RE: so waht? Re: WG: MSFT and GNU questions

[Brice, Richard]

> I hear what you're saying. Let me add that I hope no one picks a license
on 
> the sole basis of simplicity as well.  Meet your needs.

This is exactly why my organization has created, and proposed for adoption,
the Alternate Route Open Source Licenses
(http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/eesc/bridge/alternateroute). We wanted a licenses
with the same spirit as (L)GPL, but our attorney felt that it didn't offer
broad enough disclaimers of warranty or protect from third party tort claims
arising out of the use of the software we create. Hence, we worked with FSF
to create a license that satisfied our needs.

Richard Brice, PE
Software Applications Engineer
Washington State Department of Transportation
Bridge and Structures Office

RE: Assigning copyright

[Brice, Richard]

Here is a link to an archive for this list.

http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:iis:1:28#b


-Original Message-
From: David Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2001 10:12 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Assigning copyright


Since I can't locate the archives anywhere, could someone either point me to

them or offer a recap of a prior discussion?

Not too long ago we were discussiing assigning copyrights to a project. This

subject has since entered my reality and bit me on the rump :-) I'm not sure

if that discussion covered my questions, so I'll sum them up.

I now have in my possession a contributed piece of code with an emailed 
agreement to assign the copyright to me (since there is no umbrella 
organization to assign it to). The pragmatic part of me says that this is
the 
legally sensible thing to do, while the idealistic side says that it was 
incredibly presumptious even to ask. Was this the legal/ethical thing to do?

And now that it's done, how does it actually get implemented? Do I refer to 
the contributor/author as a contributor or an author? yada yada yada

Thanks,

-- 
David Johnson
___
http://www.usermode.org

RE: Cherry-picking license proposals

[Brice, Richard]

For that matter, the Alternate Route Open Source License and the Alternate
Route Library Open Source License are very similar to the GPL and LGPL
license. In fact, the FSF has given the Washington State Department of
Transportation permission to base our license on theirs. We have been
waiting since October 1999. Approval should be a slam dunk.

Richard Brice, PE
Software Applications Engineer
Washington State Department of Transportation
Bridge and Structures Office

-Original Message-
From: Roger Browne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, January 19, 2001 12:35 PM
To: Lawrence E. Rosen; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Cherry-picking license proposals


"Lawrence E. Rosen" wrote:

> The board has chosen to "cherry-pick" a few licenses  ... That has
> perhaps resulted in more attention paid to the license proposals of big
> companies and less attention paid to the smaller ones.

If you must cherry-pick, why not pick those which you can deal with
quickly?

Surely it can't take more than two minutes to agree that the Eiffel Forum
license is open source. This license predates OSI, is in widespread use
amongst the Eiffel community, and has been awaiting OSI approval for
almost a year!

Regards,
Roger

===

Eiffel Forum License, version 1

Permission is hereby granted to use, copy, modify and/or distribute
this package, provided that:

  - copyright notices are retained unchanged

  - any distribution of this package, whether modified or not,
includes this file

Permission is hereby also granted to distribute binary programs which
depend on this package, provided that:

  - if the binary program depends on a modified version of this
package, you must publicly release the modified version of this
package

THIS PACKAGE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND WITHOUT WARRANTY. ANY EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE
DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS BE LIABLE TO ANY PARTY FOR
ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL
DAMAGES ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS PACKAGE.

-- 
Roger Browne - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Everything Eiffel
19 Eden Park Lancaster LA1 4SJ UK - Phone +44 1524 32428

RE: License Approval Process

[Brice, Richard]

I've seen may requests for OSI license certification over the past year. I
would be helpful if you could publish a list of licenses pending review, and
their priority, so those of us that have submitted a license can know where
it is in the process.

Richard Brice
WSDOT
-Original Message-
From:   Lawrence E. Rosen [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent:   Tuesday, August 08, 2000 6:10 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:License Approval Process

To the Open Source community:

The board of directors of OSI, which has responsibility to approve
licenses,
is composed of volunteers.  They are doing their best to catch up
with the
backlog of submitted licenses.  Given their other activities, this
is taking
more time than we'd like.  I hope you can all be patient.

