Re: [License-discuss] EU Commission Publication of EUPL v1.2
For those wanting UTF-8 coding, please find it attached Greetings, 2017-05-22 13:28 GMT+02:00 Philippe Ombredanne <pombreda...@nexb.com>: > On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 10:29 AM, Patrice-Emmanuel Schmitz > <pe.schm...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > The new version of the European Union Public Licence is published ! > > (OJ 19/05/2017 L128 p. 59–64 ) > > > > attached the .txt and some information. > > Greetings, > > FWIW, your attached text files are using a less common, non-ASCII > encoding e.g. ISO-8859-2 which is likely to trigger mojibake > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mojibake > It could be best to use UTF-8 instead? > > > -- > Cordially > Philippe Ombredanne > -- Patrice-Emmanuel Schmitz pe.schm...@googlemail.com tel. + 32 478 50 40 65 The new version of the European Union Public Licence (EUPL) is published in the 23 EU languages in the EU Official Journal: Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/863 of 18 May 2017 updating the open source software licence EUPL to further facilitate the sharing and reuse of software developed by public administrations (OJ 19/05/2017 L128 p. 59–64 ). What it changed in the new licence? • EUPL v1.2 has a wider coverage: it cover “the Work” (any copyrighted work) and not exclusively “the software”. Therefore it is easier to apply the EUPL v1.2 to data, documents, standard specifications etc. • EUPL v1.2 has a wider compatibility: the software itself (copies or modifications/improvements) will stay covered by the EUPL without possibilities of re-licensing by recipients, but it may also be merged in a new – other - larger work with other software components covered by compatible licences. When needed and for avoiding licence conflicts, this other derivative work can then be distributed under the compatible licence. The list of compatible licences includes both the GPLv2 and v3, the AGPL, MPL, EPL, LGPL and other licences. Regarding documents, compatibility includes the Creative Common licence CC BY SA. • EUPL v1.2 provides more flexibility concerning the additional agreements: any additional provision that is not in contradiction with the licence is valid, including the selection of a specific applicable law, of a specific arbitration court etc. • EUPL v1.2 has adapted its terminology to the evolution of European law and has now a Croatian working version Does it apply to projects already covered by EUPL v1.1? • In case a work is currently licensed “under the EUPL” or “under the EUPL v1.1 or later”, the new EUPL v1.2 applies. In case a work is licensed “under the EUPL v1.1” (sometimes adding “v1.1 only”) no automatic update is foreseen. The project owner is invited to check the opportunity of updating its notices. Since the list of compatible licences includes the MPL, the EPL, the LGPL and more other licences, is the “copyleft” of the EUPL v1.2 weaker than before? • The European law (in particular recitals 10 and 15 of Directive 2009/24/EC on the protection of computer programs) seems to invalidate the idea of “strong copyleft”: any portion of code that is strictly necessary for implementing interoperability can be reproduced without copyright infringement. This means that linking cannot be submitted to conditions or restricted by a so-called “strong copyleft licence”. As a consequence, linking two programs does not produce a single derivative of both (each program stay covered by its primary licence). Therefore the question is not relevant: the EUPL v1.2 is copyleft (or share-alike) for protecting the covered software only from exclusive appropriation, but it has no pretention for any “viral extension” to other software in case of linking. EUROPEAN UNION PUBLIC LICENCE v. 1.2 EUPL © the European Union 2007, 2016 This European Union Public Licence (the ‘EUPL’) applies to the Work (as defined below) which is provided under the terms of this Licence. Any use of the Work, other than as authorised under this Licence is prohibited (to the extent such use is covered by a right of the copyright holder of the Work). The Work is provided under the terms of this Licence when the Licensor (as defined below) has placed the following notice immediately following the copyright notice for the Work: Licensed under the EUPL or has expressed by any other means his willingness to license under the EUPL. 1.Definitions In this Licence, the following terms have the following meaning: — ‘The Licence’:this Licence. — ‘The Original Work’:the work or software distributed or communicated by the Licensor under this Licence, available as Source Code and also as Executable Code as the case may be. — ‘Derivative Works’:the works or software that could be created by the Licensee, based upon the Original Work or modifications thereof. This Licence does not define the extent of modification or dependence on the Original Work requ
