GPL v. NDA (was Re: YAPL is bad)
On Mon, 24 Sep 2001, Greg London wrote: the GPL and NDA's are orthogonal. or, at the very least, they are non-conflicting restrictions. Wrong. The particular problem is You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. I still think it's OK depending upon the definition of distribute, as Karsten elaborated. 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. I'm reasonably sure that an NDA would qualify as further restrictions on the rights granted by the GPL. This would suggest that, according to at least some interpretations, if a company were working on extensions to a GPL'd product that was (currently, before release) under an NDA, its employees couldn't work on that (extended version of the) software on their own time - because it would constitute distribution, which would kick in the application of the GPL, which would require that no additional restrictions be placed upon the rights given by the GPL. A NDA says who can recieve a company's source code. i.e. who can recieve a distrubution or corporate owned software. No, it doesn't actually. It restricts to whom you can distribute a copy, not who can have a copy. This is an important distinction in terms of who can get sued. The OSD prohibits discrimination against people and groups. A NDA is exactly discrimination against anyone who is not an employee. But NDAs are not software licenses, they are contracts. You certainly can't distribute open source software that is under an NDA, but that's a no-brainer. -- Matthew Weigel Research Systems Programmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] ne [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: GPL vs APSL (was: YAPL is bad)
On Monday 24 September 2001 11:08 am, Greg London wrote: 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. You err slightly in (B). The OSD says that there must be a well publicized means of obtaining the source code. In my interpretation, publicized means can refer to an FTP or website, or a README file, or the standard documentation, or any other means that notifies a potentially anonymous holder of a binary as to how to obtain the source code. It does not mean that the source code must be made equally available to those without the binary. 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. The OSD applies to licenses and software. It does not apply to you, me or the guy behind the tree. In the case of Nefarious Bob, the OSD is completely silent. It doesn't care what Bob does. That's not its job. That the job of the license. In the case of the MIT license, Bob certainly *can* charge Alice a million bucks for the source, but the license would still be an Open Source license. -- David Johnson ___ http://www.usermode.org -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
The Apple license --- an opening for QA
Hi All, Heads up listed below. This in from another source. Perhaps there could be some direct questions and groundwork established? Thanks for all you do for open ways! Ta. Mark R. [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - - Hello, We are pleased to announce the first installment of the Ask the Darwin Team QA, compiled with the help of scores of Open Source developers around the world. This is part of our ongoing effort to improve communication with the larger Open Source community. Look for additional installments in the coming weeks. http://www.opensource.apple.com/ The Darwin Team at Apple ___ publicsource-announce mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/publicsource-announce -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: YAPL is bad (was: Re: Backlog assistance?)
On Monday, September 24, 2001, at 10:08 pm, Matthew C. Weigel wrote: 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). This was the source of my misunderstanding: The FAQ makes it clear that Distribution means Public Distribution. This should, however, be made absolutely explicit in the license. FAQs aren't binding, and ambiguities in licenses are bad, m'kay? - Rob. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
an interesting reversal
I believe that the people to whom this is directed are familiar with the idea of escaping the GPL by handing over a mix of object files, some proprietary and some GPL, and requiring the user to do the link. In case you aren't, here it is: Since the GPL is a license to copy, not a contract for use (so says the FSF), it only applies to copying. To redistribution. So if the user creates the proprietary executable, they're not redistributing and so the derived work, although proprietary, does not violate the GPL. That's just background, that's just theory, I'm not recommending anyone do this. Now, over on handhelds.org, we're talking about the 127K (thereabouts) of licenses which the Familiar distribution installs in /usr/share/doc. On a machine with only 16M of permanent storage, every K is important. So we're talking about having the package manager NOT install the copyright. The package will have the copyright, but the package manager won't write it to flash. Users are allowed to do this since they (by definition) are using the software not redistributing it. However, this doesn't work for a manufacturer who (theoretically anyway) pre-installs Familiar on a PDA. They are redistributing the software, so they must include the copyright. In an odd symmetry to 'user does the link to violate the GPL', we have 'user does the delete to comply with the GPL'. -- In order to avoid an extended discussion of this across multiple mailing lists (which nearly always sucks -- take it to your own mailing list or join the others), I have used this BCC header: BCC: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- -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: GPL vs APSL (was: YAPL is bad)
