Re: IPL as a burden
Manfred Schmid [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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. It is indeed interesting that GPL does not address the matter ofrunning a GPLed program. From a legal standpoint it might be interesting, if the OSD is an inegral part of GPL or not. From a non-legal standpoint I would argue that OSD #7 covers that matter. The GPL does cover running the software. In clause 0 I see, "The act of running the Program is not restricted..." Still I do not see IPL being incompliant with the OSDs. we explicitely address the matter of running an IPLed program and state that license fees may apply. I see it as being completely not compliant with both the letter of the OSD and the intent. You have been told in no undertain terms (including by some of the people who would actually make an official certification decision - and no, I am not in that list) that any kind of licensing fee or requirement for another license will not fly. We do not feel that the license is an obstacle. Free Software mens free speach, not free beer (adopted from gnu.org) All you will have to do is pay the price asked for, if applicable. The people you need to convince have told you that it is an obstacle and they will not budge. Indeed similar issues have come up and their position is clear. I have given you fairly detailed explanations of where you are going wrong. 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. You do have to stick to the license terms and the definition of an improvement is not totally up to you. Indeed you have to stick to license terms. If you did not then there would be no value in having a clear definition of what software comes under license terms that gives the end user protection from being caught at some point by a legally enforced monopoly. It is exactly because you have to stick to license terms that there is value to consumers in that. The OSD is a commonly accepted definition of exactly that. Software which is delivered under an OSD compatible license comes with a guarantee that there is no legal barrier to having a free market for upgrades, bug-fixes, training and support. Whether or not there will actually be a viable market in upgrades, bug-fixes, training and support will depend on applicable free market forces. But no vendor has the ability to wave around a legal document and run potential competition out of town. *ANY* licensing move that you make to guarantee yourself the ability to restrict such competition means that the customer no longer can count on that freedom. Therefore any such move should make it impossible to certify you as having a license that offers such protection. THAT is why your license is not open source. It may well be perfectly legal. It just isn't an open source license. (As an aside to anyone still reading, if my description is in any way incorrect, please correct me.) [...] That one step is taking you out of the realm of open source. I still do not understand why that should be the case. Please read my description of what the OSD certification is supposed to mean, compare to what your license says, and get back to me if you don't understand how your license tries to remove protections that are key to being an open source license. [...] 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.'' Besides being able to "officially" call it Open Source and get the license approved, we think it is a good step to open the source and make it publicly available. We have thought a lot about it and feel it is the best for all the parties involved. That is your decision, and there are good arguments which may be made for doing that, even under a license that is not open source. However I note that experiments by Sun and others to try and get developers to accept halfway open license have generally failed abysmally. Still we would like to get approval. That will not happen while your license fails to offer the protections that OSD certification is supposed to provide. Regards, Ben _ Get your FREE
Re: IPL as a burden
Manfred Schmid [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It is indeed interesting that GPL does not address the matter ofrunning a GPLed program. As others have noted, this is not the case: the GPL does require permission to run the program. From a legal standpoint it might be interesting, if the OSD is an inegral part of GPL or not. It's not. The GPL precedes the OSD by many years. Still I do not see IPL being incompliant with the OSDs. we explicitely address the matter of running an IPLed program and state that license fees may apply. At this point I do not not know if we have a language problem, or if you are being deliberately obtuse. License fees are incompatible with the OSD. Fees required for execution of the program are incompatible with the OSD. The IPL as presented is not an open source license. The IPL as presented will not receive OSI approval. (I am not on the OSI board, and I have no say in which licenses are deemed open source. However, I believe that I understand the area sufficiently to make the above categorical statements.) We do not feel that the license is an obstacle. Free Software mens free speach, not free beer (adopted from gnu.org) All you will have to do is pay the price asked for, if applicable. Your program is not free speech. Free speech means that I can say what I choose even if you don't like it. In software it means that I can change your program as I choose even if you don't like it. In particular, it means that I can remove your licensing code, it means that I can copy your program to a hundred computers, and I can run it on all of them. 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. You do have to stick to the license terms and the definition of an improvement is not totally up to you. For open source software, the definition of an improvement certainly is up to me. Just as with free speech I can say what I want, with free software I can improve what I want. Lets take great GPLed software and try to illegally ask for license fees. The easiest "improvement" would be to take out any copyright notice and licensing information (or change it). You are not allowed to do this, and there is a good reason for that. You are being ambiguous here, confusing the meaning of ``license'' as in software license and ``license'' as in ``license fees.'' Perhaps this is a language problem. The GPL prohibits removing information about the software license. It is silent on the matter of license fees. I will start calling ``license fees'' ``execution fees'' to try to avoid any possible language problem. Again, we think the matter is not free beer but free speach. If you would like to run IPLed software on several different computers, the price may be higher, but we do not put any license matters in your way. The higher price is a execution fee. It is not compatible with the OSD. 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. I still do not understand why that should be the case. I have no idea how to make it more clear. You may not restrict my ability to run, modify, or redistribute the software, except in very limited ways which are explicitly spelled out in the OSD. 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.'' Besides being able to "officially" call it Open Source and get the license approved, we think it is a good step to open the source and make it publicly available. We have thought a lot about it and feel it is the best for all the parties involved. I agree that opening the source and making it publically available is a good course. You don't need to use an open source license to do that. Again I refer you to Bitkeeper. Still we would like to get approval. You won't get it. Ian
Open Source *Game* Programming?