[License-discuss] EU Commission Publication of EUPL v1.2
The new version of the European Union Public Licence is published ! (OJ 19/05/2017 L128 *p. 59–64* <http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/FR/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2017.128.01.0059.01.FRA=OJ:L:2017:128:TOC> ) attached the .txt and some information. Greetings, -- Patrice-Emmanuel Schmitz pe.schm...@googlemail.com tel. + 32 478 50 40 65 Understanding the EUPL v1.2 EUPL v1.2 published in the Official Journal The new version of the European Union Public Licence (EUPL) is published in the 23 EU languages in the EU Official Journal: Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/863 of 18 May 2017 updating the open source software licence EUPL to further facilitate the sharing and reuse of software developed by public administrations (OJ 19/05/2017 L128 p. 59–64 ). What it changed in the new licence? * EUPL v1.2 has a wider coverage: it cover “the Work” (any copyrighted work) and not exclusively “the software”. Therefore it is easier to apply the EUPL v1.2 to data, documents, standard specifications etc. * EUPL v1.2 has a wider compatibility: the software itself (copies or modifications/improvements) will stay covered by the EUPL without possibilities of re-licensing by recipients, but it may also be merged in a new – other - larger work with other software components covered by compatible licences. When needed and for avoiding licence conflicts, this other derivative work can then be distributed under the compatible licence. The list of compatible licences includes both the GPLv2 and v3, the AGPL, MPL, EPL, LGPL and other licences. Regarding documents, compatibility includes the Creative Common licence CC BY SA. * EUPL v1.2 provides more flexibility concerning the additional agreements: any additional provision that is not in contradiction with the licence is valid, including the selection of a specific applicable law, of a specific arbitration court etc. * EUPL v1.2 has adapted its terminology to the evolution of European law and has now a Croatian working version Does it apply to projects already covered by EUPL v1.1? * In case a work is currently licensed “under the EUPL” or “under the EUPL v1.1 or later”, the new EUPL v1.2 applies. In case a work is licensed “under the EUPL v1.1” (sometimes adding “v1.1 only”) no automatic update is foreseen. The project owner is invited to check the opportunity of updating its notices. Since the list of compatible licences includes the MPL, the EPL, the LGPL and more other licences, is the “copyleft” of the EUPL v1.2 weaker than before? * The European law (in particular recitals 10 and 15 of Directive 2009/24/EC on the protection of computer programs) seems to invalidate the idea of “strong copyleft”: any portion of code that is strictly necessary for implementing interoperability can be reproduced without copyright infringement. This means that linking cannot be submitted to conditions or restricted by a so-called “strong copyleft licence”. As a consequence, linking two programs does not produce a single derivative of both (each program stay covered by its primary licence). Therefore the question is not relevant: the EUPL v1.2 is copyleft (or share-alike) for protecting the covered software only from exclusive appropriation, but it has no pretention for any “viral extension” to other software in case of linking. EUROPEAN UNION PUBLIC LICENCE v. 1.2 EUPL © the European Union 2007, 2016 This European Union Public Licence (the ‘EUPL’) applies to the Work (as defined below) which is provided under the terms of this Licence. Any use of the Work, other than as authorised under this Licence is prohibited (to the extent such use is covered by a right of the copyright holder of the Work). The Work is provided under the terms of this Licence when the Licensor (as defined below) has placed the following notice immediately following the copyright notice for the Work: Licensed under the EUPL or has expressed by any other means his willingness to license under the EUPL. 1.Definitions In this Licence, the following terms have the following meaning: — ‘The Licence’:this Licence. — ‘The Original Work’:the work or software distributed or communicated by the Licensor under this Licence, available as Source Code and also as Executable Code as the case may be. — ‘Derivative Works’:the works or software that could be created by the Licensee, based upon the Original Work or modifications thereof. This Licence does not define the extent of modification or dependence on the Original Work required in order to classify a work as a Derivative Work; this extent is determined by copyright law applicable in the country mentioned in Article 15. — ‘The Work’:the Original Work or its Derivative Works. — ‘The Source Code’:the human-readable form of the Work which is the most convenient for people to study and modify. — ‘The Executable Code’:any code which has generally been compiled and which is
