[License-discuss] License incompatibility (was Re: Open source license chooser choosealicense.com launched.)
Lawrence Rosen wrote at 17:00 (EDT) on Tuesday: I asked for practical examples. You cited none. In the world of copyrights or most logical pursuits, absence of evidence isn't evidence. License compatibility issues come up regularly on lots of bug tickets and threads about licensing on lots of projects. I don't have a saved file of evidence to hand you, mostly because it's such an unremarkable occurrence that I don't note it down when it happens. I see it at least once a month somewhere. I suspect anyone who follows Free Software development regularly sees it just as much. I can tell you that I dealt with two issues of license incompatibility in my day job recently, but I can't disclose the specifics since it was confidential advice. Meanwhile, if you need evidence to satisfy your curiosity right away, I'd suggest debian-legal archives would be a good place to start your research on this, but... Awaiting your evidence to the contrary ... I can't spare the time to do this basic research for you. If anyone else here does agree with you that license incompatibility isn't a problem in the real world, then perhaps it's worth continuing this thread, but I suspect you may be alone on this one. :) Most FOSS licenses (including the GPL!) don't actually define the term derivative work with enough precision to make it meaningful for court interpretation. ... The court will therefore use the statutory and case law to determine that situation. That's as it should be. It's not the job (nor is it really appropriate) for a copyright license to define statutory terms, so the GPL doesn't do that. The GPL has always tried to go as far as copyright would allow to mandate software freedom. That's what Michael Meeks (and/or Jeremy Allison -- I heard them both use this phrase within a few weeks of each other and not sure who deserves credit) call copyleft's judo move on copyright. It's the essence of strong copyleft. all major FOSS licenses that I'm aware of *except the GPL* make it abundantly clear that the mere combination of that licensed software with other software (FOSS or non-FOSS) does not affect (infect?) the other software. Indeed, weaker copylefts give guidelines for certain derivative works that can be proprietarized, and the rest are left under copyleft. BTW, if you are interested in how the European lawyers view this question, I refer you to an excellent talk by Till Jaeger at FOSDEM 2013: http://www.faif.us/cast/2013/mar/26/0x39/ So what's the worry about license incompatibility all about? Is it merely that so many licenses are deemed incompatible with the GPL, Many licenses are incompatible with the Eclipse Public License, too, since it's a stronger copyleft than, say, the MPL or LGPL. There aren't very many strong copylefts around. with other software (FOSS or non-FOSS) does not affect (infect?) the other software. Finally, I'm unlikely to respond to this thread further as I think the use of slurs like infect (notwithstanding the quotes, and '?') to refer to copyleft are just unnecessarily inflammatory. I've asked you not to talk about copyleft using slur words so many times before in the thirteen years we've known each other, it's really hard for me to believe you aren't saying infect intentionally just to spread needless discord. -- -- bkuhn ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
[License-discuss] System 76's BeanBooks Public License v1.0
A colleague of mine asked for my comment on the following license: https://beansbooks.com/home/opensource (included in full text below for the archives). It's reminiscent of the Yahoo! Public License and Zimbra Public License. I notice that it seems that the Zimbra Public License and Yahoo! are listed as Free Software licenses by the FSF but not as Open Source by OSI. Does someone from OSI want talk to System 76 about this and why this is a bad idea to make their own license? System 76 is generally a pretty friendly company to Open Source and Free Software. ## URL: https://beansbooks.com/home/opensource BeansBooks Public License v1.0 This BeansBooks Public License (this Agreement) is a legal agreement that describes the terms under which System76, Inc., a Colorado corporation (System76) will provide software to you via download or otherwise (Software). By using the Software, you, an individual or an entity (You) agree to the terms of this Agreement. In consideration of the mutual promises and upon the terms and conditions set forth below, the parties agree as follows: 1. Grant of Copyright License 1.1 - Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, System76 hereby grants to You, under any and all of its copyright interest in and to the Software, a royalty-free, non-exclusive, non-transferable license to copy, modify, compile, execute, and distribute the Software and Modifications. For the purposes of this Agreement, any change to, addition to, or abridgement of the Software made by You is a Modification; however, any file You add to the Software that does not contain any part of the Software is not a Modification. 1.2 - If You are an individual acting on behalf of a corporation or other entity, Your use of the Software or any Modification is subject to Your having the authority to bind such corporation or entity to this Agreement. Providing copies to persons within such corporation or entity is not considered distribution for purposes of this Agreement. 