Your license violates those freedoms. We are preserving the freedoms mentiones above and give a developer the chance to pay his bills. Do you think that this is such a bad idea? When thinking about paying developers, you have to know where the money comes from. Any company we are working for produces something. They know, that a product has a price and software is no exception to that. We therefor think that Licence Fees seem a quite appropriate answer to the money question. Unfortunately, we must not ask for these, if we would use GPL. As CFO I could not finance a developer program and give the guys out there their fair share. Actually what you are stating here is categorically false. Charging licence fees is not the only way to make money on your software. I know what I am talking about as I was the CEO of a open source software company for three years before my company's acquisition be VA. Our software was/is licensed under the GPL and we sold the software neatly packaged and also built a very lucratative consulting business around it. Our software is an e-commerce product and was/is sold at the highest levels of the enterprise. As everyone on this list knows you cannot require license fees and claim your product is open source. I assume you have a 25-50 man development team and a similar amount of marketing/admin/support people? Manfred Schmid CFO -- - intraDAT AG Wilhelm-Leuschner-Strasse 7 u. 9-11 D - 60329 Frankfurt a. M., Germany Tel.: +49-(0)69-25629-0 Fax: +49-(0)69-25629-256 http://www.intradat.com - -- = Brian DeSpainVA Linux Systems Practice Lead http://www.bravenewworlds.com E-Commerce Practice http://www.symphero.com 620 South Raymond Avenue Suite #5 http://www.valinux.com Pasadena, CA 91105 U.S.A. Voice: +1.626.584.9335 x22 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fax: +1.626.584.9364 Board Member: Linux International (R)Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds in several countries.
Re: Misunderstanding of the basics?
Ralf Schwoebel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Ben, thanks for the open :) reply... I just want to make sure that there is no misunderstanding on either part here. Ben Tilly wrote: My first comment is that we don't need an additional license. Mine would be: we finally need one that works (even in such small and unimportant countries like Germany)... We have many open source licenses that work perfectly well, even in Germany. That they don't do what you want has more to do with the fact that you don't want to be open source than it has to do with any failings of the licenses in question. My second comment is that if this meets the open source definition then that is a flaw in the definition. Or intented to be like that? I see nowhere the sentence: "Do not charge money for software under the license XXXPL) The entire point of an open source license is not to restrict people's ability to make money, it is to create significant and visible barriers to creating a MONOPOLY. Every clause that I dislike in your license has to do with creating and giving you monopoly control over software. requirement conflicts with item 7 of the open source definition. (You may not require an additional license.) I do not see a point there, there are a lot of companies out there, which mix GPL and MPL or like Lutris who mixes closed source with GPL parts. If you markup these parts, it's fine. You may not give on the one hand and take on the other hand. If your license requires additional licenses and those licenses are not open source, then the whole is not very open. Therefore the possibility of creating a monopoly that way is restricted. My fourth comment is that 3.3 (that the code for license keys cannot be deleted and must be included in anything that copies from the software) = if there is a license key check you are not allowed to do that with GPL either... but GPL is so weak that it is not even mentioned... If there is a license key check in GPLed software you can take it out. This is not a weakness in the GPL. This is a protection against would be fascist monopolists. may or may not meet item 3 of the open source definition (derived works) but to the extent it does shows a flaw in the wording of that section. Definitly not, the license GARANTEES the openess of the source and covers more eventuality than the GPL in that part. Seriously: the IPL is capitalism for OpenSource with the whole philosophy and ideas behind the GPL. When you claim that open source means one thing, and people who are established in open source disagrees with you, which is more reasonable, that everyone else is wrong or that you are wrong? Again the key point is to offer protection against would-be monopolists. You don't do that, and do not even appear to understand why that matters. I just got the feeling that everybody is afraid of using that ugly word "money" in combination with the word "OpenSource". Why are you confusing monopoly with money? Are your products and services so bad that you don't think that you can shove them down people's throats without the support of lawyers and courts? If you use the IPL, and we will encourage everybody to, you can or you can't charge license fees for that. If you do, you are a "classical" software company that delivers the source with the application, if you do not, you are an real OpenSource company. If you use the IPL then you are not open source. If you use it and claim to be open source then you will have a bad public relations problem. Because you are not open source and lies to the contrary will result in people advising others to boycott you. But considering how your company stands to get a monopoly from others using your license, I can see why you want to encourage everyone to do so. I cannot see why they would want to be so foolish though. My fifth comment is that section 5.2 (requiring fees from anyone doing modification and support for third parties) is particuarly awful, and IMO violates sections 5 and 6 of the open source definition. That is again not true, because the license fee could be ZERO and then it is like you want it... GPL comes from the other end and now has problems to reach the capitalism level. It is NOT how I like it. If I am trying to get something reinstalled at 2 AM I don't want to have to worry about your PoS license key. If I build an internal application I don't want to have to worry that in 5 years I may be SOL because you have gone out of business and I don't have any way to get a license key for my legacy application. If I am a developer I don't want to learn a technology which I cannot start offering support for without paying license fees to a direct competitor. If I am a customer I want to have the guarantee that as long as there is sufficient demand, I will have the ability to find someone who can offer me decent support. Being only mildly paranoid I don't want to have to worry that some
Re: IPL as a burden