I would like some advice on what to do in my situation. I am developing artificial intelligence modules for computer games, and model games to demonstrate and test them. I would like to do that in an open source environment, and would like my code to be used widely in other open source games. However, the only chance I have of ever seeing my creations in a first class game is if they are picked up by a commercial publisher who then will have to pay about a million dollars largely for graphics to get the game up to AAA standards. If I publish under the GPL (as I have done) or any of the other open source licenses I have seen and understood, a publisher could simply take my work, add modifications to my code (to which I would have access, since they would have to be open source also), add his copyrighted graphics (to which I would not get access to use in my own versions of the game, because graphics that goes with code is not covered in open source licenses), and then he could sell it without giving me either royalties or proper artistic credit (credit in the source files and the Readme file is worthless in a game). I don't think this would be fair, and therefore I will not release my work under a license that makes this possible. The type of license I am looking for is one that is basically like the GPL for non-commercial users, but that requires commercial users of my software to acquire a license from me (which implies that I will be paid and get artistic credit). Or else, a license that would force any graphics bundled with my code to become freely available, and that would ensure that I get proper artistic credit. So my questions are simple: Is there any open source certified license that meets these criteria? If not, is it possible to write one? Does anyone in the OSI have an interest in addressing these specific problems faced by most open source *game* developers? And a more philosophical question: If it is against the spirit of open source to require commercial users to buy a license, why is that? I think it is perverse to require me to offer my work as a donation to Microsoft and other game publishers just so I can use SourceForge. Remember, the modifications a publisher might make to my code are worth nothing. The graphics is what is valuable. Peter Henningsen alifegames.com
Re: IPL as a burden
[EMAIL PROTECTED]: I believe OSD section 7 may cover that: 7. Distribution of License. The rights attached to the program must apply to all to whom the program is redistributed without the need for execution of an additional license by those parties. =2E..in which case, the requirement for an additional runtime license by the initial licensee would be incompatible with 7. In other words: all rights associate with copying, modification, distribution, *or use* of the program must be granted in the OSD-conformant license. Still, it's interesting that this is an imputed, not an explicit, property of the OSD. Possible loophole? It could be. I think you mentioned the answer in a different post: 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_. My question is: Is there any good reason that an Open Source license should not consist solely of these kinds of rights? Is there a reason why an Open Source license should prohibit or conditionalize something that I already have the right to do (such as execute code, given that I have obtained a copy of the code)? Running the program is not a right that an Open Source license need grant; it's a right that everyone already has. And while section 7 of the OSD specifies that the rights granted be universal without the need for an additional license, it says nothing about the rights taken away. I'm wondering if we could eliminate these kinds of loopholes by outlawing licenses that take rights away altogether. --
Re: IPL as a burden
Manfred Schmid [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 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. You do have to stick to the license terms and the definition of an improvement is not totally up to you. For open source software, the definition of an improvement certainly is up to me. Just as with free speech I can say what I want, with free software I can improve what I want. I would propose a bet: You name me a country you deem to have free speach and I will show you a way to get in jail in that country within 24 hours just by executing free speech. I would put a serious amount of money on that (execution of course would be up to you :). Free speech is not a right that grants you to do whatever you want, it has its restrictions and may conflict with other rights. Take the source code of any command line GPLed program, remove the code lines, that print out the GPL information, redistribute it and you got a problem with this improvement. To cut this short, I concede that you are right, and I was wrong: the definition of an ``improvement'' is not totally up to me. But eliminating execution fees is within the scope of what is totally up to me under an open source license. I will start calling ``license fees'' ``execution fees'' to try to avoid any possible language problem. Again, we think the matter is not free beer but free speach. If you would like to run IPLed software on several different computers, the price may be higher, but we do not put any license matters in your way. The higher price is a execution fee. It is not compatible with the OSD. I could not find this. GPL reads "When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things." What is your point? The GPL says ``The act of running the Program is not restricted'' That is what prohibits execution fees. To me, a lot of the discussion gets down to the "free beer" question. May I ask the Board for an official statement: Is the charging of license fees (or execution fees) definitely a no-go to qualify it as OSI-compliant Open Source? You may ask this question, although I already know what the answer will be. Since the OSI board is not particularly responsive, I recommend that you send a separate mail message with a different subject line which simply asks this question. You may want to send it to [EMAIL PROTECTED]; see http://www.opensource.org/board.html. Ian
Re: IPL as a burden
