Re: Model Code for the OSD
David Johnson scripsit: My opinion is that deliberately obfuscated source code should be decoupled from documentation. The quality and state of documentation is very subjective, and should not be a part of the OSD. IMHO that was meant to exclude people from publishing their source code after it had been fed through an obfuscator, which not only strips comments, but changes identifiers from meaningful names to barely distinguishable strings of gibberish. -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.reutershealth.com I amar prestar aen, han mathon ne nen,http://www.ccil.org/~cowan han mathon ne chae, a han noston ne 'wilith. --Galadriel, _LOTR:FOTR_ -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
RE: Model Code for the OSD
My opinion is that deliberately obfuscated source code should be decoupled from documentation. The quality and state of documentation is very subjective, and should not be a part of the OSD. IMHO that was meant to exclude people from publishing their source code after it had been fed through an obfuscator, which not only strips comments, but changes identifiers from meaningful names to barely distinguishable strings of gibberish. Precisely! You are not required to create high-quality documentation, but if you do you should make it available along with the source code in the preferred form ... for making modifications. (OSL §3.) I heard a story about one company (Tivo was the company identified, but I can't vouch for the accuracy of the report) that is deliberately keeping its published documentation to a minimum in their Linux contributions because they want to retain a proprietary competitive advantage. I think that's not playing fair. It seems to me that's honoring the letter, but not the spirit, of the GPL. /Larry Rosen -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Model Code for the OSD
David Johnson wrote: My opinion is that deliberately obfuscated source code should be decoupled from documentation. The quality and state of documentation is very subjective, and should not be a part of the OSD. I have to agree with David. The documentation quality of the source code is orthogonal to the availability of source code, and thus has nothing to do with the OSD. Trying to establish what documentation quality is, is difficult in the first place. Firstly, people differ in intelligence and experience, so what is obfuscated to one person, may be obvious to another. Secondly, should the quality be judge on the choice of human language? For example, if a russian developer releases source code with comments in Russian, can I claim that he is deliberately obfuscating the source code? Can the russian developer claim that all source code with English comments are obfuscated to him? Thirdly, the source code may implement algorithms or domain knowledge that is inherently difficult to understand, and which would require a book-sized explanation. Would it be considered compliant with the OSD to refer to a (commercially available) book? If not, how does the developer avoid infringing the copyright of the book author while adhering to the suggested OSD documentation requirements? I am sure that there are other concerns as well; the above was simply off the top of my head. I understand the good intentions behind the proposal, but I definitely see it as a slippery slope. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
OSD Model Code -- Article 1 (Free Distribution)
Rod, In your commentary (§1-1) on Article 1 of the OSD (Free Distribution) you reference several cases on copyright misuse. That confuses me. The copyright misuse doctrine has no application for that article of the OSD. Article 1 now reads as follows: The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale. I think this Article really means: The license must permit all licensees to make copies of the software without payment of additional royalties to the licensor. The license cannot restrict licensees from either selling or giving away those copies. How can this ever be copyright misuse, since this provision imposes no restrictions whatsoever on downstream licensees? There is merely a self-imposed limitation on the licensor's right to collect royalties for copies made by those licensees, a limitation he voluntarily accepted by deciding to license his software as open source. With my rewording, there's also no need for the confusing term aggregate software distribution. We only need to rely on the definition of the term copies in the Copyright Act. 17 USC §101. Should we reword the OSD where appropriate to achieve clarity? /Larry Rosen -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: OSD Model Code -- Article 1 (Free Distribution)
On Sun, 2003-01-19 at 14:26, Lawrence E. Rosen wrote: Article 1 now reads as follows: The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale. I think this Article really means: The license must permit all licensees to make copies of the software without payment of additional royalties to the licensor. The license cannot restrict licensees from either selling or giving away those copies. [...] Should we reword the OSD where appropriate to achieve clarity? I'm worried that this rewording could change OSD requirements for the case of code incorporated into collections for which compilation copyrights are claimed. Going back for a moment to the case of the GPL: | In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program | with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of | a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under | the scope of this License. I have always assumed that if you put together a bunch of GPL programs on a CD and sold it, that was one thing, but if instead you claimed that you selected and put the programs together in some artistic or creative fashion and claimed a compilation copyright on the whole thing, that it would no longer be a mere aggregation, and