Re: [License-discuss] linking exception in OpenJDK
Josh, A lot of difficult questions indeed. The Directive is translated in 23 EU languages ( http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/FR/TXT/?uri=celex:32009L0024 ) and implemented in the various national laws. The first version (91/250/EEC) had to be implemented on 31/12/1992 latest. I am afraid that it could take a lot of time to trace all implementations in the various Member States, therefore I just assume that they have done it. In general, implementation is the reproduction of the articles of the Directive (in each relevant national language) into some articles of the national “Code for intellectual property”. For example in Belgium, you will find a reproduction of the French and Dutch version under Article XI.300 of the Code (last published version in the Belgian Official Journal 12.06.2014). Recital (15) of the Directive is part of it as “rationale”, not as “article”. Therefore this part is normally not implemented as such in national legislation. However in case of hypothetic litigation, chances are high that the Court of Justice of the European Union will be requested to clarify (by preliminary rulings), and in such case the rationale (15) will be visited by the Court. Case law related to the Directive and its implementation is extremely rare: it was said that Case 406/10 SAS vs WPL of May 2, 2012 (involving two proprietary software vendors) was a premiere, more than 20 years after the publication of the Directive). Based on the rationale (15) and on this case, it is a “reasonable opinion” as European lawyer that in case of litigation on linking, the Court – if requested by the national judge to provide some preliminary rulings, and after hearing the opinion of Advocate General - would declare that linking done through a “reproduction of the program code that is indispensable to achieve interoperability” is authorised as an exception to general copyright rules. Although representing the Commission as guardian of the Treaties in preliminary ruling cases (the Legal Service routinely intervenes as amicus curiae / friend of the court – similar to an expert witness giving a Court the benefit of his advice), it is uncertain that the Commission itself could ask for such preliminary rulings. This specific case is not foreseen by the Treaties. Commission may act as plaintiff or defendant. Therefore we have to wait for some hypothetical national litigation or some action against the Commission as software licensor. One could not exclude either that in case of linking between a GPL-covered program and a proprietary program, the Court may consider that distributing the linked work under a proprietary license would* “**prejudices the legitimate interests of the rightholder**” *because the protection of free software is a fundamental interest for the free software movement. But the same prejudice would not exist when linking two F/OSS programs (i.e. in case their F/OSS licenses have incompatible copyleft provisions)*.* *Best regards,* *P-E* 2015-12-01 23:12 GMT+01:00 Joshua Gay <j...@fsf.org>: > P-E, > > Thank you for sharing this legal information. I have a bunch of > questions and would appreciate help in understanding this further. > > Is section 15 part of the actual directive, or is it simply part of the > rationale that helps explain the intent behind the 12 articles that > follow? If the articles are the actual directive, might those be more > narrowly interpreted and more narrowly applicable than the general > rationale cited? And also, its hard for me to see which articles relate > to section 15 as it would apply to linking to a library. If I understand > this correctly, an EU directive was an agreement amongst member states > to uphold or create local laws. Do all EU member states have laws for > this particular directive, and if so, does the same rationale described > in paragraph 15 apply to all of those laws in each of the respective > member states? > > Sorry I know that is a lot of questions, but, I am genuinely trying to > make sense of how this EU directive works and how it applies to the > licenses my org publishes and provides educational materials on. > > Any and all help is appreciate. > > Thanks, > > Josh > -- > Joshua Gay > Licensing & Compliance Manager <http://www.fsf.org/licensing> > Free Software Foundation<https://donate.fsf.org> > GPG key ID: 8DA625BBWhat's a GPG key ID? > See our Email Self-Defense Guide: > <https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org> > ___ > License-discuss mailing list > License-discuss@opensource.org > https://lists.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 https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] linking exception in OpenJDK