on Tue, Jan 16, 2001 at 06:54:22PM +0100, Manfred Schmid ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: It is indeed interesting that GPL does not address the matter of running a GPLed program. It does. Explicitly, in section 0: Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. _The act of running the Program is not restricted_, and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program). Emphasis added. The apparent lapse is of the OSD, not the GPL. The OSI and FSF are entirely separate organizations. The projections of the OSD and the FSF's definition of "free software" onto the universe of software projects overlap greatly, but are not identical. From a legal standpoint it might be interesting, if the OSD is an inegral part of GPL or not. The OSD is not an integral part of the GPL, which it greatly post-dates. See above. We do not feel that the license is an obstacle. Free Software mens free speach, not free beer (adopted from gnu.org). If you're going to quote the FSF on the meaning of free software, get your quotes right. We're very familiar with the material. Specifically: "Free software" refers to the users' freedom to *run*, copy, distribute, study, change, and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the *users* of the software: - The Freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0) - The Fredom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. - The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2). - The freedome to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits. (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. A program is free software if users have *all* of these freedoms. Thus, you should be free to redistribute copies, either with or without modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to anyone anywhere. Being free to do these things means (among other things) that you do not have to ask or pay for permission. [http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-sw.html] Emphasis added. Your proposed IPL meets neither the definitions of an OSI-certified license, nor "free software". Either change the license such that it does conform, or stop claiming that it does. -- 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: IPL as a burden
But the clarification that is likely to happen will not be to your liking. If the whole construct is clear and consistent, we all know where we stand. I would prefer that to the current situation. We are not restricting competition. Opening the source will increase competition for us and it is a good and solid principle at the basis of capitalism :) When you have two competitors selling a product, and all sales to either company result in license fees going to one of those competitors, they are not on an even playing field. The dramatic resulting effect may be seen from some of the OEM policies that Microsoft managed to get away with. Any company may provide upgrades, bug-fixes, training, support or wahtever they feel reasonable in the context of IPLed software. There is no such restriction in IPL. If you find one, we will take it out. The original version required companies provided support and services to pay you non-zero license fees (while the end customers receieved free licenses). Given that you choose your competitor's cost here, no sane competitor would go head to head against you in that market. Talking about Microsoft, no one is able to provide upgrades and bug-fixes, because the source is not available. Concerning training and support, Microsoft is not the biggest player. They still have a strong position since training and support require information, only the source is able to provide as a "lender of last resort". If the source was publically available, we probably would see some major shifts in the market. But lets be realistic, no company will ever have a monopoly in training and support. When looking at the Economics of us competing with any company in the above mentioned fields, do not forget that any balance sheet has two sides. I have a lot of developers on my payroll and I am ready to pay for outside contributions. Put yourself in the position of a normal company (not IBM, HP or comparable), lets say 100 employees. Any company will sooner or later go out of business if it cannot compensate the costs incurred by an appropriate revenue stream. How much of your ressources could you assign to GPL-Development? The guys in the RD department could be encouraged to develop GPL Software in their spare time. Maybe you can afford a guy or two working exclusively for the community as a donation. But thats about it. In consequence, neither intraDAT nor any other company of that size will ever be able to professionally (and profitably) develop new GPL products. But a lot of software still has to be designed and developed and its not always the big companies, that do the best job. I know, that in the current situation, there are other fashionable roads to travel. - Live on training, consulting and support for GPL products and help the community the best you can. As an outstanding individual you will always find a sponsor who allows you to pay your bills and contribute. As a company you do have to trust that the community will provide your economic basis, outstanding products ahead of the competition. Your abilities to contribute are neccessarily limited (and we see currently some of these companies crashing). - Risk it all in creating the nucleus of a new GPL product, trust that "somehow" by "somebody" the software is developed further and try to live on training and support. As the lead developer, you might get a premium in consulting training and support, but do not forget the competition. Paying the developers out of the premium requires the percentage mid-term to be small. Do not get me wrong: You will immediately find enough examples that historically prove my statements wrong. Linux has been taken by an enthusiastic community from a tiny nucleus to where it is now etc. etc. But that is history and I doubt that the historic and existing structures will scale to the extent needed to make Open Source the mainstream. Today in the overall market, Open Source Software has a small market share. You will probably be able to create a viable business model with existing products like Apache, MySQL etc. But to make the market share grow, new Open Source products do have to be developed, distributed and improved. Innovation is normally done by small and new companies, not by the big. To make long things short: I do not think that any company has to be insane to compete with us in training etc. The cards are open on the table, the money received allows me to pay my developers. We do not intend to restrict competition. Assuming that Manfred understands what I meant when I wrote that, and my description matches what others believe open source to be, the conclusion is that as soon as your license tries to find ways to guarantee that some type of revenue generated from that software goes to you, the result will not be labelled Open Source. And it will not be so labelled for reasons that have nothing to do with people in the Open Source world
Re: Free Software Licensing Strategy -- Some guidelines
G'day all. Karsten, you've done an excellent job with this. There is one point that I'd like to make which might be worth adding, as it's a common misconception. On Tue, Jan 16, 2001 at 02:11:24AM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Artistic License is notable for its use with the Perl programming language, however, it's a somewhat eclectic and ambiguous document. The author of Perl and the Artistic License, Larry Wall, has publically stated several times that it was specifically designed to be used as part of a dual licensing scheme only. For example: http://www.xray.mpe.mpg.de/mailing-lists/perl5-porters/2000-08/msg01317.html When choosing the Artistic License, if you ignore Larry's advice and do not dual license with some other open source licence, you do so at your own legal risk. Cheers, Andrew Bromage
Re: AFPL vs. GPL-like licenses?
