Re: [License-discuss] notes on a systematic approach to "popular" licenses

[Smith, McCoy]

I don’t think that works as a wizard, and the analysis of licenses on that site 
is pretty high level (i.e., I’m not sure it would tell you, say, the 
differences between the multiple “weak copyleft” licenses on the OSI list so 
that one could decide which one might be best for one’s particular project – 
which is what I think Larry was suggesting might be helpful).

From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf 
Of Christopher Sean Morrison
Sent: Friday, April 07, 2017 11:32 AM
To: license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] notes on a systematic approach to "popular" 
licenses


On Apr 7, 2017, at 2:14 PM, Smith, McCoy 
mailto:mccoy.sm...@intel.com>> wrote:

But I think that at some point it would be helpful for there to be a resource 
for people to sift through all the licenses on the list to understand what they 
do and don’t do.

Isn’t that exactly what https://tldrlegal.com does?  They even have the 
OSI-approved ones marked and sorted by popularity (as determined by eyeballs on 
their site):  https://tldrlegal.com/licenses/tags/OSI-Approved

Cheers!
Sean

___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] notes on a systematic approach to "popular" licenses

[Smith, McCoy]

What Larry is describing is similar to a project that at one point was being 
put together in part by Professor Urban back when she was at USC law:  A 
licensing wizard for use in selecting an open source license from the existing 
OSI list.  That project is described in the licensing proliferation committee 
report that came out about 10 years ago:  
https://opensource.org/proliferation-report

I thought that at some point this project was launched, but it may not have 
ever been.  There may have been some concerns at the time (as they likely would 
be if revived or redone) of to what extent such a tool might be providing legal 
advice.

But I think that at some point it would be helpful for there to be a resource 
for people to sift through all the licenses on the list to understand what they 
do and don’t do.




From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf 
Of Lawrence Rosen
Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2017 9:40 AM
To: license-discuss@opensource.org
Cc: Lawrence Rosen 
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] notes on a systematic approach to "popular" 
licenses

Richard Fontana wrote:
> Interesting but at first glance the data seems too unreliable to be of any 
> use. I started checking the identified projects under the so-called Clear BSD 
> license (the FSF-free, never-OSI-submitted BSD variant that explicitly 
> excludes patent licenses) and the ones I looked at were all spurious matches.

Luis is noting that the current OSI list of "popular" licenses is unreliable 
also. Let's not do nothing about it.
Popularity is important only for social media starlets.

More important for us would be a list that describes the fundamental areas 
where each license differs from the others. Give licensors a reason to select a 
license, and give licensees a reason to understand its risks and benefits. 
Don't limit those descriptions to 2 sentences or to arbitrary classifications. 
Stating explicitly in this OSD list that certain licenses are "popular" on 
Black Duck or other lists may be helpful but not determinative.

Yes, that license list is now long. If that length problem is the sole reason 
that you list certain licenses first in a shorter "recommended" list, do so 
explicitly but with appropriate caveats not to trust those recommendations.

The alternative to that kind of limited but precise legal analysis is that new 
proposed licenses will be rejected or discussed to death simply because they 
aren't popular. They should only be rejected if (1) they don't contain anything 
legally new (non-proliferation), or (2) they don't satisfy the OSD (not open 
source).

/Larry


From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf 
Of Richard Fontana
Sent: Thursday, April 6, 2017 8:51 AM
To: license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] notes on a systematic approach to "popular" 
licenses

Interesting but at first glance the data seems too unreliable to be of any use. 
I started checking the identified projects under the so-called Clear BSD 
license (the FSF-free, never-OSI-submitted BSD variant that explicitly excludes 
patent licenses) and the ones I looked at were all spurious matches.

Richard



On Thu, Apr 6, 2017, at 11:21 AM, Luis Villa wrote:
Yet another (inevitably flawed) data set:
https://libraries.io/licenses

On Tue, Jan 10, 2017, 11:07 AM Luis Villa mailto:l...@lu.is>> wrote:
[Apparently I got unsubscribed at some point, so if you've sent an email here 
in recent months seeking my feedback, please resend.]

Hey, all-
I promised some board members a summary of my investigation in '12-'13 into 
updating, supplementing, or replacing the "popular licenses" list. Here goes.

tl;dr
I think OSI should have an data-driven short license list with a replicable and 
transparent methodology, supplemented by a new-and-good(?) list that captures 
licenses that aren't yet popular but are high quality and have some substantial 
improvement that advances the goals of OSI.

Purposes of non-comprehensive lists
If you Google "open source licenses", OSI pages are the top two hits. 
Historically, those pages were not very helpful unless you already knew 
something about open source. Having a shorter "top" list can help make the OSI 
website more useful to newcomers by suggesting a starting place for their 
exploration and education about open source.

In addition, third parties often look to OSI as a trusted (neutral?) source for 
"top" or "best" licenses that they can incorporate into products. (The full 
OSI-approved list is not practical for many applications.) For example, if OSI 
had an up-to-date short list, it might have been the basis for GitHub's license 
chooser.

A list that is purely based on popularity would freeze open source in a 
particular time, likely making it hard for new licenses with important 
innovations to get adoption. However, a list based on more subjective criteria 
is hard to create and up

Re: [License-discuss] Possible alternative was: Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1

[Smith, McCoy]

FWIW, I have authored what I call a "plug-in" license intended to allow an 
add-in patent license to licenses like CC0 that lack one (or disclaim them).  
It's a bit of a WIP, and isn't OSI approved (nor would it likely ever be as 
it's not an independent license).  I presented it to the CC folks at their 
annual gathering in Seoul in late 2015:  
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0HBOY8b2doESnl2d0M1clJ5bG8/view as well as 
other venues (FSF-E).
The proposal was mainly directed to the licensing of "open hardware" but it is 
adaptable so that it could provide a supplement patent grant for software, when 
such software does not come with, or disclaims, a patent license.
That may or may not be useful here, as you're getting somewhat complex in your 
licensing regime (CC0+Plug-In+OSI approved licensing).