As we periodically return to this famous discussion on "Linking requesting a specific license exception or a permission from the author", I just remind once again that - at least according to EU legislation, the "linking exception" is - under specific conditions - a rule that is not depending on any license (even the GPL). Directive 2009/24 EC - section (15) states: "the necessary information to achieve the interoperability of an independently created program with other programs can be reproduced by or on behalf of a person having a right to use a copy of the program. This is legitimate and compatible with fair practice and must therefore be deemed not to require the authorisation of the rightholder. The objective of this exception is to make it possible to connect all components of a computer system, including those of different manufacturers, so that they can work together. Such an exception to the author's exclusive rights may not be used in a way which prejudices the legitimate interests of the rightholder or which conflicts with a normal exploitation of the program." For more detail on this, see "Why viral licensing is a ghost" - published on Joinup - https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/community/eupl/news/why-viral-licensing-ghost Kind regards, P-E 2015-11-15 20:59 GMT+01:00 Thufir <hawat.thu...@gmail.com>: > Bradley said that all android applications would now have to be GPL were > Google to put Android under the GPL in the last few minutes of this podcast: > > 0x44: Oracle v. Google Federal Appeals Court Decision > 05/13/2014 07:33 AM > http://faif.us/feeds/cast-mp3/ > > > When I read the wikipedia articles about OpenJDK and IcedTea, they don't > mention this notion. > > A GPL linking exception modifies the GNU General Public License (GPL) in a > way that enables software projects which provide library code to be "linked > to" the programs that use them, without applying the full terms of the GPL > to the using program. Linking is the technical process of connecting code > in a library to the using code, to produce a single executable file. It is > performed either at compile time or run-time in order to produce functional > machine-readable code. There is a public perception, unsupported by any > legal precedent or citation, that without applying the linking exception, > code linked with GPL code may only be done[clarification needed] using a > GPL-compatible license.[1] The license of the GNU Classpath project > explicitly includes a statement to that effect. > > -Wikipedia > > Wikipedia says that On 13 November 2006, the HotSpot JVM and the JDK were > licensed[12] under the GPL version 2. This is the code that became part of > Java 7 (codename Dolphin[13]). I believe that IcedTea ultimately uses the > HotSpot JVM, which comes from OpenJDK. In any event, they all have this > linking exception in their license. > > > > > Two questions: > > 1.) There seems no technical problem in running proprietary binaries on > IcedTea and HotSpot in Ubuntu, which is what I use. Is there a legal > prohibition or problem in doing so? I think not, because of the linking > exception. > > 2.) Were, or had, Google forked OpenJDK and IcedTea, and kept the GPL, > would Bradley be correct in stating that all Android apps would then have > to be licensed under the GPL? I think not, there's a linking exception in > the license... > > > > thanks, > > Thufir > ___ > License-discuss mailing list > License-discuss@opensource.org > https://lists.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 https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Fwd: [Osi] [General enquiries] Open source licence for a medical application
Dear Eleftherios, Especially for the European licensors, the European Commission's www.Joinup.eu site has published a Licence Wizard https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/software/license-wizard/home that could help you for finding your way in the licensing jungle. Best, P-E. 2014-10-20 20:06 GMT+02:00 Patrick Masson mas...@opensource.org: Eleftherios, I have forwarded on your request on to two other email lists dedicated specifically to licensing who might be able to provide some suggestions. Best of luck, Patrick Forwarded Message Subject: [Osi] [General enquiries] Open source licence for a medical application Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 16:12:44 + (UTC) From: eko...@hotmail.com To: o...@opensource.org Eleftherios Kondylis (eko...@hotmail.com) sent a message using the contact form at http://opensource.org/contact. Hello, I would like to ask, what should I do in order to make get an open source licence for a medical invention and particularly for an application in Orthodontics? What kind of licence should I choose, and what are the steps I have to do in order to achieve that? Thanx a lot for your time. Report as inappropriate:http://opensource.org/mollom/report/mollom_content/1409231b2898080f6e ___ Osi mailing listOsi@opensource.orghttp://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/osi ___ 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] You need to pay to access AGPL3 scripts?
