Re: [License-discuss] Open Source Eventually License Development
Hi! > "Eben" == Eben Moglen writes: Eben> No, Mr Cowan. The license only exists if the precedent license hasn't Eben> been terminated or revoked during the term. If it has, then the right Eben> to distribute under free license has also terminated. No one should Eben> take the code in reliance on the free license after notice of Eben> termination, because the free license is deceptive: the distributor is Eben> infringing. If the free license promised is GPL, then GPLv2 sect. 7 Eben> or GPLv3 sect. 12 would prevent the presumptive GPL distributor from Eben> releasing under those circumstances, while ensuring that any Eben> downstream recipients had protection; more permissive and in this Eben> sense less careful licenses would allow the creation of the resulting Eben> menace to navigation, but the apparent free license wouldn't in fact Eben> exist. I don't see how one could revoke something that one has explicitely stated in each source file (just like the GPL; You can't revoke GPL from something that is already published). Here is an example Business Source license that should hopefully help clarify things. This should be included as the header of all source file in the project. As far as I can understand, this should be give the end user reasonable assurance that the code he gets will be Free software on the given date and NO ONE can take that right away from him. Regards, Monty -- XYZ Business Source License Copyright © 2013, XYZ Corporation This license (“License”) grants rights in specified software code (the “Code”) under a business-source-style license that applies one set of terms and conditions (the “Pre-Change Terms”) to the Code and all modified Code before a specified date (the “Change Date”), and another set of terms and conditions (the “Post-Change Terms”) on and after the Change Date. The Change Date for this license is 01 January 2015. More about this License can be found at http://company-name/Business_source. A. Pre-Change Terms: License, before 01 January 2015: Prior to the Change Date, you have the non-exclusive, worldwide rights under this License to copy, modify, display, use, and redistribute the Code solely under the following conditions: [Insert business source limitations appropriate to your business here, such as: “The database size used by the Code is less than 1 Gigabyte, and the Code is used in non-commercial contexts where neither you, the user nor any distributor or service provider makes money, directly or indirectly, from using or otherwise exercising your licensed rights in the Code or modified Code.”]. [The foregoing limitations are for illustrative purposes only. When designing your business-specific, Pre-Change limitations, carefully consider such things as: i) the differences between source and object code; ii) copyright and patent rights; and iii) the impact on your business of all possible uses of the code, including distribution, the creation and use of derivatives and collective works, and the provision of cloud-based and other services that do not require distribution of the Code.] All copies and uses of original and modified Code are also subject to this License. When copying or distributing original or modified Code, you must conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice; keep intact all notices stating that this License applies to the original or modified Code; keep intact all notices of the absence of any warranty; and give all recipients a copy of this License along with the Code. If your desired use of the Code or modified Code does not meet all of the above requirements, you MUST purchase a separate, commercial license for the Code prior to all conflicting installations or other uses of the Code. You can buy support/licenses from: __. Any attempt to use the Code outside the permitted scope of the Pre-Change Terms will automatically terminate your rights under this License to this and all future versions of the Code. TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, THE CODE OR ANY SERVICES OR WORK PRODUCT PROVIDED UNDER OR IN CONNECTION WITH WITH THIS LICENSE ARE PROVIDED ON AN “AS IS” BASIS. YOU EXPRESSLY WAIVE ALL WARRANTIES, WHETHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING (WITHOUT LIMITATION) WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, NON-INFRINGEMENT, SYSTEM INTEGRATION, AND ACCURACY OF INFORMATIONAL CONTENT. On the Change Date, the Pre-Change Terms shall automatically terminate and shall be replaced with the Post-Change Terms described in Section B, below. B. Post-Change Terms: License after, and including, 01 January 2015: On and after the Change Date, the software code is licensed to you pursuant to version 2 or later of the GNU General Public License, as follows: This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published
Re: [License-discuss] Open Source Eventually License Development