-Original Message-
From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf 
Of Gervase Markham
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 9:17 AM
To: license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Possible alternative was: Re: U.S. Army Research 
Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1

On 28/02/17 17:09, Smith, McCoy wrote:
> You should consider the fact that CC0 has an express disclaimer of 
> patent licenses (in Section 4.a).  That may mean that it doesn't 
> address one of the concerns that I think you had (i.e., that there 
> might be USG patents covering the non-US copyrightable USG work 
> distributed by the USG).
> 
> The CC licenses are also not on the OSI list (although there has been 
> some discussion in the past of whether they should be added, IIRC).

Any objections to CC-0 also seemed to be patent-related; if the scheme had a 
patent grant accompanying the CC-0 license, that might solve both of these 
issues in one go and lead to something very, very good.

Gerv

___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] Possible alternative was: Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1

[Smith, McCoy]

You should consider the fact that CC0 has an express disclaimer of patent 
licenses (in Section 4.a).  That may mean that it doesn't address one of the 
concerns that I think you had (i.e., that there might be USG patents covering 
the non-US copyrightable USG work distributed by the USG).

The CC licenses are also not on the OSI list (although there has been some 
discussion in the past of whether they should be added, IIRC).

-Original Message-
From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf 
Of Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 8:23 AM
To: license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: [License-discuss] Possible alternative was: Re: U.S. Army Research 
Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1

All, the folks at code.mil came up with what may be a really, really good idea; 
see 
https://github.com/deptofdefense/code.mil/blob/master/Proposal/CONTRIBUTING.md.

The basic idea is simple; when the Government releases code, it's in the public 
domain (likely CC0).  The project owners select an OSI-approved license, and 
will only accept contributions to the project under their chosen license[1].  
Over time the code base becomes a mixture, some of which is under CC0, and some 
of which is under the OSI-approved license.  I've talked with ARL's lawyers, 
and they are satisfied with this solution.  Would OSI be happy with this 
solution?  That is, would OSI recognize the projects as being truly Open 
Source, right from the start?  The caveat is that some projects will be 100% 
CC0 at the start, and can only use the chosen Open Source license on those 
contributions that have copyright attached.  Note that Government projects that 
wish to make this claim would have to choose their license and announce it on 
the project site so that everyone knows what they are licensing their 
contributions under, which is the way that OSI can validate that the project is 
keeping its end of the bargain at the start.

If this will satisfy OSI, then I will gladly withdraw the ARL OSL from 
consideration.  If there are NASA or other Government folks on here, would this 
solution satisfy your needs as well?

Thanks,
Cem Karan

[1] There is also a form certifying that the contributor has the right to do 
so, etc.  The Army Research Laboratory's is at 
https://github.com/USArmyResearchLab/ARL-Open-Source-Guidance-and-Instructions/blob/master/ARL%20Form%20-%20266.pdf,
and is, unfortunately, only able to be opened in Adobe Acrobat.  We're working 
to fix that, but there are other requirements that will take some time.
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1

[Smith, McCoy]

For what it’s worth (I think it is generally pretty relevant), the DoD 
published a draft “Agreement” that is intended to address the issue of there 
being no US copyright in works authored by the US Government:

https://github.com/deptofdefense/code.mil/blob/master/Proposal/LICENSE-agreement.md#draft-defense-open-source-agreement

I find that Agreement somewhat strange in that it says it is an Agreement (and 
a license) and then refers back to an associated open source license appended 
to the software, but it seems to me that what they are trying to get at is 
essentially converting the appended open source license into a contract to the 
extent that there is non-copyrighted material distributed by the DoD, such that 
all the provisions of the open source license would apply to that material but 
not via license but instead via contract.

I would think that it might be worth synching up the folks who are writing the 
ARL OSL with the folks promulgating the draft DoD open source agreement, as 
they seem to be pursuing the same goal but in different ways and through 
different channels.


From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf 
Of Lawrence Rosen
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2017 9:50 AM
To: 'Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)'; license-discuss@opensource.org
Cc: Lawrence Rosen
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research 
Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1


Cem Karan wrote:

> I'm not a lawyer, I'm not your lawyer, I don't pretend to be one on TV or 
> anywhere else, and nothing I say should be construed as legal advice.



In that situation, it would be unfair to ask you my question directly, so 
please forward my email directly to your lawyer(s). I'd like to hear from them 
directly or on this list.



Cem Karan wrote:

. . . the truly serious issue is severability 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severability).  The concern is that if the USG 
uses a license that depends on copyright (e.g., Apache 2.0), and those clauses 
are declared unenforceable by the courts, then it may be possible to declare 
the entire license unenforceable.



Larry Rosen asked:

Apache-licensed software also may (and frequently does) contain public domain 
components. Are you suggesting that "severability" is a potential problem with 
Apache software?



/Larry



Lawrence Rosen

Rosenlaw (www.rosenlaw.com)

3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482

Cell: 707-478-8932
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] Is the OBM License OSD compatible?

[Smith, McCoy]

A point of potential pedantry or careful license interpretation:

GPLv3 (and the variants, LGPLv3 and AGPLv3) do *not* permit "Additional Terms" 
(despite the section header called "Additional Terms");  they permit 
"Additional Permissions" which are defined in the license, Sec 7, as "terms 
that supplement the terms of this License *by making exceptions from one or 
more of its conditions*."

