RE: IPL as a burden
OSI Certified Open Source Software is software that is distributed under an approved open source license. So software that is "public domain" (to use your term) is not certifiable. This is not intended as a value judgment, merely as a description of what our certification mark is used for. /Larry Rosen > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2001 11:36 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: IPL as a burden > > > on Tue, Jan 23, 2001 at 11:15:52AM -0800, Lawrence E. Rosen > ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > OSI Certified Open Source applies to _licenses_, not _software_. > > > > Actually, no, the certification mark is applied to *software* that is > > distributed under approved *licenses*. Certification marks cannot be > > applied to licenses, because licenses aren't "goods" distributed in > > commerce. > > OK. Clarifying question: the certified entity is the license and its > terms. So distribution under a doctrine of "public domain" > (abandonment, etc.), leaves you without a basis for affixing this lable, > no? And, yes, I realize that PD is used here advisably. > > -- > Karsten M. Self <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>http://kmself.home.netcom.com/ > What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? There is no K5 cabal > http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/ http://www.kuro5hin.org >
Berkeley DB: (was RE: IPL as a burden)
"Ben Tilly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > It boils down to saying that you are free to use this > software, with or without modificaiton, in any software > for which source is available. You may not remove > their copyright notice. Said notice includes contact > information in case you want to negotiate a different > license or purchase support for Berkeley DB. > > > The license is at http://www.sleepycat.com/license.net. The license says *Redistributions in any form must be accompanied by information on *how to obtain complete source code for the DB software and any *accompanying software that uses the DB software You can derive "closed source" software from the Berkely DB software. If you choose to distribute, you must publish the source. (This is similar to the GPL.) Forrest J. Cavalier III, Mib Software Voice 570-992-8824 http://www.rocketaware.com/ has over 30,000 links to source, libraries, functions, applications, and documentation.
Re: IPL as a burden
Lou Grinzo wrote: > What about dual-licensing? Can a company say, "this tool is free and > distributed under the GPL, but only for creating free software; if you want > to sell your software you have to pay for a license and get it under our > normal close-source license"? Or would that violate the GPL If the GPLed copies are distributed freely, it's kind of pointless, since a GPLed work can be *used* for anything whatsoever. The GNU GPL is a copyright license, and constrains only copying, modifying, and the distribution of modified and unmodified copies. > and/or OSI guidelines? Such a license violates OSD clause 1. > I'm not asking this in an attempt to be a devil's advocate. I thought this > was OK, but this thread now has me wondering if my assumption was wrong or > if there's some reason why using different licenses with different customers > isn't a viable solution for the company in question. The AFPL might be usable; it is not, of course, an open source license. -- There is / one art || John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> no more / no less || http://www.reutershealth.com to do / all things || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan with art- / lessness \\ -- Piet Hein
RE: IPL as a burden
"Lawrence E. Rosen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > OSI Certified Open Source applies to _licenses_, not _software_. > >Actually, no, the certification mark is applied to *software* that is >distributed under approved *licenses*. Certification marks cannot be >applied to licenses, because licenses aren't "goods" distributed in >commerce. Then I think your position on Berkeley DB, shipped by Sleepycat Software, would do wonders in clearing this up. To my eyes they are open source and they claim to be open source. The product is widely used and their license seems straightforward and simple. It boils down to saying that you are free to use this software, with or without modificaiton, in any software for which source is available. You may not remove their copyright notice. Said notice includes contact information in case you want to negotiate a different license or purchase support for Berkeley DB. The license is at http://www.sleepycat.com/license.net. Cheers, Ben _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: IPL as a burden
on Tue, Jan 23, 2001 at 11:15:52AM -0800, Lawrence E. Rosen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > OSI Certified Open Source applies to _licenses_, not _software_. > > Actually, no, the certification mark is applied to *software* that is > distributed under approved *licenses*. Certification marks cannot be > applied to licenses, because licenses aren't "goods" distributed in > commerce. OK. Clarifying question: the certified entity is the license and its terms. So distribution under a doctrine of "public domain" (abandonment, etc.), leaves you without a basis for affixing this lable, no? And, yes, I realize that PD is used here advisably. -- Karsten M. Self <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>http://kmself.home.netcom.com/ What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? There is no K5 cabal http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/ http://www.kuro5hin.org PGP signature
RE: IPL as a burden
> OSI Certified Open Source applies to _licenses_, not _software_. Actually, no, the certification mark is applied to *software* that is distributed under approved *licenses*. Certification marks cannot be applied to licenses, because licenses aren't "goods" distributed in commerce. /Larry Rosen
Re: IPL as a burden
on Tue, Jan 23, 2001 at 01:36:11PM -0500, Lou Grinzo ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > What about dual-licensing? Can a company say, "this tool is free and > distributed under the GPL, but only for creating free software; if you want > to sell your software you have to pay for a license and get it under our > normal close-source license"? Or would that violate the GPL and/or OSI > guidelines? Cf: Troll Tech's Qt libraries? OSI Certified Open Source applies to _licenses_, not _software_. This is slightly different from the FSF's definition of free software, which applies to software. The mapping of both definitions onto software is very similar, though not identical. What is commonly called "public domain" (Larry tells me there's no such beast until copyright expiry) is, for example, FSF free software, but not OSI Open Source. The free software license, if it met the OSD, and was available without prejudice to all comers, should satisfy the OSI's requirements. Alternative licensing terms, applying, again, without prejudice to all comers for other than free software use shouldn't IMO effect this. > I'm not asking this in an attempt to be a devil's advocate. I thought > this was OK, but this thread now has me wondering if my assumption was > wrong or if there's some reason why using different licenses with > different customers isn't a viable solution for the company in > question. Frankly, my recommendation to them would be either to create a gated community along the lines of Sun's Java efforts and some of the Collab projects, forgoing the lable of OSI Certified Open Source, or work out a dual licensing scheme as we're discussing here. Intentions appear to be for source distribution but not fully free terms. Their problem appears to be a desire for rivalrous simultaneous confectionary consumptive activities. Cake, have, eat, not. -- Karsten M. Self <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>http://kmself.home.netcom.com/ What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? There is no K5 cabal http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/ http://www.kuro5hin.org PGP signature
RE: IPL as a burden
What about dual-licensing? Can a company say, "this tool is free and distributed under the GPL, but only for creating free software; if you want to sell your software you have to pay for a license and get it under our normal close-source license"? Or would that violate the GPL and/or OSI guidelines? I'm not asking this in an attempt to be a devil's advocate. I thought this was OK, but this thread now has me wondering if my assumption was wrong or if there's some reason why using different licenses with different customers isn't a viable solution for the company in question. Take care, Lou Grinzo Editor, LinuxProgramming.com -- Angelo Schneider write: Manfred Schmid wrote: > Hi all! [...] > > "When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. > Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the > freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this > service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you > want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new > free programs; and that you know you can do these things." > > GNU reads > > "`Free software'' is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the > concept, you should think of ``free speech'', not ``free beer.'' > > ``Free software'' refers to the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, > study, change and improve the software." > > To me, a lot of the discussion gets down to the "free beer" question. > May I ask the Board for an official statement: Is the charging of > license fees (or execution fees) definitely a no-go to qualify it as > OSI-compliant Open Source? > > Up to now, I did not find any such statement on opensource.org > > Manfred Nope, taking fees is no problem either for open source nor for GPL. The problem is: you can not take fees from customer A and waive thme from customer B. You can not say: customer A may redistribute/modify sources and pay a fee to you and customer B may NOT modify it. OSI simply says: ALL CUSTOMERS ARE EQUAL. If your license does not meet that criteria it is not OSI/open source. Angelo -- Angelo Schneider OOAD/UML [EMAIL PROTECTED] Putlitzstr. 24 Patterns/FrameWorks Fon: +49 721 9812465 76137 Karlsruhe C++/JAVAFax: +49 721 9812467
Re: IPL as a burden
John Cowan wrote: > Angelo Schneider wrote: > > > Nope, taking fees is no problem either for open source nor for GPL. > > The problem is: you can not take fees from customer A and waive thme > > from customer B. > > Sure you can. The FSF charges for the GNU CDs it distributes > (historically a major income source for them), but also gives away > the exact same software for download via FTP. You cannot appeal > to the DFSG/OSD anti-discrimination rule and expect them > to give you a free or even at-cost CD on the strength of it. The problem is that you are discriminating based on class of customer. It is not simply a matter for charging for CDs. The IPL discriminates between various classes of customers, making some pay a license fee and other don't have to pay a license fee. The FTP download is freely available to everyone - not just a specific class of customers. > > > Likewise, GPLed software *may* contain technical means that > compel users to pay a fee when they use the program. However, > the libre nature of GPLed software means that anyone can create > a version of the program which does not contain that code. > > > You can not say: customer A may redistribute/modify sources and pay a > > fee to you and customer B may NOT modify it. > > Correct. > > > OSI simply says: ALL CUSTOMERS ARE EQUAL. > > In respect of their rights to modify, redistribute, etc. > Not necessarily in all other respects. > > -- > There is / one art || John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > no more / no less || http://www.reutershealth.com > to do / all things || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan > with art- / lessness \\ -- Piet Hein Brian DeSpain VA Linux Systems
Re: IPL as a burden
Angelo Schneider wrote: > Nope, taking fees is no problem either for open source nor for GPL. > The problem is: you can not take fees from customer A and waive thme > from customer B. Sure you can. The FSF charges for the GNU CDs it distributes (historically a major income source for them), but also gives away the exact same software for download via FTP. You cannot appeal to the DFSG/OSD anti-discrimination rule and expect them to give you a free or even at-cost CD on the strength of it. Likewise, GPLed software *may* contain technical means that compel users to pay a fee when they use the program. However, the libre nature of GPLed software means that anyone can create a version of the program which does not contain that code. > You can not say: customer A may redistribute/modify sources and pay a > fee to you and customer B may NOT modify it. Correct. > OSI simply says: ALL CUSTOMERS ARE EQUAL. In respect of their rights to modify, redistribute, etc. Not necessarily in all other respects. -- There is / one art || John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> no more / no less || http://www.reutershealth.com to do / all things || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan with art- / lessness \\ -- Piet Hein
Re: IPL as a burden
Manfred Schmid wrote: > Hi all! [...] > > "When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. > Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the > freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this > service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you > want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new > free programs; and that you know you can do these things." > > GNU reads > > "`Free software'' is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the > concept, you should think of ``free speech'', not ``free beer.'' > > ``Free software'' refers to the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, > study, change and improve the software." > > To me, a lot of the discussion gets down to the "free beer" question. > May I ask the Board for an official statement: Is the charging of > license fees (or execution fees) definitely a no-go to qualify it as > OSI-compliant Open Source? > > Up to now, I did not find any such statement on opensource.org > > Manfred Nope, taking fees is no problem either for open source nor for GPL. The problem is: you can not take fees from customer A and waive thme from customer B. You can not say: customer A may redistribute/modify sources and pay a fee to you and customer B may NOT modify it. OSI simply says: ALL CUSTOMERS ARE EQUAL. If your license does not meet that criteria it is not OSI/open source. Angelo -- Angelo Schneider OOAD/UML [EMAIL PROTECTED] Putlitzstr. 24 Patterns/FrameWorks Fon: +49 721 9812465 76137 Karlsruhe C++/JAVAFax: +49 721 9812467
