Re: [License-discuss] OSI approved license without original license and reproduction of notices required in redistributions?
On Monday 02 July 2012 17:40, Casey Rodarmor wrote: > It seems that if I am the original copyright holder and I specifically allow > for it in the license, > alteration of the copyright notices Unless you explicitly transfer the copyright to someone else, You are the copyrights holder. Don't confuse copyrights with licensing. And in some juristdicions, transfer of copyrights are expresly prohibited. (There's a difference in transfering coprights and transfering parts of your rights granted by copyrighs.) In my country, Norway, we are not allowed to place anything in the public domain. To circumvent that, we use licenses to achieve the same effect. We are also not allowed to transfer what our legal system calls moral rights. Which means that in Norway, giving credit to the author is legally required. Even for works that lose copyright protection some 70+ years after the authors death. (As an example, we are legaly required to give credit to King James as the author when we redistribute the old 1611 KJV Bible.) In short, there are a few limits to what an author and a copyright holder are allowed to give permission to do. > and trivial relicensing should be > no problem. To allow relicensing, use a license that does not have a clause to release derivative works under the same or equivalent license. This also means that Microsoft and Apple can take it, replace your license with their EULA, and prohibit the redistribution of their version. -- Johnny A. Solbu web site, http://www.solbu.net PGP key ID: 0xFA687324 Kom Arbeidslyst og treng deg på, her skal du motstand finne. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] GPL linking exceptions
On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 6:39 PM, Bruce Perens wrote: > On 07/05/2012 06:30 PM, Chris Travers wrote: >> >> Generally RMS seems to think this is not permissible, and most other >> people outside the FSF don't listen. > > It is not permissible to modify the GPL text directly. That restriction has > teeth. However, I can't think of a legal mechanism that could be applied to > prevent exceptions to the GPL that are in separate text. > > It would be different if there were contractual restrictions connected with > the use of the GPL text. But there are none. This is true. I would normally put such additional permissions as part of the copyright header,. Best Wishes, Chris Travers ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] GPL linking exceptions
On 07/05/2012 06:30 PM, Chris Travers wrote: Generally RMS seems to think this is not permissible, and most other people outside the FSF don't listen. It is not permissible to modify the GPL text directly. That restriction has teeth. However, I can't think of a legal mechanism that could be applied to prevent exceptions to the GPL that are in separate text. It would be different if there were contractual restrictions connected with the use of the GPL text. But there are none. <> smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] GPL linking exceptions
On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 9:48 AM, Felix Krause wrote: > Hi everyone, > > does a linking exception to the GPL require approval, or may a software be > called open source whenever it is licensed under the GPL, even when the > publisher grants the user additional rights? > > There are some licenses around that add a linking exception to the GPL. The > one I use is the GNAT Modified GPL [1]; but there are also others like the > exception in the license of the GNU Classpath project [2]. Both licenses are > not mentioned on the OSI site. > > I think the core question is, does adding a linking exception to the GPL > create a completely new license (which would need approval as open source > license), or does it still count as licensed under the GPL and thus open > source? > > I think it would be a good thing if this question was answered by the FAQ. I second Bruce's suggestion to go talk to a lawyer. In this case, I think the Software Freedom Law Center may be able to be of assistance. If not, get an IP lawyer generally. IANAL, TINLA, and even if I were a lawyer I wouldn't suggest reading too much into this, because Real Legal Advice requires taking all of your circumstances into account. So take this as a post for ideas to discuss with a lawyer not advice. The GNU GPL v3 is pretty clear (in Section 7) in that an author of code may attach additional permissions to that code. So linking exceptions would seem to my mind to require only the permission of the author of the linking code (which seems a no-brainer). Since the work as a whole in that case is the GPL v3, permissions granted according to it, would seem in line with the license. In the GPL v2 it is less clear. At its outer limits however, it can only permit things prohibited under copyright law. Generally RMS seems to think this is not permissible, and most other people outside the FSF don't listen. The number of projects which do this are fairly large, and to my knowledge nobody has taken action against someone who creates their own code which is released under the GPL and contains a linking exception. However if using the FSF's code, the fact that they have taken a strong line here, I would suggest asking them for permission. Additionally there is the question (much discussed on this list not too long ago) whether copyright law even allows restricting secondary markets for practical tools in this way. Rick Moen and I strongly disagree on this issue. I think the clear pattern of cases including Oracle v. Google points towards a negative answer here. But the goal of getting advice from a real lawyer isn't just to prevail if you are sued, it's to avoid being sued in the first place. So get a real lawyer. Best Wishes, Chris Travers ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] GPL linking exceptions