"Additional Permissions" are a subset of additional terms, additional terms 
also includes the subets of additional restrictions and additional obligations. 
 The latter two subsets in all or almost all circumstances do not intersect.

I suspect most folks who have carefully studied the *GPLv3 licenses (or were 
involved in the writing of it) would be of the opinion that a bolted on 
requirement to provide specific notices at specific times or in specific ways 
(aka "Badgeware") is not an "Additional Permission" per those licenses.

But there are several folks on this list who were so involved in the *GPLv3 
writing and revision process who can correct me if they think I'm misreading 
things.
-Original Message-
From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf 
Of Gervase Markham
Sent: Friday, January 06, 2017 2:07 AM
To: license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Is the OBM License OSD compatible?

On 06/01/17 03:48, Marc Laporte wrote:
> The OBM license is AGPL 3 + "Additional Terms":
> http://obm.org/content/obm-license

That page says:

"OBM is an Free and Open Source messaging and collaboration software, 
distributed under the GNU Affero GPL v3 License terms, with Additional Terms 
pursuant to Section 7 of said license."

Which is good, because nothing other than Section 7 allows them to add 
additional terms of any sort to the license (see section 10).

Section 7 says:

"When you convey a copy of a covered work, you may at your option remove any 
additional permissions from that copy, or from any part of it."

So if you are concerned about the OSD-compliance of the additional terms, you 
can simply remove them when you redistribute it. Problem solved.

You do need to obey section 5 about Appropriate Legal Notices. However, Section 
0 of the AGPL defines what can be considered an Appropriate Legal Notice; 
anything which Linagora attempts to define as such which does not meet that 
definition can be said not to be an Appropriate Legal Notice.

Once you have worked out what the Appropriate Legal Notices actually are, you 
have all the freedoms given you by sections 0 and 5 about how, where and when 
to actually display them.

Gerv

___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0

[Smith, McCoy]

USG patents aren't public domain, and USG can and does license them for 
royalties.
I believe there are a handful of examples of USG filing infringement suits as 
well.

> On Aug 18, 2016, at 8:26 PM, Brian Behlendorf  wrote:
> 
> 
> Do those follow the same rules as copyright?  E.g., when done by a USG 
> employee, it's public domain in the US?
> 
> Seems like those should get covered by whatever folks come up with.
> 
> Brian
> 
>> On Fri, 19 Aug 2016, Smith, McCoy wrote:
>> Yes
>> USG files patents all the time
>> 
>>> On Aug 18, 2016, at 5:51 PM, Brian Behlendorf  wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Totally agree.  But can the USG file patents?  I suppose research 
>>> organizations can (MITRE, maybe even NASA?) so it's not that academic; but 
>>> presumably any place where this public domain arises, it applies to patents 
>>> too.  Would be nice to get that sorted.
>>> 
>>> Brian
>>> 
>>>> On Thu, 18 Aug 2016, Chris DiBona wrote:
>>>> In military contracting , patent grants are key to the point where I 
>>>> wouldn't consider a non patent granting license from, say, lockheed as 
>>>> being open source at all.
>>>> On Aug 18, 2016 3:05 PM, "Tzeng, Nigel H."  wrote:
>>>> On 8/18/16, 3:57 PM, "License-discuss on behalf of Lawrence Rosen"
>>>> >>> lro...@rosenlaw.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>>Nigel Tzeng wrote:
>>>>>> The issue here is for code that is potentially quite substantial.  I
>>>>>>would think that would be a different scenario.
>>>>>
>>>>>If I include the works of Shakespeare in my software, it would of 
>>>> course
>>>>>be substantial and yet still be public domain almost everywhere (?).
>>>> 
>>>> If patents aren't a concern then okay.  Copyright lasts longer than
>>>> patents so for anything that is in the public domain because of age 
>>>> then
>>>> no patents would still apply.
>>>> 
>>>> There isn¹t a lot of code that has aged out.  Only code written between
>>>> before 1963 and didn¹t get a renewal.
>>>> 
>>>> ___
>>>> License-discuss mailing list
>>>> License-discuss@opensource.org
>>>> https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
>>> ___
>>> License-discuss mailing list
>>> License-discuss@opensource.org
>>> https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
>> ___
>> License-discuss mailing list
>> License-discuss@opensource.org
>> https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
> ___
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss@opensource.org
> https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0

[Smith, McCoy]

Yes
USG files patents all the time

> On Aug 18, 2016, at 5:51 PM, Brian Behlendorf  wrote:
> 
> 
> Totally agree.  But can the USG file patents?  I suppose research 
> organizations can (MITRE, maybe even NASA?) so it's not that academic; but 
> presumably any place where this public domain arises, it applies to patents 
> too.  Would be nice to get that sorted.
> 
> Brian
> 
>> On Thu, 18 Aug 2016, Chris DiBona wrote:
>> In military contracting , patent grants are key to the point where I 
>> wouldn't consider a non patent granting license from, say, lockheed as being 
>> open source at all.
>> On Aug 18, 2016 3:05 PM, "Tzeng, Nigel H."  wrote:
>>  On 8/18/16, 3:57 PM, "License-discuss on behalf of Lawrence Rosen"
>>  > lro...@rosenlaw.com>
>>  wrote:
>> 
>>  >Nigel Tzeng wrote:
>>  >> The issue here is for code that is potentially quite substantial.  I
>>  >>would think that would be a different scenario.
>>  >
>>  >If I include the works of Shakespeare in my software, it would of 
>> course
>>  >be substantial and yet still be public domain almost everywhere (?).
>> 
>>  If patents aren't a concern then okay.  Copyright lasts longer than
>>  patents so for anything that is in the public domain because of age then
>>  no patents would still apply.
>> 
>>  There isn¹t a lot of code that has aged out.  Only code written between
>>  before 1963 and didn¹t get a renewal.
>> 
>>  ___
>>  License-discuss mailing list
>>  License-discuss@opensource.org
>>  https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
> ___
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss@opensource.org
> https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0

