Re: command-line calls of GPL'd executables

[Paul Cody Johnston]

* phil hunt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
>
> Consider this situation:
>
> Alice writes a program, aprog, which she licenses under the GPL.
>

First of all, don't assume my answer is correct, I've just begun to
get involved in these discussions, but it's something I think is
important.

> Bob writes another program, which invokes the aprog executable,
> using the POSIX system() call. Does Bob's program have to be
> released under a GPL-compatible license?

I don't think so.  This is not considered linking which I believe is
the criterion.

>
> (Assume for the sake of argument that there is no other program
> that does the same as aprog).
>
> What if aprog is, instead, licensed under the BSDL with advertising
> clause. Can be GPL his program?
>

Same thing I think.  In my opinion, sharing state between applications
does not complicate licensing issues.  If that were the case, then
every piece of software the uses TCP/IP or http could be considered
"the same program", and what a mess that would be.

Sharing code is another matter.  If the application shares
instructions, then the license is an issue.

But like most things when I open my trap prematurely, I'm wrong.

Paul

>
> --
> #= Philip Hunt == [EMAIL PROTECTED] ==#
> Herbivore: effort-free public key encryption. See:
> 
  

Re: GPL + Commercial Exceptions

[Paul Cody Johnston]

> If it is a library, or code that is in normally modified or distributed by 
> the end user, then the I would suggest offering it under two separate 
> licenses. The GPL is sufficient for users creating other GPLd works from 
> yours. For closed source developers, offer a standard commercial license for 
> a fee (there's no point without a fee) that allows proprietary modifications. 
> A good example of someone doing this is Trolltech with their Qt library. It's 
> Open Source if you use it to create other Open Source software, but to create 
> closed source software you need to purchase the commercial license.
> 

Thanks for your reply.  Yes, I should have mentioned that it's a
library; something that would be used as a tool internal to a
closed-source application.

Any suggestions on how to price such a thing?  This is small potatoes,
anyway it boils down it will end up pocket change, but...

1) flat fee for the the whole thing

2) fee per developer on their end

3) fee per copy of whatever they're selling

Ideas?

Paul

GPL + Commercial Exceptions

[Paul Cody Johnston]

I have written some software licensed under the GPL and have also had
some external interest in commercial licensing.  The entire
application is under the same copyright, namely, myself.

What are the procedures and issues involved in making commercial
exceptions to GPL code?  Are there any templates or guidelines out
there that people know of?  Has anyone actually done this?

Thanks in advance,
Paul

+---+---+--+
| Paul Johnston | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://inxar.org |
+---+---+--+ 
  

Re: AFPL vs. GPL-like licenses?

[Scott Johnston]

>On 15 Jan 2001, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>
>>  You neglected to mention what your goals are.
>>
>Sorry.
>
>>  If your goal is to make the software available to the public, but to
>>  retain commercial control over it, then the AFPL is perfectly
>>  reasonable.
>>
>This is my main goal (I think! ;-)).
>
>>  If your goal is to build a community of unpaid developers around the
>>  project, then the AFPL is not the best choice.
>>
>Secondary, but it would of course be nice...
>
>Regards,
>
>Robert

Ghostscript seems to have attained both these goals by their choice 
of project and licensing.

Scott Johnston
http://www.ivtools.org
http://sourceforge.net/vectorgraphics/foundry

Re: Using GPL'd software in BSD-licensed app

[Scott Johnston]

You can't mix GPL and BSD code if you want to remain with a BSD license.

What functionality are you looking for?  You might be able to find it
embedded in a larger collection of BSD-licensed software somewhere, and be
able to copy/paste what you need.