Re: IPL as a burden
The comment was ironic, to make that self-same point. We can't look at the letter of it, but at the feelings of the community which supports the concept... and the irony is directed at IntraDAT... SamBC - Original Message - From: "Andrew J Bromage" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > G'day all. > > On Wed, Jan 17, 2001 at 11:34:49AM +, SamBC wrote: > > > The OSD requires that licenses do not discriminate against a group of > > people - it may be pushing it, but this license discriminates against > > those unable (or at an even greater push, unwilling) to pay a license > > fee. > > That _is_ pushing it. The GPL discriminates against those unable or > unwilling to comply with the GPL. > > Cheers, > Andrew Bromage >
Re: IPL as a burden
Ian Lance Taylor writes: > I'm sorry, I was thinking that you were talking about using an open > source license, and then claiming license fees on top of that. Now I > understand that you were just continuing your claim that requiring > license fees was compatible with open source. That's interesting; I > don't see a clear statement in the OSD that recipients of a program be > permitted to run it. None is needed. If you have legally received a copy of a program (and OSD #1 guarantees the right of the person giving you a copy to do so), you are free to use it or not, as you wish. Copyright law only restricts copying. You could only restrict the activities of a *recipient* if you could require them to execute a license, but OSD #7 prohibits that. -- -russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | "This is Unix... 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | Stop acting so helpless." Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | --Daniel J. Bernstein
Re: IPL as a burden
on Wed, Jan 17, 2001 at 10:17:41AM -0800, Frank LaMonica ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Gregor, > I like the terminology you used: "source included software (SIS)". > SIS would be much better than a closed source, proprietary > alternative, but I don't see any incentive for open source programmers > to contribute to such a program. As has been noted severally, source availability covers a spectrum, probably best described as multidimensional. There are terms which *require* permanent availability of sources -- RMS applies the term "Copyleft" to such licenses. GNU GPL is an example. There are terms which require permanent availability but limit the scope of coverage in derived works: LGPL, MozPL, etc. There are terms which provide for source distribution and modification, but which *don't* require any such availability in derived works: BSD/MIT, etc. Yadda, but original author maintains certain controls: Some of Apple's licenses, SCSL, Netscap Public License. Academic or similar licensing arrangements (Sun, w/ Solaris, IIRC). NDA arrangements. Employment arrangements. Code escrow. ...etc. There is a continuum of source availability. At various points in the continuum, you'll find various amounts of participation, given sufficient reasons, or, as the expression goes, reasons per hour. This continuum is illustrated by Bob Young in his book _Under the Radar_, and by Don Rosenberg in _Open Source: The Unauthorized White Papers_, with a handy diagram, even. See also: http://www.stromian.com/Open_Source_Licensing.htm Cheers. -- Karsten M. Self <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>http://kmself.home.netcom.com/ What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? There is no K5 cabal http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/ http://www.kuro5hin.org PGP signature
Re: IPL as a burden
G'day all. On Wed, Jan 17, 2001 at 11:34:49AM +, SamBC wrote: > The OSD requires that licenses do not discriminate against a group of > people - it may be pushing it, but this license discriminates against > those unable (or at an even greater push, unwilling) to pay a license > fee. That _is_ pushing it. The GPL discriminates against those unable or unwilling to comply with the GPL. Cheers, Andrew Bromage
Re: IPL as a burden
G'day all. On Wed, Jan 17, 2001 at 06:48:44PM -0800, Frank LaMonica wrote: > Please clarify or expand on that statement. The issue under discussion was what incentive would hackers have for contributing to a product released under a Source Included Software scheme that was not Open Source such as, for example, software released under the IPL as it currently exists. Someone from intraDAT (I think it was Manfred) said earlier that the company would offer money to people who sent improvements to their software back to them if they included it in the product. No details have come out about how this would be done or what guarantees there would be (and nor should they; this is an OSS licence discussion list, not a forum for discussing business practices of non-OSS companies), however I think this addresses the point. Rather than building an external group of unfunded developers under the bazaar-based OSS model, build an external group of partially-funded developers. I don't pretend to have any insight as to whether or not such a business model would succeed in the real world. Cheers, Andrew Bromage
Re: IPL as a burden
Andrew J Bromage wrote: > G'day all. > > On Wed, Jan 17, 2001 at 10:17:41AM -0800, Frank LaMonica wrote: > > > I like the terminology you used: "source included software (SIS)". SIS would > > be much better than a closed source, proprietary alternative, but I don't see > > any incentive for open source programmers to contribute to such a program. > > As I understand it, interDAT will be offering them money. > > Cheers, > Andrew Bromage Andrew, Please clarify or expand on that statement. Regards, Frank begin:vcard n:LaMonica;Frank tel;fax:1 (512) 378-3004 tel;home:1 (512) 378-3003 tel;work:1 (512) 378-3003 x-mozilla-html:FALSE org:VA Linux Systems Inc.;Marketing adr:;;114 South Prize Oaks Dr.;Cedar Park;TX;78613;USA version:2.1 email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] title:Strategic Director of Multi-Media x-mozilla-cpt:;-1184 fn:Frank LaMonica end:vcard
Re: IPL as a burden
G'day all. On Wed, Jan 17, 2001 at 10:17:41AM -0800, Frank LaMonica wrote: > I like the terminology you used: "source included software (SIS)". SIS would > be much better than a closed source, proprietary alternative, but I don't see > any incentive for open source programmers to contribute to such a program. As I understand it, interDAT will be offering them money. Cheers, Andrew Bromage
Re: IPL as a burden
Gregor Hoffleit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Citates from the GPL: > Well, the GPL says this: > > "Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not > covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the > Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is covered only > if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of > having been made by running the Program). Whether that is true depends on > what the Program does." > Gregor Hoffleit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Concludes: > > I.e. the GPL doesn't restrict the act of running the program, and if > somebody else redistributes the program, he can't impose any restrictions > on running the program either. > I dissagree, with the conclusion. The GPL lets it open wether there is or might be a restriction on the act of running the program. Probably this is not intended by the GPL, but in the citate above, its clearly stated: "the license does not restrict runnning of a program", this means it does not SAY anything about the running of the program. You can not draw the conclusion that it does allow everything and requires all changes to allow everything. In fact this would be impossible. E.G. you add a peace of source code written in SPARC assembler, this implies the restriction that the sourcecode only runs on SPARC compatible runtime environments. Also you could invent restrictions like: this code may never run on a nuclear war head controller. The GPL does nothing to prefent this. Regards, Angelo -- Angelo Schneider OOAD/UML [EMAIL PROTECTED] Putlitzstr. 24 Patterns/FrameWorks Fon: +49 721 9812465 76137 Karlsruhe C++/JAVAFax: +49 721 9812467
Re: IPL as a burden
"Forrest J. Cavalier III" wrote:
> What happens to a future user's rights if intradat is out of
> business (i.e. no way to execute a license?)
Or, worse, intradat gets bought up and the new owners try to kill off
('unofficial' versions of) the software by increasing the license fees
to, say, EUR 100,000,000 per execution?
Mark
RE: IPL as a burden
"Carter Bullard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Gentle people, >I'm not a laywer so if I'm missing something, please fill in. IANAL as well. > > From: Gregor Hoffleit [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > Well, the GPL says this: > > > > "Activities other than copying, distribution and > > modification are not > > covered by this License; they are outside its scope." > >Appears that the GPL does not grant any rights >relating to executing the Program based on this clause. That appears correct. > > "The act of running the Program is not restricted, and > > the output from the Program is covered only if its contents > > constitute a work based on the Program (independent of > > having been made by running the Program). Whether that is > > true depends on what the Program does." > >The act of executing the Program is not restricted, but it >also doesn't appear to be granted by the GPL, as it is out >of scope of the GPL. Even when the output of the Program >is "covered", there is no text describing what rights would >be granted to the user of the output. Although there may be >an implication that the GPL may allow the user to "copy, >distribute and modify" the Program output, that doesn't >implicitly grant any rights to the use of the output. > That is correct. If I use a GPLed compiler, and the output does not qualify under copyright law as a work based on the compiler, then the binary which results need not be GPLed. The GPL is based on having copyright. If the author of the GPLed software does not have copyright on the final product of the work, then how can they put a copyright license on it? > > and > > > > "6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the > > Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the > > original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to > > these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further > > restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. > > You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to > > this License." > > > > > >Because the recipients' rights granted by the GPL do not apply to >executing the Program, restrictions on executing the Program would >not impose any further restrictions on any rights granted by the >GPL. > My understanding is that the copy of the software that you get is yours. Your use of your software is covered in copyright law under "fair use". This is not equivalent to a standard commercial license where you do not own the bits sitting inside of your computer, but have merely licensed the right to use them. Whether the latter should be legally valid has been a subject of some debate. The industry dearly wants it to be so, and is currently trying to get UCITA passed, which would codify it in laws. Consumer advocates are of the opinion that not only should it not be so, but that it is high time for some lemon laws. Open source software does not stand to benefit from UCITA, but could stand to lose from lemon laws. All factors considered, it is likely that open source software would receive some loophole in any lemon laws that were passed. > >Carter > >Carter Bullard >QoSient, LLC >300 E. 56th Street, Suite 18K >New York, New York 10022 > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Phone +1 212 813-9426 >Fax +1 212 813-9426 > People who put their addresses in email always astound me. You never know what nut might be just a few blocks away. * Cheers, Ben * Me for instance! (No joke.) _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: IPL as a burden
On 16 Jan 2001, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > Manfred Schmid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > To me, a lot of the discussion gets down to the "free beer" question. > > May I ask the Board for an official statement: Is the charging of > > license fees (or execution fees) definitely a no-go to qualify it as > > OSI-compliant Open Source? > > You may ask this question, although I already know what the answer > will be. I'm no longer on the OSI board, but my opinion is, there's no way in tarnation I can reconcile a mandatory fee for execution (no matter what name you give it) and OSD conformance. Brian
Re: IPL as a burden
> If you would choose for example to develop upgrades for IPLed software > and market it under whatever business model, you are free to do so. All > that IPL requires is, that the company running the software sticks to > IPL and has eventually had a look at our price list. You are able to > introduce your upgrades at the heart of any IPLed software since you > have the source and you are legally entitled to do it. > What happens to a future user's rights if intradat is out of business (i.e. no way to execute a license?) OSD principles safeguard these rights by sending all the rights (including right to run) along with each copy of the software. Does the IPL?