David Johnson wrote: On Monday 24 September 2001 11:08 am, Greg London wrote: You err slightly in (B). It does not mean that the source code must be made equally available to those without the binary. you missed my following paragraph that said (paraphrasing) :(B) somewhat implies public distribution :but it is possible to distribute a binary :and give a well publicized URL that requires :a password to get the source. 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. In the case of the MIT license, Bob certainly *can* charge Alice a million bucks for the source, but the license would still be an Open Source license. It seems to me that the MIT does not meet item #2 of the OSD, then. The APSL goes above and beyond #2 requirements. But the MIT license seems to fall short. OSD #2 seems to be setting a clear minimum requirement that source code must be included with any distribution, or be made publicly available. looking at the MIT license, it seems to simply waive all rights and throw in a No Warranty clause. IANAL TINLA 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: It seems to me that the MIT does not meet item #2 of the OSD, then. You're confusing source code of the original work with source code of derivative works. Under MIT / BSD / similar, you're not guaranteed access to the latter. I suppose it would be physically possible to release binary-only software and claim it to be under the MIT licence, but that would be pretty pointless. -- 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)
Greg London wrote: In the case of the MIT license, Bob certainly *can* charge Alice a million bucks for the source, but the license would still be an Open Source license. It seems to me that the MIT does not meet item #2 of the OSD, then. The APSL goes above and beyond #2 requirements. But the MIT license seems to fall short. Let's not lose track of what we are talking about. The OSD requires (by #2) that the publisher of an Open Source work provide access to the source code, and that (by #3) it be possible for anyone to freely make derivative works. There is *no* requirement that derivative works are themselves necessarily Open Source. Under the GPL, they are; under MIT/BSD, they are not; under LGPL, it depends on the character of the derivative work; under MPL, it depends on how the changes were made. -- 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
OSD #2 (was Re: GPL vs APSL (was: YAPL is bad))
Greg London [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote (in part) It seems to me that the MIT does not meet item #2 of the OSD, then. The APSL goes above and beyond #2 requirements. But the MIT license seems to fall short. OSD #2 seems to be setting a clear minimum requirement that source code must be included with any distribution, or be made publicly available. OSD #2 is an oddball clause to be sure. All the other clauses describe The license, and #2 starts The program... (#7 starts differently too, but it describes the license as well.) This point has been touched before on this list, but I recall it was a secondary discussion. At the time no one proposed any changes in the wording of the requirements. In my reading (and yours too), it is possible to distribute software under an OSI certified license, and fail to meet OSD #2. That seems like a problem which should be discussed somewhere. What should be done about it? Is the OSI going to certifying distribution mechanisms as well as licenses? (Unlikely) It hardly seems likely that the BSD and MIT, (et al) licenses which don't guarantee downstream source are going to be decertified. Does OSD #2 need to be reworked? I hope that Bruce can comment on this point. -- Forrest J. Cavalier III, Mib Software Voice 570-992-8824 http://www.rocketaware.com/ has over 30,000 links to source, libraries, functions, applications, and documentation. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: OSD #2 (was Re: GPL vs APSL (was: YAPL is bad))
Greg London [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote (in part) It seems to me that the MIT does not meet item #2 of the OSD, then. An Open Source license is _not_ required to prohibit someone from making a version of the software that is closed source. And since someone can do that without changing the license, simply by refusing to distribute source, we needed to talk about more than just the license. The MIT license very definitely allows source code to be passed on, and if a version of a MIT-licensed program includes source code, it is an Open Source program. In general, people who don't distribute the source change the license to All Rights Reserved, but they don't have to. So, it's pretty clear that there can be MIT-licensed programs that are not Open Source. Thus, we really do need to make a distinction between the _license_ and the _product_. In my reading (and yours too), it is possible to distribute software under an OSI certified license, and fail to meet OSD #2. That is correct. Having source code is a required condition, over and above the license language, for a program to be Open Source. That seems like a problem which should be discussed somewhere. Not really. The license is OSI-certified. The fact that available source code does not exist means the program is not Open Source, despite the fact that the license which has been applied to it is OSI-certified. This is also the case for Public Domain software, for which we clearly _can_not_ change the license, because there is no license. Both the MIT license and Public Domain fit under both the OSD and RMS's definition of Free Software, and to change the OSD to exclude them would be a travesty. What should be done about it? Explain this issue in the OSD commentary. Is the OSI going to certifying distribution mechanisms as well as licenses? (Unlikely) I don't think it's necessary over and above the current simple statement that there must be source. It's pretty clear that if the program doesn't include Source, it's not Open. It hardly seems likely that the BSD and MIT, (et al) licenses which don't guarantee downstream source are going to be decertified. Remember that the definition was written to fit the licenses, not the other way around. We had the BSD, GPL, Artistic and Public Domain, and we were sure they were Free Software. Then we needed to set down what Free Software was so that we could figure out what other licenses were suitable for inclusion in Debian. Does OSD #2 need to be reworked? I don't think so. I hope that Bruce can comment on this point. Be careful what you wish for :-) Actually, even the GPL does not prohibit a particular form of proprietary work. If you _never_distribute_ your GPL derivative, it can be proprietary. Thanks Bruce -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: YAPL is bad (was: Re: Backlog assistance?)
