Re: [License-discuss] revising/updating the license categorization [was Re: proposal to revise and slightly reorganize the OSI licensing pages]
On 04/06/12 20:32, Lawrence Rosen wrote: Luis Villa asked: I've been on the list for almost exactly five years (at least under this email address) and my archives don't appear to have any such drafts or discussions from you. I'd be happy for pointers to them, though. The OSI mailing list archives online go back to 2011. :-( They are of no help. Has our past disappeared entirely? gmane seems to have archives going back to 2002. http://dir.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.open-source.general (which to me is quite difficult to navigate, but at least the past has not disappeared entirely :) -- kuno / warp. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] License Stewards
Hello, On 10/05/2012 01:04 AM, Rick Moen wrote: Quoting Grahame Grieve (grah...@healthintersections.com.au): well, ok, but on what grounds would copyright not apply? I believe Larry was asserting his view that a software licence consists solely of functional elements, and no expressive (artistic) elements (or not enough that a judge would recognise copyright eligibility). Even if this is true, someone aiming to re-use the license text for a new license may not want to rely on it [1]. It seems better for the license steward to either explicitly state that they regard the license text as functional and not copyrightable or to just license the license text appropriately. -- kuno / warp. ps. [1] Especially when considered in an international context, I expect a dutch court to regard a license text such as Apache v2 or GPLv2 to be copyrightable, but IANAL. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] License Stewards
Hello, On 10/05/2012 08:27 AM, Rick Moen wrote: Quoting Kuno Woudt (k...@frob.nl): Even if this is true, someone aiming to re-use the license text for a new license may not want to rely on it. I have my doubts about licences lacking expressive elements as that concept is defined in copyright law, FWIW. I certainly expect there to be a set of licenses which do not have enough expressive elements. But my impression is that the bar is very low here in the Netherlands, you only need a bare minimum of creative expression in a work to qualify for copyright protection [2]. It seems better for the license steward to either explicitly state that they regard the license text as functional and not copyrightable or to just license the license text appropriately. Er, the licence steward's opinion on that substantive legal question (such as it is) strikes me as lacking relevance. Either the licence as a work is copyrightable in accordance with its own separate nature, or it isn't. The judge isn't going to ask the licence steward what he/she thinks, but instead will analyse the work. Over here, things are not that clear cut. Under dutch law a judge will not look at just the literal text of a contract, but also the intent of the text as it was understood by the parties at the time, and what the parties could reasonably expect from each other (The so-called Haviltex formula [1]). I expect this would apply to copyright licenses as well (though I could very well be wrong, I am still not a lawyer). Considering this in an international context, it still seems better to explicitly license the license text. Is there any harm in doing so? -- kuno / warp. [1] https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haviltex [2] https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Dale/Romme-arrest (sorry, links are in dutch. I haven't found good english descriptions of either of these cases). ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] proposal for revising (and making relevant) the code of conduct
Hello, On 01/03/2013 05:04 AM, Luis Villa wrote: If you have concerns about someone’s conduct, you can speak to them directly, you can speak directly to the list moderators, or you can discuss the conduct on the list. For those who feel the need to "speak directly to the list moderators" it is perhaps useful to make that into a link which when followed informs them who the list moderators are and how to contact them. -- kuno / warp. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] List moderation and CoC enforcement [was Re: proposal for revising (and making relevant) the code of conduct]
Hello, On 01/06/2013 04:23 AM, John Cowan wrote: * *Direct contact*: it is always appropriate to email a list member, mention that you think their behavior was out of line, and (if necessary) point them to this document. * *On-list*: discussing conduct on-list, either as part of another message or as a standalone thread, is always acceptable. Note, though, that approaching the person directly can be better, as it tends to make them less defensive, and it respects the time of other list members, so you probably want to try direct contact first. * *Moderators*: You can reach the moderators (Luis Villa and Karl Fogel) through the addresses they use for on-list communication, or through [link]. I would like the "direct contact" option placed third and last, where hopefully most people will not even reach it. I think the order is fine as it is. (and hopefully most people will never need any of these options :) -- kuno / warp. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Text version issue on licenses pages
Hello, On 03/20/2013 06:03 PM, Karl Fogel wrote: Luis Villa writes: * Luis Villa [2013-03-17 10:58]: I agree that these should be served as plain text without the CMS header/footer/etc., but don't (offhand) see a way of doing this in the CMS. Any lurking Drupal masters want to show me how it can be done? I don't believe it can be done by creating a page in Drupal; instead, I suggest you attach the plain text version to the page of the license, and then you can link to the attachment (which will be a plain text file). That works. It'd probably be fine to just use an HTML page with a "" tag? People can easily copy-and-paste from that. I much prefer real plain text files served as text/plain. Those are the files typically included in new open source projects and a wget or curl is just a easier and faster than fumbling with copy/paste to add a license to a project (though the fumbling may just mean I'm old-fashioned). -- warp / kuno. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Is Web application including GPL libraries covered under GPL?
On 12-05-13 08:08, MURAKAMI, Keiko wrote: Hi everyone, We've been developing an application on Eclipse Framework with libararies covered under LGPL, GPL and Apache licenses. These libraries are jxl.jar(LGPL), servlet-api.jar(GPL v2) and stepcounter(Apache) and so on. When we deliver our application just as Web application, by using but not distributing the libraries, should we distribute it under GPL? Should we be ready to show the complete source code to any user? The application is not static linked. Depending on who you ask, linking to servlet-api.jar means you need to license your web application under the GPL. If you run this web application on your own servers and users connect to it, you would not be obligated to give those users the source code, because you are not distributing the web application to them -- you are merely providing a service. If your application makes use of non-trivial chunks of javascript, then be aware that you are distributing that code to your users. If that javascript is tightly interwoven with the rest of your web application so as to form a single creative work, I would argue that you ARE distributing parts of your web application to your users and should therefore comply with the conditions of the GPL -- and make the full source code available to those users. I am not a lawyer. I am also not aware of any cases which would provide some guidance on when client-side and server-side code are sufficiently entangled to be considered a single creative work. -- warp. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Screenshots of Open Source SW
Hello,
On 03/17/2014 06:24 PM, Gervase Markham wrote:
On 16/03/14 13:31, Sebastian Hoffmann wrote:
I think, Wikipedia for instance treats screenshots in the meaning of
"derived work", which is sometimes covered by OS licenses.
As a result the screenshot has a remark (when you click on it), that it
has the same license as the originating OS program.
Absent fair use, I would say that a screenshot of e.g. the Firefox
window is a derivative work of the graphics (e.g. button icons) which
are shotted, and so carries their license.
Few countries could cover this by "fair use", but a lot of countries do
not know "fair use" in their legal system.
Are there really countries with no concept of this at all?
Yes, Berne only requires signatories to implement citation rights.
The Dutch implementation ("citaatrecht") has the following requirements
for a citation:
- You are only allowed to use a citation for a particular purpose
(a particular purpose according to Dutch copyright law are things
like an announcement, a review, polemic?, or a scientific treatise)
- You cannot include more than what is necessary for the citation
- You have to give attribution
You're also limited in what changes you can make to the citation,
because it needs to be faithful to the original.
So, using a screenshot (assuming the screenshot is copyrightable) in any
kind of fiction (written story, video game, etc..) would not be allowed
because fiction is definitely not a scientific treatise nor a review, etc..
I think most commonwealth countries have Fair Dealing. I always assumed
fair dealing is broader than citation rights, but it seems even fair
dealing often has requirements for a particular purpose and such.
(I know nothing about Fair Dealing :)
-- Kuno.
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] [Osi] [General enquiries] Dual License for CC0
Hello, On 04/01/2014 10:44 PM, Wilson, Andrew wrote: In a legal system where PD is not recognized, e.g. Europe, then the effective portion of CC0 is presumably not the PD declaration but the permissive license. As other posters have noted, that permissive license is not perceptibly different in effect from MIT. MIT is OSI approved, CC0 is not. Which in itself may be important to some users. For example all projects hosted on code.google.com are required by Google to use an OSI approved license. -- Kuno. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Can OSI take stance that U.S. public domain is open source?
Hello Karl, On 02-05-14 14:55, Karl Fogel wrote: This thread on GitHub gets (needlessly?) complicated. It's about a public-domain software work put out by the U.S. government, and there's no clarity on whether calling it "open source" and citing the OSI's definition of the term would be appropriate: https://github.com/ngageoint/geoevents/issues/2#issuecomment-41739913 Someone cites our FAQ item on it (which, as its primary author, I found tickled my vanity :-) ), but really, I wish they didn't have to cite the OSI FAQ and could instead just say "yup, public domain is open source". The things we don't like about public domain (lack of explicit liability limitation, different definitions in different jurisdictions) are not in themselves counter to the OSD, after all. Thoughts? Should OSI look for a route to say that public domain works (like ones put out by the U.S. government) are open source too, or is it just too problematic? My understanding is that works by the U.S. government are not entitled to domestic copyright protection under U.S. law. The U.S. government asserts that it can still hold the copyright to those works in other countries. So, that particular example seems problematic. -- Kuno. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] You need to pay to access AGPL3 scripts?
Hi, On 10-06-14 16:10, David Woolley wrote: On 10/06/14 06:51, ChanMaxthon wrote: I believe it is perfectly fine. RMS himself even *encourage* that. I think people are missing the point here. Assuming the requestor has used the service, this is a clear violation of clause 13 of the AGPL, and, if allowed would make the AGPL effectively indistinguishable from the GPL, as you could select a fee that was so large that it was unrealistic to exercise the additional rights you gain from the AGPL. Where you have the option to make an arbitrary charge is for supply of the software when you never obtained a copy of the software in any form from them and never used the service based on that software. If the site is AGPL compliant, there is no need for someone who is using the service to request anyone to supply the software, as there will be a link providing a free download. I assume FullContentRSS has the copyright on their own software, and can license it as they want. Including selling it to you under AGPLv3, while not offering a download themselves for their users. -- Kuno. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
