Re: a data licensing problem
Russell Nelson wrote: Lawrence E. Rosen writes: > The Sleepycat license is vendor and product specific. It refers to "DB > software" (whatever that is) and includes the following warranty: "THIS > SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY SLEEPYCAT SOFTWARE ``AS IS'' AND" The > Sleepycat licenses is not reusable as is by other vendors. I didn't suggest simply copying and pasting it. Simply put the sleepy cat license does allow the licensing behavior required. I doubt very much that the said company is using the IP of Harvard and Berkley. Those sections could be safely snipped. You actually cannot simply cut and past verbatim for various licenses. The real protection lies as Lawrence pointed out in the copyright inherent in the data. This company might be seeking to allow commercial development of their IP while at the same time allowing open source use of the data. Generally and this only applies to software it's not uncommon to license differently to closed source applications (presumably they are not going to release source back to the community or the copyright holder). Does the Academic Free license achieve this goal? Yeah, and you wouldn't want to, either. You'd want to use the Academic Free License. > I notice that the Sleepycat license as published on the OSI website > includes a copy of two other licenses, one probably the BSD license and > the other a Harvard license. That's probably in error. I'm copying > OSI's webmaster, because that probably needs to be corrected. No, actually, that *is* the Sleepycat license. All three parts. You have to comply with all the terms listed therein. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: a data licensing problem
Russell Nelson wrote: I have a problem that I would like y'all to consider. A company sells datasets. They wish to cooperate with the opensource folks to the extent that opensource folks can use a free copy of their dataset. They would also like to be able to sell that same dataset to people using proprietary operating systems. On the other hand, they would also like to comply with the Open Source Definition. BTW, I just sent an announcement to [EMAIL PROTECTED] If you're not subscribed, you missed it. :-) What's the problem? Simply specify that open source applications can use the data while any closed source application must get an appropriate. It's open if it's open and closed if it's closed. The Sleepycat license is here http://www.opensource.org/licenses/sleepycat.php BTW it is FSF and open source definition approved. This happens all the time. My companies own software is delivered under such a license. FYI - Richard feels it's better to use the GPL but it is still an acceptable license BSD -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: X.Net, Inc. License
This is nearly identical to the Apache license. So My guess is free. Russell Nelson wrote: > Open source or not? > -russ > > Carl W. Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > The X.Net, Inc. License > > > > > > > > Copyright (c) 2000-2001 X.Net, Inc. Lafayette, California, USA > > > > Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy > > of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal > > in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights > > to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell > > copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is > > furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: > > > > The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in > > all copies or substantial portions of the Software. > > > > THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR > > IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, > > FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE > > AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER > > LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, > > OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN > > THE SOFTWARE. > > This agreement shall be governed in all respects by the laws of the State of > > California and by the laws of the United States of America. > > -- > -russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com > Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | > 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | #exclude > Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX |
Re: Converting/Splitting Code - Open to Closed
Ralph Bloemers wrote: > > A colleague just asked me the following question, any thoughts from the list? > > > Can the OWNER of the copyright in software code that has been released under a GPL >(http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html) change its mind and take the software >*private* (any future versions would be proprietary and released only under typical >object code only licenses)? Yes - but the previous versions licensed under the GPL remain GPLd and development can continue on the code. > > In reality, the code would most likely *fork,* leaving one strand open and the other >proprietary. That's exactly what would happen and that's why the GPL is there in the first place. The copyright owner retains copyright, therefore can make changes. You cannot retroactively change licenses under the GPL. People retain their original rights under the GPL. > > Oh, and, at least for now, I'm not concerned about enforceability or who would have >standing to sue. You would have a hard time suing the open source version out of existence, namely because you licensed it under the GPL to begin with... > > > Thanks, > Ralph -- ========= Brian DeSpainVA Linux Systems Practice Lead http://www.bravenewworlds.com E-Commerce Practice http://www.symphero.com 620 South Raymond Avenue Suite #5 http://www.valinux.com Pasadena, CA 91105 U.S.A. Voice: +1.626.584.9335 x22 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fax: +1.626.584.9364 Board Member: Linux International (R)Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds in several countries.