On Mon, Jan 15, 2001 at 04:55:02PM +0100, Lionello Lunesu wrote: [...] 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. There is, of course, an alternative way to look at free software as a gift to "the software society," as you put it. If someone gives you some clothes, they usually do not expect that you would not wear them to work. Similarly, if they give you a hammer or other tool they do not usually expect you to refrain from making money by using it. Many people view free or open source software as such a gift. The intent is to give something to people so that they can use it. If that leads to them making money, good for them. If they just use it for fun, that's fine too. This is particularly apropos because distributing or selling software is not the same as selling your comic books. After you sell the comic books, someone else has them and you do not. Not so with software (unless you are selling your rights to the software). With the Alladin license, I see the author as saying, "I've made this cool hammer. Feel free to use it around the house, but I want to reserve the right to use it for construction." Some of the more free licenses are just saying, "Here, have a hammer." I don't see either one as a "mistake." It's all in what the author was trying to achieve. Chris -- Chris Sloan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Systems Software Engineer Green Hills Software
Re: AFPL vs. GPL-like licenses?
On Monday 15 January 2001 11:53 pm, Lionello Lunesu wrote: 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. By contributing I am increasing am increasing the (potential) profits of the authors, while at the same time the author prevents any profits to me. I'm not asking for equal profits, or even profits proportional to my contributions. Just the opportunity for it. Oh, I'll still _use_ the program, and I might even contribute a bug fix if it annoys *me* enough. But I won't consider helping out on the project if I'm treated as second class. -- David Johnson ___ http://www.usermode.org
RE: AFPL vs. GPL-like licenses?
Hi there, (This is a reaction to both David Johnson and Chris Sloan.) CS If someone gives you some clothes, they usually do not expect that you CS would not wear them to work. Similarly, if they give you a hammer or CS other tool they do not usually expect you to refrain from making money CS by using it. There's 'making money' and then there's 'MAKING MONEY'. I would feel very 'funny' if somebody would end up being a milionair, all from a piece of software that I wrote. Now I know that this is pretty far fetched and it means that this someone probably did something right that I didn't, or didn't think of. But anyway, the fact that such a case gives me this strange feeling (even when I think of it) is reason enough for me to put restrictions on my 'gift', my software. CS Many people view free or open source software as such a gift. The CS intent is to give something to people so that they can use it. If CS that leads to them making money, good for them. If they just use it CS for fun, that's fine too. I'm not trying to keep people from making money with my toolkit. Far from it, they can test the software all they want, and when they have discovered what it can do for them (ie. how to make money with it) then I'm _very_ willing to give them a chance to do so, but then I feel they owe it to me in some part. It's a payback for part of the investment that I have done it that software. CS This is particularly apropos because distributing or selling software CS is not the same as selling your comic books. After you sell the comic CS books, someone else has them and you do not. Not so with software CS (unless you are selling your rights to the software). That's quite correct. Thanks for pointing that out. Although part of the analogy still stands I think. Let's assume for the moment that I had LOTS of comic books to sell. : ) DJ By contributing I am increasing the (potential) profits of DJ the authors, while at the same time the author prevents any profits to me. DJ I'm not asking for equal profits, or even profits proportional to my DJ contributions. Just the opportunity for it. And you still have that opportunity. The only difference is that under AFPL (or similar licenses) you need to contact the original author just right before you put your own software in a box in the store. If you're really only interested in the benefits for the software society then you'd probably give your software (based on mine) away too in which case there's no big difference between AFPL and GPL. 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
Ralf Schwoebel wrote: After the discussion yesterday, and we might work a bit on our license and resubmit it. But the basic idea will stay: Then I hope your submission will fail - I agree with other posters that if the OSD does not preclude calling the things you are planning "Open Source", that means the OSD is seriously flawed. License fees for "Open Source" software and a license that is covering that widely and explicitly mentions that with the approval of the community. We think it is time for such a license and we do believe that the IPL is close enough, even if some paragraphs caused such a discussion yesterday. Profit is necessary and licenses like MozPL, etc. are the first step to such a point of view. Even the GPL notes that and leaves the door open. I disagree - the MPL and other such licenses have problems but they manage to satisfy the basic requirements. They're not great but OK to use if necessary - not a step in the right direction at all. And, BTW, the GPL does *not* leave the door open for license fees. It states that you may ask money for *distribution*, not for use. Your license allows a scheme where an author spreads his program far and wide, and then -once users have become dependent on it- starts asking license fees. Such a scheme is very definitly not compatible with the spirit of Open Source / Free Software, the way I see it. The "IPL-concept" is really just shareware-with-source - it's just completely different from open source. If you believe this is a good idea then go pursue it (I advise against it and suggest that instead you take more seriously the real and proven ways to make money from Open Source - but do it if you must). But please stop trying to drag Open Source with you. Mark
Re: IPL as a burden