Fresh start: (Re: IPL as a burden)
I don't dispute that the incentive to create is more important than the freedom to copy, but incentive to create is not the goal of the OSD. Can someone from intradat explain why you want OSI approval? Why do you care? - You explained the rationale for your license. - You had a lawyer review it. - You cannot call it "OSI approved" until it is approved. So why is that important to you? Why not release your software without making claims about being OSI approved?
Re: IPL as a burden
Manfred Schmid writes: > To me, a lot of the discussion gets down to the "free beer" question. > May I ask the Board for an official statement: Is the charging of > license fees (or execution fees) definitely a no-go to qualify it as > OSI-compliant Open Source? My guess is yes because of the opinion that U.S. copyright law defaults to allowing people who receive legal copies of programs to run them. If that's true, then in the U.S. people who receive copies of your software legally are allowed to run them without any further permission from you. Some software companies have definitely tried to get around this prospect by making users _agree_ to some other terms. (EULAs, clickwrap, shrinkwrap, licensing contracts, etc.) There is a whole lot of argument about this: whether it is possible, whether specific approaches are effective. But the OSD does not seem to allow you to make your users agree to any terms in subsequent redistribution. The rights attached to the program must apply to all to whom the program is distributed without the need for execution of an additional license by those parties. So if copyright law actually does automatically give recipients the right to run the program (which I admit is a subject of controversy in itself as far as the details go; but see 17 USC 117(a), "Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs"), it's hard to see that a license not "execut[ed]" by the end user can actually restrict or limit that under the Copyright Act. A separate question is, what if the license is governed by the laws of a non-U.S. jurisdiction and takes advantage of features in copyright law there that are different from, for instance, 17 USC 117? This question has never been addressed in this form, as far as I know. -- Seth David Schoen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | And do not say, I will study when I Temp. http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | have leisure; for perhaps you will down: http://www.loyalty.org/ (CAF) | not have leisure. -- Pirke Avot 2:5
RE: IPL as a burden
Title: RE: IPL as a burden Gentle people, I'm not a laywer so if I'm missing something, please fill in. > From: Gregor Hoffleit [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Well, the GPL says this: > > "Activities other than copying, distribution and > modification are not > covered by this License; they are outside its scope." Appears that the GPL does not grant any rights relating to executing the Program based on this clause. > "The act of running the Program is not restricted, and > the output from the Program is covered only if its contents > constitute a work based on the Program (independent of > having been made by running the Program). Whether that is > true depends on what the Program does." The act of executing the Program is not restricted, but it also doesn't appear to be granted by the GPL, as it is out of scope of the GPL. Even when the output of the Program is "covered", there is no text describing what rights would be granted to the user of the output. Although there may be an implication that the GPL may allow the user to "copy, distribute and modify" the Program output, that doesn't implicitly grant any rights to the use of the output. > > and > > "6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the > Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the > original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to > these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further > restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. > You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to > this License." > > Because the recipients' rights granted by the GPL do not apply to executing the Program, restrictions on executing the Program would not impose any further restrictions on any rights granted by the GPL. Carter Carter Bullard QoSient, LLC 300 E. 56th Street, Suite 18K New York, New York 10022 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone +1 212 813-9426 Fax +1 212 813-9426
Re: IPL as a burden
On Wed, Jan 17, 2001 at 10:17:41AM -0800, Frank LaMonica wrote: > I like the terminology you used: "source included software (SIS)". SIS > would be much better than a closed source, proprietary alternative, but I > don't see any incentive for open source programmers to contribute to such a > program. If a company went out of business or ceased to produce the > application, SIS would at least provide an option to people so they could > recover their investment in data which was created by the application. Hmm, too bad www.sis.com is already sold... but www.sisi.org is still free for the Source Included Software Initiative... Any volunteers ? ;-) Gregor
Re: IPL as a burden
Gregor, I like the terminology you used: "source included software (SIS)". SIS would be much better than a closed source, proprietary alternative, but I don't see any incentive for open source programmers to contribute to such a program. If a company went out of business or ceased to produce the application, SIS would at least provide an option to people so they could recover their investment in data which was created by the application. A better protection along those lines would be a totally free, open, and fully documented data format. Of course, that would require work on the part of the application vendor, work which they may believe they have no financial incentive to produce. I would argue that their incentive to produce such a set of documentation is larger than that which could exist for an open source developer to contribute to a SIS program. It could cause their application to become the defacto standard for that class of applications, and it would be a strong incentive to use in a sales situation where potential customers are concerned about protecting future access to their data. It would not be "open source" by any of the accepted definitions, but it would have a lot more value than proprietary alternatives. Frank Gregor Hoffleit wrote: > On Tue, Jan 16, 2001 at 06:54:22PM +0100, Manfred Schmid wrote: > > It is indeed interesting that GPL does not address the matter ofrunning > > a GPLed program. From a legal standpoint it might be interesting, if the > > OSD is an inegral part of GPL or not. From a non-legal standpoint I > > would argue that OSD #7 covers that matter. > > By no way the OSD is an integral part of the GPL (the GPL was there long > before the OSD came into existance). > > Well, the GPL says this: > > "Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not > covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the > Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is covered only > if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of > having been made by running the Program). Whether that is true depends on > what the Program does." > > and > > "6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the > Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the > original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to > these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further > restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. > You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to > this License." > > I.e. the GPL doesn't restrict the act of running the program, and if > somebody else redistributes the program, he can't impose any restrictions > on running the program either. > > I think the GPL is quite explicit at this point. > > In fact, I have to say it once again: Contrary to its name, OSD is a set of > guidelines, but not a strict definition of what makes up Open Source > software. Take all the reactions from the crowd here, and you will see that > the unrestricted right to run a program is inherent to the concept of Open > Source software. > > What you're suggesting is a different concept, something like > "source-included" software. Maybe that's a third way (fifth, seventh ?) and > maybe it's viable, but please don't try to suggest that you're running > inside the concept of Open Source software. > > Gregor > begin:vcard n:LaMonica;Frank tel;fax:1 (512) 378-3004 tel;home:1 (512) 378-3003 tel;work:1 (512) 378-3003 x-mozilla-html:FALSE org:VA Linux Systems Inc.;Marketing adr:;;114 South Prize Oaks Dr.;Cedar Park;TX;78613;USA version:2.1 email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] title:Strategic Director of Multi-Media x-mozilla-cpt:;-1184 fn:Frank LaMonica end:vcard
Re: IPL as a burden
The OSD requires that licenses do not discriminate against a group of people - it may be pushing it, but this license discriminates against those unable (or at an even greater push, unwilling) to pay a license fee. SamBC - Original Message - From: "Manfred Schmid" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Ian Lance Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "Brian DeSpain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Mark Koek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 4:29 AM Subject: Re: IPL as a burden > Ian, > > > > > > > I think, the obligation to pay a license fee is a legal obligation and > > > not bound to any license keys. We could claim fees without any keys. > > > Even if somebody (maybe us) took out the key algorithm and the software > > > would run without any license keys, we would still be entitled to the > > > fee. > > > > That would violate OSD #7: no additional license may be required > > beyond the open source license itself. > > > > Sorry, I do net get the point. All we need for claiming license fees is > the IPL itself. If the software has some key algorithm or not. Lets > assume, we do not use license keys and would leave the rest unchanged. > Still we would claim fees lthough our legal position in court might be > weaker, since we do not take "reasonable techniques" to prevent license > fraud. That would not change a single thing from the basic contract > which says: We provide the software, if you use it, you may be obliged > to pay license fees. > > I do not want to bore you, but the rationale of OSD #7 reads: > > "7. Distribution of License. (back) > > This clause is intended to forbid closing up software by indirect means > such as requiring a non-disclosure agreement." > > We do not intend to make the source available to the public under IPL > and close it with the same License by any means. > > > > OSD criteria number 3 does not say: "Each and every line of any text > > > published under an Open Source License must be changeable, if it is > > > relevant for technical progress or not". > > > > You're right, it's not stated. However, it is implied. The criteria > > does not say ``must allow modifications and derived works, but the > > license may retrict modifications in certain areas.'' It says that > > the license ``must allow modifications and derived works.'' If you > > prohibit certain sorts of modifications, then you violate the > > guideline. > > > > Remember that the OSD is not a program, and it is not a legal > > document. It is a set of guidelines written for humans. > > > > We propose a simple deal: > > VShop3 will be made available in Source Code under IPL > > We give you (see gnu.org) > - The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0). > - The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs > (freedom 1). > - The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor > (freedom 2). > - The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to > the public, so that the whole community benefits. (freedom 3). > > We will be happy to include any improvements. In contrast to standard > proceedings, we are ready to pay for the work poured in. > > Freedom #0 may make our price list apply. But freedom is not about the > price. Anyway, IPL states that it is even free of charge when you use it > for your own purposes etc. (privately or publicly). > Concerning Freedom #3 we are asking not to claim a removal of license > information as an improvement. > > I am well aware that we all are (supposedly) not lawyers. So lets not > argue about the wording or the interpretation of some clauses. In my > opinion, two questions have to be answered: > > - May we charge license fees for an Open Source Product? > - May we take reasonable provisions for a legal defending of the Terms > and Conditions of the license? > > We do not want to start any religious wars or piss somebody off. We only > want to take commercial Open Source Development one step further. > > We honestly think that the combination IPL / Developer Program takes the > spirit of the the Open Source Movement and adds an economic model, that > is easy to understand. > > Manfred > > -- > > - > intraDAT AG > Wilhelm-Leuschner-Strasse 7 u. 9-11 > D - 60329 Frankfurt a. M., Germany > Tel.: +49-(0)69-25629-0 > Fax: +49-(0)69-25629-256 > http://www.intradat.com > - >
Re: IPL as a burden
Mark Koek wrote: > Source", that means the OSD is seriously flawed. Hi Mark, I understand your opinion, which was mine for a long time, too, but still: OPEN DOES NOT MEAN FREE. > And, BTW, the GPL does *not* leave the door open for license fees. It > states that you may ask money for *distribution*, not for use. Somebody said in a mail yesterday: The GPL does not cover the question of "execution fees" and one could ask for such a "license/exeution fee", but since everybody could remove any copyright checks in the source, it makes no sense to include these in OSS. That one will always have free access to all the source, is another fact that is seperate. Here I disagree and we could publish something under GPL and still ask for a license fee for that software. If we would get it, is another question. -- best regards, Ralf "puzzler" Schwoebel CEO, intraDAT international inc. 11250 Roger Bacon Drive (#3) Reston, VA 20190 Tel.: 703 796
Re: IPL as a burden
Ralf Schwoebel wrote: > After the discussion yesterday, and we might work a bit on our > license and resubmit it. But the basic idea will stay: Then I hope your submission will fail - I agree with other posters that if the OSD does not preclude calling the things you are planning "Open Source", that means the OSD is seriously flawed. > License fees for "Open Source" software and a license that > is covering that widely and explicitly mentions that with the > approval of the community. We think it is time for such > a license and we do believe that the IPL is close enough, > even if some paragraphs caused such a discussion yesterday. > > Profit is necessary and licenses like MozPL, etc. are the > first step to such a point of view. Even the GPL notes that > and leaves the door open. I disagree - the MPL and other such licenses have problems but they manage to satisfy the basic requirements. They're not great but OK to use if necessary - not a step in the right direction at all. And, BTW, the GPL does *not* leave the door open for license fees. It states that you may ask money for *distribution*, not for use. Your license allows a scheme where an author spreads his program far and wide, and then -once users have become dependent on it- starts asking license fees. Such a scheme is very definitly not compatible with the spirit of Open Source / Free Software, the way I see it. The "IPL-concept" is really just shareware-with-source - it's just completely different from open source. If you believe this is a good idea then go pursue it (I advise against it and suggest that instead you take more seriously the real and proven ways to make money from Open Source - but do it if you must). But please stop trying to drag Open Source with you. Mark
Re: IPL as a burden
Manfred Schmid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > But the clarification that is likely to happen will not > > be to your liking. > > If the whole construct is clear and consistent, we all know where we > stand. I would prefer that to the current situation. The current situation is that we all know where we stand--at least, everybody but you. We're telling you where we all stand, but you do not believe us. > Put yourself in the position of a normal company (not IBM, HP or > comparable), lets say 100 employees. Any company will sooner or later go > out of business if it cannot compensate the costs incurred by an > appropriate revenue stream. I've been working on free software for over 10 years. I've heard this argument all along. Over that time there have been quite a few companies who have made plenty of money on open source software--heck, I've made plenty of money myself. But maybe those are all exceptions. Maybe you're right: maybe you can't stay in business working on open source software. So what? The lesson to draw from that is to not build a business on open source software. You seem to be drawing the lesson that we need to redefine the meaning of ``open source.'' That doesn't make any sense. If every company working on open source software goes out of business, that in no way lessens the value of open source software. > Since we will be claiming license fees from the customers, we will give > money back to the community in a clear and transparent way. We think > that this is a good idea for all parties involved Great! Go for it. Just don't call it ``open source.'' Ian
Re: IPL as a burden
> But the clarification that is likely to happen will not > be to your liking. If the whole construct is clear and consistent, we all know where we stand. I would prefer that to the current situation. > >We are not restricting competition. Opening the source will increase > >competition for us and it is a good and solid principle at the basis of > >capitalism :) > > When you have two competitors selling a product, and all > sales to either company result in license fees going to > one of those competitors, they are not on an even playing > field. The dramatic resulting effect may be seen from > some of the OEM policies that Microsoft managed to get > away with. > > >Any company may provide upgrades, bug-fixes, training, support or > >wahtever they feel reasonable in the context of IPLed software. There is > >no such restriction in IPL. If you find one, we will take it out. > > The original version required companies provided support > and services to pay you non-zero license fees (while the > end customers receieved free licenses). Given that you > choose your competitor's cost here, no sane competitor > would go head to head against you in that market. > Talking about Microsoft, no one is able to provide upgrades and bug-fixes, because the source is not available. Concerning training and support, Microsoft is not the biggest player. They still have a strong position since training and support require information, only the source is able to provide as a "lender of last resort". If the source was publically available, we probably would see some major shifts in the market. But lets be realistic, no company will ever have a monopoly in training and support. When looking at the Economics of us competing with any company in the above mentioned fields, do not forget that any balance sheet has two sides. I have a lot of developers on my payroll and I am ready to pay for outside contributions. Put yourself in the position of a normal company (not IBM, HP or comparable), lets say 100 employees. Any company will sooner or later go out of business if it cannot compensate the costs incurred by an appropriate revenue stream. How much of your ressources could you assign to GPL-Development? The guys in the R&D department could be encouraged to develop GPL Software in their spare time. Maybe you can afford a guy or two working exclusively for the community as a donation. But thats about it. In consequence, neither intraDAT nor any other company of that size will ever be able to professionally (and profitably) develop new GPL products. But a lot of software still has to be designed and developed and its not always the big companies, that do the best job. I know, that in the current situation, there are other fashionable roads to travel. - Live on training, consulting and support for GPL products and help the community the best you can. As an outstanding individual you will always find a sponsor who allows you to pay your bills and contribute. As a company you do have to trust that the community will provide your economic basis, outstanding products ahead of the competition. Your abilities to contribute are neccessarily limited (and we see currently some of these companies crashing). - Risk it all in creating the nucleus of a new GPL product, trust that "somehow" by "somebody" the software is developed further and try to live on training and support. As the lead developer, you might get a premium in consulting training and support, but do not forget the competition. Paying the developers out of the premium requires the percentage mid-term to be small. Do not get me wrong: You will immediately find enough examples that historically prove my statements wrong. Linux has been taken by an enthusiastic community from a tiny nucleus to where it is now etc. etc. But that is history and I doubt that the historic and existing structures will scale to the extent needed to make Open Source the mainstream. Today in the overall market, Open Source Software has a small market share. You will probably be able to create a viable business model with existing products like Apache, MySQL etc. But to make the market share grow, new Open Source products do have to be developed, distributed and improved. Innovation is normally done by small and new companies, not by the big. To make long things short: I do not think that any company has to be insane to compete with us in training etc. The cards are open on the table, the money received allows me to pay my developers. We do not intend to restrict competition. > > Assuming that Manfred understands what I meant when I > wrote that, and my description matches what others > believe open source to be, the conclusion is that as > soon as your license tries to find ways to guarantee > that some type of revenue generated from that software > goes to you, the result will not be labelled Open > Source. And it will not be so labelled for reasons > that have nothing to do wi
Re: IPL as a burden
Manfred Schmid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >clause O: > >"Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not >covered by this License; they are outside its scope." > > > The GPL does cover running the software. In clause 0 I > > see, "The act of running the Program is not restricted..." > > > >As a lawyer I would argue that it should read "...by this license...". >Clause 2 c) states "... you MUST cause it [...] to print or display >announcement including an appropriate copyright ". Looks to me like >a (perfectly rational) restriction. My understanding of the position of the FSF on this matter is that you own your copy of the software. Unlike a typical shrinkwrape license where you have licensed the use of it from the owner, that copy is really yours. Given that you own it, running it is covered by fair use. Therefore the act of running code that you own is not restricted because it is not restricted in copyright law and you have not agreed to anything which could limit that right. The second quote from part 2c is a restriction on what modifications may be made. When you modify the code you must cause it to display your copyright information if it normally displays any others. This is not a restriction on what you may do while running, nor is it even a requirement to display copyright information. It has nothing to do section 7 of the OSD. Now you are going to claim that this is a limitation on item 3 of the OSD. And you are absolutely correct. (In fact I noted in my first email that it was not clear that you conflicted with section 3, but I thought that a fault of the OSD, not a validation of what you seek to do in your license.) It is a point in the OSD that IMHO could use some clarification. But the clarification that is likely to happen will not be to your liking. >If OSD #7 is not part of GPL, there might be a playground for lawfirms. >All that is legal stuff and we are not judges, so lets leave the topic >out. I do not want to challenge GPL. > The interpretation that I have seen Richard Stallman state does indeed cover OSD #7. As you say, challenges to that are a matter for judges, not us. > > > The OSD is a commonly accepted definition of exactly > > that. Software which is delivered under an OSD > > compatible license comes with a guarantee that there is > > no legal barrier to having a free market for upgrades, > > bug-fixes, training and support. Whether or not there > > will actually be a viable market in upgrades, bug-fixes, > > training and support will depend on applicable free > > market forces. But no vendor has the ability to wave > > around a legal document and run potential competition out > > of town. > > > > *ANY* licensing move that you make to guarantee yourself > > the ability to restrict such competition means that the > > customer no longer can count on that freedom. Therefore > > any such move should make it impossible to certify you > > as having a license that offers such protection. > > > >We are not restricting competition. Opening the source will increase >competition for us and it is a good and solid principle at the basis of >capitalism :) When you have two competitors selling a product, and all sales to either company result in license fees going to one of those competitors, they are not on an even playing field. The dramatic resulting effect may be seen from some of the OEM policies that Microsoft managed to get away with. >Any company may provide upgrades, bug-fixes, training, support or >wahtever they feel reasonable in the context of IPLed software. There is >no such restriction in IPL. If you find one, we will take it out. The original version required companies provided support and services to pay you non-zero license fees (while the end customers receieved free licenses). Given that you choose your competitor's cost here, no sane competitor would go head to head against you in that market. >If you would choose for example to develop upgrades for IPLed software >and market it under whatever business model, you are free to do so. All >that IPL requires is, that the company running the software sticks to >IPL and has eventually had a look at our price list. You are able to >introduce your upgrades at the heart of any IPLed software since you >have the source and you are legally entitled to do it. And what was the licence requirement that you had? >If you are able to provide better upgrades etc. than we are, we have >done a poor job. However it will help the guy running it and thats what >competition is for. Again, your license is founded upon the principle of finding ways to make the source-code available but leaving you with sufficient control to ensure that money will be paid to you. That is a huge head start and realistically is a very high barrier to competition. >Still my understanding is, that open source does not mean free beer. Do >you agree on this point? > We not only agree, but I have pointed out specific
Re: IPL as a burden
on Tue, Jan 16, 2001 at 06:54:22PM +0100, Manfred Schmid ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > It is indeed interesting that GPL does not address the matter of > running a GPLed program. It does. Explicitly, in section 0: Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. _The act of running the Program is not restricted_, and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program). Emphasis added. The apparent lapse is of the OSD, not the GPL. The OSI and FSF are entirely separate organizations. The projections of the OSD and the FSF's definition of "free software" onto the universe of software projects overlap greatly, but are not identical. > From a legal standpoint it might be interesting, if the OSD is an > inegral part of GPL or not. The OSD is not an integral part of the GPL, which it greatly post-dates. See above. > We do not feel that the license is an obstacle. Free Software mens > free speach, not free beer (adopted from gnu.org). If you're going to quote the FSF on the meaning of free software, get your quotes right. We're very familiar with the material. Specifically: "Free software" refers to the users' freedom to *run*, copy, distribute, study, change, and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the *users* of the software: - The Freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0) - The Fredom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. - The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2). - The freedome to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits. (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. A program is free software if users have *all* of these freedoms. Thus, you should be free to redistribute copies, either with or without modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to anyone anywhere. Being free to do these things means (among other things) that you do not have to ask or pay for permission. [http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-sw.html] Emphasis added. Your proposed IPL meets neither the definitions of an OSI-certified license, nor "free software". Either change the license such that it does conform, or stop claiming that it does. -- Karsten M. Self <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>http://kmself.home.netcom.com/ What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? There is no K5 cabal http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/ http://www.kuro5hin.org PGP signature
Re: IPL as a burden
Manfred Schmid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > If I want to run your program on several different computers, then > > > > removing the license information is clearly an improvement for me. > > > > With open source programs, you don't get to define what an improvement > > > > is. I do. > > > > > > You do have to stick to the license terms and the definition of an > > > improvement is not totally up to you. > > > > For open source software, the definition of an improvement certainly > > is up to me. Just as with free speech I can say what I want, with > > free software I can improve what I want. > > > > I would propose a bet: You name me a country you deem to have free > speach and I will show you a way to get in jail in that country within > 24 hours just by executing free speech. I would put a serious amount of > money on that (execution of course would be up to you :). > > Free speech is not a right that grants you to do whatever you want, it > has its restrictions and may conflict with other rights. Take the source > code of any command line GPLed program, remove the code lines, that > print out the GPL information, redistribute it and you got a problem > with this improvement. To cut this short, I concede that you are right, and I was wrong: the definition of an ``improvement'' is not totally up to me. But eliminating execution fees is within the scope of what is totally up to me under an open source license. > > I will start calling ``license fees'' ``execution fees'' to try to > > avoid any possible language problem. > > > > > Again, we think the matter is not free beer but free speach. If you > > > would like to run IPLed software on several different computers, the > > > price may be higher, but we do not put any license matters in your way. > > > > The higher price is a execution fee. It is not compatible with the > > OSD. > > I could not find this. GPL reads > > "When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. > Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the > freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this > service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you > want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new > free programs; and that you know you can do these things." What is your point? The GPL says ``The act of running the Program is not restricted'' That is what prohibits execution fees. > To me, a lot of the discussion gets down to the "free beer" question. > May I ask the Board for an official statement: Is the charging of > license fees (or execution fees) definitely a no-go to qualify it as > OSI-compliant Open Source? You may ask this question, although I already know what the answer will be. Since the OSI board is not particularly responsive, I recommend that you send a separate mail message with a different subject line which simply asks this question. You may want to send it to [EMAIL PROTECTED]; see http://www.opensource.org/board.html. Ian
Re: IPL as a burden
> At this point I do not not know if we have a language problem, or if > you are being deliberately obtuse. > We probably have a language problem (I am native German) > License fees are incompatible with the OSD. > > Fees required for execution of the program are incompatible with the > OSD. > > The IPL as presented is not an open source license. > > The IPL as presented will not receive OSI approval. > > (I am not on the OSI board, and I have no say in which licenses are > deemed open source. However, I believe that I understand the area > sufficiently to make the above categorical statements.) > > > We do not feel that the license is an obstacle. Free Software mens free > > speach, not free beer (adopted from gnu.org) > > All you will have to do is pay the price asked for, if applicable. > > Your program is not free speech. Free speech means that I can say > what I choose even if you don't like it. In software it means that I > can change your program as I choose even if you don't like it. In > particular, it means that I can remove your licensing code, it means > that I can copy your program to a hundred computers, and I can run it > on all of them. > > > > If I want to run your program on several different computers, then > > > removing the license information is clearly an improvement for me. > > > With open source programs, you don't get to define what an improvement > > > is. I do. > > > > You do have to stick to the license terms and the definition of an > > improvement is not totally up to you. > > For open source software, the definition of an improvement certainly > is up to me. Just as with free speech I can say what I want, with > free software I can improve what I want. > I would propose a bet: You name me a country you deem to have free speach and I will show you a way to get in jail in that country within 24 hours just by executing free speech. I would put a serious amount of money on that (execution of course would be up to you :). Free speech is not a right that grants you to do whatever you want, it has its restrictions and may conflict with other rights. Take the source code of any command line GPLed program, remove the code lines, that print out the GPL information, redistribute it and you got a problem with this improvement. > I will start calling ``license fees'' ``execution fees'' to try to > avoid any possible language problem. > > > Again, we think the matter is not free beer but free speach. If you > > would like to run IPLed software on several different computers, the > > price may be higher, but we do not put any license matters in your way. > > The higher price is a execution fee. It is not compatible with the > OSD. I could not find this. GPL reads "When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things." GNU reads "`Free software'' is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of ``free speech'', not ``free beer.'' ``Free software'' refers to the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software." To me, a lot of the discussion gets down to the "free beer" question. May I ask the Board for an official statement: Is the charging of license fees (or execution fees) definitely a no-go to qualify it as OSI-compliant Open Source? Up to now, I did not find any such statement on opensource.org Manfred
Re: IPL as a burden
clause O: "Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope." > The GPL does cover running the software. In clause 0 I > see, "The act of running the Program is not restricted..." > As a lawyer I would argue that it should read "...by this license...". Clause 2 c) states "... you MUST cause it [...] to print or display announcement including an appropriate copyright ". Looks to me like a (perfectly rational) restriction. If OSD #7 is not part of GPL, there might be a playground for lawfirms. All that is legal stuff and we are not judges, so lets leave the topic out. I do not want to challenge GPL. > The OSD is a commonly accepted definition of exactly > that. Software which is delivered under an OSD > compatible license comes with a guarantee that there is > no legal barrier to having a free market for upgrades, > bug-fixes, training and support. Whether or not there > will actually be a viable market in upgrades, bug-fixes, > training and support will depend on applicable free > market forces. But no vendor has the ability to wave > around a legal document and run potential competition out > of town. > > *ANY* licensing move that you make to guarantee yourself > the ability to restrict such competition means that the > customer no longer can count on that freedom. Therefore > any such move should make it impossible to certify you > as having a license that offers such protection. > We are not restricting competition. Opening the source will increase competition for us and it is a good and solid principle at the basis of capitalism :) Any company may provide upgrades, bug-fixes, training, support or wahtever they feel reasonable in the context of IPLed software. There is no such restriction in IPL. If you find one, we will take it out. If you would choose for example to develop upgrades for IPLed software and market it under whatever business model, you are free to do so. All that IPL requires is, that the company running the software sticks to IPL and has eventually had a look at our price list. You are able to introduce your upgrades at the heart of any IPLed software since you have the source and you are legally entitled to do it. If you are able to provide better upgrades etc. than we are, we have done a poor job. However it will help the guy running it and thats what competition is for. Still my understanding is, that open source does not mean free beer. Do you agree on this point? Manfred
Re: IPL as a burden
begin Manfred Schmid quotation: > Still I do not see IPL being incompliant with the OSD. [...] > We do not feel that the license is an obstacle. Then your first problem is a failure of realism. Mr. Schmid, you've spent considerable amounts of the list readership's time talking about your company's business model, explicating the rationale behind profit-seeking activities, inviting sundry concessions, and asserting repeatedly your opinion that your licence draft as written is OSD-compliant. What you have _not_ done is substantively addressed numerous areas, identified early on, where your licence is far, far outside OSD principles. Please end this. Either take some serious amount of time rewriting your licence after a careful reading of the OSD, or drop the intention to claim "open source" status. Depending on your product, market, and product strategy, one can build a business case for either approach. But you cannot lobby and bluster your way past OSD compliance. You can save a great deal of your time and ours by giving up that effort. -- Cheers, "Because film is the pre-eminent American art form. You don't hear Rick Moen people saying 'You know, this movie would make a really great epic [EMAIL PROTECTED] poem.'" -- Orson Scott Card, book signing, 7 Jan 2001
Re: IPL as a burden
[EMAIL PROTECTED]: > > I believe OSD section 7 may cover that: > > 7. Distribution of License. > > The rights attached to the program must apply to all to whom the > program is redistributed without the need for execution of an > additional license by those parties. > > =2E..in which case, the requirement for an additional runtime license by > the initial licensee would be incompatible with 7. In other words: all > rights associate with copying, modification, distribution, *or use* of > the program must be granted in the OSD-conformant license. > > Still, it's interesting that this is an imputed, not an explicit, > property of the OSD. Possible loophole? > It could be. I think you mentioned the answer in a different post: > The short explanation: > >The GNU GPL (as with most free software licenses) grants rights to >_non authors_ (or copyrightholders) of a work _which they wouldn't >have, independently of the license_. My question is: Is there any good reason that an Open Source license should not consist solely of these kinds of rights? Is there a reason why an Open Source license should prohibit or conditionalize something that I already have the right to do (such as execute code, given that I have obtained a copy of the code)? Running the program is not a right that an Open Source license need grant; it's a right that everyone already has. And while section 7 of the OSD specifies that the rights granted be universal without the need for an additional license, it says nothing about the rights taken away. I'm wondering if we could eliminate these kinds of loopholes by outlawing licenses that take rights away altogether. --
Re: IPL as a burden
Manfred Schmid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > It is indeed interesting that GPL does not address the matter ofrunning > a GPLed program. As others have noted, this is not the case: the GPL does require permission to run the program. > From a legal standpoint it might be interesting, if the > OSD is an inegral part of GPL or not. It's not. The GPL precedes the OSD by many years. > Still I do not see IPL being incompliant with the OSDs. we explicitely > address the matter of running an IPLed program and state that license > fees may apply. At this point I do not not know if we have a language problem, or if you are being deliberately obtuse. License fees are incompatible with the OSD. Fees required for execution of the program are incompatible with the OSD. The IPL as presented is not an open source license. The IPL as presented will not receive OSI approval. (I am not on the OSI board, and I have no say in which licenses are deemed open source. However, I believe that I understand the area sufficiently to make the above categorical statements.) > We do not feel that the license is an obstacle. Free Software mens free > speach, not free beer (adopted from gnu.org) > All you will have to do is pay the price asked for, if applicable. Your program is not free speech. Free speech means that I can say what I choose even if you don't like it. In software it means that I can change your program as I choose even if you don't like it. In particular, it means that I can remove your licensing code, it means that I can copy your program to a hundred computers, and I can run it on all of them. > > If I want to run your program on several different computers, then > > removing the license information is clearly an improvement for me. > > With open source programs, you don't get to define what an improvement > > is. I do. > > You do have to stick to the license terms and the definition of an > improvement is not totally up to you. For open source software, the definition of an improvement certainly is up to me. Just as with free speech I can say what I want, with free software I can improve what I want. > Lets take great GPLed software and try to illegally ask for license > fees. The easiest "improvement" would be to take out any copyright > notice and licensing information (or change it). You are not allowed to > do this, and there is a good reason for that. You are being ambiguous here, confusing the meaning of ``license'' as in software license and ``license'' as in ``license fees.'' Perhaps this is a language problem. The GPL prohibits removing information about the software license. It is silent on the matter of license fees. I will start calling ``license fees'' ``execution fees'' to try to avoid any possible language problem. > Again, we think the matter is not free beer but free speach. If you > would like to run IPLed software on several different computers, the > price may be higher, but we do not put any license matters in your way. The higher price is a execution fee. It is not compatible with the OSD. > > > We do not want to start any religious wars or piss somebody off. We only > > > want to take commercial Open Source Development one step further. > > > > That one step is taking you out of the realm of open source. > > I still do not understand why that should be the case. I have no idea how to make it more clear. You may not restrict my ability to run, modify, or redistribute the software, except in very limited ways which are explicitly spelled out in the OSD. > > I want to stress that I am not saying that you should not use the > > license. I am saying that you should not call this license ``open > > source.'' > > > > Besides being able to "officially" call it Open Source and get the > license approved, we think it is a good step to open the source and make > it publicly available. We have thought a lot about it and feel it is the > best for all the parties involved. I agree that opening the source and making it publically available is a good course. You don't need to use an open source license to do that. Again I refer you to Bitkeeper. > Still we would like to get approval. You won't get it. Ian
Re: IPL as a burden
On Tue, Jan 16, 2001 at 06:54:22PM +0100, Manfred Schmid wrote: > It is indeed interesting that GPL does not address the matter ofrunning > a GPLed program. From a legal standpoint it might be interesting, if the > OSD is an inegral part of GPL or not. From a non-legal standpoint I > would argue that OSD #7 covers that matter. By no way the OSD is an integral part of the GPL (the GPL was there long before the OSD came into existance). Well, the GPL says this: "Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program). Whether that is true depends on what the Program does." and "6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License." I.e. the GPL doesn't restrict the act of running the program, and if somebody else redistributes the program, he can't impose any restrictions on running the program either. I think the GPL is quite explicit at this point. In fact, I have to say it once again: Contrary to its name, OSD is a set of guidelines, but not a strict definition of what makes up Open Source software. Take all the reactions from the crowd here, and you will see that the unrestricted right to run a program is inherent to the concept of Open Source software. What you're suggesting is a different concept, something like "source-included" software. Maybe that's a third way (fifth, seventh ?) and maybe it's viable, but please don't try to suggest that you're running inside the concept of Open Source software. Gregor
Re: IPL as a burden
Manfred Schmid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I'm sorry, I was thinking that you were talking about using an open > > source license, and then claiming license fees on top of that. Now I > > understand that you were just continuing your claim that requiring > > license fees was compatible with open source. That's interesting; I > > don't see a clear statement in the OSD that recipients of a program be > > permitted to run it. > > > > Nevertheless, if the recipient of an open source program can not run > > it without an additional license, where the license itself is the only > > obstacle (that is, no other software is required, just the license > > itself), I feel certain that that program is not actually open source. > > > >It is indeed interesting that GPL does not address the matter ofrunning >a GPLed program. From a legal standpoint it might be interesting, if the >OSD is an inegral part of GPL or not. From a non-legal standpoint I >would argue that OSD #7 covers that matter. The GPL does cover running the software. In clause 0 I see, "The act of running the Program is not restricted..." >Still I do not see IPL being incompliant with the OSDs. we explicitely >address the matter of running an IPLed program and state that license >fees may apply. I see it as being completely not compliant with both the letter of the OSD and the intent. You have been told in no undertain terms (including by some of the people who would actually make an official certification decision - and no, I am not in that list) that any kind of licensing fee or requirement for another license will not fly. >We do not feel that the license is an obstacle. Free Software mens free >speach, not free beer (adopted from gnu.org) >All you will have to do is pay the price asked for, if applicable. The people you need to convince have told you that it is an obstacle and they will not budge. Indeed similar issues have come up and their position is clear. I have given you fairly detailed explanations of where you are going wrong. > > If I want to run your program on several different computers, then > > removing the license information is clearly an improvement for me. > > With open source programs, you don't get to define what an improvement > > is. I do. > > > >You do have to stick to the license terms and the definition of an >improvement is not totally up to you. Indeed you have to stick to license terms. If you did not then there would be no value in having a clear definition of what software comes under license terms that gives the end user protection from being caught at some point by a legally enforced monopoly. It is exactly because you have to stick to license terms that there is value to consumers in that. The OSD is a commonly accepted definition of exactly that. Software which is delivered under an OSD compatible license comes with a guarantee that there is no legal barrier to having a free market for upgrades, bug-fixes, training and support. Whether or not there will actually be a viable market in upgrades, bug-fixes, training and support will depend on applicable free market forces. But no vendor has the ability to wave around a legal document and run potential competition out of town. *ANY* licensing move that you make to guarantee yourself the ability to restrict such competition means that the customer no longer can count on that freedom. Therefore any such move should make it impossible to certify you as having a license that offers such protection. THAT is why your license is not open source. It may well be perfectly legal. It just isn't an open source license. (As an aside to anyone still reading, if my description is in any way incorrect, please correct me.) [...] > > That one step is taking you out of the realm of open source. > >I still do not understand why that should be the case. Please read my description of what the OSD certification is supposed to mean, compare to what your license says, and get back to me if you don't understand how your license tries to remove protections that are key to being an open source license. [...] > > I want to stress that I am not saying that you should not use the > > license. I am saying that you should not call this license ``open > > source.'' > > > >Besides being able to "officially" call it Open Source and get the >license approved, we think it is a good step to open the source and make >it publicly available. We have thought a lot about it and feel it is the >best for all the parties involved. That is your decision, and there are good arguments which may be made for doing that, even under a license that is not open source. However I note that experiments by Sun and others to try and get developers to accept halfway open license have generally failed abysmally. >Still we would like to get approval. That will not happen while your license fails to offer the protections that OSD certification is supposed to provide. Regards, Ben ___
Re: IPL as a burden
> I'm sorry, I was thinking that you were talking about using an open > source license, and then claiming license fees on top of that. Now I > understand that you were just continuing your claim that requiring > license fees was compatible with open source. That's interesting; I > don't see a clear statement in the OSD that recipients of a program be > permitted to run it. > > Nevertheless, if the recipient of an open source program can not run > it without an additional license, where the license itself is the only > obstacle (that is, no other software is required, just the license > itself), I feel certain that that program is not actually open source. > It is indeed interesting that GPL does not address the matter ofrunning a GPLed program. From a legal standpoint it might be interesting, if the OSD is an inegral part of GPL or not. From a non-legal standpoint I would argue that OSD #7 covers that matter. Still I do not see IPL being incompliant with the OSDs. we explicitely address the matter of running an IPLed program and state that license fees may apply. We do not feel that the license is an obstacle. Free Software mens free speach, not free beer (adopted from gnu.org) All you will have to do is pay the price asked for, if applicable. > If I want to run your program on several different computers, then > removing the license information is clearly an improvement for me. > With open source programs, you don't get to define what an improvement > is. I do. > You do have to stick to the license terms and the definition of an improvement is not totally up to you. Lets take great GPLed software and try to illegally ask for license fees. The easiest "improvement" would be to take out any copyright notice and licensing information (or change it). You are not allowed to do this, and there is a good reason for that. Again, we think the matter is not free beer but free speach. If you would like to run IPLed software on several different computers, the price may be higher, but we do not put any license matters in your way. > > - May we charge license fees for an Open Source Product? > > Yes, you may, but you may not require them. If you do not permit > people to run the program without a license, then the program is not > open source. We do allow people to run IPLed software without a separate license and this is how I understand OSD #7. After all, my lawyers would probaly tell me that you always have to have some licensing scheme, be it expilicitely or implicitely. > > > We do not want to start any religious wars or piss somebody off. We only > > want to take commercial Open Source Development one step further. > > That one step is taking you out of the realm of open source. I still do not understand why that should be the case. > > We honestly think that the combination IPL / Developer Program takes the > > spirit of the the Open Source Movement and adds an economic model, that > > is easy to understand. > > It's easy to understand. It just isn't open source. Call it > something else. > We hope, that it is easy to understand because it has to be. To our employees, our customers, our investors and to anybody who would like to participate. Easy structures are transparent and the easier, the better. > I want to stress that I am not saying that you should not use the > license. I am saying that you should not call this license ``open > source.'' > Besides being able to "officially" call it Open Source and get the license approved, we think it is a good step to open the source and make it publicly available. We have thought a lot about it and feel it is the best for all the parties involved. Still we would like to get approval. Manfred
Re: IPL as a burden
Dave J Woolley wrote: > I have some concerns that companies like RH will become more and > more like Microsoft - you can already see it in the marketing > language on their web sites. Hi Dave, but this is a normal development for a company that has to report back to shareholders and this development will continue if society does not change (what I do not expect :) After the discussion yesterday, and we might work a bit on our license and resubmit it. But the basic idea will stay: License fees for "Open Source" software and a license that is covering that widely and explicitly mentions that with the approval of the community. We think it is time for such a license and we do believe that the IPL is close enough, even if some paragraphs caused such a discussion yesterday. Profit is necessary and licenses like MozPL, etc. are the first step to such a point of view. Even the GPL notes that and leaves the door open. -- best regards, Ralf "puzzler" Schwoebel CEO, intraDAT international inc. 11250 Roger Bacon Drive (#3) Reston, VA 20190 Tel.: 703 796
RE: IPL as a burden
> From: Mark Hatch [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > shown that it will prove profitable enough to attract and maintain the > commercial application base that I believe Linux needs to be successful. > I think you are defining "successful" as actually meaning "commercially profitable". I think one of the things that originally made "free" software good was that it wasn't written with profitability and revenue stream considerations in mind, and I have some concerns that companies like RH will become more and more like Microsoft - you can already see it in the marketing language on their web sites. -- --- DISCLAIMER - Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of BTS.
Re: IPL as a burden
on Mon, Jan 15, 2001 at 06:05:52PM -0800, Ian Lance Taylor ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > I'm sorry, I was thinking that you were talking about using an open > source license, and then claiming license fees on top of that. Now I > understand that you were just continuing your claim that requiring > license fees was compatible with open source. That's interesting; I > don't see a clear statement in the OSD that recipients of a program be > permitted to run it. > > Nevertheless, if the recipient of an open source program can not run > it without an additional license, where the license itself is the only > obstacle (that is, no other software is required, just the license > itself), I feel certain that that program is not actually open source. I believe OSD section 7 may cover that: 7. Distribution of License. The rights attached to the program must apply to all to whom the program is redistributed without the need for execution of an additional license by those parties. ...in which case, the requirement for an additional runtime license by the initial licensee would be incompatible with 7. In other words: all rights associate with copying, modification, distribution, *or use* of the program must be granted in the OSD-conformant license. Still, it's interesting that this is an imputed, not an explicit, property of the OSD. Possible loophole? -- Karsten M. Self <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>http://kmself.home.netcom.com/ What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? There is no K5 cabal http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/ http://www.kuro5hin.org PGP signature
Re: IPL as a burden
On Monday 15 January 2001 09:18 am, Mark Koek wrote: > > We see no other possibility than enabling people to charge money for > > sources without violating the basics of OpenSource: > > There is nothing in "the basics of OpenSource" that stands in the way of > people asking money for their software. Trolltech stumbled upon a nice Open Source money-making scheme. Open Source for Open Source developers and closed for closed source developers. This won't work for end user applications, but it's dandy for tools. If charging for support is not economically viable (and with quality applications it won't be), then think about releasing two versions, one as open source and the other a closed "value-added" version. Examples of this include Trolltech's X11 versus Windows versions, Aladdin's new versus old releases, and Netscape's Mozilla versus Communicator. -- David Johnson ___ http://www.usermode.org
Re: IPL as a burden
Manfred Schmid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I think, the obligation to pay a license fee is a legal obligation and > > > not bound to any license keys. We could claim fees without any keys. > > > Even if somebody (maybe us) took out the key algorithm and the software > > > would run without any license keys, we would still be entitled to the > > > fee. > > > > That would violate OSD #7: no additional license may be required > > beyond the open source license itself. > > > > Sorry, I do net get the point. All we need for claiming license fees is > the IPL itself. If the software has some key algorithm or not. Lets > assume, we do not use license keys and would leave the rest unchanged. > Still we would claim fees lthough our legal position in court might be > weaker, since we do not take "reasonable techniques" to prevent license > fraud. That would not change a single thing from the basic contract > which says: We provide the software, if you use it, you may be obliged > to pay license fees. I'm sorry, I was thinking that you were talking about using an open source license, and then claiming license fees on top of that. Now I understand that you were just continuing your claim that requiring license fees was compatible with open source. That's interesting; I don't see a clear statement in the OSD that recipients of a program be permitted to run it. Nevertheless, if the recipient of an open source program can not run it without an additional license, where the license itself is the only obstacle (that is, no other software is required, just the license itself), I feel certain that that program is not actually open source. > We propose a simple deal: > > VShop3 will be made available in Source Code under IPL > > We give you (see gnu.org) > - The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0). > - The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs > (freedom 1). > - The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor > (freedom 2). > - The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to > the public, so that the whole community benefits. (freedom 3). > > We will be happy to include any improvements. In contrast to standard > proceedings, we are ready to pay for the work poured in. > > Freedom #0 may make our price list apply. But freedom is not about the > price. Anyway, IPL states that it is even free of charge when you use it > for your own purposes etc. (privately or publicly). > Concerning Freedom #3 we are asking not to claim a removal of license > information as an improvement. If I want to run your program on several different computers, then removing the license information is clearly an improvement for me. With open source programs, you don't get to define what an improvement is. I do. > I am well aware that we all are (supposedly) not lawyers. So lets not > argue about the wording or the interpretation of some clauses. In my > opinion, two questions have to be answered: > > - May we charge license fees for an Open Source Product? Yes, you may, but you may not require them. If you do not permit people to run the program without a license, then the program is not open source. > - May we take reasonable provisions for a legal defending of the Terms > and Conditions of the license? Yes, you may. That does not affect whether the license is open source or not. > We do not want to start any religious wars or piss somebody off. We only > want to take commercial Open Source Development one step further. That one step is taking you out of the realm of open source. > We honestly think that the combination IPL / Developer Program takes the > spirit of the the Open Source Movement and adds an economic model, that > is easy to understand. It's easy to understand. It just isn't open source. Call it something else. Again I refer you to the Bitkeeper license. They went through all of this over a year ago. Their license is more liberal than yours--they don't even require paying a fee--but the result is not open source. I want to stress that I am not saying that you should not use the license. I am saying that you should not call this license ``open source.'' Ian
Re: IPL as a burden
Ian, > > > > I think, the obligation to pay a license fee is a legal obligation and > > not bound to any license keys. We could claim fees without any keys. > > Even if somebody (maybe us) took out the key algorithm and the software > > would run without any license keys, we would still be entitled to the > > fee. > > That would violate OSD #7: no additional license may be required > beyond the open source license itself. > Sorry, I do net get the point. All we need for claiming license fees is the IPL itself. If the software has some key algorithm or not. Lets assume, we do not use license keys and would leave the rest unchanged. Still we would claim fees lthough our legal position in court might be weaker, since we do not take "reasonable techniques" to prevent license fraud. That would not change a single thing from the basic contract which says: We provide the software, if you use it, you may be obliged to pay license fees. I do not want to bore you, but the rationale of OSD #7 reads: "7. Distribution of License. (back) This clause is intended to forbid closing up software by indirect means such as requiring a non-disclosure agreement." We do not intend to make the source available to the public under IPL and close it with the same License by any means. > > OSD criteria number 3 does not say: "Each and every line of any text > > published under an Open Source License must be changeable, if it is > > relevant for technical progress or not". > > You're right, it's not stated. However, it is implied. The criteria > does not say ``must allow modifications and derived works, but the > license may retrict modifications in certain areas.'' It says that > the license ``must allow modifications and derived works.'' If you > prohibit certain sorts of modifications, then you violate the > guideline. > > Remember that the OSD is not a program, and it is not a legal > document. It is a set of guidelines written for humans. > We propose a simple deal: VShop3 will be made available in Source Code under IPL We give you (see gnu.org) - The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0). - The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). - The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2). - The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits. (freedom 3). We will be happy to include any improvements. In contrast to standard proceedings, we are ready to pay for the work poured in. Freedom #0 may make our price list apply. But freedom is not about the price. Anyway, IPL states that it is even free of charge when you use it for your own purposes etc. (privately or publicly). Concerning Freedom #3 we are asking not to claim a removal of license information as an improvement. I am well aware that we all are (supposedly) not lawyers. So lets not argue about the wording or the interpretation of some clauses. In my opinion, two questions have to be answered: - May we charge license fees for an Open Source Product? - May we take reasonable provisions for a legal defending of the Terms and Conditions of the license? We do not want to start any religious wars or piss somebody off. We only want to take commercial Open Source Development one step further. We honestly think that the combination IPL / Developer Program takes the spirit of the the Open Source Movement and adds an economic model, that is easy to understand. Manfred -- - intraDAT AG Wilhelm-Leuschner-Strasse 7 u. 9-11 D - 60329 Frankfurt a. M., Germany Tel.: +49-(0)69-25629-0 Fax: +49-(0)69-25629-256 http://www.intradat.com -
Re: IPL as a burden
G'day all. On Mon, Jan 15, 2001 at 04:51:27PM -0800, Lawrence E. Rosen wrote: > Economic arguments in support of open source should be > carefully reasoned. I'm not an economist, I don't pretend to be an economist and I am not qualified to make economic arguments. I'm merely stating some of the things that I as a consumer take into account when making purchasing decisions. Cheers, Andrew Bromage
Re: IPL as a burden
G'day all. On Mon, Jan 15, 2001 at 07:55:22PM -0800, Frank LaMonica wrote: > If you read the > rest of my posting, you would see that I continued on by saying the people on > this list are exceptions - they do care about the source code. Unfortunately, > we are the extreme minority. I did read that and agree that this is the current situation. I do not believe that it need be so. > BTW, your analogy about a car is no longer valid. Almost all new cars are > controlled by proprietary programs running in embedded processors that can only > be accessed by very expensive equipment that is tightly controlled by the car > company. The days of tuning your own car without a computer are over, we've > lost the automobile war :( I've never bought a new car, so I wouldn't know. :-) In fact, I think this makes my argument all the stronger. I _can_ run my 15-year-old car if I want to. For example, if it was designed to run on leaded petrol, I can modify it so that it accepts unleaded, LPG or unleaded with non- lead additives when leaded petrol is no longer sold, as it will be in a few years' time. OTOH, try running fifteen-year-old software written for a platform that is no longer sold if you don't have the source code. Just so that nobody misunderstands me, I'm making no statements about economics or law (whether that be the law is it is or as it should be). I'm merely stating as a consumer what I want to be able to do with the things that I have paid for. That's one reason that I use a lot of open source software. However, like most people, it's not a "show stopper". I would never go so far as to refuse to buy from a company just because they don't let me tinker with their products. And it's one reason why I don't use open source software exclusively. My point is: the question of whether or not I have the right to hire any appropriately qualified person to repair or modify a product, the right to resell it or give it away when I've finished with it and the right to do any of the above without the permission of the person I bought it from _does_ affect my purchasing decisions, whether or not I am personally qualified to do it. People already think this way about their cars, their PCs, their homes and any number of other items they have paid money for. Imagine if you had to hire the original builder back if you wanted an extension to your house! I'm not even close to being a master builder, but I, like most people who think about it, value the ability to hire who I like to do said modifications. I happen to be in the same mindset about my software, the only difference being that in the case of software, I can do a lot of the modifications myself. Cheers, Andrew Bromage
Re: IPL as a burden
begin Manfred Schmid quotation: > > However, OSD criteria number 3 says that you must permit > > modifications and derived works. If the IPL forbids people from > > removing the licensing code, then it violates OSD criteria number > > 3. > > Taken directly from http://www.opensource.org/osd.html > > "3. Derived Works > > The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow > them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the > original software. (rationale)" The abovementioned "terms" must also satisfy OSD #1. -- You are not entitled to your opinions. 01234567 <- The amazing indent-o-meter! ^ Matt McIrvin: the Nikola Tesla of tab damage.