Re: IPL as a burden
John Cowan wrote: > Angelo Schneider wrote: > > > Nope, taking fees is no problem either for open source nor for GPL. > > The problem is: you can not take fees from customer A and waive thme > > from customer B. > > Sure you can. The FSF charges for the GNU CDs it distributes > (historically a major income source for them), but also gives away > the exact same software for download via FTP. You cannot appeal > to the DFSG/OSD anti-discrimination rule and expect them > to give you a free or even at-cost CD on the strength of it. The problem is that you are discriminating based on class of customer. It is not simply a matter for charging for CDs. The IPL discriminates between various classes of customers, making some pay a license fee and other don't have to pay a license fee. The FTP download is freely available to everyone - not just a specific class of customers. > > > Likewise, GPLed software *may* contain technical means that > compel users to pay a fee when they use the program. However, > the libre nature of GPLed software means that anyone can create > a version of the program which does not contain that code. > > > You can not say: customer A may redistribute/modify sources and pay a > > fee to you and customer B may NOT modify it. > > Correct. > > > OSI simply says: ALL CUSTOMERS ARE EQUAL. > > In respect of their rights to modify, redistribute, etc. > Not necessarily in all other respects. > > -- > There is / one art || John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > no more / no less || http://www.reutershealth.com > to do / all things || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan > with art- / lessness \\ -- Piet Hein Brian DeSpain VA Linux Systems
Re: IPL as a burden
Manfred Schmid wrote: > > Hi Mark, > > [...] > > sendmail.org, apache.org, abisource.com, etc. etc. > > Whatever they are working on, at the end of the day everybody has to pay > his bills. That applies to Open Source Developers as well. > > Developing software requires a serious amount of investment concerning > time, money, brain etc. > > If enough enthusiasts are willing to pledge that investment, fine. This > has brought Linux, Apache etc. to where it is now and it has been a > great job. > > But this does not scale to the extent needed in the future. For a > company, an investment has to pay off. The Support & Consulting approach > may work well for established products like Apache etc. for the time > being. > > But who will fund the investments in future? Designated sponsors > forever? Enthusiasts pouring time in it to allow BIG companies to do the > Support & Consulting thing? > > We are proposing a new structure to give a commercially viable answer to > a simple question: Who pays the developers? You seem to labor under a very strange idea. That idea is that open source developers are "not paid." Exactly where did this idea come from? Every open source developer i know is quite well compensated and generally gets paid a certain amount of their time to work exclusively on their open source projects of their choice. Any consulting group will set aside research and development costs to further their code base. This is one of the persistent myths that non open source companies have about the open source software movement ie the developers are largely college students who are not paid. All the open source developers I know are highly compensated professionals. Programming skills are rare and highly prized. I doubt very much that there are legions of unpaid starving programmers out there. > > > > > Your license violates those freedoms. > > > > We are preserving the freedoms mentiones above and give a developer the > chance to pay his bills. Do you think that this is such a bad idea? When > thinking about paying developers, you have to know where the money comes > from. > > Any company we are working for produces something. They know, that a > product has a price and software is no exception to that. We therefor > think that Licence Fees seem a quite appropriate answer to the money > question. > > Unfortunately, we must not ask for these, if we would use GPL. As CFO I > could not finance a developer program and give the guys out there their > fair share. Actually what you are stating here is categorically false. Charging licence fees is not the only way to make money on your software. I know what I am talking about as I was the CEO of a open source software company for three years before my company's acquisition be VA. Our software was/is licensed under the GPL and we sold the software neatly packaged and also built a very lucratative consulting business around it. Our software is an e-commerce product and was/is sold at the highest levels of the enterprise. As everyone on this list knows you cannot require license fees and claim your product is open source. I assume you have a 25-50 man development team and a similar amount of marketing/admin/support people? > > Manfred Schmid > CFO > > -- > > - > intraDAT AG > Wilhelm-Leuschner-Strasse 7 u. 9-11 > D - 60329 Frankfurt a. M., Germany > Tel.: +49-(0)69-25629-0 > Fax: +49-(0)69-25629-256 > http://www.intradat.com > - -- = Brian DeSpainVA Linux Systems Practice Lead http://www.bravenewworlds.com E-Commerce Practice http://www.symphero.com 620 South Raymond Avenue Suite #5 http://www.valinux.com Pasadena, CA 91105 U.S.A. Voice: +1.626.584.9335 x22 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fax: +1.626.584.9364 Board Member: Linux International (R)Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds in several countries.
Re: more nice news to report
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Besides the nice news about ATT, I think I am still making progress with Corel (despite what went down in LinuxWorld.com today) and the U.S. Census sent me a copy of Tiger/Line 1988 (complete digital map of U.S. streets) which Let me know if you need a mirror site for that data. I would gladly devote a server to it. -- Brian DeSpain http://www.bravenewworlds.com Technical Consultants Business Development Electronic Commerce Toll-Free: 800.631.2527 Fax Number: 626.584.9364
Re: Basics of Evangelism
Chip Salzenberg wrote: Find common ground. Cast your argument in terms acceptable to the audience. Only with such a beginning can you, eventually, persuade. I have also found that focusing on business problem solutions is a great way to go. Ask them about internal processes. What exactly is the problem they have and how your solution solves it. After demonstrating how your solutions solves your problem I often tell them,"And of course you get all the source code so that you can hire a programmer to make changes if we would ever go out of business." Quite a few times their eyes light up at that point they say,"That's a great idea. That way we aren't dependent on a single vendor." They have just taken the first step to understanding open source. -- Brian DeSpain http://www.bravenewworlds.com Technical Consultants Business Development Electronic Commerce Toll-Free: 800.631.2527 Fax Number: 626.584.9364
Re: Essay RFC delayed.