that the collection as a whole would have to be distributed on terms compatible with the GPL. (That is, I've always assumed that you can't claim that you've put together a mere aggregation of programs while at the same time claiming that you've been creative enough in your selection to warrant a compilation copyright on the whole thing.) Although the current Article 1 restricts licenses from making claims on aggregate collections that include covered code, it doesn't seem to make such restrictions if the collections are more than just a mere aggregation of covered code. I'm worried that your new Article 1 might restrict licenses from making claims on collections that are more than mere aggregations, because even though those collections for which a compilation copyright is claimed are necessarily a derivative work (IMHO), programs would likely be included as whole copies, and your new Article 1 says that the license can't restrict licensees from selling or giving away copies, with no exceptions made if in merely making the copy they're also making a derivative work. (BTW, article 8 is a moot point. Even if the license allows the new compilation to be distributed under the same license, Article 1 seems to be implying that it can't make any particular requirements about the compilation as a whole, such as saying it must be distributed under this license.) That's my worry about your proposed change. (I'm not a lawyer here, so maybe I'm thinking about this all wrong, or maybe I'm confused on some basic points somewhere, but it seems to me as if your rewording would really change things.) -Mark Shewmaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
RE: OSD Model Code -- Article 1 (Free Distribution)
I think you're confusing copies, collective works and derivative works. These are each defined in the Copyright Act, 17 USC §101. There is no such definition for component of an aggregate software distribution. Claiming a collective work copyright doesn't mean you've created a derivative work. Here's an example. If an author exercises great creativity to collect together into one work the best poems of the last 10 years, he is creating a collective work and not a derivative work. The degree of his creativity isn't a factor unless he exercises no creativity at all (e.g., simply a list of poems randomly selected), in which case his collective work copyright might not be valid. Here's another example. If an author exercises great creativity to find the best open source utilities for distribution on a single CD, he is creating a collective work and not a derivative work. He requires licenses to make copies, not licenses to create derivative works. That's true no matter how much creativity he put into bringing the collection together. /Larry Rosen -Original Message- From: Mark Shewmaker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2003 8:03 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: 'Rod Dixon'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OSD Model Code -- Article 1 (Free Distribution) On Sun, 2003-01-19 at 14:26, Lawrence E. Rosen wrote: Article 1 now reads as follows: The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale. I think this Article really means: The license must permit all licensees to make copies of the software without payment of additional royalties to the licensor. The license cannot restrict licensees from either selling or giving away those copies. [...] Should we reword the OSD where appropriate to achieve clarity? I'm worried that this rewording could change OSD requirements for the case of code incorporated into collections for which compilation copyrights are claimed. Going back for a moment to the case of the GPL: | In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program | with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of | a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under | the scope of this License. I have always assumed that if you put together a bunch of GPL programs on a CD and sold it, that was one thing, but if instead you claimed that you selected and put the programs together in some artistic or creative fashion and claimed a compilation copyright on the whole thing, that it would no longer be a mere aggregation, and that the collection as a whole would have to be distributed on terms compatible with the GPL. (That is, I've always assumed that you can't claim that you've put together a mere aggregation of programs while at the same time claiming that you've been creative enough in your selection to warrant a compilation copyright on the whole thing.) Although the current Article 1 restricts licenses from making claims on aggregate collections that include covered code, it doesn't seem to make such restrictions if the collections are more than just a mere aggregation of covered code. I'm worried that your new Article 1 might restrict licenses from making claims on collections that are more than mere aggregations, because even though those collections for which a compilation copyright is claimed are necessarily a derivative work (IMHO), programs would likely be included as whole copies, and your new Article 1 says that the license can't restrict licensees from selling or giving away copies, with no exceptions made if in merely making the copy they're also making a derivative work. (BTW, article 8 is a moot point. Even if the license allows the new compilation to be distributed under the same license, Article 1 seems to be implying that it can't make any particular requirements about the compilation as a whole, such as saying it must be distributed under this license.) That's my worry about your proposed change. (I'm not a lawyer here, so maybe I'm thinking about this all wrong, or maybe I'm confused on some basic points somewhere, but it seems to me as if your rewording would really change things.) -Mark Shewmaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
