Re: Help with license decision for cluster of similar projects
This is quickly off-topic for this list again. I wonder if there needs to be an @opensource.org discussion group for discussing the business model and legal analysis of license agreements beyond the question of approving them as OSI compliant? On Wed, 3 Mar 2004, Alex Rousskov wrote: way to word the same idea (protection of free access to code, even though that protected free access might not be in the best interest of the developer). I guess I disagree that this discussion is clarifying things, and suspect it is making things even more confusing. When a business chooses a copyleft or non-copyleft free software license it is best when it relates to ones own business model. For code I author having a derivative work be in a non-free software license is as much opposed to my business model as a non-free software licensed package having it's copyright violated through being added illegally to a P2P network. I rely on resource multiplication as the justification for doing the extra work (beyond coding new software for clients) to release the software to the public. When people make non-free derivatives they are taking from me without paying in the same way as software pirates are claimed to of non-free software. Talking of freedom in this context ends up based more on personal politics than anything else. - Copyleft licenses maximize the freedom to access the code - BSD-like licenses maximize the freedom to develop the code The main feature of a BSD-like (non-copyleft) license is that it allows non-free derivatives. Non-free software minimizes the freedom to develop derivative code of that non-free software. So +1-1=0, meaning that BSD-like licenses do not maximize the freedom to develop code as it appears in the short term, but in fact minimizes long-term freedom to develop the code. I believe there are times when non-copyleft free software licenses are ideal, such as one is trying to provide code as documentation of a standard. The motivation for code creation is standards creation, and commercial interests such as royalty-generation and resource-multiplication do not need to factor into it. I personally see few cases where non-copyleft licenses appropriately apply to commercial FLOSS software creation and distribution. I see non-copyleft licenses as a giveaway expense that ends up contrary or at least outside of my commercial FLOSS business. There may be some loss-leader aspect to the business analysis, but that becomes more like the standards creation example. While this giveaway may be very appropriate for the public and volunteer sectors where the motivations are not commercial but political or social, I see the private sector motivations being very different. -- Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: http://www.flora.ca/ Make it legal: don't litigate, use creative licensing campaign. A modern answer to P2P: http://www.flora.ca/makelegal200403.shtml Canadian File-sharing Legal Information Network http://www.canfli.org/ -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Help with license decision for cluster of similar projects
On Fri, 2004-03-05 at 18:07, Russell McOrmond wrote: This is quickly off-topic for this list again. I wonder if there needs to be an @opensource.org discussion group for discussing the business model and legal analysis of license agreements beyond the question of approving them as OSI compliant? There are Free Software Business list [EMAIL PROTECTED] and the Free Software License discussion list http://lists.alt.org/mailman/listinfo/fsl-discuss. However, both of these seems to have lost momentum. The main feature of a BSD-like (non-copyleft) license is that it allows non-free derivatives. Non-free software minimizes the freedom to develop derivative code of that non-free software. So +1-1=0, meaning that BSD-like licenses do not maximize the freedom to develop code as it appears in the short term, but in fact minimizes long-term freedom to develop the code. In all the discussions about software freedom that I have witnessed over the years, the main disagreement has had its origin in the confusion due to different perceptions of the word freedom. Proponents of copyleft generally speak of freedom for the community; e.g. proprietary derivations are considered non-free because they are not immediately available to the entire community. Proponents of non-copyleft generally speak of freedom for the individual; e.g. the individual developer has the freedom to decide whether or not he wants to share the derivations (or more correctly, his effort that went into those.) The above is, of course, a generalization and not universally valid. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Help with license decision for cluster of similar projects
Quoting Alex Rousskov ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): ... Or the undocumented(?) charter of this list can be expanded. Or any off-topic posts should be moderated out. 1. The list isn't moderated. I'm sure Rusl and others have better things to do, so they trust to people to behave themselves. 2. The list's charter is implied fairly clearly by the language on http://www.opensource.org/docs/certification_mark.php#approval : Getting a License Approved [...] o Prepare an email with three sections as described in the next three paragraphs. Send that email to the license-discuss mailing list (license-discuss at our domain name, opensource.org). The subject of your message should be For Approval: followed by the name of your license. o Tell us which existing OSI-approved license is most similar to your license. Explain why that license will not suffice for your needs. If your proposed license is derived from a license we have already approved, describe exactly what you have changed. This document is not part of the license; it is solely to help the license-discuss understand and review your license. o Explain how software distributed under your license can be used in conjunction with software distributed under other open source licenses. Which license do you think will take precedence for derivative or combined works? Is there any software license that is entirely incompatible with your proposed license?. o Include the plain text version of your license at the end of the email, either as an insertion or as an attachment. o You are invited to follow discussion of the licenses by subscribing to [EMAIL PROTECTED] This mailing-list is archived here. o If license-discuss mailing list members find that the license does not conform to the Open Source Definition, they will work with you to resolve the problems. Similarly, if we see a problem, we will work with you to resolve any problems uncovered in public comment. o As part of this process, we may also seek outside legal advice on license issues. o Once we are assured that the license conforms to the Open Source Definition and has received thorough discussion on license-discuss or by other reviewers, and there are no remaining issues that we judge significant, we will notify you that the license has been approved, copy it to our website, and add it to the list below. Although it would be nice to have a list-information Web page with more information than http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3 has [1], absent that, the membership are glad to remind people of the charter whenever off-topic threads become too (1) voluminous, (2) heated, (3) obnoxious, and or (4) un-amusing -- exactly as with other unmoderated on-line forums. So, when the list regulars (or, a-fortiori, Russ the listadmin) suggest that people cool it with the off-topic digressions, please heed them, OK? There _are_ a number of other places to discuss licensing without specific connection to OSI approval -- e.g., debian-legal and the Free Software Business mailing list come to mind. If none of those turn out to be suitable, I can recommend some software to start a new mailing list that is -- all of it open source. ;- [1] That page's link to eFAQ is a mailto link that _should_ send back a FAQ for this mailing list. Apparently one hasn't yet been written (see below). An opportunity, perhaps? From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: failure notice Hi. This is the qmail-send program at ns.crynwr.com. I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses. This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out. [EMAIL PROTECTED]: ezmlm-manage: fatal: unable to open text/faq: file does not exist -- Cheers, The cynics among us might say: We laugh, Rick Moen monkeyboys -- Linux IS the mainstream UNIX now! [EMAIL PROTECTED] MuaHaHaHa! but that would be rude. -- Jim Dennis -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