[Smith, McCoy]

"I don't believe that there is an OSD requirement that the lawyers on 
License-Review/License-Discuss agree that the legal concern being addressed by 
a new license submission is valid.  *Especially when other lawyers disagree.*"

The problem is, I think to many of us commenting here, is that those other 
lawyers are not part of this conversation.  And for whatever reason have said 
they will not be.  So we're hearing "I'm not a lawyer, but unnamed lawyers have 
told me there is this problem, but have not explained their basis for finding 
that problem."

So there is likely some skepticism that there is a need at all for this 
license, as it seems to be just Apache 2.0, with clauses to address a problem 
that many (or all) of the lawyers on here are not even sure exists.

From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf 
Of Tzeng, Nigel H.
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 1:26 PM
To: Lawrence Rosen; license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. 
Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0


>Cem Karan wrote:

>> The only reason that the ARL OSL was proposed AT ALL is because there is a 
>> strong concern that since USG code doesn't have copyright [1], any license 
>> that relies exclusively on copyright may be invalidated by the courts [2].



>We understand that strong concern. Most of us don't share it.

Well, if all lawyers agreed then IP cases would go a lot more quickly, no?

Plaintiff's lawyer: We think X!
Defendant's lawyer: We agree!

I don't believe that there is an OSD requirement that the lawyers on 
License-Review/License-Discuss agree that the legal concern being addressed by 
a new license submission is valid.  Especially when other lawyers disagree.

Given that NOSA is still in limbo, it might be fair (not really given how long 
NOSA has been in limbo) to ask that ARL and NASA lawyers get together and 
address their concerns in one special purpose license since both are trying to 
address legal concerns they believe are valid for USG OSS projects.  Although, 
with the current white house interest, both NASA and ARL could punt the issue 
up to the Tony Scott at the OMB (or whomever Chris suggested) and say "here are 
our requirements...give us a FedGov OSS license that address those needs and 
submit it to the OSI".

And then approve (or deny) that license quickly once submitted If it passes the 
OSD and retire the existing NOSA license rather than sit on it for three years 
without resolution.  Hopefully, if the White House submits a license to the OSI 
it is reviewed with a bit more alacrity.
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0

[Smith, McCoy]

Interestingly enough, the code of the code.gov site is licensed under CC0 1.0:  
https://github.com/presidential-innovation-fellows/code-gov-web/blob/master/LICENSE.md


From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf 
Of Chris DiBona
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 8:53 AM
To: license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. 
Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0


Cem, I'd be happy to put you in touch with Alvand in the white house if you are 
not already chatting. Email me off thread if so..

On Aug 18, 2016 8:47 AM, "Smith, McCoy" 
mailto:mccoy.sm...@intel.com>> wrote:
Given that the White House just released a memorandum on encouraging the USG to 
make more use of open source, and specifically said that it will be releasing 
licensing guidance on code.gov<http://code.gov>, perhaps the issues around 17 
USC 105 and existing open source licenses will be resolved (or at least, the 
issues around existing open source licenses will be identified clearly) on 
behalf of all the USG:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/memoranda/2016/m_16_21.pdf


-Original Message-
From: License-discuss 
[mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org<mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org>]
 On Behalf Of Christopher Sean Morrison
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 1:27 AM
To: license-discuss@opensource.org<mailto:license-discuss@opensource.org>
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. 
Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0

There is exceptional evidence that the status quo is wholly inadequate.  OSI 
fails to recognize challenges faced within the Federal Government, and it hurts 
open source adoption.

Statistically speaking as the largest producer of source code on the planet, 
the U.S. Federal Government *should* be one of the largest participants in open 
source yet there is barely a presence.  Some people recognize NASA as one of 
the largest proponents in the Gov’t space, yet they are one of the smaller 
agencies with one of the smallest budgets.  Federal R&D, which is predominantly 
computer science work, is more than double the size of NASA’s entire agency!  
There are more computer scientists writing code for the Gov’t than there are 
for any single company in existence, including the likes of Google and 
Microsoft.

Let that sink in for a minute.

Where is all the code?  If it was simply a release issue, there would at least 
be lots of public domain code floating — there’s demonstrably not. [1]  If even 
a measurable percentage of Government lawyers felt existing OSI licenses were 
apropos, there would be a ample evidence of agencies using MIT/Apache/LGPL/etc 
— there’s demonstrably not. [2]

There has been presented here a position by at least two major federal agencies 
(DoD and NASA) that copyright-based licensing is specifically viewed as a 
problem by their respective lawyers.  There is obvious disagreement and 
uncertainty, but therein lies a fundamental problem.  Nobody’s opinion has been 
tested.  Nobody can prove that their point is any more or less correct.

Lacking case law evidence, all that remains is overwhelming industry evidence 
that what is currently available is not in any way viewed as adequate in the 
Federal space.  At a minimum, there is enough uncertainty that there is zero-% 
penetration.

