Re: YAPL is bad (was: Re: Backlog assistance?)
>This leads to a GPL-related issue >which is not clear to me: can >redistribution of GPL code be >constrained by an employment agreement? >That is, if company employees >make changes to GPL code, can the >company forbid all employees from >distributing those changes? I >suspect that it can, as employment >agreements are permitted to >constrain many varieties of free >speech, at least in the U.S. the GPL and NDA's are orthogonal. or, at the very least, they are non-conflicting restrictions. The GPL says 'whoever gets a binary must get the source." it does not restrict *who* can recieve a distribution. It does restrict any redistribution of modified code must be GPL as well, but that is orthogonal to a NDA restriction. A NDA says who can recieve a company's source code. i.e. who can recieve a distrubution or corporate owned software. namely you cannot distribute comany software outside the company (unless you're in Sales, and you're selling it) The OSD prohibits discrimination against people and groups. A NDA is exactly discrimination against anyone who is not an employee. WAITS IANAL TINLA IMHO TLA Greg WAITS ==> Who Am I To Say -- Greg London x7541 -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Backlog assistance?
Russell Nelson wrote: > Well, you could review these licenses: > http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:3735:200108:ajlgmjcdbmmllniijbba > http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:3733:200108:lmhpmlehbejjkloffohl > http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:msp:3728:ecdccfkopamdkjccmffn Okay, here's my reviews: The Open Group license is a trivial modification of the Artistic License. It removes a few options for distributing modified works, but is still Open Source. The MSOL is a trivial modification of the JSOL to apply Dutch law. The W3C license is substantially equivalent to the BSD license. The only additional clause is "changes must be clearly marked", which is clearly Open Source. All these licenses should be fast-tracked through the OSI process. Note: wdiff is your friend. -- Not to perambulate || John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> the corridors || http://www.reutershealth.com during the hours of repose || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan in the boots of ascension. \\ Sign in Austrian ski-resort hotel -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: YAPL is bad (was: Re: Backlog assistance?)
On Mon, 24 Sep 2001, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > This leads to a GPL-related issue which is not clear to me: can > redistribution of GPL code be constrained by an employment agreement? Well, that brings up the question of whether sharing within a corporation qualfies as "distribution," a question which I can't recall being answered (although it could just be my memory failing). -- Matthew Weigel Research Systems Programmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] ne [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Backlog assistance?
Alex Stewart writes: > Ok, I was under the impression that since people had noted there was a > backlog, there was something somewhere that kept track of what was in > it, or somebody was at least trying to have some understanding of the > general status. We need better tools. Steve Mallett, our webmaster and also progenitor of the Open Source Directory (http://opensourcedirectory.org aka http://osdir.org) is checking some out for us. Very likely we'll use a slashdot-like forum where we approve the stories (licenses) and you guys attach the comments. Then it will be very easy to see which licenses have been submitted and what people think of them. > Umm, for the record, this thread was not a complaint, it was just an > inquiry and offer of help. Well, you could review these licenses: http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:3735:200108:ajlgmjcdbmmllniijbba http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:3733:200108:lmhpmlehbejjkloffohl http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:msp:3728:ecdccfkopamdkjccmffn > I've looked around all the pages I can find on www.opensource.org, but I > can find very little information about the organization itself (perhaps > this is something I should be asking of [EMAIL PROTECTED], but I > figured I'd try here first). How does the OSI actually work regarding > license approval? Who can or can't approve a license, and do they rely > on help from others to evaluate them or otherwise move the procedure > along? How does this list actually fit in the whole process? (is there > a process at all?) http://opensource.org/docs/certification_mark.html > Basically, all I can find on the list is "submit it and we'll get back > to you" (it isn't even terribly clear on who "we" is, though there's a > side-note talking about when board meetings are, so does that imply that > licenses are only approved by board vote?) Yes. > Also, regarding the whole issue of whether more licenses are a good > thing or a bad thing, it seems to me that this should be determined to > some degree by what the OSI is actually here for. What is the > organization's mission statement, anyway? Promote the freedom to run your enterprise the way you want to, without vendor tie-in. At least, that's how I'd say it. That's not exactly what we said on our 501(c)3 application. > If the goal is to encourage open-source licensing terms amongst the > software community, that's very different, and suggests that the > OSI should (try to) encourage (and thus certify) anything that > meets the open-source requirements. That's certainly one interpretation of the mission statement I wrote above. -- -russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | It's a crime, not an act 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | of war. For my take, see: Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | http://quaker.org/crime.html -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: YAPL is bad (was: Re: Backlog assistance?)