As OSI's new executive director, I am taking seriously the job of
processing
license review requests in a timely manner.  At last month's board
meeting,
six licenses were discussed and two approved (the CNRI license
submitted by
Python and the Apache license submitted by the Apache Software
Foundation).
The board has scheduled a meeting later this month to review
licenses, and
they plan to meet on a regular basis in coming months to try to work
their
way through the backlog of submitted licenses.

The community can help by considering carefully whether a new
license is
really needed.  There are several very good licenses already
approved.  Will
"yet another" license help?  Make sure you clearly explain your
objectives
for creating your new license when you submit it for approval, so
that the
OSI board can prioritize appropriately.

We're also trying to improve our procedures so that we can update
our web
site more frequently as new licenses are submitted for review and
then
either approved or disapproved.  If any of you know of someone in
the
California Bay Area who'd like to be OSI's webmaster, please let me
know.

OSI always welcomes suggestions for improvement.  Please feel free
to
contact me, or you may write directly to members of the board of
directors.

/Larry Rosen
Executive Director, OSI
650-366-3457
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.rosenlaw.com
www.opensource.org

RE: Public Domain and liability

[Brice, Richard]

It is my understanding that State government is not bound by the same
"public domain" requirements as the Federal government in 17 USC 105. That
is, because States are not explicitly included in the exclusions of who can
hold copyrights, States have the right to copyright their works.

Given that, what are your thoughts on States using an open source license on
software they develop?

-Original Message-
From:   Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent:   Monday, August 07, 2000 8:27 PM
To: John Cowan
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; License Discuss
Subject:RE: Public Domain and liability

Good point, John. I was thinking more in terms of works being
"released to
the public domain" by expiration of copyright or some other
operation of
law. You are exactly correct. The federal government cannot claim
copyright
to its own works so those works are public domain works at their
inception
under copyright law (one caution: a patent may be obtained).

As a practical matter and aside from military or national security
uses, the
Federal government acts as a market player (rather than a software
developer) so the vast majority of software programs used by or
created for
the Federal government are works licensed to the government from
private
sector sources and university research. Of course, these works
usually do
not by operation of law immediately become public domain works.

Rod

> -Original Message-
> From: John Cowan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, August 07, 2000 7:58 PM
> To: Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; License Discuss
> Subject: RE: Public Domain and liability
>
>
> On Mon, 7 Aug 2000, Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote:
>
> > Strictly speaking, this discussion is theoretical since I know
> of no public
> > domain works that are software programs. (This is not to say
> that  there is
> > not any source code in the public domain).
>
> Software programs written by U.S. government employees
> within the scope of their employment are surely in the public
domain.
> For example, see the software programs linked to
> http://mapping.usgs.gov/www/products/software.html .
> As a specific example,
> http://geochange.er.usgs.gov/pub/tools/misc/reform.c
> is the source code for a public-domain program (though not
explicitly
> dedicated to the public domain within the code itself).
>
> --
> John Cowan   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> C'est la` pourtant que se livre le sens du dire, de ce que, s'y
conjuguant
> le nyania qui bruit des sexes en compagnie, il supplee a ce
qu'entre eux,
> de rapport nyait pas.   -- Jacques Lacan, "L'Etourdit"
>
>
>

RE: Should governmnet software be Open Source?

[Brice, Richard]

I would contend that if any level or branch of government has the right to
copyright software, then it is in the best interest of the public to use an
open source license. I say this for all the same reasons one might prefer to
use GPL over not-copyrighting. The benefits of an open source license are
greater than public domain. As a tax payer, I want to maximize my investment
in this nation. If Evil-company makes something I own better, I want access
to the better version so my employees (civil servants) can then make it
better to better serve me and my fellow investor.

Slightly off topic, where would one go about making and FOIA request...

And one last thing... I should have said this up front... I am employed by
the government of the State of Washington. I am a strong proponent of Open
Source Software for government. I develop bridge engineering software, and
have applied an Open Source license to it. I thought that info might be
relevant or at least give you a better picture of where I'm coming from.