1.3 - For the Software or any Modification You distribute in source code format, You must do so only under the terms of this Agreement, and You must include a complete copy of this Agreement with Your distribution. With respect to any Modification You distribute in source code format, the terms of this Agreement will apply to You in the same way those terms apply to System76 with respect to the Software. In other words, when You are distributing Modifications under this Agreement, You stand in the shoes of System76 in terms of the rights You grant and how the terms and conditions apply to You and the licensees of Your Modifications. Notwithstanding the foregoing, when You stand in the shoes of System76, You are not subject to the jurisdiction provision under Section 7, which requires all disputes under this Agreement to be subject to the jurisdiction of federal or state courts of Colorado. 1.4 - For the Software or any Modification You distribute in compiled, object code format or over a network, You must also provide recipients with access to the Software or Modification in source code format along with a complete copy of this Agreement. The distribution of the Software or Modifications in compiled, object code format or over a network may be under a license of Your choice, provided that You are in compliance with the terms of this Agreement. In addition, You must make absolutely clear that any license terms applying to such Software or Modification that differ from this Agreement are offered by You alone and not by System76, and that such license does not restrict recipients from exercising rights in the source code to the Software granted by System76 under this Agreement or rights in the source code to any Modification granted by You as described in Section 1.3. 1.5 - This Agreement does not limit Your right to distribute files that are entirely Your own work (i.e., which do not incorporate any portion of the Software and are not Modifications) under any terms You choose. 2. Support System76 has no obligation to provide technical support or updates to You. 3. Contributions 3.1 - A “Contribution” means any work of authorship that is Submitted by You to System76 in which You own or assert ownership of the Copyright. “Submit” means to provide a Contribution to System76 by any form of communication. 3.2 - You retain ownership of the Copyright in Your Contribution and have
Re: [License-discuss] Open source license chooser choosealicense.com launched.
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 9:14 AM, Bradley M. Kuhn bk...@ebb.org wrote: I don't think we need to (or should have) this debate (again) here Yes, please, let's not rehash this discussion here. It's been done many times, and the list is already overflowing this week. Luis ___ 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.
Hi Luis, I refuse your request to be silent. What is more important to this list than this discussion? I won't just sit here like a lump while Bradley and others continue to encourage OSI to accept erroneous theories about license proliferation and while various groups implement FOSS license choosers that ignore legal analysis. If you believe that this or any other list is overflowing, open your drain wider. /Larry -Original Message- From: Luis Villa [mailto:l...@lu.is] Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 8:26 AM To: License Discuss; Lawrence Rosen; Bradley M. Kuhn Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Open source license chooser choosealicense.com launched. On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 9:14 AM, Bradley M. Kuhn bk...@ebb.org wrote: I don't think we need to (or should have) this debate (again) here Yes, please, let's not rehash this discussion here. It's been done many times, and the list is already overflowing this week. Luis ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] License incompatibility (was Re: Open source license chooser choosealicense.com launched.)
Till Jaeger answer to the question What is a derivative work? is (on slide 4): I dont know (and probably nobody else) ! I do agree with him as long there is no case law, but my personal feeling (which as no value as case law !) is that the Court of Justice of the European Union would *not* follow the assumption Linking makes derivative especially when 2 open source programs are linked (even statically). These doubts on the concept of strong copyleft are reported in comments on EUPL (see point 4.1. - pages 19-20 in http://www.europarl.europa.eu/document/activities/cont/201307/20130708ATT69346/20130708ATT69346EN.pdf ). Just another European lawyer opinion... Thank you also for considering multi-lingual and multicultural aspects in license (licence?) chooser :-) 2013/8/28 Bradley M. Kuhn bk...@ebb.org Lawrence Rosen wrote at 17:00 (EDT) on Tuesday: I asked for practical examples. You cited none. In the world of copyrights or most logical pursuits, absence of evidence isn't evidence. License compatibility issues come up regularly on lots of bug tickets and threads about licensing on lots of projects. I don't have a saved file of evidence to hand you, mostly because it's such an unremarkable occurrence that I don't note it down when it happens. I see it at least once a month somewhere. I suspect anyone who follows Free Software development regularly sees it just as much. I can tell you that I dealt with two issues of license incompatibility in my day job recently, but I can't disclose the specifics since it was confidential advice. Meanwhile, if you need evidence to satisfy your curiosity right away, I'd suggest debian-legal archives would be a good place to start your research on this, but... Awaiting your evidence to the