Scott Johnston

--
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Using GPL'd software in BSD-licensed app
>Date: Wed, May 10, 2000, 9:08 AM
>

>Hi,
>
>I'm writing a little application which is based on code that is licensed
>using a BSD type of license. I want to add a feature for which I know some
>code exists. I found the code but it's GPL'd. If I make use of that code,
>what happens to my license? Does it automatically have to be GPL'd? Am I
>allowed to distribute the GPL'd code with my code without affecting my
>license? I'm trying to ease my life by not having to rewrite something that
>already exists. I'm trying to ease the life of potential users by not
>needing to have them run around the globe to get all the parts needed for my
>software to work. I don't want to scare other developers away from usingmy
>code because it's GPL'd.
>
>What are my options?
>
>L
>
>-- 
>Laurent Duperval   "Montreal winters are an intelligence test,
>CGI - SARM Projectand we who are here have failed it."
>Phone: (514) 350-3368   -Doug Camilli
>mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]  Penguin Power!
>

Re: many flavors of non-copyleft

[Scott Johnston]

Actually, these are the InterViews words:

 * Permission to use, copy, modify, distribute, and sell this software and 
 * its documentation for any purpose is hereby granted without fee, provided
 * that (i) the above copyright notices and this permission notice appear in
 * all copies of the software and related documentation, and (ii) the names
of
 * Stanford and Silicon Graphics may not be used in any advertising or
 * publicity relating to the software without the specific, prior written
 * permission of Stanford and Silicon Graphics.

Scott Johnston

Re: Derived vs. Fair Use

[Scott Johnston]

>From: "Dennis E. Hamilton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

>In the context of these discussions, I suggest that it is valuable
>
>1. To omit consideration of fair use.  Making a derivative work of software
>doesn't qualify.  The conditions under which fair use might arise with
>software are simply not useful for this discussion.

Fair use could apply to the discussion of whether it makes sense to GPL a
library, could it not?  Other than that, I agree.

Scott Johnston

many flavors of non-copyleft

[Scott Johnston]

>And then there are some BSD and MIT adherents who
>claim that their licenses do not allow relicensing their original code under
>the GPL.

It's worth noting that the BSD (old and new) and X11 licenses have different
terms for copyright and permission notice preservation.  And there are
others lumped under the non-copyleft term.  InterViews was developed by a
former BSD'er, and licensed by Stanford with these words:

 * Permission to use, copy, modify, distribute, and sell this software and
its
 * related documentation and data files for any purpose is hereby granted
 * without fee, provided that the above copyright notice appear in all
copies
 * and that both that copyright notice and this permission notice appear in
 * supporting documentation, and that the names of the copyright holders not
 * be used in advertising or publicity pertaining to distribution of the
 * software without specific, written prior permission.  

This reads differently than the others, and seems to clarify intent about
the permissibility of relicensing.  It makes a distinction between copyright
notice and permission notice, and says only the copyright (the Copyright (c)
199x statement) needs to be retained in the source code.  A copy of the
original permission notice must exist in the documentation, but it does not
say it has to remain in force on the source code.  I've always interpreted
it as a mechanism for guaranteeing that third parties who receive derivative
works will be informed of the availability of the original work, and a hedge
against plagiarism.  But I've heard the alternate interpretation as well.

Scott Johnston
http://www.vectaport.com

Re: Dual Licensing

[Scott Johnston]

>I like dual licensing with GPL + Anything because it 
>allows the technology (code) into the GPL'd code base
>as well as into other places - the commercial sector
>for example.  I believe that forking is not a critical 
>issue - other forces exist to counter balance it.

One thing to note is this requires an assignment of copyright of any
derivative work done on the GPL branch back to the dual licensor to get
those patches incorporated in the original work.  This is how L. Peter
Deutsch does it, and he has said he finds very few programmers object.  For
him it is the best of both worlds.  He gets to use the compelling nature of
the GPL to facilitate cooperation, then gets the sole freedom to sell
proprietary yet community-improved works.  Deutsch was a consultant to Sun
when they developed their Community Source License for Java.  It seems a
close cousin to dual-licensing as he practices it.

Scott Johnston

Re: Can you alter the MIT license?

[Scott Johnston]

>> Now I have a new interpretation to ponder which is probably compatible with
>> the previous paragraph. That the MIT license *can* be changed in derivative
>> works by adding terms, as long as those terms do not require actions or
>> grant permissions banned by the original.  But what does this really mean
>> for MIT style licenses?  Can I add *any* term except 1) a ban on replicating
>> the permission notice in the documentation, and 2) a requirement that you
>> must include the names of copyright holders in all advertisements?
>
>Lots of people have done it before you and some of them, like Bill Joy,
>got filthy rich from it, nobody stopped them, and if any objections were
>raised they were ethical ones, not legal ones.
>

But all of these have been with binary distributions, have they not?  Is
there a case of someone adding an extra term to the MIT license (either
copyleft or proprietary, pick your form of control), and redistributing all
the source?