-Original Message-
From:   Derek J. Balling [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent:   Wednesday, March 08, 2000 11:05 AM
To: Brice, Richard
Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject:RE: Should governmnet software be Open Source?

At 10:52 AM 3/8/00 -0800, Brice, Richard wrote:
>Public domain and Open Source are not the same thing... No problem
with
>that. However, I've seen government agencies exercise their right
to
>copyright material (at least I assume it is their right because it
is done
>frequently).

It would be interesting to challenge the copyright. :)  As far as I
knew, 
the government didn't have any ability to DO that.

>As a specific example, the Pennsylvania Department of
Transportation has
>written some bridge design software that they refuse to share the
source
>code and charge non-government agencies upwards of $1500 per copy
for the
>executables. Please refer to sections 4 and 5 of their license
agreement as
>it asserts their copyright and position of
>ownership(ftp://ftp.dot.state.pa.us/public/pdf/Englicpackage.pdf)
><ftp://ftp.dot.state.pa.us/public/pdf/Englicpackage.pdf)> .

I don't know about State gov't's, but I'm almost positive the US
gov't 
can't do things like that.

Considering that the code is paid for by tax dollars, I would
suspect an 
FOIA request would still yield the source code, since it IS public
property.

>Public domain is a legal term that means "not copyrighted". Anyone
can take
>public domain software, tweak it, call it their own, and copyright
it. From
>that point on, the software might not be "free" at all. If
government wants
>to provide the maximum benefit of its assets to its citizens, then
an Open
>Source license is the only way to go. Once a private individual or
company
>copyrights and restricts the use and further distribution of
software that
>was originally created by government, the remaining citizens are
denied the
>maximum benefit of their investment.

Open Source requires the ability to copyright and "protect" the
data, which 
to my recollection the US gov't at least cannot do. To use your
example, 
let's say the gov't create Widget-Software-1.0, which does something

"neat". Evil-Company (located in a Seattle suburb) gets WS1.0 and
tries to 
copyright it. They CAN'T copyright 1.0, it's already in the public
domain. 
They can take it, tweak it a little, call it 1.1, and copyright THAT
all 
they want. That's their legal right. They have taken what
their/your/my tax 
dollars paid for and modified it to their needs. The changed version
has 
THEIR modifications, which they are free to deny you. You can still
obtain 
the original 1.0 "from the source" and do whatever you like with it 
(possible creating a more open version of 1.1 to compete with 
Evil-Company's product).

D

RE: Should governmnet software be Open Source?

[Brice, Richard]

Public domain and Open Source are not the same thing... No problem with
that. However, I've seen government agencies exercise their right to
copyright material (at least I assume it is their right because it is done
frequently).

As a specific example, the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation has
written some bridge design software that they refuse to share the source
code and charge non-government agencies upwards of $1500 per copy for the
executables. Please refer to sections 4 and 5 of their license agreement as
it asserts their copyright and position of
ownership(ftp://ftp.dot.state.pa.us/public/pdf/Englicpackage.pdf)
<ftp://ftp.dot.state.pa.us/public/pdf/Englicpackage.pdf)> .

Assuming I am correct, and government agencies have the right to copyright
software and distribute it with what ever license agreement they choose, I
would contend that the software should be distributed under the terms and
conditions of an open source license.

Public domain is a legal term that means "not copyrighted". Anyone can take
public domain software, tweak it, call it their own, and copyright it. From
that point on, the software might not be "free" at all. If government wants
to provide the maximum benefit of its assets to its citizens, then an Open
Source license is the only way to go. Once a private individual or company
copyrights and restricts the use and further distribution of software that
was originally created by government, the remaining citizens are denied the
maximum benefit of their investment.

-Original Message-
From:   Derek J. Balling [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent:   Wednesday, March 08, 2000 10:26 AM
To: Brice, Richard; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject:Re: Should governmnet software be Open Source?