Mark Koek wrote: Source", that means the OSD is seriously flawed. Hi Mark, I understand your opinion, which was mine for a long time, too, but still: OPEN DOES NOT MEAN FREE. And, BTW, the GPL does *not* leave the door open for license fees. It states that you may ask money for *distribution*, not for use. Somebody said in a mail yesterday: The GPL does not cover the question of "execution fees" and one could ask for such a "license/exeution fee", but since everybody could remove any copyright checks in the source, it makes no sense to include these in OSS. That one will always have free access to all the source, is another fact that is seperate. Here I disagree and we could publish something under GPL and still ask for a license fee for that software. If we would get it, is another question. -- 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
The OSD requires that licenses do not discriminate against a group of people - it may be pushing it, but this license discriminates against those unable (or at an even greater push, unwilling) to pay a license fee. SamBC - Original Message - From: "Manfred Schmid" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "Ian Lance Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: "Brian DeSpain" [EMAIL PROTECTED]; "Mark Koek" [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 4:29 AM Subject: Re: IPL as a burden Ian, 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 do not want to bore you, but the rationale of OSD #7 reads: "7. Distribution of License. (back) This clause is intended to forbid closing up software by indirect means such as requiring a non-disclosure agreement." We do not intend to make the source available to the public under IPL and close it with the same License by any means. 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. 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. 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? - May we take reasonable provisions for a legal defending of the Terms and Conditions of the license? 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. 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. 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
Gregor, I like the terminology you used: "source included software (SIS)". SIS would be much better than a closed source, proprietary alternative, but I don't see any incentive for open source programmers to contribute to such a program. If a company went out of business or ceased to produce the application, SIS would at least provide an option to people so they could recover their investment in data which was created by the application. A better protection along those lines would be a totally free, open, and fully documented data format. Of course, that would require work on the part of the application vendor, work which they may believe they have no financial incentive to produce. I would argue that their incentive to produce such a set of documentation is larger than that which could exist for an open source developer to contribute to a SIS program. It could cause their application to become the defacto standard for that class of applications, and it would be a strong incentive to use in a sales situation where potential customers are concerned about protecting future access to their data. It would not be "open source" by any of the accepted definitions, but it would have a lot more value than proprietary alternatives. Frank Gregor Hoffleit wrote: On Tue, Jan 16, 2001 at 06:54:22PM +0100, Manfred Schmid wrote: It is indeed interesting that GPL does not address the matter ofrunning a GPLed program. From a legal standpoint it might be interesting, if the OSD is an inegral part of GPL or not. From a non-legal standpoint I would argue that OSD #7 covers that matter. By no way the OSD is an integral part of the GPL (the GPL was there long before the OSD came into existance). Well, the GPL says this: "Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program). Whether that is true depends on what the Program does." and "6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License." I.e. the GPL doesn't restrict the act of running the program, and if somebody else redistributes the program, he can't impose any restrictions on running the program either. I think the GPL is quite explicit at this point. In fact, I have to say it once again: Contrary to its name, OSD is a set of guidelines, but not a strict definition of what makes up Open Source software. Take all the reactions from the crowd here, and you will see that the unrestricted right to run a program is inherent to the concept of Open Source software. What you're suggesting is a different concept, something like "source-included" software. Maybe that's a third way (fifth, seventh ?) and maybe it's viable, but please don't try to suggest that you're running inside the concept of Open Source software. Gregor 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
Title: RE: IPL as a burden Gentle people, I'm not a laywer so if I'm missing something, please fill in. From: Gregor Hoffleit [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Well, the GPL says this: Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. Appears that the GPL does not grant any rights relating to executing the Program based on this clause. The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program). Whether that is true depends on what the Program does. The act of executing the Program is not restricted, but it also doesn't appear to be granted by the GPL, as it is out of scope of the GPL. Even when the output of the Program is covered, there is no text describing what rights would be granted to the user of the output. Although there may be an implication that the GPL may allow the user to copy, distribute and modify the Program output, that doesn't implicitly grant any rights to the use of the output. and 6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License. Because the recipients' rights granted by the GPL do not apply to executing the Program, restrictions on executing the Program would not impose any further restrictions on any rights granted by the GPL. Carter Carter Bullard QoSient, LLC 300 E. 56th Street, Suite 18K New York, New York 10022 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone +1 212 813-9426 Fax +1 212 813-9426
Re: Open Source *Game* Programming?
Henningsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: And a more philosophical question: If it is against the spirit of open source to require commercial users to buy a license, why is that? I think it is perverse to require me to offer my work as a donation to Microsoft and other game publishers just so I can use SourceForge. Remember, the modifications a publisher might make to my code are worth nothing. The graphics is what is valuable. The graphics issue, which I have never heard before, make this a strange issue. I believe it is within the spirit of open source to permit people who do not want to distribute the source to purchase a license. Cygnus used to follow this policy with regard to open source projects such as eCos and cygwin. Anybody who distributed their own code which used these libraries was permitted to use them under open source licenses. Anybody who did not want to distribute their own code was encouraged to purchase a license from Cygnus. I think Cygnus did sell some eCos licenses; I don't know about cygwin. Of course this tactic is only permissible if you have agreement from all copyright owners; in the cases of eCos and cygwin, Cygnus is the sole author, and requires copyright assignments for all patches. Perhaps you can write a license along the lines of the GPL in which you make clear that any graphics distributed alongside your code do *not* fall under the ``mere aggregation'' clause, and that anybody who distributes your code with graphics must release the source for those graphics. Then you can offer a license buyout for people who do not want to do so. I don't really understand the gaming market, so I don't know if this actually makes any sense. Ian
Re: Open Source *Game* Programming?
From: "Henningsen" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Is there any open source certified license that meets these criteria? No, because a requirement to pay a fee is a restriction against free redistribution of the software. This issue is addressed directly by the OSD FAQ. And a more philosophical question: If it is against the spirit of open source to require commercial users to buy a license, why is that? Because the intellectual heritage of the free software movement assumes a moral right for everyone, not just non-commercial users, to have unrestricted access to the source code running on their computers, and the right to make changes and modifications as they see fit. The people whom the OSD addresses are the end users of the software, not the publishers. The free software vision is that the kid who buys a game using your engine should have an unencumbered right to tinker with it, and release those modifications to the public so long as the same rights are conveyed forward to the next recipient. Remember, the modifications a publisher might make to my code are worth nothing. The graphics is what is valuable. That's a very narrow, and impractical view of the business of selling game software. If anything, it's easier to get good artists than it is to get good programmers. While the sunk costs may be heavily tilted towards the art vs. the code, the technical challenge of bringing the product to market is clearly with the code, not the art. Publishers spend tremendous amounts of money developing, testing and supporting the code base for computer games. The question you have to ask yourself is this: Is it more important to me that my work get wide distribution even if someone else gets wealthy as a result, or is it more important that I know that nobody is making money off my work unless I do too? Ryan S. Dancey Learn about Open Gaming: www.opengamingfoundation.org
Re: IPL as a burden
On 16 Jan 2001, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: Manfred Schmid [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: To me, a lot of the discussion gets down to the "free beer" question. May I ask the Board for an official statement: Is the charging of license fees (or execution fees) definitely a no-go to qualify it as OSI-compliant Open Source? You may ask this question, although I already know what the answer will be. I'm no longer on the OSI board, but my opinion is, there's no way in tarnation I can reconcile a mandatory fee for execution (no matter what name you give it) and OSD conformance. Brian
RE: IPL as a burden
"Carter Bullard" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Gentle people, I'm not a laywer so if I'm missing something, please fill in. IANAL as well. From: Gregor Hoffleit [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Well, the GPL says this: "Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope." Appears that the GPL does not grant any rights relating to executing the Program based on this clause. That appears correct. "The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program). Whether that is true depends on what the Program does." The act of executing the Program is not restricted, but it also doesn't appear to be granted by the GPL, as it is out of scope of the GPL. Even when the output of the Program is "covered", there is no text describing what rights would be granted to the user of the output. Although there may be an implication that the GPL may allow the user to "copy, distribute and modify" the Program output, that doesn't implicitly grant any rights to the use of the output. That is correct. If I use a GPLed compiler, and the output does not qualify under copyright law as a work based on the compiler, then the binary which results need not be GPLed. The GPL is based on having copyright. If the author of the GPLed software does not have copyright on the final product of the work, then how can they put a copyright license on it? and "6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License." Because the recipients' rights granted by the GPL do not apply to executing the Program, restrictions on executing the Program would not impose any further restrictions on any rights granted by the GPL. My understanding is that the copy of the software that you get is yours. Your use of your software is covered in copyright law under "fair use". This is not equivalent to a standard commercial license where you do not own the bits sitting inside of your computer, but have merely licensed the right to use them. Whether the latter should be legally valid has been a subject of some debate. The industry dearly wants it to be so, and is currently trying to get UCITA passed, which would codify it in laws. Consumer advocates are of the opinion that not only should it not be so, but that it is high time for some lemon laws. Open source software does not stand to benefit from UCITA, but could stand to lose from lemon laws. All factors considered, it is likely that open source software would receive some loophole in any lemon laws that were passed. Carter Carter Bullard QoSient, LLC 300 E. 56th Street, Suite 18K New York, New York 10022 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone +1 212 813-9426 Fax +1 212 813-9426 People who put their addresses in email always astound me. You never know what nut might be just a few blocks away. * Cheers, Ben * Me for instance! (No joke.) _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: IPL as a burden
"Forrest J. Cavalier III" wrote:
What happens to a future user's rights if intradat is out of
business (i.e. no way to execute a license?)