On Saturday 22 September 2001 11:39 pm, Karsten M. Self wrote: > > Yet Another Public License (YAPL) is a bad trend. > > Ceterus paribus, more licenses are bad. As the number of licenses > increases, the disruption caused by an additional license > increases. > > This is because interaction effects of licenses must be considered > on a combinatorial basis. That is, effects grow in a factorial > manner. The terms of each license must be understood > independently. The interactions of each license pair, *and each > combination of licences*, must be considered. What if, as part of the porcess of approving a new licence, the proposer of the license had to write a rationale of why a new license is necessary, and why no existing OSI-certified licence exists that does the job. Is this a good idea? -- *** Philip Hunt *** [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: GPL vs APSL (was: YAPL is bad)
Rick Moen wrote: > I'm sure views will differ as to whether compelling > disclosure of private work _should_ be seen as in > the intended spirit of the OSD. such disclosure should be viewed in the same light as license that forces all modifications be sent to the original author. in short, dimly viewed upon. The Bazaar-Nazi's on the list may have something else to say about it though... I.M.H.O. I.A.N.A.L. M.O.U.S.E. Greg -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: GPL vs APSL (was: YAPL is bad)
begin Greg London quotation: > The difference is APSL does not give you the option > of limiting source code to people to whom you give > your distributions. OSD allows source code to be > contained within a "circle of friends". That is exactly it. Thank you for clarifying the matter. I was very likely too brain-fried by fatigue to express it clearly, but in any event you've laid out the distinction well. Of course, I'm sure views will differ as to whether compelling disclosure of private work _should_ be seen as in the intended spirit of the OSD. As Russ quite rightly pointed out, such conditions are fully compatible with its existing wording. -- "Is it not the beauty of an asynchronous form of discussion that one can go and make cups of tea, floss the cat, fluff the geraniums, open the kitchen window and scream out it with operatic force, volume and decorum, and then return to the vexed glowing letters calmer of mind and soul?" -- The Cube, forum3000.org -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: GPL vs APSL (was: YAPL is bad)
>Whether or not you think Apple's behavior >is legitimate, do you now agree that there >is a real behavioral difference between the >GPL and the APSL on this score? civil action is not the differntiating factor. Apple's behaviour is no different than if it were GPL, and John failed to produce source code at John's request. FSF would pursue him similarly. The OSD requires the source to be given to *at a minimum* anyone who recieves a distribution. which means universal distribution is not required. APSL requires that regardless of distribution, you must publicly distribute your code. The difference is APSL does not give you the option of limiting source code to people to whom you give your distributions. OSD allows source code to be contained within a "circle of friends". IANAL Greg London -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: YAPL is bad (was: Re: Backlog assistance?)