Free / open source software like freedom, not like free beer :-) No FOSS license prohibits making some money out of all the work done... P-E 2014-06-10 7:51 GMT+02:00 ChanMaxthon xcvi...@me.com: I believe it is perfectly fine. RMS himself even *encourage* that. Sent from my iPhone On Jun 10, 2014, at 13:11, ldr ldr stackoverflowuse...@gmail.com wrote: Here is an excerpt from the response I received: Yes, FullContentRSS is an AGPL3 script, you can use and/or modify the script as you want. However you can get the script for $20. Is that congruent with the AGPL3 license? ___ 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 -- 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] Listing of licensing-related tools
Hi Luis, May I suggest to consider the Licence Wizard in Joinup? https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/software/license-wizard/home The EUPL compatibility matrix could be useful too for other licensed software: https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/software/page/eupl/eupl-compatible-open-source-licences P-E 2013/11/5 Luis Villa l...@lu.is http://wiki.opensource.org/listing_of_licensing_tools Hey, all- I created the above listing of licensing-related tools as a place to stick tools that are useful for creating, manipulating, and analyzing licensing-related information (primarily in-file headers). It's a little brief, but I know there is more out there :) Please send suggestions for additions to me, or better yet, email Karl and get a wiki account to add it yourself :) FYI- Luis ___ 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] Newbie post: Localisable open source software license
Hi Luis, I believe that you are right when categorizing the EUPL linguistic versions as mere translation, even if the design of the license is in fact compatible with porting (i.e. stating that the applicable law and the competent court are those of the state of the licensor). Some non-EU organisations (i.e. the state of Quebec in Canada) have planned a real porting of the EUPL (taking advantage of the 2011/833/EU decision and reusing the draft v 1.2 in French in that case). They adapted the license to local law, changed the name of institutions and named it LPAQ (Licence Publique de l'Administration Québécoise). However, the scope of the rights and the provisions related to interoperability were not modified at all, which neutralize the impact of license proliferation by making distributions compatible with other well known copyleft licenses. P-E. 2013/10/21 Luis Villa l...@lu.is On Oct 21, 2013 8:51 AM, Patrice-Emmanuel Schmitz pe.schm...@googlemail.com wrote: Dear all, The most localisable experience so far regarding open source software licences is the EUPL, which has currently a working value (and is OSI-approved) in 22 languages. However it is not a BSD-style licence, but a copyleft licence with an interoperability clause: https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/software/page/eupl/licence-eupl As a document published by the European Commission, the EUPL can be reused as a template by other countries or organisations, according to article 4 and 6 of the COMMISSION DECISION of 12 December 2011 on the reuse of Commission documents (2011/833/EU) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2011:330:0039:0042:EN:PDF In case it could be of some use for you... Hi, P-E: As a point of clarification: a legal document that is changed from one language or jurisdiction to another can undergo two types of changes: 1. mere translation: the document is originally written to be valid across many/most jurisdictions, and the translation therefore attempts to simply translate to the greatest extent possible; i.e., no *deliberate* change in meaning is attempted by the translators. 2. porting: the translators not only translate the language, but, as necessary, add, remove, or alter parts of the license in order to make it more legally correct (e.g., changing it from a license to a contract, or adding references to rights that did not exist in the original author's jurisdiction). My understanding is that EUPL's translations are in the first category (mere translation), since they can rely on cross-EU standardization of legal regimes. Is that correct? Luis 2013/10/21 ChanMaxthon xcvi...@me.com Those CC licenses are indeed interchangeable l10ns, if it have the same properties. They also have special clause in the licenses to permit interchanging l10ns of the license in the actual legal code. Example: CC-by 3.0 China (in Simplified Chinese, on top of Chinese laws) versus CC-by 3.0 United States (in English, on top of US laws) versus CC-by 3.0 Unported (in English, on top of UN-administered international treaties) What I am trying here is to add similar clauses into open source licenses for software, making it similarly localizable. I will also include a single-direction relicensing clause converting the localizable variant to its base license. My current project is an l10n-3BSDL, will also have l10n-2BSDL (converts down to both 2-clause BSDL and MIT), l10n-Apache2, l10n-LGPL3 and l10n-GPL3 forks. Sent from my iPhone On 2013年10月21日, at 21:29, David Woolley for...