Hi! > "Eben" == Eben Moglen writes: Eben> Whatever the truth of the adage may be, the point for us is that none Eben> of this has anything to do with licensing. Fred Trotter was actually Eben> asking a question, to which the correct answer is: "You don't need a Eben> license to make something free software at a certain date in the Eben> future. Giving a copy to an appropriate agent, with written Eben> instructions to publish under, e.g. GPLv3 or ASL 2.0 on the future Eben> date, is quite sufficient. Any number of reliable intermediaries for Eben> such purposes exist, and would provide the service gratis." What Fred Trotter and I have been proposing is actually a bit different (at least when it comes to what I refer as Business Source). >From day one all code will be available. The copyright text in all source files clearly state the exact date when the code becomes Open Source or Free Software. Until that given date anyone is free to modify or redistribute the code in any manner. It's only the usage of the code that is restricted to a small part of the users (those that can afford to pay according to the copyright holder) until the code is free. In other words, there is no need for escrow or any agent. More about this at: http://timreview.ca/article/691 Eben> This isn't a matter for copyright licensing, because licenses are, in Eben> J.L. Austin's term, "performative utterances." They are present acts Eben> of permission, not declarations of future intention, like testaments. Eben> There's no point in a copyright holder writing a license that says Eben> "these are the terms today, and those will be my terms tomorrow." Eben> Unless the license is irrevocable, only the terms of present Eben> permission matter. In our case, as soon as the original license expire, the new license it's irrevocable Open Source. Eben> It is simple to demonstrate from an economic perspective that the Eben> value of the proprietary product sold on a fixed-term delay of free Eben> licensing converges, after the first such period of distribution, to Eben> the value of one upgrade minus the cost of applying it, assuming the Eben> downstream user attributes absolutely no value to free licensing over Eben> proprietary licensing, which is in fact usually a bad assumption. Of course the free licensing is important; It provides a safety net for all users that if the original software developers are not continuing to do new critical development that the users needs, the users can continue to use the original software for free. Eben> This clearing price is too small to be profitable except at very high Eben> volumes or in other extraordinary circumstances. We will soon have have clear evidence that this is not the case. A lot of companies that I have talked with are considering to release their closed source code under Business Source as a way to get a bigger market but still get paid for development. The sad fact today is that most small companies can NOT afford to make their code open source/free software as that would kill all their current and future income. Eben> The business model Eben> fails for simple economic reasons--because the competition provided Eben> for one's present product by the last version one has freed is almost Eben> always too strong to withstand--not for legal ones. We know from experience that users are willing to pay for getting upgrades and bug fixes. As long as the product is evolving, there will be companies that are willing to pay to get the last version. Eben> The natural history is in accord with theory on this subject. RMS was Eben> correct that this was a problematic compromise, but even more Eben> problematic for the folks on the other side. What other side? We have to remember that Open Source/Free Software is a better development model for large project with lot of companies that can make direct or indirect money of the project. Open Source/Free Software does not solve the issue of how to create a software company around one or a few products and get enough money to pay full time developers. Doing support or consulting around the project is not a solution as this doesn't generate enough money to be able to compete with closed source solutions. Regards, Monty ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Open Source Eventually License Development
[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider [ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, [ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. In principle, this should be a free software license as far as I can see. It would call for study by a lawyer, however. I recommend that anyone using this use it in parallel with GPL 3-or-later, as you have done. That way, the program can't fail to be free software. And there is nothing to lose by doing this, since it permits anyone to release a version with trivial modifications under GPL 3-or-later at any time. What do you think of making that recommendation? -- Dr Richard Stallman President, Free Software Foundation 51 Franklin St Boston MA 02110 USA www.fsf.org www.gnu.org Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software. Use Ekiga or an ordinary phone call. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Open Source Eventually License Development
John Cowan protested: > Eh? [John's father] was paid by the semester by the New Jersey taxpayers. > His articles weren't paid for at all. Are you googling the wrong Tom Cowan? Unfortunately I didn't Google at all. I just did Google that name, though, and found one of his name, also a lawyer, who was "indicted for tax evasion"! I only remembered you mentioning your father's profession before and assumed, based on my experience with you, that your father was no slouch as a lawyer. I assumed he earned his fees. Obviously taxpayers pay lawyers by the word. Why else are statutes and regulations and law professors' articles so prolix? /Larry -Original Message- From: John Cowan [mailto:co...@mercury.ccil.org] Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2013 2:05 PM To: Lawrence Rosen Cc: 'Eben Moglen'; license-discuss@opensource.org; mark.atw...@hp.com; ka...@gnome.org; r...@gnu.org; nat...