Rob Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > on 24/9/01 2:15 pm, John Cowan at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > Rob Myers wrote: > > > >> I agree that this is an offer rather than a directive. But the effect of > >> making the source (ultimately) available to anyone is the same as soon as > >> the license is accepted. The GPL has this effect, the APSL makes this effect > >> explicit. Any attempt to control this (by requiring that employees or > >> clients not distribute the source) is in breach of the license. > > > > Right enough, but it still may be contained by voluntary action or > > by sheer inertia. > > A disgruntled programmer can stop voluntarily not distributing code. My > GPL/APSL comparison does (deliberately) exclude inertia, and I agree that in > the real world it is a powerful force, but it is not *certain* to regulate > code distribution. This all leaves something to chance which the APSL does > not, although the APSL resolves it in a manner which is clearly > unsatisfactory to many people. The GPL is perfectly usable to keep code changes private among a group of people who all have an interest in keeping the changes private. This could mean, for example, the software house which made the changes and the set of customers who purchase them. The software house has an interest because of the opportunity to resell the changes. The customers have an interest because they do not want their competitors to benefit from the changes. The APSL is not usable in this way. Maybe good, maybe bad, but clearly different. This leads to a GPL-related issue which is not clear to me: can redistribution of GPL code be constrained by an employment agreement? That is, if company employees make changes to GPL code, can the company forbid all employees from distributing those changes? I suspect that it can, as employment agreements are permitted to constrain many varieties of free speech, at least in the U.S. Ian -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: The Cathedral and the Bazaar
Subtitle: "Attack of the Bazaar-Nazi's" http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:3919:200109:eocppecokloobmpbdmgf Also, change teh number 11 to 26 in the text. I did not mean to imply the OSD bullets, but the OSD approved licenses themselves. Greg -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: GPL vs APSL (was: YAPL is bad)
% OSD 2: % The program must include source code, ... % % When some [program] is not distributed with % source code, there must be a well-publicized % means of obtaining the source code % % preferably, downloading via the Internet without charge. so, according to OSD, you have two options EITHER (A) you distribute source and binary in one kit. OR (B) you distribute a binary in one kit. and you make the source code freely available. (preferably downloading for free on the net) those are the only two options of the OSD. (B) somewhat implies public distribution by mentioning "internet" and "well-publicized". but it is possible to distribute a binary and give a URL that requires a password for those you allow to download the source code. and such a way could be "well-publicized" even though the password is not public. Option (A) does not, in any way, require publicity. Alice could download some software off teh net. Alice could modify it and send the Binary and Source to Bob. Bob and Alice could be employees of Charlie who owns a Corporation. Charlie has Alice adn Bob sign a NDA, saying they will not distribute any of their software outside the company. As long as all distributions within said company include source code from employee to employee, the source does not have to be made public. And satisfies the Open Source Definition. One thing Bob can't do, according to OSD, is fix a bug in Alice's code, send her a binary that works, and taunt her, saying "I'll send you the source for a million bucks." Once Bob sends Alice a binary, he must make the source available to her. I don't have a problem with this. And I think allowing this makes corporations warmer to using Open Source within their company. The OSD does not require that all modifications be sent to the author. Nor should it require all modifications be public. The APSL raises the bar. It takes the OSD and makes it even "more open". Which is fine by me. See my allegory sequel to the cathedral and the bazaar. Some dealers at the bazaar want square tables and some want round tables. IANAL Greg -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: YAPL is bad (was: Re: Backlog assistance?)
begin Rob Myers quotation: > I de-jump and apologize for sowing confusion: I share that skepticism but am > clearly not best placed to express it. Not a problem. You were certainly being a great deal more coherent than I generally am before 10 AM. -- "Is it not the beauty of an asynchronous form of discussion that one can go and make cups of tea, floss the cat, fluff the geraniums, open the kitchen window and scream out it with operatic force, volume and decorum, and then return to the vexed glowing letters calmer of mind and soul?" -- The Cube, forum3000.org -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
GPL vs APSL (was: YAPL is bad)
Rob Myers wrote: > I agree, but I believe that this is a general problem with the *idea* of > Open Source rather than Apple's implementation of it. I don't think so, no, not at all. Consider these scenarios: Scenario A: 1. John grabs GNU Hello from a handy GNU mirror site. 2. John fixes the bug of long standing [ask me for details] that makes the -m option unusable. 3. John compiles hello and sends the binary to Rob, saying "Try this excellent Hello World program! Like all truly useful programs, it includes a mail reader. If you want the source code patch, ask me for it any time these next 3 years." 4. The FSF is satisfied. *If* Rob wants to forward the binary to his friend Bill, Rob has to ask John for the patch so that Rob can give it to Bill on request. John cannot, of course, withhold the patch from Rob. Scenario B: 1. John grabs the program Hallo Weldt [sic], a functionally similar program licensed under the APSL, from an Apple site. 2. John corrects the spelling of "Welt". 3. John compiles hallo and sends the binary to Rob, saying etc. etc. 4. Ratfink Rob reports this to Apple. 5. The Apple lawyers now get after John, for he has distributed a modified version of Hallo Weldt [sic] without publishing his patch to the whole world. Whether or not you think Apple's behavior is legitimate, do you now agree that there is a real behavioral difference between the GPL and the APSL on this score? -- Not to perambulate || John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> the corridors || http://www.reutershealth.com during the hours of repose || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan in the boots of ascension. \\ Sign in Austrian ski-resort hotel -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: YAPL is bad (was: Re: Backlog assistance?)
on 24/9/01 3:26 pm, Rick Moen at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > But, of course, you were being very speculative, and rather jumping the > gun: My assumption that the OSI Board shares my notion that the right > to privacy should be a part of the definition of open source may be > entirely untrue. Russ for one sounded skeptical at best. I de-jump and apologize for sowing confusion: I share that skepticism but am clearly not best placed to express it. - Rob. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: YAPL is bad (was: Re: Backlog assistance?)