Hi Brian You seem to labor under a very strange idea. That idea is that open source developers are "not paid." Exactly where did this idea come from? Every open source developer i know is quite well compensated and generally gets paid a certain amount of their time to work exclusively on their open source projects of their choice. Any consulting group will set aside research and development costs to further their code base. This is one of the persistent myths that non open source companies have about the open source software movement ie the developers are largely college students who are not paid. All the open source developers I know are highly compensated professionals. Programming skills are rare and highly prized. I doubt very much that there are legions of unpaid starving programmers out there. The Open Source Movement is getting more and more commercial and is has to be to remain successful. Economics have their own dynamics. I do agree with you, that programmers do not starve in todays world but a lot of Open Source work is done by "normal" people, who are not being compensated by anybody for their contributions. I do agree that all the star Open Source developers are being paid pretty well by somebody. Economically, this "somebody" calculates indirect profit by enhancing the knowledge base, building up credibility or whatever. If this somebody wants to donate something, fine as well, but you cannot build an industry on donations. The current structure will not scale, since the ecoonomics are not clear. Do you think, any consulting group or other commercial entity would feel bad, if they had income from Open Source contributions? Actually what you are stating here is categorically false. Charging licence fees is not the only way to make money on your software. I know what I am talking about as I was the CEO of a open source software company for three years before my company's acquisition be VA. Our software was/is licensed under the GPL and we sold the software neatly packaged and also built a very lucratative consulting business around it. Our software is an e-commerce product and was/is sold at the highest levels of the enterprise. As everyone on this list knows you cannot require license fees and claim your product is open source. As of today, I do not know of Open Source Software, that asks for License Fees. We are the first (to my knowledge) to do so and I think that we will not be the only ones. Our customers did not mind to pay fees for VShop 2.x (closed source) and I do not see any reason why they should mind to pay fees for VShop3 since we are providing added value. To me, the spirit of Open Source is the availablity of the source and a set of freedoms and rights provided along with the source to guarantee better software and solutions. When looking at http://www.opensource.org/osd.html I do see no point stating "You must not claim license fees for an Open Source product" Manfred Schmid CFO -- - intraDAT AG Wilhelm-Leuschner-Strasse 7 u. 9-11 D - 60329 Frankfurt a. M., Germany Tel.: +49-(0)69-25629-0 Fax: +49-(0)69-25629-256 http://www.intradat.com -
Re: IPL as a burden
Manfred Schmid [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: As of today, I do not know of Open Source Software, that asks for License Fees. We are the first (to my knowledge) to do so and I think that we will not be the only ones. Our customers did not mind to pay fees for VShop 2.x (closed source) and I do not see any reason why they should mind to pay fees for VShop3 since we are providing added value. Your existing customers probably won't mind. The reason that no open source software requires a licensing fee is pretty obvious: anybody who did not want to pay would simply modify the software to remove the licensing code. If they can not modify the software in this manner, then it is not open source. To me, the spirit of Open Source is the availablity of the source and a set of freedoms and rights provided along with the source to guarantee better software and solutions. When looking at http://www.opensource.org/osd.html I do see no point stating "You must not claim license fees for an Open Source product" You're right, you can claim a license fee. However, OSD criteria number 3 says that you must permit modifications and derived works. If the IPL forbids people from removing the licensing code, then it violates OSD criteria number 3. In other words, you can claim a license free, but you can't forbid people from modifying your software to permit them to run it without paying the fee. Ian
Re: IPL as a burden
Manfred, Most users of software don't consider the availability of source code in their purchasing decisions. Why? Because they are not in the business of writing software, they are simply using an application as a tool. I suspect that most of the people on this list do not fit into that category. They do care about the source code, and they are generally in a position to make good use of it to support whatever application they are using. Should a normal application user care about source code? I suggest that a published data format is much more important to a typical end user than is the availability of source code. As a matter of fact, if an application doesn't have a published data format then a prudent user should reject it completely, regardless of how well it does the job of creating data. An application is a program that manipulates data. The user of any application almost always cares more about the data created than they do about the program used to create that data. The reason why a normal user should care about the open source nature of the application they choose to use is because that guarantees them the protection they need for the data they create. One step below the application source code level of protection is the data format used within the application to encode and/or store that data. An application typically embeds a storage methodology into itself, which it uses to store and retrieve data. If an application vendor only publishes their data format, and doesn't provide the application source code, then a non technical user might actually have a better form of protection for their purposes - provided, of course, that the application vendor didn't lie about the format. In that scenario, if an application vendor ceased to provide a suitable application, the end user could find some way to retrieve the data and to then use another application to continue their work. If the data format were only visible by virtue of the source code, first - on the good side - it would prevent the application vendor from lying and it would be a strong guarantee of data protection to the user, but - on the down side - it would require that someone who wanted to continue working without the original application, have to take the time, and have the expertise, to reverse engineer the data format by examining the application source code in order to have another application built that would allow the user to continue working. If the data is very complex, and, especially if it is created incrementally at numerous places within the application source code, it could be a major undertaking to understand the full extent of the data formatting. Would you put your money into a bank that would not allow you to recover it if the bank went out of business? We have the FDIC to protect us in the financial world, but what