Or, worse, intradat gets bought up and the new owners try to kill off
('unofficial' versions of) the software by increasing the license fees
to, say, EUR 100,000,000 per execution?
Mark
Re: Open Source *Game* Programming?
On Wed, 17 Jan 2001, Ben Tilly wrote: IANAL but I think the general reaction would be that the graphics are part of the overall work and said game company would then be obliged to also give away the graphics, which you would then have access to. Doom and Quake have been released as GPL. Graphics and data files have not. By this reasoning, anyone except the creators of Doom or Quake could not distribute those programs at all, since the graphics are necessary to use the program and they are not open source.
Re: Request: Publication of this discussion
on Wed, Jan 17, 2001 at 02:58:21PM -0500, Ralf Schwoebel ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Hi *, we think that the discussion about IPL reached a point where the board will tell us, what we could do. Until then we have to continue to work and I kindly ask for the permission of everybody who posted to "license-discuss" on that matter, that we put a prominent link to these mails on our www.vshop.org, Linking should not be an issue, Ticketmaster v. Microsoft and RIAA v. DeCSS notwithstanding. Permision to link to or publish my own posts, with attribution, granted. BEFORE somebody downloads the sources and state the uncertainty of the approval "Open Source". It's not uncertain. It hasn't been granted. In all likelihood with your current license, it won't be. -- 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: Free Software Licensing Strategy -- Some guidelines
Tom Hull [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] 1. Understand the standard licensing models --- ... The Artistic License is notable for its use with the Perl programming language, however, it's a somewhat eclectic and ambiguous document. My take is that the Artistic License is mostly an argument with GPL over what constitutes a derived work: in particular, it disclaims embedding (like the Guile license) and command extensions (regardless of how they are implemented), and it does so in ways that are very specific to Perl. (That is, one has to rewrite the license to apply it to anything else.) [...] My understanding is that the Artistic License is a feel-good document which is legal Swiss cheese. It certainly does not achieve its stated aim, is probably not legally enforcable, if it were it would be trivial to subvert, and there are multiple versions out there. (Having had the wording of the version in Perl modified several times without getting the explicit permission of all copyright holders makes its status somewhat...nebulous.) I don't think that it should be generally used. IANAL and this is not legal advice. Cheers, Ben _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: IPL as a burden
Gregor Hoffleit [EMAIL PROTECTED] Citates from the GPL: Well, the GPL says this: "Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program). Whether that is true depends on what the Program does." Gregor Hoffleit [EMAIL PROTECTED] Concludes: I.e. the GPL doesn't restrict the act of running the program, and if somebody else redistributes the program, he can't impose any restrictions on running the program either. I dissagree, with the conclusion. The GPL lets it open wether there is or might be a restriction on the act of running the program. Probably this is not intended by the GPL, but in the citate above, its clearly stated: "the license does not restrict runnning of a program", this means it does not SAY anything about the running of the program. You can not draw the conclusion that it does allow everything and requires all changes to allow everything. In fact this would be impossible. E.G. you add a peace of source code written in SPARC assembler, this implies the restriction that the sourcecode only runs on SPARC compatible runtime environments. Also you could invent restrictions like: this code may never run on a nuclear war head controller. The GPL does nothing to prefent this. Regards, Angelo -- Angelo Schneider OOAD/UML [EMAIL PROTECTED] Putlitzstr. 24 Patterns/FrameWorks Fon: +49 721 9812465 76137 Karlsruhe C++/JAVAFax: +49 721 9812467
Re: Open Source *Game* Programming?