Ah, the Rainbow-Coloured Fruit Company lobby speaketh. begin Rob Myers ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) quotation: > Can people claiming (or wishing) to represent opensource.org please > act like professionals in dealing with issues they regard as annoying. Are you perchance talking to me?[1] If so, you appear to be having some difficulty distinguishing me from the gentleman who compared me to RMS on the basis of my initials. It is quite bad enough to get that kind of sniping from the person I was talking with; subsequently having you casting faux moralism from the sidelines at the wrong party is a bit much. > Well, that's the GPL out for starters. I think you need to re-read the GPL, and comprehend the key point, which I already underlined for the benefit of any laggards, about its "forcing provision" being activated solely by public distribution. [1] In case you are also having a difficult time understanding domain names, I represent linuxmafia.com: We make you an offer you can afford. - Cheers, "Learning Java has been a slow and tortuous process for me. Every Rick Moen few minutes, I start screaming 'No, you fools!" and have to go [EMAIL PROTECTED] read something from _Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs' to de-stress." -- The Cube, www.forum3000.org -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: YAPL is bad (was: Re: Backlog assistance?)
begin Rob Myers quotation: > It does however clash with many existing licenses that assume > acceptance of the license by usage of the code and give a general > offer of distribution on this basis. I'm sorry, but I don't grasp what you mean. Perhaps you could give an example. > It also requires a fair amount of legalese to clarify "public" and > "non-public" usage, and very careful auditing. I cannot see that this is the case at all, since the OSD is not a licence itself. It is an attempt to specify and explain the sorts of traits the OSI requires in licences it will approve. > Finally, I believe that it requires licenses to build in a back door > for the closing off of open source code, one that unscrupulous > organizations will eagerly exploit. This is the one that really puzzled me. What do you mean by a "back door", and "closing off"? But, of course, you were being very speculative, and rather jumping the gun: My assumption that the OSI Board shares my notion that the right to privacy should be a part of the definition of open source may be entirely untrue. Russ for one sounded skeptical at best. -- "Is it not the beauty of an asynchronous form of discussion that one can go and make cups of tea, floss the cat, fluff the geraniums, open the kitchen window and scream out it with operatic force, volume and decorum, and then return to the vexed glowing letters calmer of mind and soul?" -- The Cube, forum3000.org -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: YAPL is bad (was: Re: Backlog assistance?)
on 24/9/01 2:15 pm, John Cowan at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Rob Myers wrote: > >> I agree that this is an offer rather than a directive. But the effect of >> making the source (ultimately) available to anyone is the same as soon as >> the license is accepted. The GPL has this effect, the APSL makes this effect >> explicit. Any attempt to control this (by requiring that employees or >> clients not distribute the source) is in breach of the license. > > Right enough, but it still may be contained by voluntary action or > by sheer inertia. A disgruntled programmer can stop voluntarily not distributing code. My GPL/APSL comparison does (deliberately) exclude inertia, and I agree that in the real world it is a powerful force, but it is not *certain* to regulate code distribution. This all leaves something to chance which the APSL does not, although the APSL resolves it in a manner which is clearly unsatisfactory to many people. > Just as a practical matter, this may be an impediment to using > modified APSL code in a company that has restrictions about what its > employees may publish. I agree, but I believe that this is a general problem with the *idea* of Open Source rather than Apple's implementation of it. - Rob. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
The Cathedral and the Bazaar