would you do if your firm found another application that better suited its business needs, and there was no way to move your legacy data to the new system? Could you afford to, and would it even be possible to recreate that data? Open data formats would protect your investment. That also would greatly simplify the license issues. Do you need to have a complex license to protect data formats or API's? I suggest that information of that nature should be totally free and open, licensed with something as simple as the BSD (XFree86) style license. We should encourage open, standard data formats and API's. Companies who create their value by writing application which create and manipulate your data could then recover their investment by charging suitable fees for their application. There would be no business need to insist on open source applications unless the vendor has been proven guilty of past deception, such as things like having hidden API hooks in an OS to enable better performance of their own applications. Companies who are guilty of those type of practices should be punished by requiring all of their source code to be open, and all of their data formats to be accurately documented and published. Regards, Frank Manfred Schmid wrote: Hi Brian You seem to labor under a very strange idea. That idea is that open source developers are "not paid." Exactly where did this idea come from? Every open source developer i know is quite well compensated and generally gets paid a certain amount of their time to work exclusively on their open source projects of their choice. Any consulting group will set aside research and development costs to further their code base. This is one of the persistent myths that non open source companies have about the open source software movement ie the developers are largely college students who are not paid. All the open source developers I know are highly compensated professionals. Programming skills are rare and highly prized. I doubt very much that there are legions of unpaid starving programmers out there. The Open
Re: IPL as a burden
Hi Ian, As of today, I do not know of Open Source Software, that asks for License Fees. We are the first (to my knowledge) to do so and I think that we will not be the only ones. Our customers did not mind to pay fees for VShop 2.x (closed source) and I do not see any reason why they should mind to pay fees for VShop3 since we are providing added value. Your existing customers probably won't mind. Neither new ones, the software is worth it. To me, the spirit of Open Source is the availablity of the source and a set of freedoms and rights provided along with the source to guarantee better software and solutions. When looking at http://www.opensource.org/osd.html I do see no point stating "You must not claim license fees for an Open Source product" You're right, you can claim a license fee. Thanx :) However, OSD criteria number 3 says that you must permit modifications and derived works. If the IPL forbids people from removing the licensing code, then it violates OSD criteria number 3. Taken directly from http://www.opensource.org/osd.html "3. Derived Works The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software. (rationale)" We do allow modifications and derived works. We even encourage them by the developer program saying "check back with the results and we eventually pay for your work". If we do not buy anything from that guy, we will not prevent him or anybody else from distributing his modifications as long as it is clear which part is from our side and which part has been developed by somebody else. In other words, you can claim a license free, but you can't forbid people from modifying your software to permit them to run it without paying the fee. I think, the obligation to pay a license fee is a legal obligation and not bound to any license keys. We could claim fees without any keys. Even if somebody (maybe us) took out the key algorithm and the software would run without any license keys, we would still be entitled to the fee. License Keys are introduced to technically prevent easy license fraud. We all know, that there each and every software has been cracked. Still they are wide spread and that does not only have technical reasons. There are some legal opinions (at least here in Germany), that say you have to make sure to the customer that you are really claiming fees. and your price list is serious stuff A license key is a common thing that does the trick. OSD criteria number 3 does not say: "Each and every line of any text published under an Open Source License must be changeable, if it is relevant for technical progress or not". If I took any GPL program that "normally reads commands interactively when run", simply delete the code lines for displaying the copyright notice and redistribute my modified code, I would be acting illegally according to GPL (2.c of GPL Version 2). The rationale taken from http://www.opensource.org/osd-rationale.html#clause3 reads "3. Derived Works (back) The mere ability to read source isn't enough to support independent peer review and rapid evolutionary selection. For rapid evolution to happen, people need to be able to experiment with and redistribute modifications." We do want "independent peer review and rapid evolutionary selection". IPL is designed to allow exactly for that and this is why we have set up the developer program. Manfred -- - intraDAT AG Wilhelm-Leuschner-Strasse 7 u. 9-11 D - 60329 Frankfurt a. M., Germany Tel.: +49-(0)69-25629-0 Fax: +49-(0)69-25629-256 http://www.intradat.com -
Re: IPL as a burden
Manfred Schmid [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In other words, you can claim a license free, but you can't forbid people from modifying your software to permit them to run it without paying the fee. I think, the obligation to pay a license fee is a legal obligation and not bound to any license keys. We could claim fees without any keys. Even if somebody (maybe us) took out the key algorithm and the software would run without any license keys, we would still be entitled to the fee. That would violate OSD #7: no additional license may be required beyond the open source license itself. OSD criteria number 3 does not say: "Each and every line of any text published under an Open Source License must be changeable, if it is relevant for technical progress or not". You're right, it's not stated. However, it is implied. The criteria does not say ``must allow modifications and derived works, but the license may retrict modifications in certain areas.'' It says that the license ``must allow modifications and derived works.'' If you prohibit certain sorts of modifications, then you violate the guideline. Remember that the OSD is not a program, and it is not a legal document. It is a set of guidelines written for humans. If you really believe that your license is open source, I can only conclude that you do not understand open source. The license, as it stands, will not get OSI approval. I urge you not to use the term ``open source'' to describe your license. It will just get you in trouble. Ian
Re: AFPL vs. GPL-like licenses?