You have agencies here trying their damnedest to find ways to support open 
source amidst ambiguous regulations, unique legal circumstances (copyright), 
notoriously risk-averse environments, and untested theories.  You have specific 
representatives (for huge organizations) here saying “I would use this, it 
would help us”.  That to me those make for pretty freaking compelling reasons 
to support any new open source licensing, if it will increase adoption of open 
source in the Federal space.

I ran on this platform for the 2016 OSI board election and missed it by fewer 
votes than I have fingers.  This is a problem to a tremendous number of people. 
 OSI licensing isn’t the only problem [3] faced by the Federal Government, but 
it is one of the most significant that has solutions being presented.  NOSA 1.3 
was offered but was then immediately shot down by FSF (for good reason, why is 
it even still on OSI's list??); NOSA 2.0 won’t likely be a solution without 
rework.  ARL OSL aims to be so transparently compatible that it arguably limits 
proliferation (to the extent you can while creating a new agreement) and has 
much greater adoption potential with ASL’s rigor behind it.

Dissenting won’t make agencies suddenly agree to just slap copyright-based 
licensing on their works or even releasing into PD.  It will just continue to 
be lost opportunities for open source until there is congressional mandate, 
DoJ/DoC clarity, or case law clarity.  White house 

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0

[Smith, McCoy]

age-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] 
> On Behalf Of Smith, McCoy
> Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 11:54 AM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] 
> Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0
> 
> Or to put a finer point on it, the other issues you identify appear to be 
> ones that are explicitly addressed in many already-approved OSI licenses, 
> including Apache 2.0, the one you are modeling your license upon.
> 
> I hope you're getting a sense that there are several lawyers on this mailing 
> list -- lawyers who have years of experience looking at, debating, and giving 
> advice on the issues you identify in this submission -- who think that your 
> proposed license is a variant of Apache 2.0 designed to solve a "problem" for 
> USG users with Apache 2.0 that we are skeptical even exists.  Perhaps the ARL 
> lawyers can clarify what the problem is, and that we are missing something.  
> But I think at least I am having a hard time understanding how this license 
> does anything that Apache 2.0 doesn't.
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] 
> On Behalf Of Richard Fontana
> Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 11:33 AM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] 
> Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0
> 
> On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 06:17:07PM +, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL 
> (US) wrote:
>> 
>> Once again, liability isn't the only issue; there are also copyright 
>> issues (for contributors), and IP issues.  If we could solve the 
>> problem via a simple disclaimer of liability, we would.  We need to handle 
>> ALL the issues.
> 
> Even if you were correct in the assertions you've made about ARL code, why is 
> a new license needed for contributors other than ARL?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss@opensource.org
> https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
> ___
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss@opensource.org
> https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
> Please consider the environment before printing this email.
> 
> The information contained in this email may be confidential and/or legally 
> privileged. It has been sent for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). 
> If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient, you are hereby 
> notified that any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, dissemination, 
> distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is 
> strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please 
> reply to the sender and destroy all copies of the message. To contact us 
> directly, send to postmas...@dlapiper.com. Thank you.
> ___
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss@opensource.org
> https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0

[Smith, McCoy]

Or to put a finer point on it, the other issues you identify appear to be ones 
that are explicitly addressed in many already-approved OSI licenses, including 
Apache 2.0, the one you are modeling your license upon.

I hope you're getting a sense that there are several lawyers on this mailing 
list -- lawyers who have years of experience looking at, debating, and giving 
advice on the issues you identify in this submission -- who think that your 
proposed license is a variant of Apache 2.0 designed to solve a "problem" for 
USG users with Apache 2.0 that we are skeptical even exists.  Perhaps the ARL 
lawyers can clarify what the problem is, and that we are missing something.  
But I think at least I am having a hard time understanding how this license 
does anything that Apache 2.0 doesn't.

-Original Message-
From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf 
Of Richard Fontana
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 11:33 AM
To: license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. 
Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0

On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 06:17:07PM +, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL 
(US) wrote:
> 
> Once again, liability isn't the only issue; there are also copyright 
> issues (for contributors), and IP issues.  If we could solve the 
> problem via a simple disclaimer of liability, we would.  We need to handle 
> ALL the issues.

Even if you were correct in the assertions you've made about ARL code, why is a 
new license needed for contributors other than ARL?











___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0

[Smith, McCoy]

I find it odd that your lawyers are making you argue the legal issues here even 
though you aren't a lawyer, and won't themselves join in to the conversation.

Further on my point, the US DOJ (i.e., the top government lawyers in the USA) 
website states that most of the material on their website is public domain and 
freely usable by the public, yet still appends a disclaimer of liability to 
that material:  https://www.justice.gov/legalpolicies  That seems to me like a 
pretty concrete example of the USG understanding that a disclaimer of liability 
is not null and void just because the materials for which liability is 
disclaimed is not licensable because it is in the public domain.  The very 
problem the ARL lawyers are saying this new license proposal is attempting to 
solve.

-Original Message-
From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf 
Of Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 7:03 AM
To: license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research 
Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0

> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] 
> On Behalf Of Smith, McCoy
> Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 4:51 PM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research 
> Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0
>
> I think what a lot of the lawyers on here are trying to say to you is 
> -- why not just use Apache 2.0 and be done with it?
>
> You appear to find Apache 2.0 wanting because some of the materials 
> that will be transmitted might not be copyrightable in some 
> jurisdictions.  And you believe as a result, the entire Apache 2.0 
> license (including the patent grants, and the disclaimer of 
> warranties) would be rendered null & void as a result.  Perhaps the 
> lawyers from ARL are telling you that;  if so, perhaps you could 
> invite them to the conversation.

I have, but they've refused, and won't budge on it.