| Poster: Licences need to be approved more rapidly to introduce improvements! | Others: What specific examples of improvements are you thinking of? | Poster: Well, never mind that. OSI _committed_ to approving licences. | Others: Why are you in such a flippin' hurry to get lots more licences | for their own sake? Aren't you aware of the licence combinatorial | problem for derivative works? Aren't you aware of the problem | of corporations misreading the OSD as an invitations to write | a new licence for no better reason than to have their own. | Poster: Well, never mind that. Licences need to be approved more | rapidly to introduce improvements! | | One could write a quite simple, yet obnoxious, script to simulate this | behaviour. Once again, as I wrote : Is the OSI there to judge what a license is worth ? If so they should divide the OSI in 2 parts : the neutral/approval part, and the political/judging part... I think most people need the 1st part to work or use. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: OSD #2 (was Re: GPL vs APSL (was: YAPL is bad))
Bruce Perens wrote: Both the MIT license and Public Domain fit under both the OSD and RMS's definition of Free Software, is it possible to take GPL'ed code, modify it, relicense it under a proprietary license, and distribute it only in binary form? my understanding is it is not possible. but MIT'ed code would allow this. The 'bar' to meet GPL is pretty high. The bar to satisfy the MIT license is on the ground. The OSD is somewhere in between. one can argue about RMS's definition of free software, but his implementation (the GPL license) set the bar a LOT higher than MIT. One could also argue that RMS's definition is moot to OSI, since OSI has it's own definition to follow. and to change the OSD to exclude them would be a travesty. travesty smavesty. I'm not saying exclude GPL. Never did. I said GPL exceeds the minimum requirements given by the OSD. I have no qualms with GPL being OSI approved. You're not talking to that which I am saying. I am saying the MIT license does not meet OSD #2. Since OSD #2 says the program MUST include source code There is nothing in the MIT license to guarantee OSD#2, so it fails to meet the definition. And OSD#2 requires this, because it uses the word MUST. I didn't put it there, OSI did. Therefore OSI should not have approved the MIT license, since MIT does not satisfy this requirement. OSI put the bar at a certain height, and the MIT license limbo'ed right under it. It isn't about it being a travesty. It's about whether or not OSI followed its own definition. If OSI certification gives absolutely no guarantees about code licensed with an OSI approved license, then OSI is moot. IMHO IANAL TINLA YRMV Greg YRMV= Your Results May Vary -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: YAPL is bad (was: Re: Backlog assistance?)