G'day all. Robert Feldt wrote: What are the implications of using AFPL versus using GPL? As another said, the key is to determine what your goals are, however I suspect that you already knew that. You appear to have implied that the good will of the community is a possible determining factor, so you should factor that into your list of goals, and be prepared to bend, because the community's goals and your goals may be in conflict. Whatever happens, remember that you always have the option of combining more than one licence. For example, if you can't choose between two licences, you could release under both and give the licensee the choice. Perhaps the combination of AFPL+QPL, giving your software both liberal non-commercial distribution terms plus the option of more stringent but provably Open Source(tm) terms. Or you could do what Aladdin did and release new versions under the AFPL and older versions under an Open Source licence. Any of these options might carry more favour with the community than using something which is not OSD compliant. Then again, you may wish to look at your software and decide who its intended audience is and what that intended audience would be prepared to accept. It's IMO usually perfectly acceptible to ignore those who would never have used or been affected by your software anyway. :-) Cheers, Andrew Bromage
Re: IPL as a burden
Andrew, You may be correct about saying people would require source if they knew more about it, however they have to care about it to some degree first before they will, in general, take the time to learn about the issues. If you read the rest of my posting, you would see that I continued on by saying the people on this list are exceptions - they do care about the source code. Unfortunately, we are the extreme minority. I go on to show how open data formats may be a lever which can be used to open the eyes of those users who sit fat, dumb, and happy using proprietary software that locks up their data in hidden formats. Once they have reached the realization that the protection of their own data, and their ability to freely access that data are two issues they should care about, we may be able to get them to care more about open source code. BTW, your analogy about a car is no longer valid. Almost all new cars are controlled by proprietary programs running in embedded processors that can only be accessed by very expensive equipment that is tightly controlled by the car company. The days of tuning your own car without a computer are over, we've lost the automobile war :( Frank Andrew J Bromage wrote: G'day all. On Mon, Jan 15, 2001 at 04:36:38PM -0800, Frank LaMonica wrote: Most users of software don't consider the availability of source code in their purchasing decisions. Why? Because they are not in the business of writing software, they are simply using an application as a tool. I think they might take the availability of source into account if they understood it better. When I buy a car, I don't care about tinkering with its innards because I am not a mechanic, and have no aptitude or desire to become one. However, I do insist that my car be servicable by any appropriately qualified mechanic that I nominate. That way, I'm not locked into paying the company I bought the car from every time it needs maintenance. With a car, that means many things including good engineering such as low coupling between independent systems (if I change the colour of the upholstery, that shouldn't make the headlights stop working) transparency (i.e. that the insides of the car are not hidden) and openness (anyone can produce service manuals, spare parts or even a clone of the whole car if they want to). And in the end, I should be able to modify the car to my hearts' content (maybe put in a different sound system, maybe put in a cargo barrier, maybe convert it to run on unleaded petrol or LPG) and sell it to someone else when I don't want it any more, and not have to get permission of the original car manufacturer to do any of these things. Naturally I would wait until the warranty expired (assuming the car came with a warranty) before doing anything not approved by the vendor, but it wouldn't be because the vendor forced me to. Would you buy a car that didn't let you do any of this whether you're a mechanic or otherwise? If I were not a programmer, I'd reason the same way about software. If my purchased software needs maintenance, I don't want to be at the mercy of the company I bought it from. I want to be able to hire any appropriately qualified programmer that I wish, or even do it myself if I think I know what I'm doing; after all, I'm not a mechanic but I can change a tyre with the best of them. I should be able to freely give details of my fixes/enhancements to others, and I should be able to resell the software when I'm finished with it. I should not have to get the original vendor's permission to do it. Would you buy software that didn't let you do any of this, whether you're a programmer or otherwise? This is not the full set of rights provided by Open Source, but if I were not a programmer, it's what I'd be looking for. Cheers, Andrew Bromage begin:vcard n:LaMonica;Frank tel;fax:1 (512) 378-3004 tel;home:1 (512) 378-3003 tel;work:1 (512) 378-3003 x-mozilla-html:FALSE org:VA Linux Systems Inc.;Marketing adr:;;114 South Prize Oaks Dr.;Cedar Park;TX;78613;USA version:2.1 email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] title:Strategic Director of Multi-Media x-mozilla-cpt:;-1184 fn:Frank LaMonica end:vcard
Re: IPL as a burden
begin Manfred Schmid quotation: However, OSD criteria number 3 says that you must permit modifications and derived works. If the IPL forbids people from removing the licensing code, then it violates OSD criteria number 3. Taken directly from http://www.opensource.org/osd.html "3. Derived Works The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software. (rationale)" The abovementioned "terms" must also satisfy OSD #1. -- You are not entitled to your opinions. 01234567 - The amazing indent-o-meter! ^ Matt McIrvin: the Nikola Tesla of tab damage.