> I think many people on here are skeptical of the latter part of your 
> analysis.  In fact, I suspect that virtually every piece of code 
> licensed under Apache 2.0 has some parts that aren't subject to 
> copyright, since they don't satisfy the provisions of 17 USC 102 and 
> the various judicial tests to separate expressive vs. non-expressive content.

Possibly true.  If our management eventually says that they're willing to take 
the risk and go with it, I'll be willing to drop the ARL OSL.  So far it hasn't 
happened, and so far our lawyers are convinced that the copyright is going to 
be a problem.

Thanks,
Cem Karan
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0

[Smith, McCoy]

I think what a lot of the lawyers on here are trying to say to you is -- why 
not just use Apache 2.0 and be done with it?

You appear to find Apache 2.0 wanting because some of the materials that will 
be transmitted might not be copyrightable in some jurisdictions.  And you 
believe as a result, the entire Apache 2.0 license (including the patent 
grants, and the disclaimer of warranties) would be rendered null & void as a 
result.  Perhaps the lawyers from ARL are telling you that;  if so, perhaps you 
could invite them to the conversation.

I think many people on here are skeptical of the latter part of your analysis.  
In fact, I suspect that virtually every piece of code licensed under Apache 2.0 
has some parts that aren't subject to copyright, since they don't satisfy the 
provisions of 17 USC 102 and the various judicial tests to separate expressive 
vs. non-expressive content.

-Original Message-
From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf 
Of Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 1:43 PM
To: license-discuss@opensource.org
Cc: lro...@rosenlaw.com
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research 
Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0

> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] 
> On Behalf Of Richard Fontana
> Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 4:10 PM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Cc: lro...@rosenlaw.com
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research 
> Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0
>
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 08:03:18PM +, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY 
> RDECOM ARL (US
>
> > As for 'license vs. contract', was that something discussed in 
> > relation to the ARL OSL?
>
> No, that's a much older topic of debate in open source. It's safe to 
> say from your previous remarks that ARL assumes that licenses are 
> contracts. :)

As I understand it from ARL Legal, licenses ARE contracts.  I am not a lawyer 
and don't know if they are the same or not.  I'd really rather not open up a 
can of worms regarding what they are, I just want to make sure that the ARL OSL 
is interoperable with Apache 2.0, that it is as close to being legally 
identical to it as possible when applied to anything that has copyright 
attached, and that the OSI and Apache are happy with it.

Thanks,
Cem Karan
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0

[Smith, McCoy]

Maybe.
But given that CC0 expressly does not convey patent rights, and I believe the 
intent here is to convey patent rights (via an express license, as in Apache 
2.0), CC0 may not be an option the USG wants here.

[although CC0 with a plug-in patent grant might work]

From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf 
Of Christopher Sean Morrison
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 9:20 AM
To: license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research 
Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0



On Aug 16, 2016, at 11:43 AM, "Smith, McCoy" 
mailto:mccoy.sm...@intel.com>> wrote:
CC0 gives a complete (to the extent permissible by law) waiver of copyright 
rights, as well as a disclaimer of liability for the "Work" (which is that 
which copyright has been waived). I believe that to be an effective waiver of 
liability, despite the fact that there is not copyright rights being conveyed. 
Does anyone believe that that waiver is ineffective?

Gee, if only legal-review had approved CC0 as an open source license, it would 
be a potential option. ;)

As it stands, the board's public position to not recommend using CC0 on 
software [1] due to its patent clause makes it problematic.

Cheers!
Sean

[1] https://opensource.org/faq#cc-zero


___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0

[Smith, McCoy]

I haven't been following all of this thread, but it seems a lot of the genesis 
of this license is the idea that there needs to be some sort of contract for, 
or license to, the non-copyrightable elements of the distributed code for the 
disclaimer of warranties and liability to be effective (at least, with respect 
to the non-copyrightable parts of the distributed code).  I'm not sure that 
that premise is correct, legally, although I can't say that with certainty (and 
I don't have the inclination to do a research project).

CC0 gives a complete (to the extent permissible by law) waiver of copyright 
rights, as well as a disclaimer of liability for the "Work" (which is that 
which copyright has been waived).  I believe that to be an effective waiver of 
liability, despite the fact that there is not copyright rights being conveyed.  
Does anyone believe that that waiver is ineffective?

-Original Message-
From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf 
Of Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 8:13 AM
To: license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research 
Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0

OK, but wouldn't those changes mean that the license no longer applies to the 
uncopyrightable portions?  That would mean that downstream users would no 
longer have any protection from being sued, etc., right?