begin Steve Lhomme quotation: Once again, as I wrote : Is the OSI there to judge what a license is worth ? Ah, I love polemical rhetorical questions! Thanks for the contribution to my collection. In the meantime, since you say your concerns are entirely theoretical, and that you lack time to research specifics, we seem to have from you no further substantive matters for discussion. -- 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: OSD #2 (was Re: GPL vs APSL (was: YAPL is bad))
begin Greg London quotation: I am saying the MIT license does not meet OSD #2. Since OSD #2 says the program MUST include source code There is nothing in the MIT license to guarantee OSD#2, so it fails to meet the definition. Ahem. Nostalgic for freshman philosophy? It would be physically possible to issue a binary without source and claim it to be under the MIT licence, but nobody would be particularly impressed, let alone call that open source. I should point out that the OSD is not intended to be an AI routine, just a set of guidelines that can be understood by reasonable people. In practice, the Board is there, in part, to say Very creative, and certainly a nice try, but of course the answer is no. -- 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: OSD #2 (was Re: GPL vs APSL (was: YAPL is bad))
On Tue, 25 Sep 2001, Greg London wrote: is it possible to take GPL'ed code, modify it, relicense it under a proprietary license, and distribute it only in binary form? my understanding is it is not possible. but MIT'ed code would allow this. Irrelevant. Is it possible to take APSL'ed code, modify it, and not provide Apple with information on your changes? My understanding is it is not possible. But MIT'ed code would allow this. The 'bar' to meet GPL is pretty high. The bar to satisfy the MIT license is on the ground. The OSD is somewhere in between. No. First, understand that the OSI certifies *software*, in part because of the license under which it is distributed, and in part based upon what is distributed. So, as Bruce indicated, if software is made available under the BSD license and includes source code, it is OSI approved. If not, then not. OSD #2 applies to the software, and not the license. one can argue about RMS's definition of free software, but his implementation (the GPL license) set the bar a LOT higher than MIT. So? One could also argue that RMS's definition is moot to OSI, since OSI has it's own definition to follow. No, even working from the FSF definition, the BSD/MIT license is free. and to change the OSD to exclude them would be a travesty. travesty smavesty. I'm not saying exclude GPL. Never did. Please read what he wrote - excluding the BSD or MIT licenses would be a travesty. I am saying the MIT license does not meet OSD #2. That's correct. Because, strictly speaking, #2 applies to software, and not licenses. A license may preemptively *require* #2 to be met, but it need not - so long as it is met. Since OSD #2 says the program MUST include source code There is nothing in the MIT license to guarantee OSD#2, so it fails to meet the definition. Go back to the part you had so much difficulty with before - the OSI approves software, based in part upon software licenses. It certifies licenses as being compatible with the OSD. And OSD#2 requires this, because it uses the word MUST. I didn't put it there, OSI did. So, were you to distribute a derivative of a BSD kernel in binary form without source, you would not be distributing free software (unless you let people know where they could get the source). It isn't about it being a travesty. It's about whether or not OSI followed its own definition. No, it's a question of reading comprehension. The OSD does not require the license must guarantee access in source code form, the license must provide a public location from which to download the source, etc. It says the software must either include source, or have a well-publicized location from which to get source. Now, if you wanted the source to the FreeBSD kernel, included in binary form on your installation floppy... you know where to get it- www.freebsd.org. If OSI certification gives absolutely no guarantees about code licensed with an OSI approved license, then OSI is moot. Disregarding my own opinions on this, your analysis and the logic that leads to your conclusion are founded upon a misunderstanding. I also think that the OSD contributes to this misunderstanding - I think the wording of the introduction should be rewritten to not suggest the distribution terms have to meet the OSD, but the distribution terms or the distribution itself. -- Matthew Weigel Research Systems Programmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] ne [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: OSD #2 (was Re: GPL vs APSL (was: YAPL is bad))
begin Matthew C. Weigel quotation: I also think that the OSD contributes to this misunderstanding - I think the wording of the introduction should be rewritten to not suggest the distribution terms have to meet the OSD, but the distribution terms or the distribution itself. Actually, I think it's just a case of some computer geeks amusing themselves be pretending that the OSD is supposed to be a standalone expert system for auto-issuing licence certifications -- while knowing full well that it's actually a set of guidelines for what the Board will or won't likely certify based upon the licence's substance. The existence of a set of guidelines fortunately doesn't bar the Board -- or the rest of us -- from applying common sense. E.g., Sorry, but software without source code cannot be open source. -- 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