Re: IPL as a burden
G'day all. On Mon, Jan 15, 2001 at 07:55:22PM -0800, Frank LaMonica wrote: If you read the rest of my posting, you would see that I continued on by saying the people on this list are exceptions - they do care about the source code. Unfortunately, we are the extreme minority. I did read that and agree that this is the current situation. I do not believe that it need be so. BTW, your analogy about a car is no longer valid. Almost all new cars are controlled by proprietary programs running in embedded processors that can only be accessed by very expensive equipment that is tightly controlled by the car company. The days of tuning your own car without a computer are over, we've lost the automobile war :( I've never bought a new car, so I wouldn't know. :-) In fact, I think this makes my argument all the stronger. I _can_ run my 15-year-old car if I want to. For example, if it was designed to run on leaded petrol, I can modify it so that it accepts unleaded, LPG or unleaded with non- lead additives when leaded petrol is no longer sold, as it will be in a few years' time. OTOH, try running fifteen-year-old software written for a platform that is no longer sold if you don't have the source code. Just so that nobody misunderstands me, I'm making no statements about economics or law (whether that be the law is it is or as it should be). I'm merely stating as a consumer what I want to be able to do with the things that I have paid for. That's one reason that I use a lot of open source software. However, like most people, it's not a "show stopper". I would never go so far as to refuse to buy from a company just because they don't let me tinker with their products. And it's one reason why I don't use open source software exclusively. My point is: the question of whether or not I have the right to hire any appropriately qualified person to repair or modify a product, the right to resell it or give it away when I've finished with it and the right to do any of the above without the permission of the person I bought it from _does_ affect my purchasing decisions, whether or not I am personally qualified to do it. People already think this way about their cars, their PCs, their homes and any number of other items they have paid money for. Imagine if you had to hire the original builder back if you wanted an extension to your house! I'm not even close to being a master builder, but I, like most people who think about it, value the ability to hire who I like to do said modifications. I happen to be in the same mindset about my software, the only difference being that in the case of software, I can do a lot of the modifications myself. Cheers, Andrew Bromage
Re: IPL as a burden
G'day all. On Mon, Jan 15, 2001 at 04:51:27PM -0800, Lawrence E. Rosen wrote: Economic arguments in support of open source should be carefully reasoned. I'm not an economist, I don't pretend to be an economist and I am not qualified to make economic arguments. I'm merely stating some of the things that I as a consumer take into account when making purchasing decisions. Cheers, Andrew Bromage
FW: Compiere Open Source License Approval
Title: FW: Compiere Open Source License Approval -Original Message- From: Jorg Janke Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2000 09:34 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: Compiere Open Source License Approval Dear Sirs, Please approve the attached Compiere Open Source License draft and/or suggest changes. Please feel free to post the license suggestion and reference my name, You can also find the license via http://www.compiere.org/license.html or as text file http://www.compiere.org/license.txt Thanks, Jorg Janke www.accorto.com Smart Business Management Solutions Compiere Open Source License Version 1.0 - 12/05/200 Current version available via http://www.compiere.org/license.html The Compiere Open Source License applies to all programs, updates and maintenance releases of the software (Compiere Products) available from compiere.org as well as derived products (Compiere Extensions). Compiere Products and Extensions may be marked as OSI Certified Open Source Software. Any Compiere Product and Extension licensed pursuant to this license is a Licensed Product. Licensed Products in its entirety, is protected by U.S. and international copyright law. This License identified the terms under which you may use, copy, distribute, modify and extend Licensed Products. Grant of License The licensors of the Compiere Products are Accorto, Inc. as the Contributor of the original program, and other Contributors for changes or additions to the program. The Contributors grant you a world wide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license subject to third party intellectual propriety claims, to do the following: Use, reproduce, modify, display, perform, sublicense and distribute License Product in its entirety in both source code or as an executable program. Deleting from the substance or structure of Licensed Products or disabling or hiding of functionality requires explicit permission by the Contributors. Create derivative works (Compiere Extensions) of Licensed Products by modifying, adding and extending Licensed Products. Replacing existing functionality requires explicit permission by the Contributors. If you redistribute Compiere Products you may charge a fee for providing media, services, support, or warranty, or for accepting indemnity or liability obligations to your customers. You cannot charge for the Compiere Products. You, or you, or Licensor throughout this license, means an individual or legal entity exercising rights under, and complying with all the terms of this License or a future version of this license. Third Party Licenses As the Compiere Product requires third party software to use and operate, you need to license these products separately. Product Extensions -- You may modify and extend Compiere Products by means of adding program functionality, translation, documentation or by other means. You can charge a fee for your Extensions. Compiere Extensions must include the Compiere or Powered by Compiere in product name and distribute the Compiere Open Source License. Disclaimer of Warranty -- Compiere Products and Compiere Extensions are provided under this license on an AS IS basis, without warranty of any kind, either express or implied, including, without limitation, warranties that the Licensed Product is free of defects, merchantable, fit for a particular purpose or non-infringing. The entire risk as to the quality and performance product is with