contrary ... I can't spare the time to do this basic research for you. If anyone else here does agree with you that license incompatibility isn't a problem in the real world, then perhaps it's worth continuing this thread, but I suspect you may be alone on this one. :) Most FOSS licenses (including the GPL!) don't actually define the term derivative work with enough precision to make it meaningful for court interpretation. ... The court will therefore use the statutory and case law to determine that situation. That's as it should be. It's not the job (nor is it really appropriate) for a copyright license to define statutory terms, so the GPL doesn't do that. The GPL has always tried to go as far as copyright would allow to mandate software freedom. That's what Michael Meeks (and/or Jeremy Allison -- I heard them both use this phrase within a few weeks of each other and not sure who deserves credit) call copyleft's judo move on copyright. It's the essence of strong copyleft. all major FOSS licenses that I'm aware of *except the GPL* make it abundantly clear that the mere combination of that licensed software with other software (FOSS or non-FOSS) does not affect (infect?) the other software. Indeed, weaker copylefts give guidelines for certain derivative works that can be proprietarized, and the rest are left under copyleft. BTW, if you are interested in how the European lawyers view this question, I refer you to an excellent talk by Till Jaeger at FOSDEM 2013: http://www.faif.us/cast/2013/mar/26/0x39/ So what's the worry about license incompatibility all about? Is it merely that so many licenses are deemed incompatible with the GPL, Many licenses are incompatible with the Eclipse Public License, too, since it's a stronger copyleft than, say, the MPL or LGPL. There aren't very many strong copylefts around. with other software (FOSS or non-FOSS) does not affect (infect?) the other software. Finally, I'm unlikely to respond to this thread further as I think the use of slurs like infect (notwithstanding the quotes, and '?') to refer to copyleft are just unnecessarily inflammatory. I've asked you not to talk about copyleft using slur words so many times before in the thirteen years we've known each other, it's really hard for me to believe you aren't saying infect intentionally just to spread needless discord. -- -- bkuhn ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss -- Patrice-Emmanuel Schmitz pe.schm...@googlemail.com tel. + 32 478 50 40 65 ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] License incompatibility (was Re: Open source license chooser choosealicense.com launched.)
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 10:59:43AM -0400, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote: The GPL has always tried to go as far as copyright would allow to mandate software freedom. That's what Michael Meeks (and/or Jeremy Allison -- I heard them both use this phrase within a few weeks of each other and not sure who deserves credit) call copyleft's judo move on copyright. It's the essence of strong copyleft. A few sources credit Richard Stallman with saying that the GPL is a form of intellectual jujitsu, using the legal system that software hoarders have set up against them in a _Byte_ interview in July 1986. However, I do not see any RMS interview in that issue of _Byte_ (which is now available at archive.org). The gnu.org site has republished what it says is a July 1986 _Byte_ interview of RMS, but this contains no jujitsu quote. It seems likely that RMS *did* originate this characterization of the GPL, and probably in a _Byte_ interview, but it would be nice to track down the precise date of publication. - RF ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] License incompatibility (was Re: Open source license chooser choosealicense.com launched.)
Bradley Kuhn wrote: Finally, I'm unlikely to respond to this thread further as I think the use of slurs like infect (notwithstanding the quotes, and '?') to refer to copyleft are just unnecessarily inflammatory. I've asked you not to talk about copyleft using slur words so many times before in the thirteen years we've known each other, it's really hard for me to believe you aren't saying infect intentionally just to spread needless discord. Bradley, The fear that *you* sow is infectious, not the GPL. I do not slur that license and certainly not copyleft!!! Indeed, I have argued at length here and elsewhere [1] that fear of the GPL is unwarranted. It is instead the fear that companies will be challenged by aggressive folks suing on some bogus derivative work theory that infects our community. To revert to the subject of this thread: The GPL should clearly be on every FOSS license chooser. But don't leave licenses off those license choosers simply because they are deemed incompatible under those false derivative work enforcement theories or some generalized fear of license proliferation. Here's what I suggest for license choosers: (1) Ask first whether the developer is intending to integrate his or her software most with Eclipse, Apache, Linux, Mozilla or other specific current FOSS projects. (2) Recommend that FOSS project's license (with appropriate IANAL caveats!). (3) Otherwise, consult a lawyer before choosing a license on your own. (4) Invent a new license only as a very last resort and only when justified by something missing in all other approved licenses. /Larry [1] In 2005 I published this: http://rosenlaw.com/pdf-files/Rosen_Ch06.pdf. See also my antique 2001 article on the topic of GPL infection: http://www.rosenlaw.com/html/GPL.pdf -Original Message- From: Bradley M. Kuhn [mailto:bk...