There are really two sides to this problem. Is your license still OSI certified, and can you do this legally. Regarding the OSI certification, the question is whether all of the rights granted by the certified license still apply. If this is the case, you can still say that the work is under the certified license. None of the requirements of the Open Source Definition require that the license make restrictions, so removing a restriction would not in general cause a license to no longer be Open Source. Then, the legal side. Of course, discuss this with your lawyer: 1. Make very sure you own the entire thing, or at least rights to relicense all of the covered code. 2. Given #1, you have the right to apply any number of licenses, including removal of restrictions. 3. Make sure that all changes you accept are either under the license exception as you specify it, or have the copyright or the right to relicense transferred to you. Make sure that the way you communicate your removal of a restriction makes clear that the restriction is removed only regarding your own property. The GNAT modified GPL does this with the statement: /This exception does not however invalidate any other reasons why the executable file might be covered by the GNU Public License. /Thanks Bruce/ / On 07/02/2012 09:48 AM, Felix Krause wrote: Hi everyone, does a linking exception to the GPL require approval, or may a software be called open source whenever it is licensed under the GPL, even when the publisher grants the user additional rights? There are some licenses around that add a linking exception to the GPL. The one I use is the GNAT Modified GPL [1]; but there are also others like the exception in the license of the GNU Classpath project [2]. Both licenses are not mentioned on the OSI site. I think the core question is, does adding a linking exception to the GPL create a completely new license (which would need approval as open source license), or does it still count as licensed under the GPL and thus open source? I think it would be a good thing if this question was answered by the FAQ. Cheers, Felix [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNAT_Modified_General_Public_License [2]: http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath/license.html ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss <> smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
[License-discuss] GPL linking exceptions
Hi everyone, does a linking exception to the GPL require approval, or may a software be called open source whenever it is licensed under the GPL, even when the publisher grants the user additional rights? There are some licenses around that add a linking exception to the GPL. The one I use is the GNAT Modified GPL [1]; but there are also others like the exception in the license of the GNU Classpath project [2]. Both licenses are not mentioned on the OSI site. I think the core question is, does adding a linking exception to the GPL create a completely new license (which would need approval as open source license), or does it still count as licensed under the GPL and thus open source? I think it would be a good thing if this question was answered by the FAQ. Cheers, Felix [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNAT_Modified_General_Public_License [2]: http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath/license.html ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] OSI approved license without original license and reproduction of notices required in redistributions?
On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 11:16 PM, Chuck Swiger wrote: > Nope. The obligation to keep the copyright statement intact is typically > required by law (see 17 USC section 506(c)(d) or your local equivalent), and > the obligation to keep the license terms & disclaimer intact is a standard > component of all-- or nearly all-- licenses. Can you explain this obligation? It seems that if I am the original copyright holder and I specifically allow for it in the license, alteration of the copyright notices and trivial relicensing should be no problem. > It sounds like you're looking for "public domain", which may or may not be > available depending on your local law. Since public domain isn't always > well-defined or available, using a simple permissive license is the next > best thing. My shaky legal understanding is that since copyright is the legal leverage with which you dictate the terms of a license, it may not be possible to dedicate something to the public domain AND provide provisions such as those that I mentioned before. (Patent, indemnification, etc) > You can't remove Apache section 4 without replacing it with similar terms > which grant folks the permission to reproduce the software, modify it, etc. I would like to remove the sub-clauses (1,2,3 and 4, or a, b, c, and d, depending on the version) of section 4, not all of section 4. It seems like those sub-clauses wouldn't need replacement, since they are purely restrictive in nature, merely qualifying the unrestricted distribution rights given in the opening of section 4 itself. > Perhaps consider the MIT or 2-clause BSD licenses if you want something > smaller which is OSI approved. Otherwise, perhaps take a look at the > Beerware license, http://unlicense.org/ license, CC0, or WTFPL. These licenses are fine, except that they do not have, for example, a default license for contributions, patent clause, etc. And the beerware, MIT, and BSD licenses are self-perpetuating, they require their reproduction along with the work they cover. Perhaps the question I should be asking is, why is this kind of license a de-facto standard? (And by this kind of license I mean one that requires that the license and all copyright notices be kept intact.) Why not just let people do whatever they want with the work in question? I want to be attributed, but I find it distasteful to legally require people to do so. Also, I know that people have a preference for many different licenses, GPL, Apache 2.0, MIT, etc. I would like to release my work under a license that can simply be replaced with the license of their choice, or, in the case of a combination of work A and my work, can simply be licensed under A's license, without being required to perpetuate my license. Sorry for all naive questions, this is the first time that I've actually been required to understand software licenses, after many years of simply agreeing to them :) Casey > > Regards, > -- > -Chuck ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