you. Should Licensed Product prove defective in any respect, you (and not the Licensor or Contributors) assume the cost of any necessary servicing, repair and correction. This disclaimer of warranty constitutes an essential part of this license. No use of Licensed Product is authorized hereunder except under this disclaimer. Limitation of Liability --- Under no circumstances and under no legal theory, whether tort (including negligence), contract, or otherwise, shall you (the licensor), any contributor, or any distributor of Licensed Product, or any supplier of such parties, be liable to any person for any indirect, special, incidental, or consequential damages of any character including, without limitation, damages for loss of data or goodwill, work stoppage, computer failure or malfunction, or any and all other damages or losses, even if such party shall have been informed of the responsibility of such damages. If your jusistrictions does not allow the limitation of liability as noted, you cannot use the Licensed Product. Commercial distribution --- Commercial distributors of software may accept certain responsibilities with respect to end users, business partners and the like. While this License is intended to facilitate the commercial use, the distributor
Re: IPL as a burden
Manfred Schmid [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I think, the obligation to pay a license fee is a legal obligation and not bound to any license keys. We could claim fees without any keys. Even if somebody (maybe us) took out the key algorithm and the software would run without any license keys, we would still be entitled to the fee. That would violate OSD #7: no additional license may be required beyond the open source license itself. Sorry, I do net get the point. All we need for claiming license fees is the IPL itself. If the software has some key algorithm or not. Lets assume, we do not use license keys and would leave the rest unchanged. Still we would claim fees lthough our legal position in court might be weaker, since we do not take "reasonable techniques" to prevent license fraud. That would not change a single thing from the basic contract which says: We provide the software, if you use it, you may be obliged to pay license fees. I'm sorry, I was thinking that you were talking about using an open source license, and then claiming license fees on top of that. Now I understand that you were just continuing your claim that requiring license fees was compatible with open source. That's interesting; I don't see a clear statement in the OSD that recipients of a program be permitted to run it. Nevertheless, if the recipient of an open source program can not run it without an additional license, where the license itself is the only obstacle (that is, no other software is required, just the license itself), I feel certain that that program is not actually open source. We propose a simple deal: VShop3 will be made available in Source Code under IPL We give you (see gnu.org) - The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0). - The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). - The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2). - The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits. (freedom 3). We will be happy to include any improvements. In contrast to standard proceedings, we are ready to pay for the work poured in. Freedom #0 may make our price list apply. But freedom is not about the price. Anyway, IPL states that it is even free of charge when you use it for your own purposes etc. (privately or publicly). Concerning Freedom #3 we are asking not to claim a removal of license information as an improvement. If I want to run your program on several different computers, then removing the license information is clearly an improvement for me. With open source programs, you don't get to define what an improvement is. I do. I am well aware that we all are (supposedly) not lawyers. So lets not argue about the wording or the interpretation of some clauses. In my opinion, two questions have to be answered: - May we charge license fees for an Open Source Product? Yes, you may, but you may not require them. If you do not permit people to run the program without a license, then the program is not open source. - May we take reasonable provisions for a legal defending of the Terms and Conditions of the license? Yes, you may. That does not affect whether the license is open source or not. We do not want to start any religious wars or piss somebody off. We only want to take commercial Open Source Development one step further. That one step is taking you out of the realm of open source. We honestly think that the combination IPL / Developer Program takes the spirit of the the Open Source Movement and adds an economic model, that is easy to understand. It's easy to understand. It just isn't open source. Call it something else. Again I refer you to the Bitkeeper license. They went through all of this over a year ago. Their license is more liberal than yours--they don't even require paying a fee--but the result is not open source. I want to stress that I am not saying that you should not use the license. I am saying that you should not call this license ``open source.'' Ian
RE: AFPL vs. GPL-like licenses?
"Lionello Lunesu" [EMAIL PROTECTED]: It reminds of something I did in my childhood (I must have been 12 years old or so). Somebody gave me a collection of comics that he knew I liked. I read most but when I got tired of them I try to sell them in a yard sale. Then my brother pointed out to me that I shouldn't sell anything that I got as a present. I understood the mistake I made and waived from selling them. Now that I have my own 'present' to give to 'the software society', I'm afraid that some people might _willingly_ make the same 'mistake' I made. They are allowed to do so under the GPL. It seems to me that designing a license like the AFPL means spending a lot of time and frustration trying to exclude something that doesn't impact your software's freedom in any sense. For instance, one of the major reasons I signed up with my ISP is to download high-quality free software. That's a commercial interest. I just checked the AFPL, and sure enough, because a commercial ISP is not an "information storage and retrieval system" nor a "removable computer-readable" medium, it would appear to prohibit downloading AFPL'd software. Adding special exceptions for these "harmless" cases of commercial interest adds needless complexity to an open source license. --
Re: AFPL vs. GPL-like licenses?
On Monday 15 January 2001 07:55 am, Lionello Lunesu wrote: Hi, What are the implications of using AFPL versus using GPL? Finally, I can give something back to this mailing list! Some months ago I was looking for a license for a "open source" project as well. I was willing to use GPL until I discovered this 'flaw'. What struck me as odd was the fact that third parties are allowed to make money of a product that they get for free. Well, yeah! One big implication of using the AFPL instead of the GPL is "why should I contribute to your code when I am not allowed to profit off of it?" -- David Johnson ___ http://www.usermode.org
RE: Compiere Open Source License Approval
Title: RE: Compiere Open Source License Approval Hi David, I see your point. The software comes with a toolkit. If possible, I would like to prevent that people just use the toolkit. The objective of the toolkit is to support the ERP application. I am not concerned, that someone changes/disables the posting or customer information. Cheers, Jorg Janke www.accorto.com Smart Business Management Solutions -Original Message- From: David Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, January 15, 2001 10:34 PM To: Jorg Janke Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: FW: Compiere Open Source License Approval On Monday 15 January 2001 06:00 pm, Jorg Janke wrote: Please approve the attached Compiere Open Source License draft and/or suggest changes. Please feel free to post the license suggestion and reference my name, It's rather good, *except* for the following clauses: Deleting from the substance or structure of Licensed Products or disabling or hiding of functionality requires explicit permission by the Contributors. Replacing existing functionality requires explicit permission by the Contributors. These clauses are the kiss of death. You won't get approval with them in. If you are worried about your company's reputation by someone altering the functionality, require all derivitives with altered functionality to be released under a different name. A trademark on the software name would also go a long way. -- David Johnson ___ http://www.usermode.org
A question about distributing software under GPL
I'm sorry to interrupt the ongoing discussion of IPL and AFPL, but I have a simple question that I have been wanting to ask for a while and I had lost the mailing lists address, so I had to wait for a discussion to come along before I could ask. If we have some software (a library) that we wish to distibute under the GPL, but that software supports an application (specifically an application generator) that is not distributed under the GPL and is not open source, can we distribute the library under the GPL, and more importantly can we distribute it (and permits others to do so) with the non-open source program, since their interoperability is more than mere aggregation? Relevant facts (as I percieve them): The software to be released under the GPL is not currently open source (and has not been derived from any open (or closed) source materials)--i.e. the group wishing to distribute the software is the author of the software in all senses of the word and it is theirs to distribute under any licenses they see fit. The library may (or may not) have much value without the application generator (and the authors do intend to allow the software to be redestributed with or without the application generator--although the generator is not being released as open source). In addition, we intend to allow the applications generated (they are generated in source code) to be distributed as open source. Thus, in that sense in the context of a generated application, the library sources do have value for being redistributed without the application generator (and we specifically intend to allow that by placing the library under the GPL). Still, the real question is can the author of software release it under the GPL and yet distribute it with non-GPL software when the (interoperability) bonding appears to be tighter than aggregation? Note that we cannot be compelled to release the application under the GPL (or any other license) as it does not currently contain any GPL (or otherwised licensed) components. Of course, after we have released the library, the question becomes more interesting as the library was used in creating the application generator (as the generator itself is an example of the type of application that it can generate). However, it seems that we should, as the authors, be able to have a non-GPL license to our own library (again since it has no previously GPL parts in it) and thus distribute it under any terms we wish. Further, I presume that if we can release our library under the GPL with the related application generator (not under the GPL), this will not produce a hole in the GPL, since the only reason we want to claim that we can do so is that we have a non-GPL copy of the library code we used in the generator. If we had used any GPL (or otherwise licensed) code in our program, then we would have had to abide by that license (and in the case of the GPL release a source copy of our generator under the GPL (or not release it at all)). On a related point, if we cannot distribute our non-open source application with a GPL copy of our library, how could anyone release a CD with a non-open source Linux application and a copy of Linux (since the application is not useful without Linux, of which some parts must be GPL)? Does this argument make any sense? Is there any reason to believe that we can (or cannot) distribute our library and generator together in this fashion? Is there some other (related) way that we could achieve the same goals--for example distributing the package under some license that is itself not open source but which allows the libraries to be "extracted" from the package, where such an extraction causes the libraries to be under the GPL? - For those of you are interested why we might do this, we are attempting to follow the lead of L. Peter Deutsch and release old copies of our software under more liberal (and more open source) licenses. We expect no return for this release--we are doing it simply so we can easily give our software away (for example to universities)--in the hopes that by giving it away someone might do something useful with it that they couldn't (or wouldn't) have done without it. Note, at the same time we will be releasing a copy of the application generator (of the same version as the library) for non-commercial use (and not in source form). In fact, the whole point of releasing the library as open source is to support the non-commercial use of the generator (and we recognize that by doing so, we may be opening the library up to uses we had never intended, but hey that's a fact of life when releasing something as open source). Now, while this may not be of much interest to the open source community, because we haven't released the whole system as open source. It does enable the possiblity that more open source software will be created, for anyone that uses the
Re: A question about distributing software under GPL