@david-woolley.me.uk wrote: On 21/10/13 07:39, Maxthon Chan wrote: There is a project, Creative Commons, that focuses on providing free license for art, music and works alike. They tackled the localisation issue well, by providing localised licenses that is interchangeable with No they don't. All the licences seem to be in English. What is localised is the lay person's summary of the licence. E.g., the Chinese summary of CC-BY-SA, is http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.zh, but the first link on that page (法律文本（许可协议全文）), http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode, points to the English language text of the actual licence. each other, even in the copyleft variants.However Creative Commons does not work well with software. I can CC license my documentations but not the software itself. I would like to know your opinions on a localisable open source license. In general, a translation of a licence is a different licence, because one cannot exactly translate from one language to another. In fact, one could probably argue that choice of law needs to be specified, as well. Although Creative Commons have chosen to create the lay versions of the licence, I suspect many open source drafters would not want to do so, because users might believe that the summary is the licence
Re: [License-discuss] Newbie post: Localisable open source software license
Dear all, The most localisable experience so far regarding open source software licences is the EUPL, which has currently a working value (and is OSI-approved) in 22 languages. However it is not a BSD-style licence, but a copyleft licence with an interoperability clause: https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/software/page/eupl/licence-eupl As a document published by the European Commission, the EUPL can be reused as a template by other countries or organisations, according to article 4 and 6 of the COMMISSION DECISION of 12 December 2011 on the reuse of Commission documents (2011/833/EU) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2011:330:0039:0042:EN:PDF In case it could be of some use for you... Best, P-E 2013/10/21 ChanMaxthon xcvi...@me.com Those CC licenses are indeed interchangeable l10ns, if it have the same properties. They also have special clause in the licenses to permit interchanging l10ns of the license in the actual legal code. Example: CC-by 3.0 China (in Simplified Chinese, on top of Chinese laws) versus CC-by 3.0 United States (in English, on top of US laws) versus CC-by 3.0 Unported (in English, on top of UN-administered international treaties) What I am trying here is to add similar clauses into open source licenses for software, making it similarly localizable. I will also include a single-direction relicensing clause converting the localizable variant to its base license. My current project is an l10n-3BSDL, will also have l10n-2BSDL (converts down to both 2-clause BSDL and MIT), l10n-Apache2, l10n-LGPL3 and l10n-GPL3 forks. Sent from my iPhone On 2013年10月21日, at 21:29, David Woolley for...@david-woolley.me.uk wrote: On 21/10/13 07:39, Maxthon Chan wrote: There is a project, Creative Commons, that focuses on providing free license for art, music and works alike. They tackled the localisation issue well, by providing localised licenses that is interchangeable with No they don't. All the licences seem to be in English. What is localised is the lay person's summary of the licence. E.g., the Chinese summary of CC-BY-SA, is http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.zh, but the first link on that page (法律文本（许可协议全文）), http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode, points to the English language text of the actual licence. each other, even in the copyleft variants.However Creative Commons does not work well with software. I can CC license my documentations but not the software itself. I would like to know your opinions on a localisable open source license. In general, a translation of a licence is a different licence, because one cannot exactly translate from one language to another. In fact, one could probably argue that choice of law needs to be specified, as well. Although Creative Commons have chosen to create the lay versions of the licence, I suspect many open source drafters would not want to do so, because users might believe that the summary is the licence. ___ 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 -- 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] Open source license and non disclosure agreement