By the way, does the Apple open source license conform to the underlying BSD
requirements?  If I pick up Darwin is it clear I have to abide by (modified)
BSD as well?

Scott

Re: Can you alter the MIT license?

[Scott Johnston]

>>  I've considered it doing this with ivtools, and asked for feedback from
>> users.  I got one strong and well reasoned response that opened my eyes to
>> the partially immutable nature of the MIT license.  Since then I have thrown
>> out all the years of assumptions about the BSD license and am trying to
>> rebuild my understanding from the ground up. 
>
>Hmm.  Well, could you summarise the response?

I can try and reconstruct the points we pondered.

I had assumed that the "right to modify" granted by an MIT license included
the right to alter or remove the permission notice from the source code of
derivative works. I reasoned this was the case because it wasn't
specifically ruled out, and because of the commonly accepted practice of
selling X Window binaries with excised permission notice (of course, with
one copy still in the supporting documentation, to give credit where credit
was due, and give fair notice of where a party could find the free source
for themselves).  But is a binary a derivative work?  Or just a use of the
software? 

This other party made a case similar to what has been presented here, that
it would take the agreement of the entire body of copyright holders to
change the permission notice, and that there was nothing in the permission
notice that would allow the relaxing of the original terms in any derivative
work in source form.  This person called the MIT license "congenital", in
that it is something the software is born with that won't go away.

Now I have a new interpretation to ponder which is probably compatible with
the previous paragraph. That the MIT license *can* be changed in derivative
works by adding terms, as long as those terms do not require actions or
grant permissions banned by the original.  But what does this really mean
for MIT style licenses?  Can I add *any* term except 1) a ban on replicating
the permission notice in the documentation, and 2) a requirement that you
must include the names of copyright holders in all advertisements?

I think it interesting that the FSF stopped short of applying the GPL to the
modified X11 sources of libxmi.  Did they do this because they considered
the modifications minor, only upgrades to ANSI standard C?  I thought
aggregrating with GPL code was supposed to override any individual
copyrights.

>
>Some possibly issues:
>
>Is ivtools entirely your copyright?  If not, you can't relicense it
>anyhow. If it's partly your copyright, you could get permission from all
>the other copyright holders to do so (in writing, ideally!).

Here it is:

/*
 * Copyright (c) 1999  Vectaport Inc., I.E.T. Inc, R.B. Kissh and Associates
 * Copyright (c) 1998  Vectaport Inc., R.B. Kissh and Associates, Eric F.
Kahler
 * Copyright (c) 1997  Vectaport Inc., R.B. Kissh and Associates
 * Copyright (c) 1996  Vectaport Inc., R.B. Kissh and Associates, Cider
Press
 * Copyright (c) 1994, 1995  Vectaport Inc., Cartoactive Systems, Cider
Press
 * Copyright (c) 1991 Silicon Graphics, Inc.
 * Copyright (c) 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991 Stanford University
 *
 * Permission to use, copy, modify, distribute, and sell this software and
its
 * related documentation and data files for any purpose is hereby granted
 * without fee, provided that the above copyright notice appear in all
copies
 * and that both that copyright notice and this permission notice appear in
 * supporting documentation, and that the names of the copyright holders not
 * be used in advertising or publicity pertaining to distribution of the
 * software without specific, written prior permission.  The copyright
holders
 * make no representations about the suitability of this software for any
 * purpose.  It is provided "as is" without express or implied warranty.
 *
 * THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES WITH REGARD TO THIS
SOFTWARE,
 * INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS.
 * IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL,
 * INDIRECT OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER RESULTING
 * FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT,
 * NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION
 * WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE.
 */

Years ago I changed from using specific references (i.e. Stanford and
Silicon Graphics) to a more generic "copyright holders" in the body of the
permission notice.  You can see the permission notice would be quite
unwieldy without this change.  I feel that was entirely within the spirit of
the original license, but I'm no longer sure it is technically permitted. 
Of course I include a copy of the original copyright and permission notice
(of InterViews) in the documentation.