click, click, boom
Ah, several items just fell into place. 1) The OSD and the OSI approved licenses (AL) are totally independent. 2) Some of the OSI AL's also happen to meet the OSD definition, and some do not. But OSI does not determine this. 3) OSI approved it's licenses not because of how they measured against the OSD, but because they were simply the most common, or someone requested it. 4) OSI certification requires that you A) license your software with an OSI approved license B) distribute your software in a manner that comlies with the OSD. 5) OSI certification does not mean your license meets the OSD, but that your software distribution meets the OSD. 6) You can use an OSI approved license and not be OSI certified. See, this clears up a -whole- lot of confusion. I thought the OSD was somehow related to the approved OSI licenses. Instead, OSI approved its first four licenses simply because they were the most common. The OSD is independent of the licenses. Getting software off the net that uses an OSI aproved license does not mean that software is open source, in the OSD sense of the term. Rather, if you want to know if some software off the net meets the definition of open source, it must be OSI certified. So, to put it in a nice little blurb that could go somewhere on the OSI web page: (probably the approved licenses page) Just because a license is approved does not mean the license enforces the OSD. However, to get OSI certified, a program must be licensed under an OSI approved license. If an OSI certified program is re-distributed in manner that does not meet the OSD, OSI's only recourse is to revoke certification. Not all OSI approved licences require that re-distributions meet the OSD. Choose your license carefully. Greg -- Greg London x7541 -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: click, click, boom
On Tue, Sep 25, 2001 at 09:03:18PM -0400, Greg London wrote: 6) You can use an OSI approved license and not be OSI certified. See, this clears up a -whole- lot of confusion. I thought the OSD was somehow related to the approved OSI licenses. Instead, OSI approved its first four licenses simply because they were the most common. The OSD is independent of the licenses. There are so many things wrong with these statements that I'm wary to even post here, for fear of being hit by the bullets. Were you being facetious, or was this a serious post? -drew -- M. Drew Streib [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://dtype.org/ FSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]| Linux International [EMAIL PROTECTED] freedb [EMAIL PROTECTED]| SourceForge [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP signature
Re: OSD #2 (was Re: GPL vs APSL (was: YAPL is bad))
On Tuesday 25 September 2001 02:31 pm, Greg London wrote: I am saying the MIT license does not meet OSD #2. Since OSD #2 says the program MUST include source code There is nothing in the MIT license to guarantee OSD#2, so it fails to meet the definition. Fine. I distribute an MIT licensed proram that includes the source code. I have met every requirement of the OSD and can call the program Open Source. Then I distribute my next program under the same license, but choose not to include the source code or publicize how to obtain it. That specific program would not be Open Source. At times the OSD is placing guidelines upon licenses, and at others upon programs. Clause #2 refers to the program. -- David Johnson ___ http://www.usermode.org -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: click, click, boom
begin Greg London quotation: Ah, several items just fell into place. Yes, but they didn't fit. Look, nobody's going to force-feed common sense to people who don't want to read the OSD in the spirit intended. One has to find one's own. The DFSG (and thus the OSD) were indeed abstracted out from several popular licences (if I remember accounts by Bruce P.). As adopted by the OSI, it was an attempt to enumerate what qualities distinguish a free-software / open-source licence from a proprietary one. That does not prevent someone from finding bizarre and outlandish ways to issue proprietary code, supposedly under an OSD-compliant licence -- e.g., a binary-only package purporting to be MIT-licensed. Nor does it prevent someone from creatively crafting some whack-assed licence grossly violating the OSD's spirit (but arguably not its letter), to which the Board will say Hell no. Is this insufficiently orderly? Too bad: It's reality. Deal. -- This message falsely claims to have been scanned for viruses with F-Secure Anti-Virus for Microsoft Exchange and to have been found clean. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: OSD #2 (was Re: GPL vs APSL (was: YAPL is bad))
Rick Moen writes: The existence of a set of guidelines fortunately doesn't bar the Board -- or the rest of us -- from applying common sense. E.g., Sorry, but software without source code cannot be open source. Yup. -- -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: GPL vs APSL (was: YAPL is bad)