At Joinup.eu, we had the question once regarding the use of the EUPL (or the use of the CeCILL licence). The answer is that you can enforce confidentiality (e.g. a NDA during the development of the project, during an initial period) through a signed contributor agreement (e.g. based on the Harmony.org framework) assigning the distribution rights to a leading organisation and allowing this organisation to distribute the software under license X. However if this distribution licence X is OSD compliant (GPL, LGPL or any other), you cannot try to restrict redistribution (or try to practice a kind of follow-up with your word to say). Once distribution will be validly done under this licence, no NDA can be enforced. P-E 2013/10/3 Quentin Lefebvre quentin.lefeb...@inria.fr Hi, Currently working on an open source project, we are looking for an appropriate license for it. We would like something that allows us to work with people in a way such that : - we can be informed of modifications of our program by developers, - we can have our word to say about redistribution of modified code (i.e. we would like to be able to explicitly authorize people to share the modified code). There is something in the GNU (L)GPL in article 2 that looks like what we want, but this 2nd article is not so obvious and seems in contradiction with others. Here is what is said : You may convey covered works to others *for the sole purpose of having them make modifications exclusively for you*, or provide you with facilities for running those works, provided that you comply with the terms of this License in conveying all material for which you do not control copyright. Those thus making or running the covered works for you must do so exclusively on your behalf, under your direction and control, *on terms that prohibit them from making any copies of your copyrighted material outside their relationship with you*. But in GNU GPL's FAQ, here is what we found : http://www.gnu.org/licenses/**gpl-faq.en.html#**DoesTheGPLAllowNDAhttp://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#DoesTheGPLAllowNDA, http://www.gnu.org/licenses/**gpl-faq.en.html#**DoesTheGPLAllowModNDAhttp://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#DoesTheGPLAllowModNDA, http://www.gnu.org/licenses/**gpl-faq.en.html#**DevelopChangesUnderNDAhttp://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#DevelopChangesUnderNDA. I'd be very pleased to have more information and explanations about this kind of non disclosure agreement. How is it possible exactly under the GPL or LGPL terms ? Should we maybe choose another license for our purpose ? Are our goals in total contradiction with open source software ? Thanks in advance for any suggestion. Best regards, Quentin Lefebvre INRIA Secure and Mobile Information Systems project __**_ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.**org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/** license-discusshttp://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] Red Hat compilation copyright RHEL contract
Nick Yeates wrote:I too am curious what this compilation licenseing is and what its benefits are. Mr Kuhn asked, and Larry responded saying basically 'its not so odd - I use it often' and Larry did not state *why* he advises use of this licensing strategy from a business, social or other standpoint. 1) Why? 2) What is the standard way of doing this? Frequent cases are submitted when developers (in particular European administrations and Member states) have build applications from multiple components, plus adding their own code, and want to use a single license for distributing the whole compilation. In many cases their policy is to use the European Union Public Licence (EUPL) for administrative or linguistic reasons (using a license with working value in multiple languages). Therefore I published a matrix on Joinup ( https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/software/page/eupl/eupl-compatible-open-source-licences ). (the matrix should be updated due to new license versions, i.e. the recent OSI-approved CeCILL 2.1 which is now fully EUPL and GPL compatible) 2013/9/10 Nick Yeates nyeat...@umbc.edu From http://www.redhat.com/f/pdf/corp/RH-3573_284204_TM_Gd.pdf At the same time, the combined body of work that constitutes Red Hat® Enterprise Linux® is a collective work which has been organized by Red Hat, and Red Hat holds the copyright in that collective work. Bradley Kuhn wrote at 15:46 on Monday: … It's admittedly a strange behavior, and I've been asking Red Hat Legal for many years now to explain better why they're doing this and what they believe it's accomplishing. Larry Rosen wrote at 23:28 on Thursday: I often recommend that licensing method to those of my clients who combine various FOSS works into a single software package. It isn't odd at all. Even if GPL applies to one or more of those internal components, there is no need to license the entire collective work under the GPL. We've even distributed GPL software as part of collective works under the OSL. I too am curious what this compilation licenseing is and what its benefits are. Mr Kuhn asked, and Larry responded saying basically 'its not so odd - I use it often' and Larry did not state *why* he advises use of this licensing strategy from a business, social or other standpoint. 