Scott Johnston

Re: Can you alter the MIT license?

[Scott Johnston]

--
>From: Jules Bean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

>In particular, the GPL says that you must make available the source of the
>whole work.  Now this is an additional restriction on top the the MIT one,
>but it's not in conflict with the MIT one - it doesn't ask you to do
>anything you aren't allowed to do.

I see.  This is what Bruce must have meant (about adding terms to the MIT
license that are not in conflict with the original terms).  Know of anyone
doing this, adding a copyleft term to a non-copyleft piece of free software?
 I've considered it doing this with ivtools, and asked for feedback from
users.  I got one strong and well reasoned response that opened my eyes to
the partially immutable nature of the MIT license.  Since then I have thrown
out all the years of assumptions about the BSD license and am trying to
rebuild my understanding from the ground up. 

Scott Johnston
http://www.vectaport.com/ivtools/

Re: Can you alter the MIT license?

[Scott Johnston]

>How far can you go with this notion that you cannot copyright a fact? Can you
>copyright the arrangement of chess men on a chess board? (In other words, can 
>you copyright a chess problem?) 
>
>If you cannot copyright that, then how can you copyright the arrangement of 
>letters on a page? There is a large but finite number of combinations in 
>both cases, so what would the difference be?

It's not that you can't copyright factual information, it's that there is a
fair use exception to the copyright law for those "expressions of an idea"
that are nothing more than a compilation of facts, like the white pages of a
phone book.

I sometimes use when talking about fair-use of patches to open source code,
when the patch contains nothing more than fixes done to bugs in the the
obvious way.

Scott Johnston

Re: Can you alter the MIT license?

[Scott Johnston]

--
>From: Jules Bean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

>However, 'public domain' is often used of software to mean software which
>the author has disclaimed all rights on.  This doesn't mean that it isn't
>their copyright - it simply means that they have given blanket permission
>for anybody to do anything with it.  However, it doesn't mean that someone
>else can pick it up and put their conditions on it - since they don't own
>the copyright. [Compare the situation of me owning an attractive riverside
>meadow.  I put up a big sign saying 'This is a beautiful meadow, and I
>make it available to the community.  You may without restriction eat here,
>camp here, etc...'.  That, in some sense, puts the meadow in the public
>domain, but it doesn't make it any less *my* meadow.  Of course the
>analogy is far from perfect, since meadows can't be copied, and software
>can be very easily copied...]

Then why does the GRASS development team feel they can apply the GPL to a
public domain GIS system originally developed and published by the US Army? 
Every distribution up to version 4.x is public domain, every distribution
after that will be GPL'ed.  A better example is Bruce Perens GPL'ing of the
public domain TIGER map database last year from the US Census Bureau.  I
doubt any judge would rule that Bruce made significant changes to this
database before offering a GPL'ed copy for sale/download.

Scott Johnston

Re: Can you alter the MIT license?

[Scott Johnston]

>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Perens)
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: Can you alter the MIT license?
>Date: Mon, Nov 15, 1999, 11:29 AM
>

>You can _add_ terms after the MIT/X/Apache license has been applied to a
>program, and distribute the result, as long as they do not conflict with
>the pre-existing terms.

Can you give an example of a term you can *add* to a non-copyleft free
software license that would not conflict with the freedoms originally
granted?

Scott Johnston

Re: Can you alter the MIT license?

[Scott Johnston]

--
>From: Ian Grigg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: Can you alter the MIT license?
>Date: Mon, Nov 15, 1999, 11:30 AM
>

>The FSF did that?  So that means that you can mix GPL code
>with other code and distribute both under the their respective
>licences?  What effect does this have on that GPL distribution
>clause?

libxmi is also distributed as part of the GNU plotutils package.  From
plotutils-2.3/libxmi/README-X:

Because of their origin, the following X Window System copyright applies
to files based on the  sample server code.