@gonzalezmosier.com; mo...@askmonty.org Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Open Source Eventually License Development Lawrence Rosen scripsit: > Indeed I wish I were, like your father, paid by the word. Or paid > by any other measure here Eh? He was paid by the semester by the New Jersey taxpayers. His articles weren't paid for at all. Are you googling the wrong Tom Cowan? > Thanks for playing Huxley, although the rest of the comparison is inapt. I thought you'd say that. See Asimov v. Bova (Jewish guilt and Italian guilt), settled out of court. -- I could dance with you till the cowsJohn Cowan come home. On second thought, I'd http://www.ccil.org/~cowan rather dance with the cows when you co...@ccil.org come home. --Rufus T. Firefly ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Open Source Eventually License Development
Lawrence Rosen scripsit: > Indeed I wish I were, like your father, paid by the word. Or paid > by any other measure here Eh? He was paid by the semester by the New Jersey taxpayers. His articles weren't paid for at all. Are you googling the wrong Tom Cowan? > Thanks for playing Huxley, although the rest of the comparison is inapt. I thought you'd say that. See Asimov v. Bova (Jewish guilt and Italian guilt), settled out of court. -- I could dance with you till the cowsJohn Cowan come home. On second thought, I'd http://www.ccil.org/~cowan rather dance with the cows when you co...@ccil.org come home. --Rufus T. Firefly ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Open Source Eventually License Development
John Cowan correctly observed: > ... there is no escape from the dreaded § 203(a)(5), which explicitly > says that you can't contract out of it. Section 203(a) is only a *conditional* termination. The licensor must take affirmative steps within a designated and brief period of time [1] to exercise that right of termination. Furthermore, it doesn't apply to a work made for hire. Almost everyone ignores this section of the U.S. Copyright Act for commercial software licensing transactions, which almost all are nowadays. But please remind software copyright lawyers to get malpractice insurance with a thirty-five year tail period. We should be more fearful of the 20-year patent monopoly. /Larry [1] Five years beginning at the end of thirty-five years from the date of publication or execution of the grant. 17 USC 203(a)(3). -Original Message- From: John Cowan [mailto:co...@mercury.ccil.org] Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2013 11:37 AM To: Lawrence Rosen Cc: 'Eben Moglen'; license-discuss@opensource.org; mark.atw...@hp.com; ka...@gnome.org; r...@gnu.org; nat...@gonzalezmosier.com; mo...@askmonty.org Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Open Source Eventually License Development ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Open Source Eventually License Development
John Cowan wrote: > Of course, the more such reassurances you add, the more complexity > and uncertainty you interject into the situation: "the price of infinite > precision is infinite verbosity", as we say in Lojbanistan, and adding > more terms, while helpful to the sympathetic, just provides a bigger > attack surface for the bad guys. (Not for nothing am I my father's son.) Indeed I wish I were, like your father, paid by the word. Or paid by any other measure here Thanks for playing Huxley, although the rest of the comparison is inapt. /Larry -Original Message- From: John Cowan [mailto:co...@mercury.ccil.org] Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2013 11:37 AM To: Lawrence Rosen Cc: 'Eben Moglen'; license-discuss@opensource.org; mark.atw...@hp.com; ka...@gnome.org; r...@gnu.org; nat...@gonzalezmosier.com; mo...@askmonty.org Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Open Source Eventually License Development ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Open source license chooser choosealicense.com launched.
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 08:48:06PM +0300, Engel Nyst wrote: > Hello license-discuss, > > On 08/18/2013 04:38 AM, Richard Fontana wrote: > >Independent of this point, I'm concerned about inaccurate statements > >made on the choosealicense.com site (one that we talked about was the > >assertion that GPLv3 "restricts use in hardware that forbids software > >alterations"). > > Please allow me to ask the impossible question: how would you write > the summary of GPLv3 vs GPLv2 in 8-16 words? "GPLv3 is lengthier, with additional provisions concerning patents, 'Tivoization', anticircumvention law, license oompatibility, and cure". - RF ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Open source license chooser choosealicense.com launched.
On 8/19/2013 1:48 PM, Engel Nyst wrote: Hello license-discuss, Please allow me to ask the impossible question: how would you write the summary of GPLv3 vs GPLv2 in 8-16 words? No need to be so parsimonious -- the current blurb is 44 words. Pam Pamela S. Chestek, Esq. Chestek Legal PO Box 2492 Raleigh, NC 27602 919-800-8033 pam...@chesteklegal.com www.chesteklegal.com ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Open source license chooser choosealicense.com launched.
Quoting Engel Nyst (engel.n...@gmail.com): > Please allow me to ask the impossible question: how would you write > the summary of GPLv3 vs GPLv2 in 8-16 words? 'I have written a truly remarkable comparison, which, alas, this margin is too small to contain.' -- apologies to Pierre de Fermat ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