"Eric S. Raymond" wrote: > While I agree that this is a difference between RMS and myself, I must > respectfully disagree with your claim that it is the one at issue here. > Some deontists are capable of noticing pragmatically that their tactics > aren't working. And some consequentialists (like me) have beliefs about > freedom as deep and passionate as Richard's. I wasn't questioning your commitment to freedom at all. You are taking actual out reach steps to work with the community and business - to make sure that businesses "get it" in terms of working with the community. Whether deontists are capable of acting pragmatically is entirely dependent on the individual. It has been my experience that they tend to stick to their position AND tactics. -- Brian DeSpain http://www.bravenewworlds.com Technical Consultants Business Development Electronic Commerce Toll-Free: 800.631.2527 Fax Number: 626.584.9364
Re: Essay RFC delayed.
Kyle Rose wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 > The real challenge is in getting them to see profit in working with > the community while discouraging parasitism on their part. I don't > see you doing this. > > This is precisely what Eric does. Does he? That's not the impression I get. "Discouraging parasitism" with respect to the free software community means to me "understanding and respecting the ideals of the community." Eric isn't telling them that issues of freedom are important to the vast majority of us hackers; in fact, he actively downplays the importance of such issues in his writings. Why is our freedom to hack important to corporations? The answer is it isn't and they couldn't care less. By making the arguments the way Eric does is that it becomes palatable to corporations and the other freedoms we get are sorta slid in under the radar. My point is that Eric is giving them an easier way out, by representing a part of the community that is more palatable to them. Instead, companies should be made to know that their participation is contingent on their understanding of and respect for the principles of freedom we follow. Their successful participation in contingent on their understanding of it. They can pull an Apple (or a Sun with it's "community" license) but this doesn't mean that this will fly with the developer community and the blow back on the corporation will be considerable. The free marketplace of ideas in the free software community assures that really pig-headed ideas don't fly very far. They should respect the community, they should play well with others. The fact is that many of them won't and many of the them will get burned by the community. Corporations often make very dumb mistakes and then draw the wrong lesson from it. "We tried our Bobo Community License and no one liked it, no made improvements etc" The lesson the corporation will learn, "open source doesn't work." Then of course the movement will flatten them with a free product is better, faster and bundled with every linux cd. -- Brian DeSpain http://www.bravenewworlds.com Technical Consultants Business Development Electronic Commerce Toll-Free: 800.631.2527 Fax Number: 626.584.9364
Re: Essay RFC delayed.
Kyle Rose wrote: The real challenge is in getting them to see profit in working with the community while discouraging parasitism on their part. I don't see you doing this. This is precisely what Eric does. Companies want "protect" intellectual property they have invested a significant amount of time and money into developing. Hence the sudden wide variety of licenses. As we all know the licenses that are not truly free will get ignored by the community and nothing will happen. Eric has assidiously tried to convince companies that open is better by trying to get them to adapt one of the recognized open licenses. Their legal counsel sometimes disagrees and takes their own stab at a license. Although the magnitude is different, what you are doing is analagous to making deals with a serial killer where you get something in return for providing him with victims. I don't see this as a very honorable way of doing business, even if what you get back ultimately benefits society as a whole. The ends do not justify the means. This is a "straw man" argument. Working with a business is not akin to working with a serial killer. If a company wants to release something under the Bobzilla Public License they are certainly free to do so. Whether or not that is the wisest decision for the software is another thing entirely. I agree with Richard: I would rather live in a community of ideals, even if it were a lot smaller and less functional (in a compatibility- with-the-outside-world sense). Encroaching decadence will never be a trait of _my_ community, no matter how enticing the price/performance ratio looks. I neither need nor want to deal with "reality" if it means I have to engage in this sort of behavior. You can live in the small community of free software and never leave it. Certainly no one has forced Richard to compromise his ideals or the ideals of many of the people involved with the FSF. Freeing software takes time and businesses have to make certain changes culturally in order for this to happen. They can't simply can't release their "crown jewels" without some assurance that it won't put them out of business. Businesses have mundane concerns such as payroll, healthcare, facilities and equipment to maintain. They cannot by nature move as quickly a single developer or a development team since a misstep means that you don't meet payroll with all the effects that has (mortgages are missed, people don't eat etc). I have watched this debate on this list for some time and really the problem is that Eric and Richard will never agree because their world views are different. Richards is a deontological world view. He believes that software should be free and not freeing is a bad thing. Deontological views believe in a absolute systems of morals and ideals. Eric has a consequentialist world view, which mean actions (such as software licensing) are only evil in their effects (ie a Windows monopoly on the desktop.) This deontological/consequentialist split runs through a number of issues (abortion, capitol punishment, war name an issue and its split this way.) Richard recognizes their split over "issues of principals." The problem is that to successfully run a revolution you need both types of people - those with unyieldng ideals and those who try to carry the ideals to world and make them work as broadly as possible. It also seems inevitable that there is conflict between these two. Dealing with businesses building systems for them using free software I tend to be a consequentialist. That said I would rather live in a world where all software was free, so I fight for it every day by changing the minds of merchants and businesses I deal with. -- Brian DeSpain http://www.bravenewworlds.com Technical Consultants Business Development Electronic Commerce Toll-Free: 800.631.2527 Fax Number: 626.584.9364