Ken Arromdee [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Ben Tilly [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Open Source *Game* Programming? Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 13:26:04 -0800 (PST) On Wed, 17 Jan 2001, Ben Tilly wrote: IANAL but I think the general reaction would be that the graphics are part of the overall work and said game company would then be obliged to also give away the graphics, which you would then have access to. Doom and Quake have been released as GPL. Graphics and data files have not. By this reasoning, anyone except the creators of Doom or Quake could not distribute those programs at all, since the graphics are necessary to use the program and they are not open source. I am quoting from section 3: : 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.[...] Do graphics and data files count as "interface definition files"? I really don't know. In any case I would consider it a hole in the GPL if things like essential parts of the user interface (ie graphics) did not need to be made available while the work as a whole was GPLed. Cheers, Ben _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
GPL clarification relative to multiple processes
Hi all, I confused on at least one point (probably more ;-) ) of the GPL and would like some clarification. I'm sure that this is not a new issue, but didn't see it covered in the FAQ at opensource.org... But I do admit that I was too lazy to search the archives... Suppose that there are three programs, "A", "B", and "C". "B" is covered under the GPL and written by some open source developer. "A" and "C" are written solely by a vendor that wants to keep the source proprietary (not interested in debating the merits of this decision, let's assume that they just want to). "A" starts up and forks/execs "B" and "C" (so 3 processes all running in separate processes with no shared address space or any type of dynamic or static linking between them). So now "B" and "C" start communicating. I think that there are three cases here: 1) "B" and "C" communicate via stdin/stdout (let's assume that its the output of "B" that is important to the functioning of "C"). 2) Sames as # 1, except "C" sends information to "B" vis stdin/stdout. 3) The proprietary software vendor adds a communication mechanism, perhaps via an ORB. (and of course releases all the code, etc. that was injected into "B", and otherwise abide by the rules and obligations of the GPL). Cases #1 and #2, sound very similar to shell and pipes. I think the clause of the GPL which says the output of a program "B" is not necessarily covered by the GPL (the compiler example) would be the relevant one here. (But what of the program that provides "B" with input???) Based on the independent processes and the "output" reasoning, I would think that the GPL would not automatically extend to "C" in either case. Am I right here? Case #3 is puzzling. It looks like more than a "mere aggregation" on storage media. But it would be hard to believe that "C" was a derivative work of "B". Would one argue that "A" was a derivative work of "B" and so must be released under the GPL? (And then "C" would have to be released under the GPL when combined with "A", and "B")? If case#1 and #2 are exempt from the GPL and in case#3, the GPL embraces all three programs, then where is the line between the three cases? Thanks! Mark
Re: IPL as a burden
G'day all. On Wed, Jan 17, 2001 at 10:17:41AM -0800, Frank LaMonica wrote: I like the terminology you used: "source included software (SIS)". SIS would be much better than a closed source, proprietary alternative, but I don't see any incentive for open source programmers to contribute to such a program. As I understand it, interDAT will be offering them money. Cheers, Andrew Bromage
Re: IPL as a burden
Andrew J Bromage wrote: G'day all. On Wed, Jan 17, 2001 at 10:17:41AM -0800, Frank LaMonica wrote: I like the terminology you used: "source included software (SIS)". SIS would be much better than a closed source, proprietary alternative, but I don't see any incentive for open source programmers to contribute to such a program. As I understand it, interDAT will be offering them money. Cheers, Andrew Bromage Andrew, Please clarify or expand on that statement. Regards, Frank 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
G'day all. On Wed, Jan 17, 2001 at 06:48:44PM -0800, Frank LaMonica wrote: Please clarify or expand on that statement. The issue under discussion was what incentive would hackers have for contributing to a product released under a Source Included Software scheme that was not Open Source such as, for example, software released under the IPL as it currently exists. Someone from intraDAT (I think it was Manfred) said earlier that the company would offer money to people who sent improvements to their software back to them if they included it in the product. No details have come out about how this would be done or what guarantees there would be (and nor should they; this is an OSS licence discussion list, not a forum for discussing business practices of non-OSS companies), however I think this addresses the point. Rather than building an external group of unfunded developers under the bazaar-based OSS model, build an external group of partially-funded developers. I don't pretend to have any insight as to whether or not such a business model would succeed in the real world. Cheers, Andrew Bromage
Re: IPL as a burden
G'day all. On Wed, Jan 17, 2001 at 11:34:49AM +, SamBC wrote: The OSD requires that licenses do not discriminate against a group of people - it may be pushing it, but this license discriminates against those unable (or at an even greater push, unwilling) to pay a license fee. That _is_ pushing it. The GPL discriminates against those unable or unwilling to comply with the GPL. Cheers, Andrew Bromage