Scott Johnston
Vectaport Inc.
http://www.vectaport.com
   

Can you alter the MIT license?

[Scott Johnston]

>Wrong. The MIT (X) license does not give you the right to change the license.

I'm not sure this is true.  It says at least one copy of the permission
notice must be included in the documentation, but it not clear whether the
terms of the permission notice have to remain in force.  There are strong
advocates for either interpretation, and nothing concrete will be known
until it is tested in court.  But I've been trying to figure out what people
think before it gets that far, by studying their actions.

- The Free Software Foundation skirted the issue with its repackaging of the
X rendering capability into libxmi.  They licensed the new library under
GPL, but the original source files borrowed from X remain under MIT terms
(even though those files have most likely been modified to embed them in a
GPL library).

- Some will say the Open Group proved you can change the license when they
(temporarily) modified the terms for X11R6.4.  But they are a special case,
in that they are the copyright holder for X, and the one party with that
freedom.

- Apple's relicensing of BSD-licensed software under their own open source
license might be the most fruitful case to investigate.  No one disagrees
that the sources they started with could still be available under the
original terms.  But does Apple grant what the FSF granted with libxmi, i.e.
the right to use original yet modified source files under the original
terms?

Scott Johnston
Vectaport Inc.
http://www.vectaport.com

  

but there are so many things

[johnston]

But there are so many things I'd like to see discussed on this mailing
list that are off topic.  Like a comparion of  non-copylefted
licensing to dual licensing.  A discussion of hybrid and two-tier free
software business models.  And I'm sure more will come up.

Scott Johnston

How about license-review@opensource.org?

[johnston]

> It sounds as if my request is being ignored.
> Maybe we should just move the _licensing_ discussions elsewhere.

I've found the philosophical discussions about free software licensing
and related issues to be just as informative and valuable as the legal
discussions.  How about creating a less ambiguously named mailing
list:

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

to address the original intent of this mailing list?

Scott Johnston

Re: Essay RFC delayed

[johnston]

John Cowan said:

> The right to fork is like the right to strike: a last resort that
> must be preserved, so that most of the time more civil behavior is possible.

The right to fork is like the right to replicate scientific results
and then carry on with an independent investigation.  The right to
fork is like the right to create your own local culture different than
the majority.  The right to fork is absolute in the free software
world.  The right to merge your changes back into the dominant source
tree is not.  Don't let anyone talk you out of your freedom.

Scott Johnston

Re: code and design

[johnston]

> can a distinction be made between the code that goes into an
> opensource project under gnu gpl and the interface and/or artwork
> that comprises what the user sees and interacts with.  if the code
> specifies a novel interface, how can a gpl'd project protect the
> design from commercial scavenging?  can it? should it?

I believe the Free Software Foundation does make this distiniction,
and is opposed to the application of copyright to interfaces of any
kind.  They boycotted Apple for trying to copyright the user interface
of the Macintosh.  They came out with a relaxed version of the GPL
that allowed for API re-use (the LGPL), perhaps, at least in part,
because it must have been evident that enforcing the terms of the GPL
against the interface of a library led to a philosophical
contradiction.

Scott Johnston
Vectaport Inc.

Re: Draft 1 of the OpenDesk.com Public Source License

[Scott Johnston]

>  This dual licensing idea, GPL plus whatever other thing you like,  
>is not the answer.  It's a workaround; and a hack at that.

Here's an item of historical interest to free software.  I attended a talk
given by Richard Stallman back in 1990 (or 1991) at Xerox PARC (Palo Alto
Research Center) and the question of dual licenses came up. I forget what
Stallman's initial response was (I don't think he was for it), but lo and
behold, L. Peter Deutsch was in the audience.  He explained to everyone how
he had contacted the Free Software Foundation before writing ghostscript,
and obtained their agreement that he could distribute ghostscript under both
the GPL and a proprietary license (which has made him enough money to be
able to retire in Silicon Valley).  So there you have it.  Dual licensing,
it would seem, originated from a compromise the FSF made to acquire a
PostScript interpreter for the GNU project.  I remember a little regret
expressed by Stallman that this was the case.

Scott Johnston
http://www.vectaport.com