Re: YAPL is bad (was: Re: Backlog assistance?)
begin Steve Lhomme quotation: > Here is my practical case for your pragmatic minds : I'm working (not > alone) on a derivation of the QPL license in order to make it GPL > compatible (and also a few minor changes). Splendid. We will await with interest the cessation of rhetoric and submission of licence terms to scrutinise. > Maybe for you it's not a big change, but for me it IS. As it's "overly > duplicate existing licenses" it would probably not qualify for the OSD > to check it... Judge for yourself. The process is outlined here: http://www.opensource.org/docs/certification_mark.html#approval > But is the OSD here to decide for the developpers what are the license > that "deserve" to be compliant ? Another polemical rhetorical question for my collection. You're really much too kind. > Do you think that's fair to newcomers ? Do you think that encourage > the growth of the Open-Source community ? Do you think it makes > evolution possible (AFAIK evolution is different from revolution > because it's made of small changes here and there) ? Really, I must decline this embarrassment of riches. My closet is overflowing. But thank you. > BTW Rick, was that an invitation to leave this list (my english is > average) ? Negatory, sir. > Why didn't you answer my concern (which IMHO makes sense) instead ? Consider the proposition that I'm simply a cruel and heartless bastard. That might account for it. Or possibly not. -- "Is it not the beauty of an asynchronous form of discussion that one can go and make cups of tea, floss the cat, fluff the geraniums, open the kitchen window and scream out it with operatic force, volume, and decorum, and then return to the vexed glowing letters calmer of mind and soul?" -- The Cube, forum3000.org -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: YAPL is bad (was: Re: Backlog assistance?)
begin Karsten M. Self quotation: > - Apple's Darwin project is under the APSL, which remains quite > controversial. Well, it is and it isn't. I examined this in at least a little bit of detail when Evan Liebovitch was castigating Apple for allegedly leeching (I paraphrase) off the BSDs. Darwin's "xnu" kernel is APSL-licensed -- in part. (Don't forget there's code from CMU and BSD code, there.) Darwin Streaming Server is APSL. Code for the Common Data Security Architecture, and for the OpenPlay and NetSprocket abstraction layers is APSL, as is a small developer tool called HeaderDoc. But just about all the other code in Darwin is under the same mix of sundry open-source licences found in, say, NetBSD. And, as I said to Evan at the time -- contrary to his assertion -- Apple's consistent policy as far as I can tell has always been to contribute changes to the upstream maintainers of those codebases under the upstream licences. (Darwin should not be confused with MacOS X, which is a superset of Darwin adding several proprietary pieces.) -- "Is it not the beauty of an asynchronous form of discussion that one can go and make cups of tea, floss the cat, fluff the geraniums, open the kitchen window and scream out it with operatic force, volume, and decorum, and then return to the vexed glowing letters calmer of mind and soul?" -- The Cube, forum3000.org -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: YAPL is bad (was: Re: Backlog assistance?)
En réponse à Rick Moen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > begin Steve Lhomme quotation: > > > Once again, as I wrote : > > "Is the OSI there to judge what a license is worth ? > > Ah, I love polemical rhetorical questions! Thanks for the > contribution > to my collection. > > In the meantime, since you say your concerns are entirely theoretical, > and that you lack time to research specifics, we seem to have from you > no further substantive matters for discussion. En réponse à "Karsten M. Self" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > "Is the OSI there to judge what a license is worth ? If so they > should > > divide the OSI in 2 parts : the neutral/approval part, and the > > political/judging part... I think most people need the 1st part to > > work or use." > > The OSI should allocate its resources wisely. As such, it should > ensure > that: > > - Newly proposed licenses aren't proposed lightly. > - Newly proposed licenses don't overly duplicate existing licenses. > - Newly proposed licenses topcally meet the OSD requirements for > deeper consideration. > > This does call for a acertain discriminating role in judging > applications. > > I believe Rick has stated the situation clearly: you have not > demonstrated your case, and appear to have no practical concerns. I'd > suggest you mediate silently until the situation has changed. > > Peace. OK, since you consider the theoretical aspect of the discussing pointless/useless/whatever. Here is my practical case for your pragmatic minds : I'm working (not alone) on a derivation of the QPL license in order to make it GPL compatible (and also a few minor changes). Maybe for you it's not a big change, but for me it IS. As it's "overly duplicate existing licenses" it would probably not qualify for the OSD to check it... But is the OSD here to decide for the developpers what are the license that "deserve" to be compliant ? If after 6 months of being published a license doesn't appear in the list, people will consider that it's not compliant and will be reluctant to work on something that might not be "open-source enough". Do you think that's fair to newcomers ? Do you think that encourage the growth of the Open-Source community ? Do you think it makes evolution possible (AFAIK evolution is different from revolution because it's made of small changes here and there) ? BTW Rick, was that an invitation to leave this list (my english is average) ? Why didn't you answer my concern (which IMHO makes sense) instead ? -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: YAPL is bad (was: Re: Backlog assistance?)
begin Russell Nelson quotation: > I was being silly, grouping you with RMS on the basis of your > initials. Wasn't that obvious enough?? Perhaps, when I'm trying to > be funny, I should put a smiley at the end of my sentence? :-) But I > figure that true humor doesn't need subtitles. My apologies for being trigger-happy. BOFH instincts, caffeine LD50, and sleep-shortage can do that. This evening, I auto-prescribed a lovely Côtes du Rhône from E. Guigal, and suddenly the world is a notably nicer place. -- Cheers, "You have acquired a scroll entitled 'irk gleknow mizk'(n).--More-- Rick MoenThis is an IBM Manual scroll.--More__ [EMAIL PROTECTED] You are permanently confused." -- ADOM (a roguelike game) -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: YAPL is bad (was: Re: Backlog assistance?)
begin Russell Nelson quotation: > I am skeptical that you can find any existing requirement for > protection of privacy in the OSD. I was stipulating none such being present. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: YAPL is bad (was: Re: Backlog assistance?)
Rick Moen writes: > But, of course, you were being very speculative, and rather jumping the > gun: My assumption that the OSI Board shares my notion that the right > to privacy should be a part of the definition of open source may be > entirely untrue. Russ for one sounded skeptical at best. I am skeptical that you can find any existing requirement for protection of privacy in the OSD. Obviously, if we add one, then it will be there, and we will require it in the future, eh wot? -- -russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | It's a crime, not an act 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | of war. For my take, see: Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | http://quaker.org/crime.html -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: YAPL is bad (was: Re: Backlog assistance?)
Rick Moen writes: > Are you perchance talking to me?[1] If so, you appear to be having some > difficulty distinguishing me from the gentleman who compared me to RMS on > the basis of my initials. > > It is quite bad enough to get that kind of sniping from the person I was > talking with; I was being silly, grouping you with RMS on the basis of your initials. Wasn't that obvious enough?? Perhaps, when I'm trying to be funny, I should put a smiley at the end of my sentence? :-) But I figure that true humor doesn't need subtitles. -- -russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | It's a crime, not an act 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | of war. For my take, see: Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | http://quaker.org/crime.html -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: YAPL is bad (was: Re: Backlog assistance?)
phil hunt writes: > What if, as part of the porcess of approving a new licence, the > proposer of the license had to write a rationale of why a new license > is necessary, and why no existing OSI-certified licence exists > that does the job. Already do. http://opensource.org/docs/certification_mark.html#approval -- -russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | It's a crime, not an act 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | of war. For my take, see: Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | http://quaker.org/crime.html -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: YAPL is bad (was: Re: Backlog assistance?)
begin Steve Lhomme quotation: > Once again, as I wrote : > "Is the OSI there to judge what a license is worth ? Ah, I love polemical rhetorical questions! Thanks for the contribution to my collection. In the meantime, since you say your concerns are entirely theoretical, and that you lack time to research specifics, we seem to have from you no further substantive matters for discussion. -- "Is it not the beauty of an asynchronous form of discussion that one can go and make cups of tea, floss the cat, fluff the geraniums, open the kitchen window and scream out it with operatic force, volume, and decorum, and then return to the vexed glowing letters calmer of mind and soul?" -- The Cube, forum3000.org -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: YAPL is bad (was: Re: Backlog assistance?)
| Poster: Licences need to be approved more rapidly to introduce improvements! | Others: What specific examples of improvements are you thinking of? | Poster: Well, never mind that. OSI _committed_ to approving licences. | Others: Why are you in such a flippin' hurry to get lots more licences | for their own sake? Aren't you aware of the licence combinatorial | problem for derivative works? Aren't you aware of the problem | of corporations misreading the OSD as an invitations to write | a new licence for no better reason than to have their own. | Poster: Well, never mind that. Licences need to be approved more | rapidly to introduce improvements! | | One could write a quite simple, yet obnoxious, script to simulate this | behaviour. Once again, as I wrote : "Is the OSI there to judge what a license is worth ? If so they should divide the OSI in 2 parts : the neutral/approval part, and the political/judging part... I think most people need the 1st part to work or use." -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: YAPL is bad (was: Re: Backlog assistance?)
