Re: Apache vs. BSD licenses
on Tue, Mar 20, 2001 at 11:13:22PM +, David Johnson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: 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? 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. I had in mind a discussion of degrees of freedom in software licensing which are of interest to you. I've had my own internal debates over the GNU GPL, whether it's "the one true way", or merely good enough. I have yet to provide myself an answer I'm satisfied with. I'll reiterate: what Copyleft objectives do you have which are not met or satisfied with the current GPL v.2? There are others (lurking on this list, and you know who you are) who've expressed a concern with the fact that the current state of free software licensing makes it difficult to introduce new ideas into play. I share this concern. I do believe, strongly, that a very conservative approach to licensing is healthy, and that a proliferation of licenses, compatible or otherwise, is bad -- though incompatible licenses are naturally worse. This leads to increasing complexity on the legal landscape, a landscape which a current near-exclusive focus on three fundamental licenses -- GNU GPL, MIT/BSD, and MozPL -- has kept relatively streamlined. Though some have complained about the OSI license approval pipeline and process, I remain half-convinced that a slow process is a feature, not a bug. Though I've suggested previously steps which might help streamline it, as have others. I've suggested previously and will reiterate a proposal for using a reference in a system which might allow for evolution. The original suggestion was aimed at the MozPL and its kin (SCSSL, Jabber), though it could be adapted. Under this scheme, core, immutable, licensing language is defined. Items of variance, which I envision as largely pertaining to identity, authoring/versioning authority, and jurisdiction or venue, would be identified. Parties wishing to adapt and adopt the license could do so. Variants meeting guidelines would be considered equivalent. Parties would be free to propose changes to licensing terms -- having authorship/versioning authority over their variant, they'd be free to do so. However, the standard revised licensing terms would have to be agreed upon by some plurality [1] of parties. Any of these pluralities might decide to go their separate way. There is a benefit, of course, in maintaining compatibility between valuable code bases. And there is always the possibility that after one or more generations of divergence, terms might later come to coincide (analogous to temporary forking of a software development branch). Independently of versioning authority, maintainers of works which had already incorporated code under terms of other licenses would (if required by these licenses) be constrained to remain in coordination with any changes to terms of these licenses. Easy? No. Unwieldy? Maybe. But this is about the only proposal I've seen which remotely addresses to issues of integrity (not ceding versioning authority to another organization or some trusted party as the FSF), *and* of keeping legal language in concert. Notes: 1. I've been reading too many patent claims -- 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: Apache vs. BSD licenses
On Wednesday March 21 2001 09:06 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'll reiterate: what Copyleft objectives do you have which are not met or satisfied with the current GPL v.2? Well, since I don't use copyleft for my own works, this is kind of hard to answer :-) I prefer the LGPL over the GPL simply because I won't get into trouble if I dynamically link to it. As a user (one who does not modify the source code), the linkage problems with most copyleft licenses are problematic. Under this scheme, core, immutable, licensing language is defined. Items of variance, which I envision as largely pertaining to identity, authoring/versioning authority, and jurisdiction or venue, would be identified. Parties wishing to adapt and adopt the license could do so. Variants meeting guidelines would be considered equivalent. If you could keep compatibility between the variants, it would be a very good idea. But incompatibilities between variants would be a nightmare, much worse than the current version since it would be all to easy to get the variants confused. It's a good idea. -- David Johnson ___ http://www.usermode.org
Re: licenses for RPGs
Do you have the right to make a game which is mechanically compatible with another game? Yes, it appears that you probably do, unless there is a patent or trademark right involved. Do you have the right to make a product which contains the unique copyrighted content of DD, or derivative works therefrom? No, in my opinion, you do not. And in-between lies a big grey area where only a court can decide, on a case by case basis, if a particular work is an infringing derivative work. The OGL (like the GPL) is just a framework for getting rid of the threat of lawsuits and the grey area. Sure, you could black-box and clean-room Linux, but you're far more likely to use Linux with the GPL, because you can do so at essentially no cost, and in a framework which provides for little risk of litigation. The OGL framework, when applied to the System Reference Document, provides a way to make DD compatible content that is far, far more extensive than the basic rights you might have as they relate to the public domain status of the game rules of DD. And there's no grey area. Both conditions which make it possible to bring to market a commercial product without having to provide for a substantial threat of litigation. And it's furthermore quite silly to point at the former TSR (now Wizards of the Coast) business and say that the climate of litigation is fostered by one company. Every commerical hobby game publisher has taken the exact same position for 25 years - that the mere game rule content in an RPG is the least part of the copyrighted work of an RPG, and that derivative works based on such a product are infringing. The OGL and the d20 concept are a step away from the parochial view of RPGs as isolated creative endeavors and towards a view of clearly deliniated rights - and to my mind, that's a positive step forward. Ryan
Re: Apache vs. BSD licenses
on Wed, Mar 21, 2001 at 02:23:32AM +, David Johnson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Wednesday March 21 2001 09:06 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'll reiterate: what Copyleft objectives do you have which are not met or satisfied with the current GPL v.2? Well, since I don't use copyleft for my own works, this is kind of hard to answer :-) I prefer the LGPL over the GPL simply because I won't get into trouble if I dynamically link to it. As a user (one who does not modify the source code), the linkage problems with most copyleft licenses are problematic. Under this scheme, core, immutable, licensing language is defined. Items of variance, which I envision as largely pertaining to identity, authoring/versioning authority, and jurisdiction or venue, would be identified. Parties wishing to adapt and adopt the license could do so. Variants meeting guidelines would be considered equivalent. If you could keep compatibility between the variants, it would be a very good idea. But incompatibilities between variants would be a nightmare, much worse than the current version since it would be all to easy to get the variants confused. Consider that a strong disincentive among the participants to create incompatibilities, and an incentive among the cooperating parties to disassociate themselves from defecting parties. The scheme as presented doesn't call for any voting or unanimity -- typical failure points of collaborative organizations. The standard is as the standard does. It's a good idea. Thanks. I'm happy now to know that at least one other person's read it -- 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
On Wed, 21 Mar 2001, Ryan S. Dancey wrote: The OGL framework, when applied to the System Reference Document, provides a way to make DD compatible content that is far, far more extensive than the basic rights you might have as they relate to the public domain status of the game rules of DD. And there's no grey area. Both conditions which make it possible to bring to market a commercial product without having to provide for a substantial threat of litigation. That's where the extortion comes in. "If you submit to our conditions, you can do something which is legal anyway, but which we'll otherwise sue you into bankruptcy for". And it's furthermore quite silly to point at the former TSR (now Wizards of the Coast) business and say that the climate of litigation is fostered by one company. Every commerical hobby game publisher has taken the exact same position for 25 years - that the mere game rule content in an RPG is the least part of the copyrighted work of an RPG, and that derivative works based on such a product are infringing. Ryan, the problem is that TSR has bizarre ideas of what constitutes a derivative work, as well as bizarre ideas that the company owns all derivative works, which together amounts to a threat, not only to sue, but to take other people's works without compensation.