@ebb.org] Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 8:00 AM To: license-discuss@opensource.org Subject: [License-discuss] License incompatibility (was Re: Open source license chooser choosealicense.com launched.) Lawrence Rosen wrote at 17:00 (EDT) on Tuesday: I asked for practical examples. You cited none. In the world of copyrights or most logical pursuits, absence of evidence isn't evidence. License compatibility issues come up regularly on lots of bug tickets and threads about licensing on lots of projects. I don't have a saved file of evidence to hand you, mostly because it's such an unremarkable occurrence that I don't note it down when it happens. I see it at least once a month somewhere. I suspect anyone who follows Free Software development regularly sees it just as much. I can tell you that I dealt with two issues of license incompatibility in my day job recently, but I can't disclose the specifics since it was confidential advice. Meanwhile, if you need evidence to satisfy your curiosity right away, I'd suggest debian-legal archives would be a good place to start your research on this, but... Awaiting your evidence to the contrary ... I can't spare the time to do this basic research for you. If anyone else here does agree with you that license incompatibility isn't a problem in the real world, then perhaps it's worth continuing this thread, but I suspect you may be alone on this one. :) Most FOSS licenses (including the GPL!) don't actually define the term derivative work with enough precision to make it meaningful for court interpretation. ... The court will therefore use the statutory and case law to determine that situation. That's as it should be. It's not the job (nor is it really appropriate) for a copyright license to define statutory terms, so the GPL doesn't do that. The GPL has always tried to go as far as copyright would allow to mandate software freedom. That's what Michael Meeks (and/or Jeremy Allison -- I heard them both use this phrase within a few weeks of each other and not sure who deserves credit) call copyleft's judo move on copyright. It's the essence of strong copyleft. all major FOSS licenses that I'm aware of *except the GPL* make it abundantly clear that the mere combination of that licensed software with other software (FOSS or non-FOSS) does not affect (infect?) the other software. Indeed, weaker copylefts give guidelines for certain derivative works that can be proprietarized, and the rest are left under copyleft. BTW, if you are interested in how the European lawyers view this question, I refer you to an excellent talk by Till Jaeger at FOSDEM 2013: http://www.faif.us/cast/2013/mar/26/0x39/ So what's the worry about license incompatibility all about? Is it merely that so many licenses are deemed incompatible with the GPL, Many licenses are incompatible with the Eclipse Public License, too, since it's a stronger copyleft than, say, the MPL or LGPL. There aren't very many strong copylefts around. with other software (FOSS or non-FOSS) does not affect (infect?) the other software. Finally,
Re: [License-discuss] License incompatibility (was Re: Open source license chooser choosealicense.com launched.)
I also believe that incompatibility is a myth. Here's excellent paper: http://www.btlj.org/data/articles/21_04_04.pdf DANGEROUS LIAISONS—SOFTWARE COMBINATIONS AS DERIVATIVE WORKS? DISTRIBUTION,INSTALLATION, AND EXECUTION OF LINKED PROGRAMS UNDER COPYRIGHT LAW, COMMERCIAL LICENSES, AND THE GPL By Lothar Determann† † Prof. Dr. Lothar Determann teaches courses on computer and internet law at the University of California, Berkeley School of Law (Boalt Hall), University of San Francisco School of Law, and Freie Universität Berlin (www.lothar.determann.name), and practices law as a partner in the technology practice group of Baker McKenzie LLP, San Francisco/Palo Alto office (www.bakernet.com). The author is grateful for assistance from his students, in particular Tal Lavian, Principal Scientist at Nortel Labs (valuable comments from computer science perspective), Steven B. Toeniskoetter, Lars F. Brauer, and Neda Shabahang (legal research and footnote editing). On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Bradley M. Kuhn bk...@ebb.org wrote: Lawrence Rosen wrote at 17:00 (EDT) on Tuesday: I asked for practical examples. You cited none. In the world of copyrights or most logical pursuits, absence of evidence isn't evidence. License compatibility issues come up regularly on lots of bug tickets and threads about licensing on lots of projects. I don't have a saved file of evidence to hand you, mostly because it's such an unremarkable occurrence that I don't note it down when it happens. I see it at least once a month somewhere. I suspect anyone who follows Free Software development regularly sees it just as much. I can tell you that I dealt with two issues of license incompatibility in my day job recently, but I can't disclose the specifics since it was confidential advice. Meanwhile, if you need evidence to satisfy your curiosity right away, I'd suggest debian-legal archives would be a good place to start your research on this, but... Awaiting your evidence to the contrary ... I can't spare the time to do this basic research for you. If anyone else here does agree with you that license incompatibility isn't a problem in the real world, then perhaps it's worth continuing this thread, but I suspect you may be alone on this one. :) Most FOSS licenses (including the GPL!) don't actually define the term derivative work with enough precision to