Some have said that the MIT/BSD licenses do not REQUIRE access to the source code, and where the licenses PERMIT access to the source code, code forking is permitted for redistributions of modified works. I think this is correct although the list of conditions clauses in the license are so ambiguous that they have a recursive quality. In my opinion, the MIT/BSD licenses are uncomplicated, but not well-drafted. BSD: Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. The name of the author may not be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission Rod Dixon Life...work which you despise, which bores you, and which the world does not need - this life is hell. W.E.B. DuBois in 1958 Greg London wrote: In the case of the MIT license, Bob certainly *can* charge Alice a million bucks for the source, but the license would still be an Open Source license. It seems to me that the MIT does not meet item #2 of the OSD, then. The APSL goes above and beyond #2 requirements. But the MIT license seems to fall short. Let's not lose track of what we are talking about. The OSD requires (by #2) that the publisher of an Open Source work provide access to the source code, and that (by #3) it be possible for anyone to freely make derivative works. There is *no* requirement that derivative works are themselves necessarily Open Source. Under the GPL, they are; under MIT/BSD, they are not; under LGPL, it depends on the character of the derivative work; under MPL, it depends on how the changes were made. -- 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 -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Section 2 source distribution terms (was Re: GPL vs APSL (was: YAPL is bad))
Karsten M. Self writes: Proposed language: 2. Source Code The license most provide for distribution in source code as well as compiled form. Where some form of a product is not distributed with source code, there must be a well publicized means of obtaining the source code for no more than a reasonable reproduction cost -- preferably, downloading via the Internet without charge or access restrictions. The source code so offered must be in the preferred form in which a programmer would modify the program. Deliberately obfuscated source code does not qualify. Intermediate forms such as the output of a preprocessor or translator are not allowed. For licenses in which distribution without source is allowed, an OSD Qualifying Distribution shall be defined as an offering of the software, under qualifying license terms, with source or an offer of source as described in this paragraph. Good. Close. Better than my previous attempt. What do you think of this: 2. Source Code The license applies to source code. A compiled executable is considered a derived work. Such an executable is only open source if its source code is also open source. When a compiled executable is not distributed with source code, there must be a well publicized means of obtaining the source code for no more than a reasonable reproduction cost -- preferably, downloading via the Internet without charge or access restrictions. The source code so offered must be in the preferred form in which a programmer would modify the program. Deliberately obfuscated source code does not qualify. Intermediate forms such as the output of a preprocessor or translator are not allowed. Of course, a big problem with the OSD is that it talks about legal requirements, and yet was not touched by a lawyer before being cast into stone. Any kind of extensive rewrite probably ought to be done by people with actual experience with the law, as opposed to dilettantes like you and I. -- -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?)
phil hunt writes: 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. Already do. http://opensource.org/docs/certification_mark.html#approval -- -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?)
Rick Moen writes: 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; I was being silly, grouping you with RMS on the basis of your initials. Wasn't that obvious enough?? Perhaps, when I'm trying to be funny, I should put a smiley at the end of my sentence? :-) But I figure that true humor doesn't need subtitles. -- -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?)
Rick Moen writes: 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 am skeptical that you can find any existing requirement for protection of privacy in the OSD. Obviously, if we add one, then it will be there, and we will require it in the future, eh wot? -- -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?)
begin Russell Nelson quotation: I am skeptical that you can find any existing requirement for protection of privacy in the OSD. I was stipulating none such being present. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: click, click, boom
Greg London writes: 1) The OSD and the OSI approved licenses (AL) are totally independent. Nope. You are confused. Have you figured out where yet? -- -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?)
begin Russell Nelson quotation: I was being silly, grouping you with RMS on the basis of your initials. Wasn't that obvious enough?? Perhaps, when I'm trying to be funny, I should put a smiley at the end of my sentence? :-) But I figure that true humor doesn't need subtitles. My apologies for being trigger-happy. BOFH instincts, caffeine LD50, and sleep-shortage can do that. This evening, I auto-prescribed a lovely Côtes du Rhône from E. Guigal, and suddenly the world is a notably nicer place. -- Cheers, You have acquired a scroll entitled 'irk gleknow mizk'(n).--More-- Rick MoenThis is an IBM Manual scroll.--More__ [EMAIL PROTECTED] You are permanently confused. -- ADOM (a roguelike game) -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: YAPL is bad (was: Re: Backlog assistance?)
Karsten M. Self wrote: on Mon, Sep 24, 2001 at 08:56:55PM +0100, phil hunt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: What if, as part of the process 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? I think so. Doesn't step (2) of URL:http://www.opensource.org/docs/certification_mark.html#approval already imply this? Chris -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