Thanks,
Cem Karan

> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] 
> On Behalf Of Engel Nyst
> Sent: Monday, August 15, 2016 7:17 PM
> To: license-discuss 
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research 
> Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0
>
> All active links contained in this email were disabled.  Please verify 
> the identity of the sender, and confirm the authenticity of all links 
> contained within the message prior to copying and pasting the address 
> to a Web browser.
>
>
>
>
> 
>
> On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 11:59 PM, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL
> (US)  wrote:
> >> >4. Redistribution. You may reproduce and distribute copies of the
> >> >   Work or Derivative Works thereof in any medium, with or without
> >> >   modifications, and in Source or Object form, provided that You
> >> >   meet the following conditions:
> >>
> >> I'd suggest to add in clause 4, or in its obligations a)-d), an "if 
> >> copyright exists" or something similar. If copyright doesn't exist 
> >> in the Work, can't put enforceable conditions on redistributions.
> >
> > What wording would you suggest?
>
> "4. Redistribution. You may reproduce and distribute copies of the
>   Work or Derivative Works thereof in any medium, with or without
>   modifications, and in Source or Object form, provided that for
>   Works subject to copyright You meet the following conditions:"
> Or,
> "4. Redistribution. You may reproduce and distribute copies of the
>   Work or Derivative Works thereof in any medium, with or without
>   modifications, and in Source or Object form, provided that You
>   meet the following conditions for the copyrightable parts of the
>   Work or Derivative Works:"
> Or,
> "4. Redistribution. You may reproduce and distribute copies of the
>   Work or Derivative Works thereof in any medium, with or without
>   modifications, and in Source or Object form, provided that You
>   meet the following conditions:
>
>   (a) You must give any other recipients of the Work or
>   Derivative Works a copy of this License, except when the Work
>   or Derivative Work is not subject to copyright; and
>
>   (b) You must cause any modified files to carry prominent notices
>   stating that You changed the files, excluding those files that
>   contained no copyrightable part; and"
>
> In the latter, (c) and (d) seem to already have applicable exclusions.
>
> The first seems cleanest to me.
> ___
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss@opensource.org
> Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-
> discuss
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] licenses for hosted services

[Smith, McCoy]

Sec 10 of AGPL does not allow the imposition of additional restrictions to it 
(such as "only for non-commercial uses), and section 7 allows a recipient to 
remove those restrictions.

You really are trying to develop a non-open source business model.  This board 
is probably not the best place for trying to do that.

-Original Message-
From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf 
Of Miles Fidelman
Sent: Friday, August 05, 2016 1:15 PM
To: license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] licenses for hosted services

Thanks for the starting points, folks.

I'm starting to think something like a dual license
- AGPL for non-commercial uses (AGPL + borrow some of the language from CC 
BY-NC-*), and,
- Most of the terms of AGPL (re. download of source, etc.) + a license fee for 
commercial use in an SaaS offering

I'm really wondering if there are any specific examples of someone doing this, 
or of someone trying to do this and running into serious snags.  
(You know, learn from other people's experiences, not reinvent the wheel, and 
if there are really good reasons not to try, better to know
early.)

And, re. "You might want to post on a non-open source bulletin board" -- any 
thoughts on where to post?

Thanks Again,

Miles


On 8/5/16 2:06 PM, Stephen Paul Weber wrote:
>> I'm wondering if anybody has any experience or thoughts about licenses that 
>> permit self-hosting, and free hosting, but require a license fee for 
>> for-profit hosting.
> Of course, such a license would not be open source. However, I believe that 
> AGPL would get you very close to the spirit of what you want, while still 
> being an open source license.
AND

On 8/5/16 1:46 PM, Smith, McCoy wrote:
> There are any number of licenses written in this way.  CC BY-NC-* for example.
> None of them are open source, however.  See OSD 1 & 6.
>
> You might want to post on a non-open source bulletin board.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] 
> On Behalf Of Miles Fidelman
> Sent: Friday, August 05, 2016 10:36 AM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: [License-discuss] licenses for hosted services
>
> Hi Folks,
>
> I'm working on some code that will eventually be made available as both open 
> source code, and a hosted service (think Wordpress, Drupal, etc.).
>
> I'm wondering if anybody has any experience or thoughts about licenses that 
> permit self-hosting, and free hosting, but require a license fee for 
> for-profit hosting.
>
> It strikes me that hosting is a reasonable business model for generating 
> sustaining revenue from open source code, but that it gets diluted very 
> quickly if anybody can free-ride (i.e., as much as I find it convenient to, 
> at times, set up a quick wordpress account on godaddy - it strikes me as just 
> a might unfair that I'm paying godaddy, but they're not paying the folks at 
> wordpress, and worse, they're siphoning off customers from wordpress).
>
> Anybody have thoughts on the matter?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Miles Fidelman
>
>
> --
> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
> In practice, there is.   Yogi Berra
>
> ___
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss@opensource.org
> https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
> ___
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss@opensource.org
> https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.   Yogi Berra

___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] licenses for hosted services

[Smith, McCoy]

There are any number of licenses written in this way.  CC BY-NC-* for example.
None of them are open source, however.  See OSD 1 & 6.

You might want to post on a non-open source bulletin board.

-Original Message-
From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf 
Of Miles Fidelman
Sent: Friday, August 05, 2016 10:36 AM
To: license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: [License-discuss] licenses for hosted services

Hi Folks,

I'm working on some code that will eventually be made available as both open 
source code, and a hosted service (think Wordpress, Drupal, etc.).

I'm wondering if anybody has any experience or thoughts about licenses that 
permit self-hosting, and free hosting, but require a license fee for for-profit 
hosting.

It strikes me that hosting is a reasonable business model for generating 
sustaining revenue from open source code, but that it gets diluted very quickly 
if anybody can free-ride (i.e., as much as I find it convenient to, at times, 
set up a quick wordpress account on godaddy - it strikes me as just a might 
unfair that I'm paying godaddy, but they're not paying the folks at wordpress, 
and worse, they're siphoning off customers from wordpress).

Anybody have thoughts on the matter?

Thanks,

Miles Fidelman


--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.   Yogi Berra

___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] Reverse Engineering and Open Source Licenses

[Smith, McCoy]

>> Do you have an example where paying for a tangible article has been 
>> construed by a court as contractual acceptance of a restrictive term printed 
>> on it?

The conditional sale cases under the patent law (of which there are but a few, 
the Mallinckrodt case being the most notable:  
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mallinckrodt,_Inc._v._Medipart,_Inc. ) might be an 
example, although I don't recall if there was any sort of true "contract" 
analysis in that case.  There is some debate as to whether the conditional sale 
cases are good law anymore post the US Supreme Court's Quanta decision: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quanta_Computer,_Inc._v._LG_Electronics,_Inc. 