Government-written and government-contracted software is NOT Open
Source, 
but it IS Public Domain.

Knowing the differences is left as an exercise for the reader, but
if you 
want the source code, a FOIA request would probably turn it up for
you in 
short order.

D

    At 10:17 AM 3/8/00 -0800, Brice, Richard wrote:
>Here is a question I'd like to get some thoughts on... Should
software
>written by our government be Open Source? After all, we pay for it.
I think
>we be given the opportunity to find new and creative uses for it.
>
>I think open sourcing this software could also serve to make
government more
>accountable. Take for instance the software that determines who
gets Social
>Security, how much $$ they get, and then prints the checks. If this
software
>was open source, a watch-dog group could review that code and
verify that
>the government was making payments according to the rules. (What
about the
>software the IRS uses to select tax returns for audits?)
>
>A local or state government agency that pays Workman Comp benefits
could
>take relevant portions from the Social Security check software and
apply it
>to their system, potentially saving tax payers money on the cost of
>development.
>
>What about military software? Would national security be
compromised if the
>software for the guidance system of an ICBM was open source? Could
a tax
>paying corporation like Boeing make use of such software in
civilian
>projects?
>
>What are your thoughts?

Should governmnet software be Open Source?

[Brice, Richard]

Here is a question I'd like to get some thoughts on... Should software
written by our government be Open Source? After all, we pay for it. I think
we be given the opportunity to find new and creative uses for it.

I think open sourcing this software could also serve to make government more
accountable. Take for instance the software that determines who gets Social
Security, how much $$ they get, and then prints the checks. If this software
was open source, a watch-dog group could review that code and verify that
the government was making payments according to the rules. (What about the
software the IRS uses to select tax returns for audits?)

A local or state government agency that pays Workman Comp benefits could
take relevant portions from the Social Security check software and apply it
to their system, potentially saving tax payers money on the cost of
development.

What about military software? Would national security be compromised if the
software for the guidance system of an ICBM was open source? Could a tax
paying corporation like Boeing make use of such software in civilian
projects?

What are your thoughts?

RE: License Approval Process

[Brice, Richard]

Dual licensing doesn't make sense. If a licensee can choose which license to
use, the will chose the one to their advantage. The software we are
producing is used for the design of highway bridge structures. Our lawyer
though the GPL didn't provide us enough protection against tort claims from
third parties. If someone had the choice of GPL and Alternate Route, and
they wanted to sue us, they would choose GPL. So what good is the dual
license? None.

-Original Message-
From:   Michael Stutz [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent:   Tuesday, February 15, 2000 10:49 AM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject:Re: License Approval Process 

Richard Brice wrote:

> You can't use source code licensed with License X with source code
> licensed with License Z (ok, that's a generalization but I don't
> think it is too far off the mark).

Is it *possible* for a license to be compatible with another?
Offhand
I can think of just two possibilities for the GPL: the LGPL, and
code
that has no license and is in the public domain.

Might dual-licensing apply for some of the organizations who are
toying with writing a GPL clone -- as copyright holder, couldn't
they
release their code under both the GPL (or whatever license they
chose), and also license the program under some other terms as
needed?

[Can anyone point me to any resources on the issue of license
compatibility?]


> We support all of the concepts of in the GPL, however the
> disclaimers and "lack of warranty" statements aren't specific
enough
> (at least that is what the lawyer told me).

Did the lawyer mean that it was not specific enough about your
particular organization or software, or that it was not specific
enough about exactly what is being disclaimed? If the latter, I'd
like
to hear what the lawyer had to say!

Re: License Approval Process

[Brice, Richard]

I agree with most of the points made on this discussion. The more licenses
that exist, the more splintered the open source community will become. You
can't use source code licensed with License X with source code licensed with
License Z (ok, that's a generalization but I don't think it is too far off
the mark).

I too have submitted a license for approval with no luck. The Alternate
Route Open Source License, drafted by the Washington State Attorney
General's Office, is simply a modification of the GPL. We based this license
on the GPL with the permission of the Free Software Foundation. We support
all of the concepts of in the GPL, however the disclaimers and "lack of
warranty" statements aren't specific enough (at least that is what the
lawyer told me). This is why we drafted our own license.

I can appreciate why OSI hasn't certified our license. Does the world really
need another GPL derivative? However, I fail to see why the OSI does not
take the time to tell me that the Alternate Route Open Source License will
not be certified. I have taken considerable time and effort to embrace open
source concepts and to make open source software a reality in government. As
a minimum, I expect a notice of rejection that details why a license that
satisfied all the requirements of the OSD is not worthy of OSI
certification.

Richard Brice,
Software Applications Engineer
WSDOT Bridge and Structures Office

RE: Alternate Route Open Source Licenses

[Brice, Richard]

Our intent is to let modified ARLOSL (library license) libraries to by
dynamically linked with non-AROSL and/or non-ARLOSL libraries.

-Original Message-
From:   David Johnson [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent:   Wednesday, January 26, 2000 6:45 PM
To: Brice, Richard; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:Re: Alternate Route Open Source Licenses

On Wed, 26 Jan 2000, Brice, Richard wrote:

> The full text of the Alternate Route licenses can be found at
> http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/eesc/bridge/alternateroute/licenses.htm
> <http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/eesc/bridge/alternateroute/licenses.htm>


One quick comment: in section 5 of the AROSL, at the beginning, it
says
"...under the terms of Sections 4 and 5...". I'm assuming that this
is a typo.

One longer comment: do you intend to allow dynamically linking
modified AROSL
applications to non-AROSL (or compatible) libraries? The GPL, in
some opinions,
is unclear on this point. I would humbly suggest clarifying your
wishes in this
regard, either for or against.

 -- 
Arandir...
_
http://www.meer.net/~arandir/

Alternate Route Open Source Licenses

[Brice, Richard]

I respectfully request the Alternate Route Open Source Licenses be approved
for use with the OSI Open Source certification mark.
This is a re-submittal from 10/29/1999. No discussion or action has taken
place on this request so I though I would re-post.
One outstanding question from the last round of reviews was the potential of
copyright violation by basing our license on the GPL and LGPL. After
engaging in discussions with the Free Software Foundation, we have made some
minor modifications to the Alternate Route Open Source License and the
Alternate Route Library Open Source License.  The licenses are now
acceptable to the Free Software Foundation and WSDOT has been granted
permission to base our licenses upon the GPL and LGPL licenses.
The full text of the Alternate Route licenses can be found at
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/eesc/bridge/alternateroute/licenses.htm
  

Richard Brice, PE
Software Applications Engineer
Washington State Department of Transportation, Bridge and Structures Office
360-705-7174

RE: Certification Process

[Brice, Richard]

I've been waiting over 3 months and nothing is happening with my request for
license approval.  The powers that be are very silent if your post isn't an
off-topic challenge of open source. (Sorry for the dig, but for us
outsiders, OSI isn't what it seems)

Richard Brice, PE
WSDOT Bridge and Structures Office

-Original Message-
From:   Rafi M. Goldberg [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent:   Tuesday, December 14, 1999 2:21 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:Certification Process

Hi there,
I recently submitted a license for certification, and I have

yet to hear anything about it.  As it is, there has been very little

activity on this mailing list.  I was just wondering how long it 
usually takes to get a license certified, from start to finish.
Thank you.

Sincerely,
Rafi Goldberg
-- 
Rafi M. Goldberg
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP Key: 0xA39B4E14 - Keys are at http://pgp5.ai.mit.edu/

Alternate Route Open Source Licenses

[Brice, Richard]

After engaging in discussions with the Free Software Foundation, we have
made some minor modifications to the Alternate Route Open Source License and
the Alternate Route Library Open Source License.
The licenses are now acceptable to the Free Software Foundation and WSDOT
has been granted permission to base our licenses upon the GPL and LGPL
licenses.
The full text of the Alternate Route licenses can be found at
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/eesc/bridge/alternateroute/licenses.htm
 
I respectfully request these licenses be approved for use with the OSI Open
Source certification mark.

Richard Brice, PE
WSDOT Bridge and Structures Office
360-705-7174

Alternate Route Open Source License

[Brice, Richard]

After engaging in discussions with the Free Software Foundation, we have
made some minor modifications to the Alternate Route Open Source License and
the Alternate Route Library Open Source License.

The licenses are now acceptable to the Free Software Foundation and WSDOT
has been granted permission to base our licenses upon the GPL and LGPL
licenses.

The full text of the Alternate Route licenses can be found at
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/eesc/bridge/alternateroute/licenses.htm

I respectfully request these licenses be approved for use with the OSI Open
Source certification mark.


Richard Brice, PE
WSDOT, Bridge and Structures
360-705-7174

Alternate Route Open Source Licenses

[Brice, Richard]

This group has been pretty quite on discussions regarding the Alternate
Route Open Source Licenses.

The most encouraging word I've heard is from Seth David Schoen, "That
license is Open Source, but it infringes the FSF's copyright".

We've obtained consent from FSF to base our licenses on theirs.

What else do can I do to help the process along?



Richard Brice, PE
WSDOT, Bridge and Structures
360-705-7174

Alternate Route Open Source Licenses

[Brice, Richard]

This group has been pretty quite on discussions regarding the Alternate
Route Open Source Licenses.

The most encouraging word I've heard is from Seth David Schoen, "That
license is Open Source, but it infringes the FSF's copyright".

We've obtained consent from FSF to use the GNU (L)GPL licenses as a template
for our own.

What else do can I do to help the process along?


Richard Brice, PE
WSDOT, Bridge and Structures
360-705-7174

RE: Request for Open Source License Approval

[Brice, Richard]

We have been in contact with the FSF and they have given us permission to
use their license(s) as templates for creating our own, so long as we make
it clear that our license is not the GNU (L)GPL license.

Richard Brice, PE
WSDOT, Bridge and Structures
360-705-7174

> --
> From: Seth David Schoen[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 1999 12:09 PM
> To:   '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject:  Re: Request for Open Source License Approval
> 
> Brice, Richard writes:
> 
> > The primary difference between these licenses is a broader
> > disclaimer of warranties and licensees indemnify the author from third
> party
> > tort claims.
> 
> Oh, also, I don't think the FSF would grant you permission to add an
> indemnification clause to their licenses, and such a clause probably
> _does_
> need to be in the license itself.
> 
> -- 
> Seth David Schoen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>   They said look at the light we're giving you,  /  And the darkness
>   that we're saving you from.   -- Dar Williams, "The Great Unknown"
>   http://ishmael.geecs.org/~sigma/  (personal)  http://www.loyalty.org/
> (CAF)
> 

Request for Open Source License Approval

[Brice, Richard]

I would like to request that the attached licenses be reviewed and approved
for use with the OSI Certification Mark.  These licenses,  the Alternate
Route Open Source License (AROSL) and the Alternate Route Library Open
Source License (ARLOSL), are very similar to the GNU GPL and the GNU LGPL,
respectively.  The primary difference between these licenses is a broader
disclaimer of warranties and licensees indemnify the author from third party
tort claims.  We feel these license conform to the open source definition
and retain the spirit of the GPL and LGPL.

These licenses are to be posted to the license-discuss list.  
Just so my identity is up front where everyone can find it easily, I am:

Richard Brice, PE
Software Applications Engineer
Washington State Department of Transportation, Bridge and Structures Office
4500 3rd Ave SE - P.O. Box 47340
Olympia, WA 98503
Phone : 360-705-7174
Fax : 360-705-6814
E-mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Internet : http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/eesc/bridge  (the web site for the
Alternate Route project has not been created yet)

BACKGROUND
===
The Washington State Department of Transportation, Bridge and Structures
Office (WSDOT) is beginning an open source development effort to create
bridge engineering software tools. Mimicking the successful project oriented
model of the GNU Project, we are commissioning the "Alternate Route"
project.  The Alternate Route will serve as a focal point for the bridge
engineering community.  The software that is to be created in the Alternate
Route Project will be used to assist qualified structural engineers design
transportation structures that the traveling public will utilize.