(an allegory) And the Bazaar was hustling and bustling with comings and goings, a hustle and bustle, and a great many things all happening at once. A woman came through the great morass with a push cart. She found an open space on the walk and started to unload her wares. She struggled to set up her table, and then covered it with a multitude of pretty, and interesting things. She then put a large, brightly, colored umbrella through a hole in the center of the table, which put her table in the shade. A man at the table next to him began shouting at her and ran over. "You cannot put an umbrella in your table." "Why not? it is a sunny day, and I will surely get sunburn." "We at the bazaar do not take lightly of such structures. These things lead to Cathedral-like ways of doing things." He flashed an angry side glance at the Cathedral across the corner. The man returned his gaze to the table and suddenly became angrier than before. "A ROUND TABLE! What are you doing bringing a round table to the bazaar!?!?" The woman explained. "It is easier for me to roll a round table where I want it, than it is to carry a square table on my back." "That is not the way of the bazaar! You must have a square table if you are to trade your wares here!" "Where does it say I must do such a thing?" The man reached in his pocket and angrily waved the paper in front of her. "Right here!" He pointed to the top item. "Square tables are approved for bazaar operators." "But that doesn't mean round tables aren't approved or cannot be approved." "Don't be absurd. There are 11 approved items on the bazaar's list. Round tables are not one of them. see for yourself." He threw the list at her. The woman was busy reading it when a loud racket nearby distracted them both. The man took the list from the woman and ran over to see what the ruckus was. Another woman was setting up a tent at her site, and a pole had fallen to the ground in a kabang. The man began screaming. "What are you doing!? Tent's are not allowed in the bazaar!" "But on days it is windy, a tent is much more comfortable. And my merchandise is so small and light, that even a small breeze would blow it all away." "But tents have not been approved!" he pointed angrily at the paper in his hand. "Don't you understand? Tents have not been approved for the bazaar." "Who died and made you high priest? open-air is not the only way of trading at the bazaar. I need a tent." The umbrella woman came over and interjected. "And I want an umbrella and a round table." "Well, you cannot have them nor should you want them. They have not been approved, and for good reason. We can't just have a bazaar of vendors, selling and trading their wares any way they feel like it. There are specific established ways of doing things here." The two women looked at each other. "Come on, sis. We're obviously not welcome here." She motioned her to follow. "Maybe we can do it our way at the Cathedral." And they _ALL_ lived miserably ever after. The End. Author's Prologue: > We realized it was time to dump the > confrontational attitude that has been > associated with "free software" in the > past and sell the idea strictly on the > same pragmatic, business-case grounds > that motivated Netscape. quoted from: http://www.opensource.org/docs/history.html Finis Greg London with apologies in advance to Eric Raymond. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: YAPL is bad (was: Re: Backlog assistance?)
on 24/9/01 7:55 am, Rick Moen at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > One possible addition to the OSD, to deal with this matter, might be > as follows: > > 10. The Licence Must Not Violate Privacy of Individuals or Organisations > > The licence must not attach any obligations to usage of the covered code > that is entirely internal to the non-public affairs of the individual or > organisation using it. To clarify my opinion (IANAL): If this clause was added it would give organizations one less thing (exposure of information regarding private affairs) to worry about in adopting open source licenses, and so seems very desireable. It does however clash with many existing licenses that assume acceptance of the license by usage of the code and give a general offer of distribution on this basis. It also requires a fair amount of legalese to clarify "public" and "non-public" usage, and very careful auditing. Finally, I believe that it requires licenses to build in a back door for the closing off of open source code, one that unscrupulous organizations will eagerly exploit. - Rob. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: YAPL is bad (was: Re: Backlog assistance?)
Rob Myers wrote: > I agree that this is an offer rather than a directive. But the effect of > making the source (ultimately) available to anyone is the same as soon as > the license is accepted. The GPL has this effect, the APSL makes this effect > explicit. Any attempt to control this (by requiring that employees or > clients not distribute the source) is in breach of the license. Right enough, but it still may be contained by voluntary action or by sheer inertia. Not so the APSL: Apple *requires* you, on pain of breach, to inform the world about the changes you make solely for your own use. Just as a practical matter, this may be an impediment to using modified APSL code in a company that has restrictions about what its employees may publish. -- Not to perambulate || John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> the corridors || http://www.reutershealth.com during the hours of repose || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan in the boots of ascension. \\ Sign in Austrian ski-resort hotel -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Backlog assistance?
David Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Saturday 22 September 2001 02:17 pm, Greg London wrote: > >> The OSD has 11(?) requirements. >> how hard would it be to come up with a minimal license >> that defines these requirements. THen if you want to >> create your own license, you inherit the minimal license >> and add to it. > >It's not as easy as that. Consider the following license: "You are permitted >to redistribute, modify and copy this software without restriction". Bingo! >It meets the definition. But it would make a lousy "base class". yes, if you take one point of my argument, ignore everything else I said that would limit, add to, and refine it. And then you take it to an extreme, you can come up with a license base that I would neither recommend nor defend. -- Greg London -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: YAPL is bad (was: Re: Backlog assistance?)
on 24/9/01 11:16 am, John Cowan at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > the GPL > imposes no such obligation to the world at large. If you distribute a > derivative work, you are obliged to distribute the original *to the recipients > of the derivative work*; likewise, if you distribute binaries, you are obliged > to distribute source *to the recipients of the binaries*. It is called the "Public" license... This may be a misunderstanding on my part, and if so I apologize in advance. >From the GPL we have the statement: "You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it," I agree that this is an offer rather than a directive. But the effect of making the source (ultimately) available to anyone is the same as soon as the license is accepted. The GPL has this effect, the APSL makes this effect explicit. Any attempt to control this (by requiring that employees or clients not distribute the source) is in breach of the license. This distribution will have copyright dates and file dates in it (and it may be a simple, if annoying, security measure to set the dates to 1970...). It identifies the originator/modifier of the source. The code may have dates, names and other information in comments. People can remember when they received the code. Extra information is given out anyway, but again the APSL makes this an explicit requirement. Explicit requirements are good. IANAL, but from my reading the APSL is specifying the minimum display requirements, not the exact or maximum ones. So if you need to obfuscate the project dates you can take the sources down five years after the project fails and start displaying them six months before it goes live. If it's that important to keep the dates of a project a secret, it probably shouldn't be used under a license with *any* distribution offer/obligation. This is therefore a general FUD concern for Open Source, not a specific problem with the APSL. - Rob. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Backlog assistance?
SamBC wrote: > although we haven't got far as I at least was suddenly more busy than I > expected. This situation should be different soon. BTW that describes my situation too. We've finally got our open-source product into a state where we can release more or less the moment marketing give us the green light, so things -should- get less hectic ... I assume our licence is stuck in that backlog somewhere, so we'll probably go public with some weasly statement that our licence has been submitted to OSI for approval and we await a decision ... so I have a vested interest in seeing that backlog cleared. Regards Chris Gray VM Architect, ACUNIA -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: YAPL is bad (was: Re: Backlog assistance?)
Rob Myers scripsit: > > ...it introduces a novel obligation to disclose one's private affairs. > >... > > The licence must not attach any obligations to usage of the covered code > > that is entirely internal to the non-public affairs of the individual or > > organisation using it. > > Well, that's the GPL out for starters. :-) I'm not sure what the smiley face means in this connection, but the GPL imposes no such obligation to the world at large. If you distribute a derivative work, you are obliged to distribute the original *to the recipients of the derivative work*; likewise, if you distribute binaries, you are obliged to distribute source *to the recipients of the binaries*. If you distribute only to your partner, or to the people of your organization, or to Bill Gates, then your further obligations involve distributing only to your partner/your people/BillG. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please leave your values| Check your assumptions. In fact, at the front desk. | check your assumptions at the door. --sign in Paris hotel |--Miles Vorkosigan -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: YAPL is bad (was: Re: Backlog assistance?)
on 24/9/01 7:55 am, Rick Moen at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I note that Russ invited my comment on the APSL publication clause. > I am trying to ignore the gratuitous personal gibes, and will keep > doing so, but, on the other hand will accept his invitation. Can people claiming (or wishing) to represent opensource.org please act like professionals in dealing with issues they regard as annoying. I know it's difficult but I've seen people lose perfectly valid arguments on the basis of over-reaction to personality rather than debate. And you'll get quoted on news sites. > ...it introduces a novel obligation to disclose one's private affairs. >... > The licence must not attach any obligations to usage of the covered code > that is entirely internal to the non-public affairs of the individual or > organisation using it. Well, that's the GPL out for starters. :-) Apple's distribution clause is extroadinary in its legalese not its intent, and IMHO robustness and clarity of licenses is good. - Rob. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