On Monday, September 24, 2001, at 10:08 pm, Matthew C. Weigel wrote: > On Mon, 24 Sep 2001, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > >> This leads to a GPL-related issue which is not clear to me: can >> redistribution of GPL code be constrained by an employment agreement? > > Well, that brings up the question of whether sharing within a > corporation qualfies as "distribution," a question which I can't recall > being answered (although it could just be my memory failing). This was the source of my misunderstanding: The FAQ makes it clear that "Distribution" means "Public Distribution". This should, however, be made absolutely explicit in the license. FAQs aren't binding, and ambiguities in licenses are bad, m'kay? - Rob. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: YAPL is bad (was: Re: Backlog assistance?)
"Karsten M. Self" wrote: > on Mon, Sep 24, 2001 at 08:56:55PM +0100, phil hunt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) >wrote: > > > > > What if, as part of the process of approving a new licence, the > > proposer of the license had to write a rationale of why a new license > > is necessary, and why no existing OSI-certified licence exists > > that does the job. > > > > Is this a good idea? > > I think so. > Doesn't step (2) of http://www.opensource.org/docs/certification_mark.html#approval> already imply this? Chris -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: YAPL is bad (was: Re: Backlog assistance?)
>This leads to a GPL-related issue >which is not clear to me: can >redistribution of GPL code be >constrained by an employment agreement? >That is, if company employees >make changes to GPL code, can the >company forbid all employees from >distributing those changes? I >suspect that it can, as employment >agreements are permitted to >constrain many varieties of free >speech, at least in the U.S. the GPL and NDA's are orthogonal. or, at the very least, they are non-conflicting restrictions. The GPL says 'whoever gets a binary must get the source." it does not restrict *who* can recieve a distribution. It does restrict any redistribution of modified code must be GPL as well, but that is orthogonal to a NDA restriction. A NDA says who can recieve a company's source code. i.e. who can recieve a distrubution or corporate owned software. namely you cannot distribute comany software outside the company (unless you're in Sales, and you're selling it) The OSD prohibits discrimination against people and groups. A NDA is exactly discrimination against anyone who is not an employee. WAITS IANAL TINLA IMHO TLA Greg WAITS ==> Who Am I To Say -- Greg London x7541 -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Backlog assistance?
Russell Nelson wrote: > Well, you could review these licenses: > http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:3735:200108:ajlgmjcdbmmllniijbba > http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:3733:200108:lmhpmlehbejjkloffohl > http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:msp:3728:ecdccfkopamdkjccmffn Okay, here's my reviews: The Open Group license is a trivial modification of the Artistic License. It removes a few options for distributing modified works, but is still Open Source. The MSOL is a trivial modification of the JSOL to apply Dutch law. The W3C license is substantially equivalent to the BSD license. The only additional clause is "changes must be clearly marked", which is clearly Open Source. All these licenses should be fast-tracked through the OSI process. Note: wdiff is your friend. -- Not to perambulate || John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> the corridors || http://www.reutershealth.com during the hours of repose || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan in the boots of ascension. \\ Sign in Austrian ski-resort hotel -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: YAPL is bad (was: Re: Backlog assistance?)
On Mon, 24 Sep 2001, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > This leads to a GPL-related issue which is not clear to me: can > redistribution of GPL code be constrained by an employment agreement? Well, that brings up the question of whether sharing within a corporation qualfies as "distribution," a question which I can't recall being answered (although it could just be my memory failing). -- Matthew Weigel Research Systems Programmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] ne [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Backlog assistance?
Alex Stewart writes: > Ok, I was under the impression that since people had noted there was a > backlog, there was something somewhere that kept track of what was in > it, or somebody was at least trying to have some understanding of the > general status. We need better tools. Steve Mallett, our webmaster and also progenitor of the Open Source Directory (http://opensourcedirectory.org aka http://osdir.org) is checking some out for us. Very likely we'll use a slashdot-like forum where we approve the stories (licenses) and you guys attach the comments. Then it will be very easy to see which licenses have been submitted and what people think of them. > Umm, for the record, this thread was not a complaint, it was just an > inquiry and offer of help. Well, you could review these licenses: http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:3735:200108:ajlgmjcdbmmllniijbba http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:3733:200108:lmhpmlehbejjkloffohl http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:msp:3728:ecdccfkopamdkjccmffn > I've looked around all the pages I can find on www.opensource.org, but I > can find very little information about the organization itself (perhaps > this is something I should be asking of [EMAIL PROTECTED], but I > figured I'd try here first). How does the OSI actually work regarding > license approval? Who can or can't approve a license, and do they rely > on help from others to evaluate them or otherwise move the procedure > along? How does this list actually fit in the whole process? (is there > a process at all?) http://opensource.org/docs/certification_mark.html > Basically, all I can find on the list is "submit it and we'll get back > to you" (it isn't even terribly clear on who "we" is, though there's a > side-note talking about when board meetings are, so does that imply that > licenses are only approved by board vote?) Yes. > Also, regarding the whole issue of whether more licenses are a good > thing or a bad thing, it seems to me that this should be determined to > some degree by what the OSI is actually here for. What is the > organization's mission statement, anyway? Promote the freedom to run your enterprise the way you want to, without vendor tie-in. At least, that's how I'd say it. That's not exactly what we said on our 501(c)3 application. > If the goal is to encourage open-source licensing terms amongst the > software community, that's very different, and suggests that the > OSI should (try to) encourage (and thus certify) anything that > meets the open-source requirements. That's certainly one interpretation of the mission statement I wrote above. -- -russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | It's a crime, not an act 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | of war. For my take, see: Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | http://quaker.org/crime.html -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: YAPL is bad (was: Re: Backlog assistance?)
On Saturday 22 September 2001 11:39 pm, Karsten M. Self wrote: > > Yet Another Public License (YAPL) is a bad trend. > > Ceterus paribus, more licenses are bad. As the number of licenses > increases, the disruption caused by an additional license > increases. > > This is because interaction effects of licenses must be considered > on a combinatorial basis. That is, effects grow in a factorial > manner. The terms of each license must be understood > independently. The interactions of each license pair, *and each > combination of licences*, must be considered. What if, as part of the porcess of approving a new licence, the proposer of the license had to write a rationale of why a new license is necessary, and why no existing OSI-certified licence exists that does the job. Is this a good idea? -- *** Philip Hunt *** [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: YAPL is bad (was: Re: Backlog assistance?)
Rob Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > on 24/9/01 2:15 pm, John Cowan at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > Rob Myers wrote: > > > >> I agree that this is an offer rather than a directive. But the effect of > >> making the source (ultimately) available to anyone is the same as soon as > >> the license is accepted. The GPL has this effect, the APSL makes this effect > >> explicit. Any attempt to control this (by requiring that employees or > >> clients not distribute the source) is in breach of the license. > > > > Right enough, but it still may be contained by voluntary action or > > by sheer inertia. > > A disgruntled programmer can stop voluntarily not distributing code. My > GPL/APSL comparison does (deliberately) exclude inertia, and I agree that in > the real world it is a powerful force, but it is not *certain* to regulate > code distribution. This all leaves something to chance which the APSL does > not, although the APSL resolves it in a manner which is clearly > unsatisfactory to many people. The GPL is perfectly usable to keep code changes private among a group of people who all have an interest in keeping the changes private. This could mean, for example, the software house which made the changes and the set of customers who purchase them. The software house has an interest because of the opportunity to resell the changes. The customers have an interest because they do not want their competitors to benefit from the changes. The APSL is not usable in this way. Maybe good, maybe bad, but clearly different. This leads to a GPL-related issue which is not clear to me: can redistribution of GPL code be constrained by an employment agreement? That is, if company employees make changes to GPL code, can the company forbid all employees from distributing those changes? I suspect that it can, as employment agreements are permitted to constrain many varieties of free speech, at least in the U.S. Ian -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: YAPL is bad (was: Re: Backlog assistance?)
begin Rob Myers quotation: > I de-jump and apologize for sowing confusion: I share that skepticism but am > clearly not best placed to express it. Not a problem. You were certainly being a great deal more coherent than I generally am before 10 AM. -- "Is it not the beauty of an asynchronous form of discussion that one can go and make cups of tea, floss the cat, fluff the geraniums, open the kitchen window and scream out it with operatic force, volume and decorum, and then return to the vexed glowing letters calmer of mind and soul?" -- The Cube, forum3000.org -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: YAPL is bad (was: Re: Backlog assistance?)
on 24/9/01 3:26 pm, Rick Moen at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > But, of course, you were being very speculative, and rather jumping the > gun: My assumption that the OSI Board shares my notion that the right > to privacy should be a part of the definition of open source may be > entirely untrue. Russ for one sounded skeptical at best. I de-jump and apologize for sowing confusion: I share that skepticism but am clearly not best placed to express it. - Rob. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: YAPL is bad (was: Re: Backlog assistance?)
Ah, the Rainbow-Coloured Fruit Company lobby speaketh. begin Rob Myers ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) quotation: > Can people claiming (or wishing) to represent opensource.org please > act like professionals in dealing with issues they regard as annoying. Are you perchance talking to me?[1] If so, you appear to be having some difficulty distinguishing me from the gentleman who compared me to RMS on the basis of my initials. It is quite bad enough to get that kind of sniping from the person I was talking with; subsequently having you casting faux moralism from the sidelines at the wrong party is a bit much. > Well, that's the GPL out for starters. I think you need to re-read the GPL, and comprehend the key point, which I already underlined for the benefit of any laggards, about its "forcing provision" being activated solely by public distribution. [1] In case you are also having a difficult time understanding domain names, I represent linuxmafia.com: We make you an offer you can afford. - Cheers, "Learning Java has been a slow and tortuous process for me. Every Rick Moen few minutes, I start screaming 'No, you fools!" and have to go [EMAIL PROTECTED] read something from _Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs' to de-stress." -- The Cube, www.forum3000.org -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: YAPL is bad (was: Re: Backlog assistance?)
begin Rob Myers quotation: > It does however clash with many existing licenses that assume > acceptance of the license by usage of the code and give a general > offer of distribution on this basis. I'm sorry, but I don't grasp what you mean. Perhaps you could give an example. > It also requires a fair amount of legalese to clarify "public" and > "non-public" usage, and very careful auditing. I cannot see that this is the case at all, since the OSD is not a licence itself. It is an attempt to specify and explain the sorts of traits the OSI requires in licences it will approve. > Finally, I believe that it requires licenses to build in a back door > for the closing off of open source code, one that unscrupulous > organizations will eagerly exploit. This is the one that really puzzled me. What do you mean by a "back door", and "closing off"? But, of course, you were being very speculative, and rather jumping the gun: My assumption that the OSI Board shares my notion that the right to privacy should be a part of the definition of open source may be entirely untrue. Russ for one sounded skeptical at best. -- "Is it not the beauty of an asynchronous form of discussion that one can go and make cups of tea, floss the cat, fluff the geraniums, open the kitchen window and scream out it with operatic force, volume and decorum, and then return to the vexed glowing letters calmer of mind and soul?" -- The Cube, forum3000.org -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: YAPL is bad (was: Re: Backlog assistance?)
on 24/9/01 2:15 pm, John Cowan at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Rob Myers wrote: > >> I agree that this is an offer rather than a directive. But the effect of >> making the source (ultimately) available to anyone is the same as soon as >> the license is accepted. The GPL has this effect, the APSL makes this effect >> explicit. Any attempt to control this (by requiring that employees or >> clients not distribute the source) is in breach of the license. > > Right enough, but it still may be contained by voluntary action or > by sheer inertia. A disgruntled programmer can stop voluntarily not distributing code. My GPL/APSL comparison does (deliberately) exclude inertia, and I agree that in the real world it is a powerful force, but it is not *certain* to regulate code distribution. This all leaves something to chance which the APSL does not, although the APSL resolves it in a manner which is clearly unsatisfactory to many people. > Just as a practical matter, this may be an impediment to using > modified APSL code in a company that has restrictions about what its > employees may publish. I agree, but I believe that this is a general problem with the *idea* of Open Source rather than Apple's implementation of it. - Rob. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: YAPL is bad (was: Re: Backlog assistance?)
on 24/9/01 7:55 am, Rick Moen at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > One possible addition to the OSD, to deal with this matter, might be > as follows: > > 10. The Licence Must Not Violate Privacy of Individuals or Organisations > > The licence must not attach any obligations to usage of the covered code > that is entirely internal to the non-public affairs of the individual or > organisation using it. To clarify my opinion (IANAL): If this clause was added it would give organizations one less thing (exposure of information regarding private affairs) to worry about in adopting open source licenses, and so seems very desireable. It does however clash with many existing licenses that assume acceptance of the license by usage of the code and give a general offer of distribution on this basis. It also requires a fair amount of legalese to clarify "public" and "non-public" usage, and very careful auditing. Finally, I believe that it requires licenses to build in a back door for the closing off of open source code, one that unscrupulous organizations will eagerly exploit. - Rob. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: YAPL is bad (was: Re: Backlog assistance?)
Rob Myers wrote: > I agree that this is an offer rather than a directive. But the effect of > making the source (ultimately) available to anyone is the same as soon as > the license is accepted. The GPL has this effect, the APSL makes this effect > explicit. Any attempt to control this (by requiring that employees or > clients not distribute the source) is in breach of the license. Right enough, but it still may be contained by voluntary action or by sheer inertia. Not so the APSL: Apple *requires* you, on pain of breach, to inform the world about the changes you make solely for your own use. Just as a practical matter, this may be an impediment to using modified APSL code in a company that has restrictions about what its employees may publish. -- Not to perambulate || John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> the corridors || http://www.reutershealth.com during the hours of repose || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan in the boots of ascension. \\ Sign in Austrian ski-resort hotel -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Backlog assistance?
David Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Saturday 22 September 2001 02:17 pm, Greg London wrote: > >> The OSD has 11(?) requirements. >> how hard would it be to come up with a minimal license >> that defines these requirements. THen if you want to >> create your own license, you inherit the minimal license >> and add to it. > >It's not as easy as that. Consider the following license: "You are permitted >to redistribute, modify and copy this software without restriction". Bingo! >It meets the definition. But it would make a lousy "base class". yes, if you take one point of my argument, ignore everything else I said that would limit, add to, and refine it. And then you take it to an extreme, you can come up with a license base that I would neither recommend nor defend. -- Greg London -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: YAPL is bad (was: Re: Backlog assistance?)
on 24/9/01 11:16 am, John Cowan at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > the GPL > imposes no such obligation to the world at large. If you distribute a > derivative work, you are obliged to distribute the original *to the recipients > of the derivative work*; likewise, if you distribute binaries, you are obliged > to distribute source *to the recipients of the binaries*. It is called the "Public" license... This may be a misunderstanding on my part, and if so I apologize in advance. >From the GPL we have the statement: "You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it," I agree that this is an offer rather than a directive. But the effect of making the source (ultimately) available to anyone is the same as soon as the license is accepted. The GPL has this effect, the APSL makes this effect explicit. Any attempt to control this (by requiring that employees or clients not distribute the source) is in breach of the license. This distribution will have copyright dates and file dates in it (and it may be a simple, if annoying, security measure to set the dates to 1970...). It identifies the originator/modifier of the source. The code may have dates, names and other information in comments. People can remember when they received the code. Extra information is given out anyway, but again the APSL makes this an explicit requirement. Explicit requirements are good. IANAL, but from my reading the APSL is specifying the minimum display requirements, not the exact or maximum ones. So if you need to obfuscate the project dates you can take the sources down five years after the project fails and start displaying them six months before it goes live. If it's that important to keep the dates of a project a secret, it probably shouldn't be used under a license with *any* distribution offer/obligation. This is therefore a general FUD concern for Open Source, not a specific problem with the APSL. - Rob. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Backlog assistance?
SamBC wrote: > although we haven't got far as I at least was suddenly more busy than I > expected. This situation should be different soon. BTW that describes my situation too. We've finally got our open-source product into a state where we can release more or less the moment marketing give us the green light, so things -should- get less hectic ... I assume our licence is stuck in that backlog somewhere, so we'll probably go public with some weasly statement that our licence has been submitted to OSI for approval and we await a decision ... so I have a vested interest in seeing that backlog cleared. Regards Chris Gray VM Architect, ACUNIA -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: YAPL is bad (was: Re: Backlog assistance?)
Rob Myers scripsit: > > ...it introduces a novel obligation to disclose one's private affairs. > >... > > The licence must not attach any obligations to usage of the covered code > > that is entirely internal to the non-public affairs of the individual or > > organisation using it. > > Well, that's the GPL out for starters. :-) I'm not sure what the smiley face means in this connection, but the GPL imposes no such obligation to the world at large. If you distribute a derivative work, you are obliged to distribute the original *to the recipients of the derivative work*; likewise, if you distribute binaries, you are obliged to distribute source *to the recipients of the binaries*. If you distribute only to your partner, or to the people of your organization, or to Bill Gates, then your further obligations involve distributing only to your partner/your people/BillG. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please leave your values| Check your assumptions. In fact, at the front desk. | check your assumptions at the door. --sign in Paris hotel |--Miles Vorkosigan -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: YAPL is bad (was: Re: Backlog assistance?)
on 24/9/01 7:55 am, Rick Moen at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I note that Russ invited my comment on the APSL publication clause. > I am trying to ignore the gratuitous personal gibes, and will keep > doing so, but, on the other hand will accept his invitation. Can people claiming (or wishing) to represent opensource.org please act like professionals in dealing with issues they regard as annoying. I know it's difficult but I've seen people lose perfectly valid arguments on the basis of over-reaction to personality rather than debate. And you'll get quoted on news sites. > ...it introduces a novel obligation to disclose one's private affairs. >... > The licence must not attach any obligations to usage of the covered code > that is entirely internal to the non-public affairs of the individual or > organisation using it. Well, that's the GPL out for starters. :-) Apple's distribution clause is extroadinary in its legalese not its intent, and IMHO robustness and clarity of licenses is good. - Rob. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: YAPL is bad (was: Re: Backlog assistance?)
I note that Russ invited my comment on the APSL publication clause.
I am trying to ignore the gratuitous personal gibes, and will keep
doing so, but, on the other hand will accept his invitation.
(Russ, despite any resemblance of initials, no, I am _not_ Richard M.
Stallman. In fact, I happen to be the only person I know who has
tangled with RMS on application of the GPL's source-access provision to
business and won, but the details are none of your business. Still, I
thank you for your clarification about the APSL 1.0 patent clause, which
I had quite forgotten.)
Here is the clause I was speaking of in APSL v. 1.2
(http://www.publicsource.apple.com/apsl/):
2.2 You may use, reproduce, display, perform, modify and Deploy
Covered Code, provided that in each instance:
[...]
(c) You must make Source Code of all Your Deployed Modifications
publicly available under the terms of this License, including the
license grants set forth in Section 3 below, for as long as you Deploy
the Covered Code or twelve (12) months from the date of initial
Deployment, whichever is longer.
("Deploy" is defined separately as using covered code for any purpose
other than R&D or personal use. 2.2(d) imposes an overlapping
obligation on binary-only "deployments".)
Again, Russ's argument from formalism is correct: The OSD raises no
bar to such terms. But I would think the clause violates -- not
greatly, but somewhat -- the intent of what people consider open source
to mean. Why? Because it introduces a novel obligation to disclose
one's private affairs. The only "forcing clauses" previously considered
compatible with the concept of open source were those triggered by
public distribution of modified source code. Now, APSL-covered code
will oblige organisations to, in effect, disclose internal projects.
Now, that is certainly not the worst thing in the world. But I was
calling it, and would continue to call it, "objectionable". I'd say
the licence is flawed, OSI-approved or not. It's lucky that Apple
contributes back to BSD codebases under the upstream licence.
One possible addition to the OSD, to deal with this matter, might be
as follows:
10. The Licence Must Not Violate Privacy of Individuals or Organisations
The licence must not attach any obligations to usage of the covered code
that is entirely internal to the non-public affairs of the individual or
organisation using it.
I'm sure that can be better stated, but should illustrate the concept.
I'd be glad to try for a better rendition, if the Board has any interest.
--
Cheers, "A Discordian is a Taoist with a very strange sense of humour
Rick Moen and the inability to sit still."
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Rabbi Kwan Chi Sun Lieberwitz, _Jews for Buddha Cabal_
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: YAPL is bad (was: Re: Backlog assistance?)
begin Russell Nelson quotation: > There's nothing in the OSD which talks about privacy You are of course quite correct in this; I had forgotten. And it is disposative of the issue, unless the OSD were changed. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: YAPL is bad (was: Re: Backlog assistance?)
Rick Moen writes: > begin Karsten M. Self quotation: > > > As well it should be. OSI blundered horribly with the APSL. > > I think the Board should mull decertification, and privately suggest that > Apple Computer amend the licence to remove the objectionable publication > clause, to avert that step. I don't think that is what Karsten is talking about. He's talking about APSL 1.0, which required that every licensee, whether subject to U.S. law or not, abide by U.S. patent law. This applied even to sub-licensees distributing code from one non-US country to another non-US country. And yeah, we screwed up badly, which is one of the reasons why we created this mailing list. RMS doesn't like APSL 1.2 for reasons extraneous to free software concerns. He gets to do that, because he has no written definition for "free software". He can make it up as he goes along, and in this case he's created a privacy requirement from whole cloth. There's nothing in the OSD which talks about privacy, so we cannot consider it as a requirement, no matter how much Rick Moen, RMS, or anybody else with initials containing "R" and "M" objects to it. Now, if you think we should include a privacy requirement, propose changes to the OSD, or figure out how we can use existing language to make it happen. For good legal reasons and for obvious reasons of fairness, and to comply with the rule of law, we have to treat everybody the same, and we have to judge everybody under the law they understood to be current. Personally, I don't see what's so horrible about the publication step. You've already published the software internal to your organization. Unless you're the NSA or CIA, what's the problem with having to tell the licensor how to get the modifications? Doesn't that increase the amount of open source software available to people? -- -russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | It's a crime, not an act 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | of war. For my take, see: Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | http://quaker.org/crime.html -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: YAPL is bad (was: Re: Backlog assistance?)
begin Karsten M. Self quotation: > As well it should be. OSI blundered horribly with the APSL. Current > thinking is that certification, once granted, cannot be undone. Why? I doubt the licence gods will descend in wrath. I think the Board should mull decertification, and privately suggest that Apple Computer amend the licence to remove the objectionable publication clause, to avert that step. But I am tired of this small crew of posters who incessantly whine about OSI failing its "job" of approving new licences, rapidly shifting the basis of their appeal when challenged. One such person recently objected to my word "tactic" to describe this lobbying. (Perhaps he would prefer "ploy"?) The characteristic alternation of arguments goes like this: Poster: Licences need to be approved more rapidly to introduce improvements! Others: What specific examples of improvements are you thinking of? Poster: Well, never mind that. OSI _committed_ to approving licences. Others: Why are you in such a flippin' hurry to get lots more licences for their own sake? Aren't you aware of the licence combinatorial problem for derivative works? Aren't you aware of the problem of corporations misreading the OSD as an invitations to write a new licence for no better reason than to have their own. Poster: Well, never mind that. Licences need to be approved more rapidly to introduce improvements! One could write a quite simple, yet obnoxious, script to simulate this behaviour. > In recent cases presented to this list, there have been multiple > proposals for licensing schemes which do not meet the OSI Open Source > Definition or FSF Free Software definition. Blatantly so -- and accompanied by protracted attempts to wear down the OSI with rhetoric, when that was failing. The European lawyer (representing some CD-ROM-oriented firm?) was particularly cheeky about that, you may recall. - Cheers, "Learning Java has been a slow and tortuous process for me. Every Rick Moen few minutes, I start screaming 'No, you fools!" and have to go [EMAIL PROTECTED] read something from _Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs' to de-stress." -- The Cube, www.forum3000.org -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
RE: Backlog assistance?
> -Original Message- > From: Alex Stewart [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 22 September 2001 00:27 > > Secondly, assuming that there is still a backlog of some degree, is > there anything that I, as a newbie to this group but a reasonably > legalese-savvy and intelligent open-source advocate might be able to do > to help out in this regard? I can't necessarily promise huge amounts of > spare time for such things, but if there are things where having another > set of eyes in the loop here and there or having somebody to help > organize some part of things would help with, or whatever, I'm willing > to do what I can to help. The obvious matter is of doing what this list is for - commenting on and discussing licenses that are up for approval. There was a suggestion of forming focus-groups of people who could commit to more in-depth examination and writing semi-formal reports (made by myself). Those members of the board who monitor and post to this list responded in a non-committal but quite cold fashion, so some of use decided to try it, although we haven't got far as I at least was suddenly more busy than I expected. This situation should be different soon. When we have made one sample report we will say what the OSI Board have to say... -- Sam Barnett-Cormack Software Developer UK Mirror Service (http://www.mirror.ac.uk/) If there is no solution, there is no problem... -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Backlog assistance?
Randy Kramer wrote: > PS: Just for kicks, I looked at some pages on www.opensource.org and > counted 26 approved licenses, and see references to its (OSI's) > formation about one week after February 3, 1988. Oops! Should be "1998"-- Randy Kramer -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: YAPL is bad (was: Re: Backlog assistance?)
>> So people should come with newer licenses based on years of >> experience. That's why it would be VERY bad if the OSI never certified >> a new license anymore. >I'm not suggesting that, and I hope you're not insinuating that I am. Nope, but in a more generalisation that could mean that. (it's the mathematical way of thinking at the extremes) >However, the OSI should approve new licenses only with extreme prejudice >and deliberation. A slow, cumbersome, inefficient, deliberative process >that drives most comers to abandon their attempts at novel license >authoring is fine by me. So it's still unclear what is the OSI for in this case. Are they here to say license A is fully compliant but since it's too close to license B, we don't dare to certify it ? Maybe the "commitee" (is there something like that ?) don't see the point of having something close but having one difference, while other people might consider it as a big improvement... Is the OSI there to judge what a license is worth ? If so they should divide the OSI in 2 parts : the neutral/approval part, and the political/judging part... I think most people need the 1st part to work or use. (btw, why are you email contents MIME txt attachements ?) -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: YAPL is bad (was: Re: Backlog assistance?)
>Yet Another Public License (YAPL) is a bad trend. > >Ceterus paribus, more licenses are bad. As the number of licenses >increases, the disruption caused by an additional license increases. Why do we need processors when we already have the transistor ? Why create C++ when we already have C ? Why create Java when we already have C++ ? That's what I called the evolution. People working with the already-established-and-certified licenses may face some drawbacks or express some needs that are not met by these licenses. So people should come with newer licenses based on years of experience. That's why it would be VERY bad if the OSI never certified a new license anymore. >This is because interaction effects of licenses must be considered on a >combinatorial basis. That is, effects grow in a factorial manner. The >terms of each license must be understood independently. The >interactions of each license pair, *and each combination of licences*, >must be considered. I don't think the OSI has anything to do with that. >> written from scratch, no reuse, no inheritance, no nothing. > >Law is not OOP. Still, some of your concerns may be addressable. I think the whole world can be expressed as an object. The law included. Once you have a word for something, it's an object. So law is an object made of objects called rights. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: OSI mark. was[Re: Backlog assistance?]
| As more newbies come looking for this thing 'open-source' they keep hearing | about they're going to want to know one thing only. Is it open-source or | not? Yes or no? That means that most of them won't take the time to read these Other/Proprietary licenses. So basically they will be considered out the the OSS community just because they're not OSI approved. | -- | Steve Mallett | Just Stable, Open-Source Apps | http://OpenSourceDirectory.org | [EMAIL PROTECTED] ...and you know what I mean ;) -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Backlog assistance?
| Excuse me, but I strongly disagree with this, speaking as somebody who's | just gone through a fair amount of work (which I would happily have | avoided if possible) to create my own license specifically because none | of the other OSI licenses come very close to supporting the set of | features I want (and yes, my license is fully OSD compliant). The | existing license set encompasses the complete _conventional_ Open Source | domain, but frankly the reason most licenses are derivative is because | most people aren't being very creative. I worked very hard and looked | everywhere I could to find a license that said what I wanted and it | ain't there, so I finally gave up and spent the effort to make it. I | might even submit it to the OSI if I can convince myself that anybody in | this dessicated venue will even bother to consider looking at it.. So it seems that I'm not the only one who made this work to finally find out that something new needs to be created. Too bad, this efforts are doubled (or probably more than doubled). | Or maybe I won't bother. I like the concept of the OSI and what they're | ostensibly doing, and I'd even like to help, but when it comes right | down to it, it's not like OSI certification is actually _useful_ for | anything.. It is ! If only your software use your license, that's not a problem. But if more projects use it, that's a big deal. If you look at sourceforge.net or opensourcedirectory.org you'll see that if you want to be part of that Open Source community (which is probably the majority of projects) you have to use an OSI-approved license. There is still the "Other/Proprietary License "category", but most developpers are not confident with that (sounds tricky). So the thing is that lots of open-source efforts, when it comes to licenses, base their analysis on the OSI. Because it's easier and faster. But if it's not opened to any change, while many people feel the need for more options in licenses, there will be a growing gap. That will be bad for the whole community. That's why the problem should be solved at the source : the OSI. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Backlog assistance?
Steve Lhomme scripsit: > First, I don't know what are the pending-to-be-certified licenses. But if > someone creates a new license, it's because there is something missing or > something to remove from the existing ones. So I see that as an evolution. By no means. What is missing from the existing licenses is usually that they weren't written by whoever is rejecting them, developer or company lawyer. Not Invented Here, in short. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please leave your values| Check your assumptions. In fact, at the front desk. | check your assumptions at the door. --sign in Paris hotel |--Miles Vorkosigan -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: OSI mark. was[Re: Backlog assistance?]
On Friday 21 September 2001 03:54 pm, Steve Mallett wrote: > As more newbies come looking for this thing 'open-source' they keep hearing > about they're going to want to know one thing only. Is it open-source or > not? Yes or no? I second that opinion. As a developer, I take great pains in knowing how the software I create is licensed. But as a user all I care about is whether it's open source. Just a couple of weeks ago I burned a CD of miscellaneous packages, source and tidbits for a friend without a broadband connection. I would not have done that if I had to read 1000 licenses to make sure I wasn't violating any copyrights. -- David Johnson ___ http://www.usermode.org -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Backlog assistance?
On Saturday 22 September 2001 06:44 pm, Alex Stewart wrote: > Here are OSI certified templates. If you create a license by sticking > your name/information/etc into the appropriate fields of this license > without modifying anything else, it will be automatically certified > within (whatever the minimum reasonable turnaround is (preferably a week > or two) and stuck in the list. If you do your own thing, it could take > months (or longer) to get it certified. Instead of certifying licenses that are nothing more than "fill in the blanks", just consider them *already* certified. I use the BSD license, and filled in the blanks myself. I shouldn't have to seek additional certification for replacing [your name here] with "David Johnson". Certainly with more complicated templates, additional certification would be needed. But complicated templates will cause more problems than the solve. > Excuse me, but I strongly disagree with this, speaking as somebody who's > just gone through a fair amount of work (which I would happily have > avoided if possible) to create my own license specifically because none > of the other OSI licenses come very close to supporting the set of > features I want (and yes, my license is fully OSD compliant). I did mention that there were some holes not covered in the domain. But what's out there will fit 95% of the need, in my opinion. There will always be some people with needs that aren't met, even with 1000 licenses. -- David Johnson ___ http://www.usermode.org -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
OSI mark. was[Re: Backlog assistance?]
> Or maybe I won't bother. I like the concept of the OSI and what they're > ostensibly doing, and I'd even like to help, but when it comes right > down to it, it's not like OSI certification is actually _useful_ for > anything.. It's really useful. Maybe not in your case, but let me explain. As a user (as opposed to a developer in this example) I really and truley don't give a shit (inserted for dramatic effect only) what license a progam I use has other than to know it is compliant with the open-source definition. It's license is on the list? Great, I'm in. The day I read all those licenses to figure out every little detail of what they all mean is the day I shoot myself. Is it 'OSI certified'? That's all I need to know. That someone who knows this legal mumbo-jumbo and given it the nod is good enough for me. As more newbies come looking for this thing 'open-source' they keep hearing about they're going to want to know one thing only. Is it open-source or not? Yes or no? Please reconsider your position. IANAL, but I play one on TV! -- Steve Mallett | Just Stable, Open-Source Apps http://OpenSourceDirectory.org | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project-Listing Maintenance In A Can: http://trovesendtwo.sf.net [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aug 15th/01, I have nothing to do with license approval.) "Non-cooperation with evil is as much a duty as cooperation with good." -- Mohandas Gandhi -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Backlog assistance?
David Johnson wrote: > A far better solution would be to encourage "template" licenses, and work > towards converting existing licenses into templates. The BSD license is a > good example of a simple one. I tend to agree with this. The Apache license is another example (I note it primarily because there's already two different licenses (Apache and Vovida) listed in the OSI certified list which appear to be word-for-word identical except for the names. I think it might also be a really useful tactic to say something along the lines of: Here are OSI certified templates. If you create a license by sticking your name/information/etc into the appropriate fields of this license without modifying anything else, it will be automatically certified within (whatever the minimum reasonable turnaround is (preferably a week or two) and stuck in the list. If you do your own thing, it could take months (or longer) to get it certified. Seems to me that by itself might encourage people to look a lot harder at the templates before deciding to submit their own. Right now there's no indication that there's any real advantage (or "fast track") to not rolling one's own. > In my seldom humble opinion, the existing license set encompasses the > complete Open Source domain. There may be a few bare spots here and there, > but by and large if you need a certain set of permissions and restrictions, > an existing license will do. Excuse me, but I strongly disagree with this, speaking as somebody who's just gone through a fair amount of work (which I would happily have avoided if possible) to create my own license specifically because none of the other OSI licenses come very close to supporting the set of features I want (and yes, my license is fully OSD compliant). The existing license set encompasses the complete _conventional_ Open Source domain, but frankly the reason most licenses are derivative is because most people aren't being very creative. I worked very hard and looked everywhere I could to find a license that said what I wanted and it ain't there, so I finally gave up and spent the effort to make it. I might even submit it to the OSI if I can convince myself that anybody in this dessicated venue will even bother to consider looking at it.. Or maybe I won't bother. I like the concept of the OSI and what they're ostensibly doing, and I'd even like to help, but when it comes right down to it, it's not like OSI certification is actually _useful_ for anything.. -alex -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Backlog assistance?
Greg London wrote: > IANAL, but simply from a development point of view, > OSI does not appear to be taking advantage of some > of open-source's best feature: patches and evolution There is a BIG difference between software and licenses. One of the most pertinent differences in this context is that software is interpreted by _machines_ and licenses are interpreted by _people_. Machines have no problem dealing with code that's been patched and modified to the point where it becomes spaghetti, but if that happens to a license you're in very ambiguous legal waters. > It would also create some unity among different > variations of licenses. Currently, if the GPL > were attacked legally, the people who use the > Artistic License would have little at stake. > but if a number of different groups use the same > base-license, and the base license is legally > attacked, there would advantage for a combined > legal defense from all users of the base-license. Sure, bonding and a common fight sounds like a good thing, until you realize that if the fight doesn't go the right way _everybody_ loses. From a copyright-holder's perspective, this is an extremely bad thing, and for open source in general it's potentially disastrous. Like genetics, some variation in the pool helps keep an individual weakness from destroying the entire group. (note, before somebody jumps on me for this, that there is a difference between "some variation" and YAPL issues. Everything can be taken to extremes.) -alex -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Backlog assistance?
On Saturday 22 September 2001 02:17 pm, Greg London wrote: > The OSD has 11(?) requirements. > how hard would it be to come up with a minimal license > that defines these requirements. THen if you want to > create your own license, you inherit the minimal license > and add to it. It's not as easy as that. Consider the following license: "You are permitted to redistribute, modify and copy this software without restriction". Bingo! It meets the definition. But it would make a lousy "base class". Even the simplest clause added to it would greatly change its meaning. Another disadvantage to license inheritance is that it would encourage further license proliferation. Three licenses descended from a base license is STILL four licenses. A far better solution would be to encourage "template" licenses, and work towards converting existing licenses into templates. The BSD license is a good example of a simple one. In my seldom humble opinion, the existing license set encompasses the complete Open Source domain. There may be a few bare spots here and there, but by and large if you need a certain set of permissions and restrictions, an existing license will do. Looking back a couple of years on this list, it seems that 9 out of 10 licenses submitted did not meet the letter or spirit of Open Source. Of those that did, most consisted of either trivial changes or rewrites of existing licenses. -- David Johnson ___ http://www.usermode.org -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Backlog assistance?
Alex Stewart wrote: > If the point is to provide a > few good, clear-cut licenses > for people to choose from, that's one > thing, and suggests the OSI should be very picky. > If the goal is to encourage open-source licensing > terms amongst the software community, > that's very different, and suggests that the OSI > should (try to) encourage (and thus certify) > anything that meats the open-source requirements. IANAL, but simply from a development point of view, OSI does not appear to be taking advantage of some of open-source's best feature: patches and evolution currently, all OSI certified licenses are "One-Off" applications, written from scratch, no reuse, no inheritance, no nothing. And their speed at which the approve licenses seems to be in line with that of an organization who is testing multiple, and completely independent, applications. And verification is basically what OSI does, except it's in a legal manner versus software manner. The OSD is the spec, everyone sends in their personal interpretation of that spec, and then OSI has to verify the license completely meets the spec. in order to make it easier to create your own license, perhaps someone could come up with a minimum "code base" and people could add to it. The OSD has 11(?) requirements. how hard would it be to come up with a minimal license that defines these requirements. THen if you want to create your own license, you inherit the minimal license and add to it. Copyright law only grants so many rights to the author, (something like copy, modify, distribute, display, public perform, but this is from vague memory) And there are only so many variations of things you can do with these rights and still be considered open source. And some are tied directly into the OSD itself copy and distribute are guaranteed. And either Modify or distribute with patches must be included as well. The biggest one seems to be that if yuo modify and redistribute, that new distribution must be under the same license as the original, to prevent code hijacking. could it be possible (and more importantly, of value) for OSI (or someone) to develop a "license developers kit" which includes a base-line license, and possibly, additional items from which people can select. throw in a good No Warranty clause. give a selection of what country's laws any disputes will be settled in. People could use that as a base license, select the required alternations, and then add an addendum area where they put their specific licensing requirements. (GPL could put it's political rant in it's ammendment section, for example) And the base-line license could say that whenever the ammendments conflict with the base license, the base license wins (or whatever the legal term is). Which should then prevent people from hijacking the base-license. And license incompatibilities with one another should be minimized. It would also create some unity among different variations of licenses. Currently, if the GPL were attacked legally, the people who use the Artistic License would have little at stake. but if a number of different groups use the same base-license, and the base license is legally attacked, there would advantage for a combined legal defense from all users of the base-license. and more importantly (benificially), OSI wouldn't have to manually approve every variation under the sun. This would allow OSI to gain the same benifits that open-source software has, and apply them to licensing development and approval. just a thought. IANAL Greg -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Backlog assistance?
Ok.. I find it interesting to note that despite significant back and forth and contributions from several different individuals, so far nobody in this thread has even attempted to address either of my actual questions. I think I'm beginning to see why there's a backlog. Steve Lhomme wrote: > | > Completely. Since they are pending, they are not mentioned on the > | > opensource.org website. > | > | Therefore: Consider yourself invited to read their postings to the list > | archives and report back. Ok, I was under the impression that since people had noted there was a backlog, there was something somewhere that kept track of what was in it, or somebody was at least trying to have some understanding of the general status.. apparently this isn't the case, so I'll just go look at the archives and try to figure out which licenses are still pending and which aren't, and whether any progress is actually being made.. I guess that's that question sorta answered. > I will. But if you followed the thread I replied to a message that > complained about a license being backlogged. And even if I'm new to this > list it's not the first time I see people complaining about the stalled > state of the OSI. (and outside this list too) Umm, for the record, this thread was not a complaint, it was just an inquiry and offer of help. After reading the responses here so far I've managed to come up with a couple more questions.. I've looked around all the pages I can find on www.opensource.org, but I can find very little information about the organization itself (perhaps this is something I should be asking of [EMAIL PROTECTED], but I figured I'd try here first). How does the OSI actually work regarding license approval? Who can or can't approve a license, and do they rely on help from others to evaluate them or otherwise move the procedure along? How does this list actually fit in the whole process? (is there a process at all?) Basically, all I can find on the list is "submit it and we'll get back to you" (it isn't even terribly clear on who "we" is, though there's a side-note talking about when board meetings are, so does that imply that licenses are only approved by board vote?) Also, regarding the whole issue of whether more licenses are a good thing or a bad thing, it seems to me that this should be determined to some degree by what the OSI is actually here for. What is the organization's mission statement, anyway? If the point is to provide a few good, clear-cut licenses for people to choose from, that's one thing, and suggests the OSI should be very picky. If the goal is to encourage open-source licensing terms amongst the software community, that's very different, and suggests that the OSI should (try to) encourage (and thus certify) anything that meats the open-source requirements. If the goal is both, then it gets a bit more complicated, but if nothing else, I would suggest a better approach might be to have more than one tier: "OSI Certified" can include umpteen billion licenses, but possibly have a smaller subset of "OSI reccomended" licenses that include the old standards and anything particularly significant/distinct. On the web site, when somebody goes to look at licenses, they first get the list of "reccomended" licenses with a note that says "please use one of these if you can", and then a note at the bottom linking to the larger list of "OSI Certified" licenses, and only after you've gone through those do you get to the instructions for how to submit a new one. But anyway, that's just some thoughts off the top of my head (my apologies if I'm reiterating things others have already said, I'm still slowly working my way through the archives). -alex -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Backlog assistance?
| For everyone: | | Maybe the OSI could publish a few figures, like: That's exactly what I was looking for (from them) by saying : "make things clear with the community" -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Backlog assistance?
Just a different $.02, but relevant I think. For Steve, I think that OSI recently started some other initiatives to try to speed up the license review process (isn't there at least one voluntary advisory committee reviewing one license?). For everyone: Maybe the OSI could publish a few figures, like: * How many licenses have been submitted for review * How many licenses have been approved or rejected * The average time from submission to approval or rejection (no matter how disheartening this may be, it at least lets "customers" with new licenses have an idea of what they're in for) I also (think I) know that the OSI has at times devoted their attention to licenses that they considered more important than others for one reason or another. This is not necessarily a bad thing -- if an IBM or HP or whoever seeks approval for a license that might bring them "into the fold", I think most of us would like to see prompt attention to such licenses or issues. I was going to also suggest that OSI establish some sort of target throughput figures, for their own use, and for the user community. Even though the time from submission to approval or rejection may be rather long, I suspect the licenses are under active consideration for a much shorter period of time. In addition, I suspect that more than one license is under semi-active consideration at any one time (meaning someone reads it, has some questions, asks some questions, but goes on to the next license while waiting for a response). Can the OSI come up with some benchmark figures that they think are reasonable to achieve, maybe something like: Average time from start of active consideration to approval or rejection: 4 months Average license approvals: 1 / month (or average licenses that start active consideration) Maybe the figures should be divided to consider "major" licenses (those significantly different, or with clauses that appear to require considerable analyisis, compared to existing licenses) and "minor" licenses (licenses almost the same as other licenses, with minor changes but more than just "name and address" stuff). Maybe establish two different timelines, and maybe a reasonable target is approval (or rejection) of one "major" and one "minor" license per month. If the user community knows that, for example, 60 licenses have been submitted, and the OSI target is approval or rejection of one or two per month, they can see what they're in for, and may be more likely to choose to use an existing license, (possibly on an interim basis). The target for approval is just that -- a target, not a quota. If really measured it should not be judged on a monthly basis, but rather on something like a sliding 12 month window basis. In saying all this, I'm not sure how to treat or count a rejection, because rejections may not really be final -- they may just prompt the potential licensor to submit another round of modifications or arguments. Randy Kramer PS: Just for kicks, I looked at some pages on www.opensource.org and counted 26 approved licenses, and see references to its (OSI's) formation about one week after February 3, 1988. It's now about 43 months since then, so maybe one license (approved) per month is not far from reality . (I recognize that this is a pretty crude measurement for a lot of reasons -- I don't know whether OSI started attempting to approve licenses near that time or not, I don't know how many they rejected, etc.) And, as I'm sure Rick would ask, do we need more than 26 OSI licenses? Why? Aren't we just creating the Tower of Babel for Open Source Licenses? Which licenses are compatible with which other licenses? PS: For Steve -- there is a web site which attempts to compare some free licenses to help a software developer choose a license -- http://zooko.com/license_quick_ref.html. It was put together by Zooko O'Whielacronx. Steve Lhomme wrote: > > | begin Steve Lhomme quotation: > | > | > First, I don't know what are the pending-to-be-certified licenses. > | > | Ah, so yours was purely a _theoretical_ concern. > > Completely. Since they are pending, they are not mentioned on the > opensource.org website. > > | Well, please do talk to us about the evolutionary merit of some new > | licence when you can actually point to one displaying such a trait. > > Well, I thought the OSI was there to approve or not the new licenses (you > meet the rules, you don't meet the rules), not stop new ones because they > don't add anything, anyway. > > Also if anybody create a new license (that's nearly my case, because I'm > helping building a new open-source license), they'll be either reluctant to > wait for an hypothetical OSI approval and will be waiting ages for nothing, > or they just won't ask the OSI and start spreading it in other places. So > what would the OSI be worth if they stop doing what they're here for ?! > > I know it takes time, and maybe money to do all that. But if they can't work > on it an
Re: Backlog assistance?
| > Completely. Since they are pending, they are not mentioned on the | > opensource.org website. | | Therefore: Consider yourself invited to read their postings to the list | archives and report back. I will. But if you followed the thread I replied to a message that complained about a license being backlogged. And even if I'm new to this list it's not the first time I see people complaining about the stalled state of the OSI. (and outside this list too) | > Well, I thought the OSI was there to approve or not the new licenses | > (you meet the rules, you don't meet the rules), not stop new ones | > because they don't add anything, anyway. | | Ah, so you're now switching tactics, dropping the vague appeals to | theory, and falling back on procedure? Tactics ? Is there a contradiction between theory and practical things ? Is it because my previous message was theoretical that I should only speak of theoretical things ? This paragraph was related to what I said after it, not my previous messages. | > Also if anybody create a new license (that's nearly my case, because I'm | > helping building a new open-source license), they'll be either reluctant to | > wait for an hypothetical OSI approval and will be waiting ages for nothing, | > or they just won't ask the OSI and start spreading it in other places. | | Ah, so you're speaking for an invisible "silent majority", so to speak. Before I arrived to this list, I already knew the OSI was very slow (nearly dead). So I was part of that silent majority that never post a message here. So even if I don't consider myself as a spokes-person for anybody, I could reply "yes". But I don't know if that's a majority, so that's "no". | > I know it takes time, and maybe money to do all that. But if they can't work | > on it anymore, why don't they say it ? (make things clear with the | > community) | | You know, Steve, I kind of liked your earlier assertion of evolutionary | advantages to new licences, and am still looking forward to your | adducing examples of them. Too bad that requires _work_ on your part, | when gratuitously complaining about other people is undoubtedly a great | deal easier. If I had the time to do read all the pending licenses to find out what are the evolutionary ones, I'll probably join the OSI and also (at the same time) find out which one meet the OSI rules and would add them to the list of the "OSI Certified" licenses. Unfortunately I don't have that time, nor whishes to join the OSI (for the moment). I'll let them (OSI) do their job, and I'll do mine (developper and contributor to a license not even pending). -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Backlog assistance?
begin Steve Lhomme quotation: > Completely. Since they are pending, they are not mentioned on the > opensource.org website. Therefore: Consider yourself invited to read their postings to the list archives and report back. > Well, I thought the OSI was there to approve or not the new licenses > (you meet the rules, you don't meet the rules), not stop new ones > because they don't add anything, anyway. Ah, so you're now switching tactics, dropping the vague appeals to theory, and falling back on procedure? > Also if anybody create a new license (that's nearly my case, because I'm > helping building a new open-source license), they'll be either reluctant to > wait for an hypothetical OSI approval and will be waiting ages for nothing, > or they just won't ask the OSI and start spreading it in other places. Ah, so you're speaking for an invisible "silent majority", so to speak. > I know it takes time, and maybe money to do all that. But if they can't work > on it anymore, why don't they say it ? (make things clear with the > community) You know, Steve, I kind of liked your earlier assertion of evolutionary advantages to new licences, and am still looking forward to your adducing examples of them. Too bad that requires _work_ on your part, when gratuitously complaining about other people is undoubtedly a great deal easier. -- Cheers, Evolution: Life's a niche, and then you die. Rick Moen [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Backlog assistance?
| begin Steve Lhomme quotation: | | > First, I don't know what are the pending-to-be-certified licenses. | | Ah, so yours was purely a _theoretical_ concern. Completely. Since they are pending, they are not mentioned on the opensource.org website. | Well, please do talk to us about the evolutionary merit of some new | licence when you can actually point to one displaying such a trait. Well, I thought the OSI was there to approve or not the new licenses (you meet the rules, you don't meet the rules), not stop new ones because they don't add anything, anyway. Also if anybody create a new license (that's nearly my case, because I'm helping building a new open-source license), they'll be either reluctant to wait for an hypothetical OSI approval and will be waiting ages for nothing, or they just won't ask the OSI and start spreading it in other places. So what would the OSI be worth if they stop doing what they're here for ?! I know it takes time, and maybe money to do all that. But if they can't work on it anymore, why don't they say it ? (make things clear with the community) -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Backlog assistance?
begin Steve Lhomme quotation: > First, I don't know what are the pending-to-be-certified licenses. Ah, so yours was purely a _theoretical_ concern. Well, please do talk to us about the evolutionary merit of some new licence when you can actually point to one displaying such a trait. -- Cheers, "That article and its poster have been cancelled." Rick Moen -- David B. O'Donnel, sysadmin for America Online [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Backlog assistance?
| begin Steve Lhomme quotation: | | > And so they're currently stuck with the ones already approved. Not | > letting a better chance to newer (and so probably better, because of | > years of experience of the problems that already happened). | | I'm curious as to what specific features you see as improvements, in any | of the submitted-but-not-yet-approved licences. Frankly, I've not | noticed anything innovative and useful. First, I don't know what are the pending-to-be-certified licenses. But if someone creates a new license, it's because there is something missing or something to remove from the existing ones. So I see that as an evolution. An evolution to give more choice, and maybe add a new idea noone ever thought about. Isn't that what open-source is about ? Base your work on the existing one to go "further" ? The OSI approval has become a de-facto standard for open-source licenses. But if it's closed to anything new (not approving anything anymore), that's not going to be good for the whole community. That's what I find is a real pity. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Backlog assistance?
begin Steve Lhomme quotation: > And so they're currently stuck with the ones already approved. Not > letting a better chance to newer (and so probably better, because of > years of experience of the problems that already happened). I'm curious as to what specific features you see as improvements, in any of the submitted-but-not-yet-approved licences. Frankly, I've not noticed anything innovative and useful. -- Cheers, "Why is the alphabet in that order? Is it because of that song?" Rick Moen -- Steven Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Backlog assistance?
I think it's a real pity, because it slows down a lot of effort in the Open-Source direction/community. The OSI approval has become a guarantee for developpers and companies who want to use open-source softwares. And so they're currently stuck with the ones already approved. Not letting a better chance to newer (and so probably better, because of years of experience of the problems that already happened). Also in the advocacy section of the website, they say that there are proof that it's possible to make business with open-source licences. The 2 examples are Caldera and RedHat... in 1998 ! When you see the situation of Caldera moving as fast as possible from oepn-source to make more valuable business and RedHat, as the other distros, is still not profitable. So I think that keeping the Caldera example on the website is at least counter-productive (for anyone following the news) ! - Original Message - From: "Alex Stewart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2001 1:26 AM Subject: Backlog assistance? | Greetings all.. | | I was recently browsing through the list archives here, and noted that a | few weeks back Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> stated something to | the effect of: | | > Why isn't it approved? Because we got hideously backlogged. | | And so, I have a couple of questions.. | | First, are things still backlogged, and if so, how much? | | Secondly, assuming that there is still a backlog of some degree, is | there anything that I, as a newbie to this group but a reasonably | legalese-savvy and intelligent open-source advocate might be able to do | to help out in this regard? I can't necessarily promise huge amounts of | spare time for such things, but if there are things where having another | set of eyes in the loop here and there or having somebody to help | organize some part of things would help with, or whatever, I'm willing | to do what I can to help. | | (I started looking at this list because I'm currently in the process of | finishing up a license document which I was looking at submitting, but I | figure if folks are currently backlogged I should do what I can to | reduce that situation before loading you all up with more stuff :) ) | | -alex -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Backlog assistance?
Greetings all.. I was recently browsing through the list archives here, and noted that a few weeks back Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> stated something to the effect of: > Why isn't it approved? Because we got hideously backlogged. And so, I have a couple of questions.. First, are things still backlogged, and if so, how much? Secondly, assuming that there is still a backlog of some degree, is there anything that I, as a newbie to this group but a reasonably legalese-savvy and intelligent open-source advocate might be able to do to help out in this regard? I can't necessarily promise huge amounts of spare time for such things, but if there are things where having another set of eyes in the loop here and there or having somebody to help organize some part of things would help with, or whatever, I'm willing to do what I can to help. (I started looking at this list because I'm currently in the process of finishing up a license document which I was looking at submitting, but I figure if folks are currently backlogged I should do what I can to reduce that situation before loading you all up with more stuff :) ) -alex -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