I'll let any law professors on the mailing list further elucidate the latter 
question.

-Original Message-
From: license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org 
[mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf Of Pamela Chestek
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 2:34 PM
To: license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Reverse Engineering and Open Source Licenses

On 3/11/2015 1:58 PM, co...@ccil.org wrote:
> I think the Supremes would consider that case irrelevant today if they 
> had the opportunity to overrule it, because it depends on the 
> exclusive right to vend that is conferred in the 1831 Act and in the 
> 1909 Act, but not present in the 1976 Act.
Quite the contrary, cited as a fundamental case on first sale in Kirtsaeng:

A law that permits a copyright holder to control the resale or other 
disposition of a chattel once sold is similarly "against Trade and Traffi[c], 
and bargaining and contracting." ... The "first sale"
doctrine also frees courts from the administrative burden of trying to enforce 
restrictions upon difficult-to-trace, readily movable goods. And it avoids the 
selective enforcement inherent in any such effort. Thus, it is not surprising 
that for at least a century the "first sale"
doctrine has played an important role in American copyright law. See 
Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus, 210 U.S. 339, 28 S. Ct. 722, 52 L. Ed.
1086, 6 Ohio L. Rep. 323 (1908); Copyright Act of 1909, §41, 35 Stat.
1084 The common-law doctrine makes no geographical distinctions; nor can we 
find any in Bobbs-Merrill (where this Court first applied the "first sale" 
doctrine) or in §109(a)s predecessor provision, which Congress enacted a year 
later. See supra, [1364]  at ___, 185 L. Ed. 2d, at 405.

Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 1351, 1363-1364 (U.S. 2013)
>  If the license were
> printed on the cover, the supposed buyer would be in a pickle trying 
> to prove that paying the price didn't constitute acceptance of the 
> license.
Do you have an example where paying for a tangible article has been construed 
by a court as contractual acceptance of a restrictive term printed on it?

Pam

Pamela S. Chestek
Chestek Legal
PO Box 2492
Raleigh, NC 27602
919-800-8033
pam...@chesteklegal.com
www.chesteklegal.com
Board Certified by the NC State Bar's
Board of Legal Specialization in Trademark Law 
___
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] Draft of new OSI licenses landing page; please review.

[Smith, McCoy]

FWIW:
The FSF doesn't technically "approve" of licenses (except, I suppose, they 
approve of their own licenses:  GPL, LGPL, AGPL).  On their website, they list 
two types of non *GPL licenses:  1)  "GPL-compatible free software licenses" 
and 2)  "GPL-incompatible free software licenses"
That's more than mere semantics -- they're not opining upon licenses other than 
as to whether they believe the terms of those licenses are consistent with the 
principals of "free software";   nevertheless, GPL compatibility is, to some, 
an important factor when choosing licenses.

-Original Message-
From: license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org 
[mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf Of Johnny Solbu
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2012 1:18 PM
To: license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Draft of new OSI licenses landing page; please 
review.

On Wednesday 04 April 2012 20:40, Karl Fogel wrote:
>"The FooBar license is not FSF-approved, so maybe it should be 
> listed
>    father down, since all other things being equal we don't want to 
> push
>    a non-FSF-approved license over approved ones".

Maybe there should be some kind if indication of FSF aproved licenses? 

I can think of two ways to do that: Listing them in a separate group, or some 
sort of icon or text next to the licenses.

--
Johnny A. Solbu
web site,   http://www.solbu.net
PGP key ID: 0xFA687324

Kom Arbeidslyst og treng deg på,
her skal du motstand finne.
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] license committee

[Smith, McCoy]

FWIW, the report from the committee (which formed in ’04 but didn’t issue a 
report until ’06) was published here:  http://www.opensource.org/proliferation
AFAIK, that report didn’t result in a significant amount of voluntary 
deprecation of licenses (at the time, there were only 4 OSI-approved licenses 
that had been deprecated;  I don’t think many others have since).
I also don’t know if that report had some influence on stemming the tide of new 
licenses submitted for OSI-approval, but it seems as though fewer have been 
added to the list since 2006.  Those who have kept closer tabs on the pace of 
license submission (or voluntary deprecations) might be able to shed more light 
on both of those issues.
I’m pretty sure there was some degree of dissatisfaction with the output of the 
’04 committee and I thought there was going to be a new committee set up to 
reconsider the output, but perhaps that never happened.
Sorry for the top-posting for those of you who find that confusing.


From: license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org 
[mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Perens
Sent: Friday, March 09, 2012 9:06 AM
To: license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: [License-discuss] license committee

If I'm not mistaken, this committee met in 2004? "Time to do it right" would be 
about doing it over. Did I miss some announcement?

On 03/09/2012 08:55 AM, John Cowan wrote:

Karl Fogel scripsit:



If you want an organization that recommends licenses, the FSF is happy

to help. I agree that OSI should have a short-list of recommended

licenses, but the politics of dis-recommending some organization's

license are too much for them.



This isn't actually the case, by the way.  It's not the politics; it's

more the time it takes to do it right.



I sat on the committee that came up with OSI's current classifications.

Its original remit was to evaluate licenses into best/okay/bad, but no

one except me was willing to actually say that a license was bad or that

people shouldn't use it, so we wound up with the existing, basically

fact-based classification scheme.  And we took plenty of time just to

get to that, so it wasn't a matter of time.



I believe I was the only non-lawyer on that committee, except for ESR

who wasn't able to attend most of the meetings.



___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss