Re: Apache vs. BSD licenses
Ian Stokes-Rees wrote: We are looking at open sourcing a software project and are currently trying to evaluate BSD vs. Apache. The issue is that our code base includes Xerces-C (XML parser) which is under Apache Public License. The implication, then, is that for both subsequent source and binary distributions there is the requirement to a) include the APL (this makes sense and isn't a problem), and b) include credits in binary only distributions (more annoying). What clause of the Apache licence (which is *not* the Apache 'Public' licence, btw) requires you to accrete credit? All it says is that if you use stuff from the ASF, you need to say so. A one-liner, plus the Apache licence file, ought to be sufficient. I understand that the FSF position on this is that the APL is GPL incompatible because otherwise the required list of creditors grows and grows with every person who makes individual contributions which are not signed over to one of the current "owners". That is not the case. Nothing in the Apache licence requires anything of the kind. -- #kenP-)} Ken Coarhttp://Golux.Com/coar/ Apache Software Foundation http://www.apache.org/ "Apache Server for Dummies" http://Apache-Server.Com/ "Apache Server Unleashed" http://ApacheUnleashed.Com/ ApacheCon 2001! Four tracks with over 70+ sessions. Free admission to exhibits and special events - keynote presentations by John 'maddog' Hall and David Brin. Special thanks to our Platinum Sponsors IBM and Covalent, Gold Sponsor Thawte, and Silver Sponsor Compaq. Attend the only Apache event designed and fully supported by the members of the ASF. See more information and register at http://ApacheCon.Com/!
Re: Apache vs. BSD licenses
To clarify: Please refer to the "GPL-Incompatible, Free Software Licenses" section on the GNU web site at: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses Second, my mistake was in wording: We are not going to turn over our software to Apache, therefore when I say we are considering releasing it under the Apache License, I mean that we are considering releasing it under an Apache _style_ license, basically using v1.1 as the template. If we were to do this, and subsequent developers were to do the same, then each developer who redistributed the accumulated code base with new files and entirely new code which they put under _their_ version of Apache License, the credits list would grow and grow. This is my _understanding_ of what happens when people use Apache, and that it was the major criticism of the original BSD license, hence the new BSD license. I fully accept that I may have a misguided impression of how Apache and Apache style licenses work, hence my posts to this discussion list. I would appreciate any clarification. We do not want there to be run away licenses on the code base we are distributing. If we release it under BSD and other people do the same, then their will only be two licenses: One for Xerces (Apache License), and one for everything else (BSD). Finally, it was mentioned that (to quote): "... the Apache licence (which is *not* the Apache 'Public' licence, btw) ...". I was under the impression that the Apache License was, at times, refered to as the Apache Public License. The following links somewhat support that claim (both on apache.org): http://jakarta.apache.org/turbine/license.html http://xml.apache.org/batik/license.html Cheers, Ian. Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: Ian Stokes-Rees wrote: We are looking at open sourcing a software project and are currently trying to evaluate BSD vs. Apache. The issue is that our code base includes Xerces-C (XML parser) which is under Apache Public License. The implication, then, is that for both subsequent source and binary distributions there is the requirement to a) include the APL (this makes sense and isn't a problem), and b) include credits in binary only distributions (more annoying). What clause of the Apache licence (which is *not* the Apache 'Public' licence, btw) requires you to accrete credit? All it says is that if you use stuff from the ASF, you need to say so. A one-liner, plus the Apache licence file, ought to be sufficient. I understand that the FSF position on this is that the APL is GPL incompatible because otherwise the required list of creditors grows and grows with every person who makes individual contributions which are not signed over to one of the current "owners". That is not the case. Nothing in the Apache licence requires anything of the kind. -- #kenP-)} Ken Coarhttp://Golux.Com/coar/ Apache Software Foundation http://www.apache.org/ "Apache Server for Dummies" http://Apache-Server.Com/ "Apache Server Unleashed" http://ApacheUnleashed.Com/ ApacheCon 2001! Four tracks with over 70+ sessions. Free admission to exhibits and special events - keynote presentations by John 'maddog' Hall and David Brin. Special thanks to our Platinum Sponsors IBM and Covalent, Gold Sponsor Thawte, and Silver Sponsor Compaq. Attend the only Apache event designed and fully supported by the members of the ASF. See more information and register at http://ApacheCon.Com/! -- Ian Stokes-Rees, Engineering Manager DecisionSoft Ltd. Telephone: +44-1865-203192http://www.decisionsoft.com
Re: Apache vs. BSD licenses
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: This is my _understanding_ of what happens when people use Apache, and that it was the major criticism of the original BSD license, hence the new BSD license. And hence the Apache 1.1 licence revision, which mirrored that change in the BSD licence. I understood that AL 1.1 was an *old* BSD license, with the advertising clause, as appears from the apache.org web site. -- There is / one art || John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] no more / no less || http://www.reutershealth.com to do / all things || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan with art- / lessness \\ -- Piet Hein
Re: licenses for RPGs
On Mon, 19 Mar 2001, David Johnson wrote: The only licenses halfway-acceptable for me are the OOGl and OGL. What do you like about these licenses? I have two issues with them. First, they are lengthy and potentially confusing (to the user) licenses. Second, they are copyleft, and I am not desiring a copyleft license for this project. Unfortunately, the Open Gaming License will only approve copylefted licenses and games. In other words, I can release a public domain game and they would refuse to call it free and open. That seems bizarre to me. -- * Phil Hunt * "An unforseen issue has arisen with your computer. Don't worry your silly little head about what has gone wrong; here's a pretty animation of a paperclip to look at instead." -- Windows2007 error message
Re: Apache vs. BSD licenses
On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
Ian Stokes-Rees wrote:
If we were to do this, and subsequent developers were to do the
same, then each developer who redistributed the accumulated code
base with new files and entirely new code which they put under
_their_ version of Apache License, the credits list would grow
and grow.
That is a consequence of the ASFisms or their replacements, not
the licence terms themselves..
Actually, Ken, Ian is right. If there is a bundle of code that contains
ASF code, which has an Apache License 1.1-style license on it requiring
attribution to this other party, then both the ASF and this other party
need to have their credits remain. The license terms do require this, and
it's not likely to change in the near future, since people in the ASF
believe pretty strongly in attributing credit where earned. If you have a
string of derivative works, you have a string of attributions. You can
remove an attribution from that list only if you're sure none of that
contributor's work is being used anymore.
Personally, I think this is a pretty small thing to ask. Even with 1000
contributors representing a chain of 1000 derivations (whereas these days
you rarely have two or three) such an atribution would take under 100K of
text, or 10K compressed. Giving credit is an inexpensive way of spread
the benefits of participation in an open source project, and costs the
current developers essentially nothing.
Note that this "advertising clause" is much different in 1.1 than in 1.0.
In fact, it was carefully written to *be* GPL compatible. The clause
"Alternately, this acknowledgment may appear in the software itself,
if and wherever such third-party acknowledgments normally appear" can
apply to sourcecode as well - that is, if you have a GPL tarball that
contains Xerces code, you are of course distributing source, and that
acknowlegement appears in the source to the Xerces code, where such a
"third-party acknowledgment normally appears". I've discussed this with
Stallman and he agrees, grudgingly, that clause 3 is not GPL-incompatible.
Such notices will persist, as well, because the GPL does not allow you to
remove copyright notices on included code (I believe...).
He still has an issue with clauses 4 and 5, though, which are a device to
help protect us against someone creating a proprietary fork and calling it
"ApachePro", or "Apache++" or whatever. Stallman believes such things
should be enforced through trademark law. I think anyone who's been
through trademark law proceedings would tell you to avoid it at all costs
- trademark law is all about who has the more expensive lawyers arguing
your case. :/ By making it a term of copyright, we protect that interest
in a much more direct way.
Stallman has indicated to me that clause 4 ("Apache" may not be used to
endorse) will be compatible with the GPL v3, but clause 5 ("Apache" may
not appear in the product name) will not. I think this is unfortunate, as
in a digital environment, your good name is your only asset, and
protecting it shouldn't be hard. I don't see asking someone to choose a
different name for a derivative work as not qualifying as "free" as the
FSF defines it.
Brian
Updates?
I recall I while ago we started receiving updates as to what licenses are waiting, and what licenses are approved/refused and why. This doesn't seem to have happened for a while - any chance of it happening again (please). I mainly ask as I am wondering about getting more information on the progress of my (documentation) license, which I quite like and is purpose built for a project, which is waiting on license approval before I release anything (d'oh!). The license is at http://www.simplelinux.org/legal/sLODL.html but that isn't the latest version - that is attached. I will be updating the site as and when (as sourceforge don't make it very easy - it was supposed to be a cronjob to copy from CVS, but that stopped working). Any more comments than those received before, or obvious corrections, please come out with them. SamBC Title: simpleLinux Open Documentation License This is a PRE-RELEASE draft of the license the Movement for simpleLinux intends to release documentation under. Please send comments to [EMAIL PROTECTED] This document should be viewed in word-wrapped mode. The simpleLinux Open Documentation License - Revision Alpha-4 - NOT FOR LEGAL USE! 0. Preamble This license intends to protect the rights of the author and the organisation they represent when they release documentation. The license is Open, in that it allows modification redistribution, and it does not restrict a person in how they use the documentation, or for what purpose. However, it ensures that whatever modifications have been made, any reader can tell easily which parts of the document are as originally written. 1. Definitions "I"/"We"/"The License Holder"/"The Licensor" - The copyright owner - should be the person named in the copyright of the document. "Organisation"/"Group"/"Controlling Organisation/Group" - The responsible body named in the copyright of the document. "You"/"The Licensee" - Any person using the document as bound by the terms of this license. "The Author"/"The Authors" - The person(s) who originally (co)authored (wrote) the original version of the document. "Modification" - Any additional material added to the document since its release by the Controlling Organisation, or the removal of any original material. "Modified Version" - Any version of the document containing Modifications. "Modifier" - Any person making modifications to the document and then providing the modified version to the public. "Transparent Media/Format" - Any format/media of storage in which the text and graphics are machine-readable and editable, using programs which are available both free of charge and free from restrictions of use (eg HTML, plain ASCII text, XML where the document data type is 'free'). "Opaque Media/Format" - Any format/media of storage not considered Transparent. "Cover Texts" - Material specified by the author or modifier as required to be shown on the 'cover' of the document. There are restrictions (detailed below) in the amount of such texts. "Cover" - The first part of the document to be viewed. In the case of a physical copy, this is the first page or the physical cover. In the case of an electronic copy, this is any position before the main body of text. "Invariant Section" - Any section marked as invariant by the License Holder, as long as it is permitted to be marked as such under the terms of this license (section 4). "Original Version" - A copy of the document containing no modifications. "Document"/"The Document" - The work covered by this license. All matters arising from this license shall be considered under UK English Law and subject to the jurisdiction of the UK English Courts. 2. Permissions The License Holder hereby grants permission to the Licensee to: i. Make unlimited copies of the document in any Transparent Media or Format, provided that: - The Author(s) are correctly credited on the Cover - Cover Texts are preserved in their entirety, although they may be added to in accordance to this license - The full original copyright notice is shown, together with any additional copyright notice to cover modifications - Modifications are made only in accordance with this license ii. Make unlimited copies of the document in any Media (Transparent or Opaque), provided that: - The Author(s) are correctly credited on the Cover - Cover Texts are preserved in their entirety, although *one* picture and *one* short phrase or slogan (8 words max) may be added to the Cover - The full original copyright notice is shown, together with any additional copyright notice to cover modifications - The content of the document does not vary in any way from a version available in Transparent Media, with no further modifications being made except as under section 3.v of this license - Instructions accompany the document as to how to obtain a Transparent version at no additional cost. iii. Make a small number of copies (less than 100, larger numbers by agreement with the License Holder) in
Re: Apache vs. BSD licenses
On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
Stallman has indicated to me that clause 4 ("Apache" may not be used to
endorse) will be compatible with the GPL v3,
That's a good change.
but clause 5 ("Apache" may
not appear in the product name) will not.
That isn't good, and is IMO puzzling. Putting "Apache" in a product's name
could be done in order to use the Apache developers' reputation and
good name to endorse (indirectly) the product.
I think this is unfortunate, as
in a digital environment, your good name is your only asset, and
protecting it shouldn't be hard. I don't see asking someone to choose a
different name for a derivative work as not qualifying as "free" as the
FSF defines it.
It would be nice if there was a license like the GPL, but compatible
with all open source / free software licenses. I have suggested this
to RMS; he replied that legal difficulties prevented this.
--
* Phil Hunt *
"An unforseen issue has arisen with your computer. Don't worry your silly
little head about what has gone wrong; here's a pretty animation of a
paperclip to look at instead."
-- Windows2007 error message
Re: Apache vs. BSD licenses
On Tuesday March 20 2001 06:12 pm, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
Stallman has indicated to me that clause 4 ("Apache" may not be used to
endorse) will be compatible with the GPL v3, but clause 5 ("Apache" may
not appear in the product name) will not.
Why is it always the non-GPL license that must conform? Why is the GPL never
criticized for being incompatible?
--
David Johnson
___
http://www.usermode.org
Re: licenses for RPGs
On Tuesday March 20 2001 01:39 pm, phil hunt wrote: Second, they are copyleft, and I am not desiring a copyleft license for this project. Unfortunately, the Open Gaming License will only approve copylefted licenses and games. In other words, I can release a public domain game and they would refuse to call it free and open. That seems bizarre to me. To me as well. It would be like the FSF saying that the MIT and BSD licenses are not Free. The Open Gaming Foundation can do whatever they want with their own stuff, but defining an upper limit on openness is ludicrous. It might be too open for their tastes, but it's still open. -- David Johnson ___ http://www.usermode.org
Re: Apache vs. BSD licenses
On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, David Johnson wrote:
On Tuesday March 20 2001 06:12 pm, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
Stallman has indicated to me that clause 4 ("Apache" may not be used to
endorse) will be compatible with the GPL v3, but clause 5 ("Apache" may
not appear in the product name) will not.
Why is it always the non-GPL license that must conform? Why is the GPL never
criticized for being incompatible?
Er, actually, it sounds like he's considering substantive changes in
GPLv3, or at least "clarifications" for the pragmatic purpose of
explaining or reconciling compatibility issues, so long as it doesn't
change his core beliefs about what constitutes "free".
Since the Apache community's views on IP are not incompatible with the
FSF's (Apache developers are already comfortable with the idea that
commercial entities can use the code in proprietary products without
contributing anything back; the idea of someone using Apache code in a
GPL-licensed derivative work is no worse) I've been attempting to
reconcile our licenses to allow GPL derived works. The
managing-our-identity-through-copyright-law-instead-of-trademark-law
issue is now all that separates us.
Brian
Re: Apache vs. BSD licenses
on Tue, Mar 20, 2001 at 07:43:31PM +, David Johnson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Tuesday March 20 2001 06:12 pm, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
Stallman has indicated to me that clause 4 ("Apache" may not be used to
endorse) will be compatible with the GPL v3, but clause 5 ("Apache" may
not appear in the product name) will not.
Why is it always the non-GPL license that must conform? Why is the GPL never
criticized for being incompatible?
The GPL specifies a set of requirements, and, to further its objectives,
requires that they be adhered to -- they cannot be increased or
diminished. If you think about it, any more flexible approach is likely
to lead to loopholes.
The other question is: if your objectives align with those of the GPL
(copyleft, promotion of free software), why would you need a different
license? This isn't an entirely rhetorical question.
Practically, one alternative that's being practiced with greatre
frequency is mutliple licensing, with the GPL or a GPL-compatible
license (usually the LGPL -- compatibility being accomplished by
deferring to the GPL when used in combination with other GPLd code).
I'm not sure what alternative constructs exist, one option might be a
license which specifies some sort of legal test. The OSD is a possible
instance of same (though it's a meta license). The IBM public license
also provides a somewhat similar test.
The problem with such a construct is you now have to go through and
legally analyze all licenses to see whether or not they satisfy the
test. And come up with a way to deal with the possibility you'll have
to change your mind on such a decision down the road.
By specifying an immutable set of text (the GPL), the test is greatly
simplified. Though some licenses are compatible by virtue of not adding
additional requirements to those of the GPL (revised BSD, MIT,
Artistic). Meaning that a bit of analysis may be necessary even under
the current regime.
--
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: licenses for RPGs
The Open Gaming License isn't quite what it seems. The difference between that license and the GPL is that without the GPL, you can't distribute copies at all, and the GPL gives you the right to distribute copies under some conditions--that is, it adds rights. The Open Gaming license is closer to extortion. The key is that game rules are not copyrightable, and normally you'd have complete rights to create D20-compatible material. However, TSR threatens to sue people who do that. Since nobody can afford the cost of a lawsuit from TSR, TSR can prevent perfectly legal activity this way. What the Open Gaming License says "if you adhere to these conditions, we promise not to sue you for something that you really have the right to do anyway". Without the license you have *more* rights--just less freedom from being bankrupted by frivolous lawsuits.
Re: Apache vs. BSD licenses
On Wednesday March 21 2001 05:19 am, Brian Behlendorf wrote: Why is it always the non-GPL license that must conform? Why is the GPL never criticized for being incompatible? Er, actually, it sounds like he's considering substantive changes in GPLv3, or at least "clarifications" for the pragmatic purpose of explaining or reconciling compatibility issues, so long as it doesn't change his core beliefs about what constitutes "free". That's good to hear. The process of devising the GPLv3 is a mystery to myself and most others, so it's nice to know that he's thinking about how it will interact with other free licenses. -- David Johnson ___ http://www.usermode.org
Re: Apache vs. BSD licenses
On Wednesday March 21 2001 05:43 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The other question is: if your objectives align with those of the GPL (copyleft, promotion of free software), why would you need a different license? This isn't an entirely rhetorical question. There's a difference between aligning and coinciding. If my goals coincided exactly with the FSF, you would be completely right. But if they differ even a tiny fraction, then the possibility exists that another license is more suited to my purposes. That's why multiple political parties exist in free nations, and why multiple free licenses should exist for Free Software. -- David Johnson ___ http://www.usermode.org
Re: licenses for RPGs
On Wednesday March 21 2001 05:46 am, Ken Arromdee wrote:
The Open Gaming license is closer to extortion. The key is that game rules
are not copyrightable, and normally you'd have complete rights to create
D20-compatible material. However, TSR threatens to sue people who do that.
Since nobody can afford the cost of a lawsuit from TSR, TSR can prevent
perfectly legal activity this way.
Don't I know it! I was once threatened with a lawsuit for creating a
character generator for [unnamed company] ("We're planning to write our
own").
I think the Open Gaming Foundation (aka TSR, aka WoTC) is quite hypocritical
in demanding that all free games be copyleft. Yeah right! Maybe I'd pay more
attention if it wasn't so gosh darned illegal to photocopy DD and give out
copies to my players.
Oh, and since the possibility exists that some former [unnamed company]
employees may be contributing to my project, the tables may yet turn.
--
David Johnson
___
http://www.usermode.org
Re: Apache vs. BSD licenses
On Wednesday March 21 2001 06:41 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There's a difference between aligning and coinciding. If my goals coincided exactly with the FSF, you would be completely right. But if they differ even a tiny fraction, then the possibility exists that another license is more suited to my purposes. That's why multiple political parties exist in free nations, and why multiple free licenses should exist for Free Software. What differences, specifically? You mean between the Republican and Reform parties? Between the GPL and the BSDL? Between the FSF and myself? Or between "aligning" and "coinciding"? Assuming you meant the latter... Coincide means to occupy equivalent positions, while align means to be on the same line. The first is a location and the latter a direction. -- David Johnson ___ http://www.usermode.org