As part of my efforts to convince the WSDOT management to license our
software as open source, I had a lawyer at the Washington State Attorney
General's Office review our current license and the GNU GPL/LGPL.  The AG's
Office is of the opinion that the GNU GPL/LGPL do not offer sufficient
protection against third party claims arising out of the use of the
software,  especially since the output from software will be used in the
design of transportation structures and issues of public safety come to
mind.  As such, GNU GPL-like and GNU LGPL-like license have been drafted.

Full text of the license follow.

AROSL

=
ALTERNATE ROUTE OPEN SOURCE LICENSE 
Copyright (c) 1999, Washington State Department of Transportation, Bridge
and Structures Office
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license
document, but changing it is not allowed.

This License is based upon the GNU General Public License. With this
License, the Bridge and Structures Office of the Washington State Department
of Transportation (WSDOT) is supporting   open source software concepts,
while including appropriate  warranty and liability provisions designed to
protect itself from any claims relating to  software program output.  The
following excerpt from the GNU General Public License affirms WSDOT's
commitment to open source software. 

The licenses for most software are designed to take away your freedom to
share and change it. By contrast, the GNU General Public License is intended
to guarantee your freedom to share and change free software--to make sure
the software is free for all its users.  This General Public License applies
to most of the Free Software Foundation's software and to any other program
whose authors commit to using it. (Some other Free Software Foundation
software is covered by the GNU Library General Public License instead.) You
can apply it to your programs, too. 

When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our
General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom
to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you
wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you
can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs; and that
you know you can do these things. 
To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid anyone to
deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights. These
restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you distribute
copies of the software, or if you modify it. 

For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or
for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have. You
must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you
must show them these terms so they know their rights. 
We protect your rights with two steps: (1) copyright the software, and (2)
offer you this license which gives you legal permission to copy, distribute
and/or modify the software. 

Also, for each author's protection and ours, we want to make certain that
everyone understands that there is no warranty for this free software. If
the software is modified by someone else and pa

OSI Certification Process is Broken?

[Brice, Richard]

I too must voice my concern about the OSI Certification Process. In
September of this year, I requested that two licenses be given OSI
Certification (Alternate Route Open Source License and Alternate Route
Library Open Source License). These licenses are very, very similar to the
GPL and LGPL. They differ in that they offer a broader disclaimer of
warranties and licensees indemnify the author from third party tort claims
(these licenses are applied to software that is used in the design and
analysis of highway bridge structures).

These licenses have been drafted by the Office of the Attorney General, of
the State of Washington. In the process of drafting these licenses, we
obtained permission from the Free Software Foundation to base our licenses
on the GPL and LGPL. 

Two members of this list were in agreement that the licenses I posted were
indeed Open Source. (See postings from Seth David Schoen on 9/7/1999 and
Bruce Perens on 9/18/1999).

After the Washington State Attorney General made a few minor revisions to
the license, in response to FSF requests, I reposted the request for OSI
certification on 10/1/1999 and 10/29/1999. Neither posting received any
discussion.

With that, I figured an OSI certification would soon follow. However, it
didn't

In my opinion, I've held up my end of the bargain, but the OSI has fallen a
little short. In response to the 5 steps for license approval,
1.  License has been posted to this list and I clearly identified myself
2.  License conforms with OSD.
3.  License has been on list since 9/7/1999 and all publicly stated
concerns have been resolved
4.  I don't know if OSI sought out any legal advice, by the authors of
the license certainly did
5.  The license still conforms with OSD and there does not seem to be
any outstanding issues. So, to quote the OSI approval instructions "we will
notify you that the license has been approved, copy it to our Web site, and
add it to the list below".

I've done all that was asked of me, but OSI has yet to do their part in step
5.

It seems to me that the OSI Certification process is in some way broken.

Richard Brice, PE
WSDOT Bridge and Structures Office