make it meaningful for court interpretation. ... The court will therefore use the statutory and case law to determine that situation. That's as it should be. It's not the job (nor is it really appropriate) for a copyright license to define statutory terms, so the GPL doesn't do that. The GPL has always tried to go as far as copyright would allow to mandate software freedom. That's what Michael Meeks (and/or Jeremy Allison -- I heard them both use this phrase within a few weeks of each other and not sure who deserves credit) call copyleft's judo move on copyright. It's the essence of strong copyleft. all major FOSS licenses that I'm aware of *except the GPL* make it abundantly clear that the mere combination of that licensed software with other software (FOSS or non-FOSS) does not affect (infect?) the other software. Indeed, weaker copylefts give guidelines for certain derivative works that can be proprietarized, and the rest are left under copyleft. BTW, if you are interested in how the European lawyers view this question, I refer you to an excellent talk by Till Jaeger at FOSDEM 2013: http://www.faif.us/cast/2013/mar/26/0x39/ So what's the worry about license incompatibility all about? Is it merely that so many licenses are deemed incompatible with the GPL, Many licenses are incompatible with the Eclipse Public License, too, since it's a stronger copyleft than, say, the MPL or LGPL. There aren't very many strong copylefts around. with other software (FOSS or non-FOSS) does not affect (infect?) the other software. Finally, I'm unlikely to respond to this thread further as I think the use of slurs like infect (notwithstanding the quotes, and '?') to refer to copyleft are just unnecessarily inflammatory. I've asked you not to talk about copyleft using slur words so many times before in the thirteen years we've known each other, it's really hard for me to believe you aren't saying infect intentionally just to spread needless discord. -- -- bkuhn ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss ___ 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.
For what it is worth, I am a lawyer that does work in the open source world and I have found the recent discussions, including the Rosen/Kuhn dialog, to be among the interesting and valuable discussions that I've seen on this list in a while. And yes, I have been doing open source work long enough to appreciate the fact that it's not the first time that these issues have come up--the discussion still has value. From: Lawrence Rosen lro...@rosenlaw.com To: license-discuss@opensource.org Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 8:37 AM Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Open source license chooser choosealicense.com launched. Hi Luis, I refuse your request to be silent. What is more important to this list than this discussion? I won't just sit here like a lump while Bradley and others continue to encourage OSI to accept erroneous theories about license proliferation and while various groups implement FOSS license choosers that ignore legal analysis. If you believe that this or any other list is overflowing, open your drain wider. /Larry -Original Message- From: Luis Villa [mailto:l...@lu.is] Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 8:26 AM To: License Discuss; Lawrence Rosen; Bradley M. Kuhn Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Open source license chooser choosealicense.com launched. On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 9:14 AM, Bradley M. Kuhn bk...@ebb.org wrote: I don't think we need to (or should have) this debate (again) here Yes, please, let's not rehash this discussion here. It's been done many times, and the list is already overflowing this week. Luis ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss___ 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 Luis Villa (l...@lu.is): Yes, please, let's not rehash this discussion here. It's been done many times, and the list is already overflowing this week. I'd actually be interested in Bradley or Eben pointing to any caselaw that supports their view. It's a fair, interesting, and relevant question, and I'd really like to know the answer. If it turns out that the answer is 'That's not been adjudicated in any directly relevant manner, but here are the reasons we think it will work the way we have been claiming for many years', that would be interesting and worth hearing, too. If Bradley (and/or Eben) just don't want to address that question for whatever reason fair enough. It's their time and effort to use as they wish. However, no harm raising it. And, like Larry, I'm not seeing any overwhelming flood of mailing list traffic. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] License incompatibility (was Re: Open source license chooser choosealicense.com launched.)
Larry, it seems that you responded to my point that calling the GPL by the name 'infection' is a slur that spreads needless discord with (paraphrased) it's not the GPL; it's the work that *you*, Bradley, and others have done enforcing the GPL that's an infection on our community. This doesn't seem a very civil manner of debate. Recall that I recently defended you, Larry, on this very list, when someone was uncivil to you. Please don't be uncivil to me and the orgs that I work with / volunteer for. I have no objection to your policy disagreements and disputes with GPL enforcement or anything else I've worked. I do object to your insinuation that my and others' work in this regard is a virus plagued upon our community. -- bkuhn ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