1) Why larry? 2) What is the standard way of doing this? How do most other org's license many works together? Full disclosure: I work for Red Hat, though am writing this from my personal account and perspective. I am a beginner on my knowledge into OSS license details, so please realize that I am attempting to learn. I could go and ask around in my company about this, yet I would rather engage with the community on this for now. -Nick Yeates ___ 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
cause these sorts of unsolicited emails from Larry. -- 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] Red Hat compilation copyright RHEL contract
This is indeed depending on the case: people (developers) always declare (often after the work has been done, and not before as it should be) that they used products X,Y, Z. But what do they mean by use? Aggregating? Linking? Copying only some APIs or data formats in order to ensure that software is interoperable? Or really merging their code with the existing one? Depending on the case, solution will differ, but the need for simplifying (or just making legally possible) distribution is there. Cases are indeed multiple, and these developers want to license under FOSS conditions (not proprietary). Incompatibilities between copyleft FOSS licences (including between GPLv2 only and GPLv3 only) produce a lot of FUD in such cases... Patrice-Emmanuel Schmitz On 11 sept. 2013, at 16:00, Bradley M. Kuhn bk...@ebb.org wrote: Patrice-Emmanuel Schmitz wrote at 04:31 (EDT): Frequent cases are submitted when developers (in particular European administrations and Member states) have build applications from multiple components, plus adding their own code, and want to use a single license for distributing the whole compilation. While the description you give there is a bit too vague to analyze against the USA copyright statue (i.e., the example lacks any real world facts), I'd suspect that the default case of that situation, at least in the USA, is the creation of a new single work that derives from those components, plus their own code. The compilation copyright situation, at least in the USA, comes up more with putting a bunch of unrelated works on the same medium, like a CD ISO image. Making a single work of software that includes many components is very different from mere compilation. -- -- 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] 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] Open source license chooser choosealicense.com launched.
This guide ignores a FAQ or category (at least in non English-speaking countries where local administrations have an obligation to refer to legal instruments with a working value in their local language). The license must have the same working value in English, Bulgarian, Croatian, Czech, Danish, Dutch, Estonian, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Hungarian, Irish, Italian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Maltese, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, Slovak, Slovene, Spanish, Swedish... I know Chinese is still missing... P-E. 2013/7/15 Karl Fogel kfo...@red-bean.com Some of you may have seen this already -- from Ben Balter (of GitHub): http://choosealicense.com/ We may want to consider linking to it from OSI's FAQ, but it would be great to get people's opinions first. Ben's announcement is below: From: Ben Balter ben.bal...@github.com Subject: Choosing an open source license doesn't need to be scary -- choosealicense.com To: mil-oss [probably among other places] Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 10:45:48 -0700 (PDT) Launched a small resource today, choosealicense.com to help software developers make the decision of which license to use when releasing software. The site itself is open source and I'd love any feedback / pull requests you may have. To make the process even easier, there's also now a license picker when creating a new repository on GitHub.com which will automatically add the license to the project. * The Site: http://choosealicense.com * The Source: https://github.com/github/choosealicense.com * Full Background: https://github.com/blog/1530-choosing-an-open-source-license Cheers and open source, - Ben ___ 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