on Tue, Jan 16, 2001 at 12:11:56AM -0500, Chris F Clark ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: If we have some software (a library) that we wish to distibute under the GPL, but that software supports an application (specifically an application generator) that is not distributed under the GPL and is not open source, can we distribute the library under the GPL, Oblig: IANAL, this is not legal advice. As a general rule, my argument would be "yes". *If* you are the sole author and/or copyrightholder in the work, *or* if you have secured permission from (all) copyrightholder(s) to do so. and more importantly can we distribute it (and permits others to do so) with the non-open source program, since their interoperability is more than mere aggregation? Again, as a general rule, yes. Subject to the caveats above. The short explanation: The GNU GPL (as with most free software licenses) grants rights to _non authors_ (or copyrightholders) of a work _which they wouldn't have, independently of the license_. You, as author, have these rights. It's not necessary to grant them to yourself (though, as I say in my standard spiel on this topic, you can have your people talk to your people, do lunch with yourself, and see if you can't do business together). Relevant facts (as I percieve them): The software to be released under the GPL is not currently open source (and has not been derived from any open (or closed) source materials)--i.e. the group wishing to distribute the software is the ^^^ author of the software in all senses of the word and it is theirs to distribute under any licenses they see fit. If this representation is true, you should be OK. ... Still, the real question is can the author of software release it under the GPL and yet distribute it with non-GPL software when the (interoperability) bonding appears to be tighter than aggregation? Generally, yes. See above. ... Note that we cannot be compelled to release the application under the GPL (or any other license) as it does not currently contain any GPL (or otherwised licensed) components. Regarding compulsion under the GPL. My understanding is that you may find yourself, as a result of certain actions and/or inactions, in noncompliance of the GPL. However, you cannot be compelled (short a directive from some legal authority) to release anything against your will. You may *choose* to release code to come into compliance. As I've said here before, compliance with and release of code under the GPL are two separate issues. Further, I presume that if we can release our library under the GPL with the related application generator (not under the GPL), this will not produce a hole in the GPL, since the only reason we want to claim that we can do so is that we have a non-GPL copy of the library code we used in the generator. This is how I'd argue it. ... If we had used any GPL (or otherwise licensed) code in our program, then we would have had to abide by that license (and in the case of the GPL release a source copy of our generator under the GPL (or not release it at all)). Yes. Glad you got to this, because this is a limitation of acting in the way you describe. While you can claim bragging rights to a piece of LGPLd software, you are essentially becoming what I call a "code exporter" -- you have granted your code to the free software community, but your rules of operation provide you very limited benefits from doing so. ... On a related point, if we cannot distribute our non-open source application with a GPL copy of our library, how could anyone release a CD with a non-open source Linux application and a copy of Linux (since the application is not useful without Linux, of which some parts must be GPL)? See the OS exemptions to the GPL. ... For those of you are interested why we might do this, we are attempting to follow the lead of L. Peter Deutsch and release old copies of our software under more liberal (and more open source) licenses. We expect no return for this release--we are doing it simply so we can easily give our software away (for example to universities)--in the hopes that by giving it away someone might do something useful with it that they couldn't (or wouldn't) have done without it. Fair 'nuf. Finally, if we can distribute the software as we desire, how should we describe it? An unpretentious application, with fruity overtones Call it what it is and state that the libraries are *also* available, separately, as an LGPL'd package, but not the combined work as a whole. -- Karsten M. Self [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://kmself.home.netcom.com/ What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? There is no K5 cabal http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/ http://www.kuro5hin.org PGP signature
Re: A question about distributing software under GPL
On Monday 15 January 2001 09:11 pm, Chris F Clark wrote: If we have some software (a library) that we wish to distibute under the GPL, but that software supports an application (specifically an application generator) that is not distributed under the GPL and is not open source, The simplest solution is to distribute the library under the LGPL (the Library GPL). The is essentially the same as the GPL, but allows non-GPL applications to link to it. can we distribute the library under the GPL, and more importantly can we distribute it (and permits others to do so) with the non-open source program, since their interoperability is more than mere aggregation? As the authors/copyright holders, you can do anything you want! But if this library is needed by the generated applications, then please give your customers the right to use it. The LGPL does this without restricting what license the user may use for their own generated works. On a related point, if we cannot distribute our non-open source application with a GPL copy of our library, how could anyone release a CD with a non-open source Linux application and a copy of Linux (since the application is not useful without Linux, of which some parts must be GPL)? Two big reasons why. First of all, using Linux kernel calls is *runtime* linkage. The GPL does not restrict this, only static linkage and dynamic linkage (there's an occasional disgreement over the latter). Linus Torvalds clarifies this with a specific permission in the copyright for Linux. Second, most applications distributed on a Linux CD are distributed in aggregate, and are in no way derivative of the kernel. The GPL only restricts the original and derivative software. -USING- GPL software by non-derivative works is expressly permitted. There may be debate over what is a derivative work and what is not, but given that 99% of the applications distributed on a Linux CD can run just fine under FreeBSD, they can't be derivative of Linux. and we recognize that by doing so, we may be opening the library up to uses we had never intended, but hey that's a fact of life when releasing something as open source. Oh, if only those who keep submitted faulty licenses to this list in an attempt to get them approved understood this... Finally, if we can distribute the software as we desire, how should we describe it? We do not intend to call the entire package open source, it clearly isn't. However, we do intend the library to be open source. I wouldn't use the term "Open Source" at all, except in those rare instances that the library is distributed by itself. But in the documentation I would mention the (L)GPL, and explain how it affects generated applications. -- David Johnson ___ http://www.usermode.org
RE: AFPL vs. GPL-like licenses?
Well, yeah! One big implication of using the AFPL instead of the GPL is "why should I contribute to your code when I am not allowed to profit off of it?" -- David Johnson You're still _using_ it. Whether you contribute or not. Lionello Lunesu Bizzarrista Originale. MONDO BIZZARRO B.V. MARKT 22A P.O. BOX 475 5600 AL EINDHOVEN NETHERLANDS TEL +31(0)40-2960886 FAX +31(0)40-2960881 Visit us on the web: www.mondobizzarro.com Mondo Bizzarro: where pigs can fly!
