Re: Subscription/Service Fees - OSD Intent
Randy Kramer wrote: The approved Open Source licenses have been approved on the basis that we (the OSF or whatever) believe the terms of the approved licenses achieve the objectives stated above." After a little more thought, maybe I'd want to rephrase the preceding more like: The approved Open Source licenses have been approved on the basis that we (the OSF or whatever) believe the language of the approved licenses is consistent with the objectives stated above." It's probably irrelevant, because I don't see anyone jumping at the chance to draft such a statement. The reason for my change is to try to make it clear that I (we) are worried about how the language might be (mis) interpreted -- the hope is that the statement of intent is very clear and concise, and if there is some legal gobbledygook in the language of the license that could be interpreted in more than one way, our intent is that it be interpreted in accordance with the clear, concise statement of intent. IANAL, IANAL, IANAL Randy Kramer
RE: Subscription/Service Fees - OSD Intent
"Smith, Devin" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Lou Grinzo wrote: I've contended for a long time that the primary problem with open/free licenses is that they're not specific enough. My experience (as a lawyer) with open/free licenses is that many of them are not properly drafted. The GNU GPL is particularly difficult to interpret, probably because it was written by a non-lawyer. The resulting legal uncertainty makes it very difficult for me to give sound advice to my clients, and makes licensing rights in or out under the GNU GPL very risky. The GNU GPL also is a very novel structure. IANAL, but I have seen plenty of lawyers agree that it is a copyright statement that offers a contract. Should you proceed to distribute you have accepted the contract and are bound to it under contract law, *NOT* copyright law. Or at least that is how the license is intended to work. In the absence of court decisions, it is hard to say that this would work. But that is the intended mechanism. Statements of intent are fine as separate commentary but only muddy the waters when included in documents that are meant to be legally binding. With regard to specificity, sometimes more is better but sometimes it's not needed and can be harmful. Statutory and case law frequently fill in the "gaps" left in agreements and there's no need to elaborate. For instance, if a license grants the licensee the right to create derivative works of the licensed software, the law provides that the licensee owns the derivative works created by the licensee (but not the underlying work on which the derivative work is based). So there's no need to add a provision that "licensee owns the derivative work and may distribute it . . ." In fact, adding a poorly drafted provision on the issue is even worse than staying silent. This comment is only true when the intended audience is a group of lawyers. Consider well that the majority of people who read the GPL and try to understand it are not (in my experience) lawyers. Finally, Randy Kramer is absolutely correct that "it is sometimes considered an advantage to never change the language of a law or agreement but allow the interpretation of the language to evolve." The best example of this that I can think of is insurance policies. The wording of the policies -- which is pretty standard from insurance company to insurance company -- is archaic and confusing to someone not familiar with insurance law. But the wording has been the subject of decades of court decisions (e.g. "advertising injury" includes claims of trademark infringement) and the meaning of most policies is now pretty much fixed. Insurance companies are loath to insert new language into policies lest the new wording be interpreted in a way that they did not intend. (There is, I believe, a lot of litigation brewing over the Y2K exclusions that insurance companies hastily issued before 1/1/00.) The best known example among politically aware programmers is probably the US Constitution. In the case of Open Source licenses, however, this stuff is too new for there to be any value in simply sticking with bad language. I did a search of Lexis recently and could not find a single case interpreting the GNU GPL or the Mozilla GL. There is none for the GNU GPL. The resulting uncertainty is often branded as a weakness. But IMHO it should be viewed as a strength. Plenty of companies who were not particularly friendly to the GPL have been challenged for GPL violations. *NOT ONE* (after full review by their lawyers) thought that their odds of winning a case against it was good enough to take it to court. In my books that is pretty reassuring. :-) Cheers, Ben _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
RE: Subscription/Service Fees - OSD Intent
I'm collecting information on gpl disputes that have been settled amicably (or at least settled out of court). "Plenty of companies" is a bit vague. Pointers anyone? Laura Majerus -Original Message- From: Ben Tilly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 11:31 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Subscription/Service Fees - OSD Intent ... In the case of Open Source licenses, however, this stuff is too new for there to be any value in simply sticking with bad language. I did a search of Lexis recently and could not find a single case interpreting the GNU GPL or the Mozilla GL. There is none for the GNU GPL. The resulting uncertainty is often branded as a weakness. But IMHO it should be viewed as a strength. Plenty of companies who were not particularly friendly to the GPL have been challenged for GPL violations. *NOT ONE* (after full review by their lawyers) thought that their odds of winning a case against it was good enough to take it to court. In my books that is pretty reassuring. :-) Cheers, Ben _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: Subscription/Service Fees - OSD Intent
Laura Majerus writes: I'm collecting information on gpl disputes that have been settled amicably (or at least settled out of court). "Plenty of companies" is a bit vague. Pointers anyone? You should ask Professor Eben Moglen. http://old.law.columbia.edu/ -- Seth David Schoen [EMAIL PROTECTED] | And do not say, I will study when I Temp. http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | have leisure; for perhaps you will down: http://www.loyalty.org/ (CAF) | not have leisure. -- Pirke Avot 2:5
RE: Subscription/Service Fees - OSD Intent
When you get it, pls. post the information to the list, if you can do so legally and without ruffling too many feathers. Should make for some interesting reading. g Take care, Lou -Original Message- From: Laura Majerus [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 2:41 PM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: Subscription/Service Fees - OSD Intent I'm collecting information on gpl disputes that have been settled amicably (or at least settled out of court). "Plenty of companies" is a bit vague. Pointers anyone? Laura Majerus -Original Message- From: Ben Tilly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 11:31 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Subscription/Service Fees - OSD Intent ... In the case of Open Source licenses, however, this stuff is too new for there to be any value in simply sticking with bad language. I did a search of Lexis recently and could not find a single case interpreting the GNU GPL or the Mozilla GL. There is none for the GNU GPL. The resulting uncertainty is often branded as a weakness. But IMHO it should be viewed as a strength. Plenty of companies who were not particularly friendly to the GPL have been challenged for GPL violations. *NOT ONE* (after full review by their lawyers) thought that their odds of winning a case against it was good enough to take it to court. In my books that is pretty reassuring. :-) Cheers, Ben _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