Re: IPL as a burden
Andrew, You may be correct about saying people would require source if they knew more about it, however they have to care about it to some degree first before they will, in general, take the time to learn about the issues. If you read the rest of my posting, you would see that I continued on by saying the people on this list are exceptions - they do care about the source code. Unfortunately, we are the extreme minority. I go on to show how open data formats may be a lever which can be used to open the eyes of those users who sit fat, dumb, and happy using proprietary software that locks up their data in hidden formats. Once they have reached the realization that the protection of their own data, and their ability to freely access that data are two issues they should care about, we may be able to get them to care more about open source code. BTW, your analogy about a car is no longer valid. Almost all new cars are controlled by proprietary programs running in embedded processors that can only be accessed by very expensive equipment that is tightly controlled by the car company. The days of tuning your own car without a computer are over, we've lost the automobile war :( Frank Andrew J Bromage wrote: > G'day all. > > On Mon, Jan 15, 2001 at 04:36:38PM -0800, Frank LaMonica wrote: > > > Most users of software don't consider the availability of source code in > > their purchasing decisions. Why? Because they are not in the business of > > writing software, they are simply using an application as a tool. > > I think they might take the availability of source into account if they > understood it better. > > When I buy a car, I don't care about tinkering with its innards because > I am not a mechanic, and have no aptitude or desire to become one. > However, I do insist that my car be servicable by any appropriately > qualified mechanic that I nominate. That way, I'm not locked into > paying the company I bought the car from every time it needs > maintenance. With a car, that means many things including good > engineering such as low coupling between independent systems (if I > change the colour of the upholstery, that shouldn't make the headlights > stop working) transparency (i.e. that the insides of the car are not > hidden) and openness (anyone can produce service manuals, spare parts > or even a clone of the whole car if they want to). And in the end, I > should be able to modify the car to my hearts' content (maybe put in > a different sound system, maybe put in a cargo barrier, maybe convert > it to run on unleaded petrol or LPG) and sell it to someone else when I > don't want it any more, and not have to get permission of the original > car manufacturer to do any of these things. Naturally I would wait > until the warranty expired (assuming the car came with a warranty) > before doing anything not approved by the vendor, but it wouldn't be > because the vendor forced me to. > > Would you buy a car that didn't let you do any of this whether you're > a mechanic or otherwise? > > If I were not a programmer, I'd reason the same way about software. If > my purchased software needs maintenance, I don't want to be at the > mercy of the company I bought it from. I want to be able to hire any > appropriately qualified programmer that I wish, or even do it myself if > I think I know what I'm doing; after all, I'm not a mechanic but I can > change a tyre with the best of them. I should be able to freely give > details of my fixes/enhancements to others, and I should be able to > resell the software when I'm finished with it. I should not have to get > the original vendor's permission to do it. > > Would you buy software that didn't let you do any of this, whether > you're a programmer or otherwise? > > This is not the full set of rights provided by Open Source, but if I were > not a programmer, it's what I'd be looking for. > > Cheers, > Andrew Bromage begin:vcard n:LaMonica;Frank tel;fax:1 (512) 378-3004 tel;home:1 (512) 378-3003 tel;work:1 (512) 378-3003 x-mozilla-html:FALSE org:VA Linux Systems Inc.;Marketing adr:;;114 South Prize Oaks Dr.;Cedar Park;TX;78613;USA version:2.1 email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] title:Strategic Director of Multi-Media x-mozilla-cpt:;-1184 fn:Frank LaMonica end:vcard
RE: IPL as a burden
While as a supporter of the open source movement I appreciate the conclusion you drew, I think your analogy is a poor one. The cost of making copies of software is nearly zero. The cost of making copies of a car is far higher than the cost of one car. The auto manufacturers don't really care what you do to modify your car because they are not afraid that you will compete with them effectively. Economic arguments in support of open source should be carefully reasoned. /Larry Rosen > -Original Message- > From: Andrew J Bromage [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf > Of Andrew J Bromage > Sent: Monday, January 15, 2001 4:13 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: IPL as a burden > > > G'day all. > > On Mon, Jan 15, 2001 at 04:36:38PM -0800, Frank LaMonica wrote: > > > Most users of software don't consider the availability of source code in > > their purchasing decisions. Why? Because they are not in the > business of > > writing software, they are simply using an application as a tool. > > I think they might take the availability of source into account if they > understood it better. > > When I buy a car, I don't care about tinkering with its innards because > I am not a mechanic, and have no aptitude or desire to become one. > However, I do insist that my car be servicable by any appropriately > qualified mechanic that I nominate. That way, I'm not locked into > paying the company I bought the car from every time it needs > maintenance. With a car, that means many things including good > engineering such as low coupling between independent systems (if I > change the colour of the upholstery, that shouldn't make the headlights > stop working) transparency (i.e. that the insides of the car are not > hidden) and openness (anyone can produce service manuals, spare parts > or even a clone of the whole car if they want to). And in the end, I > should be able to modify the car to my hearts' content (maybe put in > a different sound system, maybe put in a cargo barrier, maybe convert > it to run on unleaded petrol or LPG) and sell it to someone else when I > don't want it any more, and not have to get permission of the original > car manufacturer to do any of these things. Naturally I would wait > until the warranty expired (assuming the car came with a warranty) > before doing anything not approved by the vendor, but it wouldn't be > because the vendor forced me to. > > Would you buy a car that didn't let you do any of this whether you're > a mechanic or otherwise? > > If I were not a programmer, I'd reason the same way about software. If > my purchased software needs maintenance, I don't want to be at the > mercy of the company I bought it from. I want to be able to hire any > appropriately qualified programmer that I wish, or even do it myself if > I think I know what I'm doing; after all, I'm not a mechanic but I can > change a tyre with the best of them. I should be able to freely give > details of my fixes/enhancements to others, and I should be able to > resell the software when I'm finished with it. I should not have to get > the original vendor's permission to do it. > > Would you buy software that didn't let you do any of this, whether > you're a programmer or otherwise? > > This is not the full set of rights provided by Open Source, but if I were > not a programmer, it's what I'd be looking for. > > Cheers, > Andrew Bromage >
Re: IPL as a burden
G'day all. On Mon, Jan 15, 2001 at 04:36:38PM -0800, Frank LaMonica wrote: > Most users of software don't consider the availability of source code in > their purchasing decisions. Why? Because they are not in the business of > writing software, they are simply using an application as a tool. I think they might take the availability of source into account if they understood it better. When I buy a car, I don't care about tinkering with its innards because I am not a mechanic, and have no aptitude or desire to become one. However, I do insist that my car be servicable by any appropriately qualified mechanic that I nominate. That way, I'm not locked into paying the company I bought the car from every time it needs maintenance. With a car, that means many things including good engineering such as low coupling between independent systems (if I change the colour of the upholstery, that shouldn't make the headlights stop working) transparency (i.e. that the insides of the car are not hidden) and openness (anyone can produce service manuals, spare parts or even a clone of the whole car if they want to). And in the end, I should be able to modify the car to my hearts' content (maybe put in a different sound system, maybe put in a cargo barrier, maybe convert it to run on unleaded petrol or LPG) and sell it to someone else when I don't want it any more, and not have to get permission of the original car manufacturer to do any of these things. Naturally I would wait until the warranty expired (assuming the car came with a warranty) before doing anything not approved by the vendor, but it wouldn't be because the vendor forced me to. Would you buy a car that didn't let you do any of this whether you're a mechanic or otherwise? If I were not a programmer, I'd reason the same way about software. If my purchased software needs maintenance, I don't want to be at the mercy of the company I bought it from. I want to be able to hire any appropriately qualified programmer that I wish, or even do it myself if I think I know what I'm doing; after all, I'm not a mechanic but I can change a tyre with the best of them. I should be able to freely give details of my fixes/enhancements to others, and I should be able to resell the software when I'm finished with it. I should not have to get the original vendor's permission to do it. Would you buy software that didn't let you do any of this, whether you're a programmer or otherwise? This is not the full set of rights provided by Open Source, but if I were not a programmer, it's what I'd be looking for. Cheers, Andrew Bromage
Re: IPL as a burden
Manfred, On Tue, Jan 16, 2001 at 12:32:36AM +0100, Manfred Schmid wrote: > As of today, I do not know of Open Source Software, that asks for > License Fees. We are the first (to my knowledge) to do so and I think > that we will not be the only ones. Our customers did not mind to pay > fees for VShop 2.x (closed source) and I do not see any reason why they > should mind to pay fees for VShop3 since we are providing added value. > > To me, the spirit of Open Source is the availablity of the source and a > set of freedoms and rights provided along with the source to guarantee > better software and solutions. When looking at > http://www.opensource.org/osd.html I do see no point stating "You must > not claim license fees for an Open Source product" your reasoning may be perfectly valid (I don't hope so), but this is not what is meant with the term Open Source. The availability of source is just an immediate consequence of the spirit of Open Source, but not the most important thing. The best description of the spirit of Open Source are still the "four freedoms" as described in http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html. If you look at the history of the term Open Source, you'll see that it started out essentially as an alternative word for "Free Software". The Open Source Definition 1.0 was identical to Debian's Free Software Guidelines. If you read the Debian social contract, which is the original context of the DFSG, you'll see that "freedom to use" and "freedom to share" are so obvious properties of free software that the author didn't even care to mention them explicitely (how else could you understand the paragraph about "no discrimination against field of endevaour). Since the OSD is based on the same text, you have to read and understand it in the same context[1]. Within that context, your license doesn't grant two basic freedoms. OTOH, I have to admit that the words "open source" indeed seem fit to your license (maybe even better than they fit to the OS concept). And that's why many people of the community were not glad when Bruce Perens and ESR choose this term. So here's my proposal: Make a deal with OSI, take away the term "open source" and use it for your concept of "open source, restricted use". OSI could make a nice press release and officially adopt the term "free software" (since we now know that the term OS is not trademark-able, its intended use is lost anyway). Anybody would be glad. Gregor [1] NB to the OSI board: Since the OSD now is used out of the context of the Social Contract, it may be better to explicitely mention the four freedoms that it's based on.
Re: IPL as a burden
Manfred Schmid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > In other words, you can claim a license free, but you can't forbid > > people from modifying your software to permit them to run it without > > paying the fee. > > > > I think, the obligation to pay a license fee is a legal obligation and > not bound to any license keys. We could claim fees without any keys. > Even if somebody (maybe us) took out the key algorithm and the software > would run without any license keys, we would still be entitled to the > fee. That would violate OSD #7: no additional license may be required beyond the open source license itself. > OSD criteria number 3 does not say: "Each and every line of any text > published under an Open Source License must be changeable, if it is > relevant for technical progress or not". You're right, it's not stated. However, it is implied. The criteria does not say ``must allow modifications and derived works, but the license may retrict modifications in certain areas.'' It says that the license ``must allow modifications and derived works.'' If you prohibit certain sorts of modifications, then you violate the guideline. Remember that the OSD is not a program, and it is not a legal document. It is a set of guidelines written for humans. If you really believe that your license is open source, I can only conclude that you do not understand open source. The license, as it stands, will not get OSI approval. I urge you not to use the term ``open source'' to describe your license. It will just get you in trouble. Ian
Re: IPL as a burden
Hi Ian, > > As of today, I do not know of Open Source Software, that asks for > > License Fees. We are the first (to my knowledge) to do so and I think > > that we will not be the only ones. Our customers did not mind to pay > > fees for VShop 2.x (closed source) and I do not see any reason why they > > should mind to pay fees for VShop3 since we are providing added value. > > Your existing customers probably won't mind. Neither new ones, the software is worth it. > > > To me, the spirit of Open Source is the availablity of the source and a > > set of freedoms and rights provided along with the source to guarantee > > better software and solutions. When looking at > > http://www.opensource.org/osd.html I do see no point stating "You must > > not claim license fees for an Open Source product" > > You're right, you can claim a license fee. Thanx :) > > However, OSD criteria number 3 says that you must permit modifications > and derived works. If the IPL forbids people from removing the > licensing code, then it violates OSD criteria number 3. > Taken directly from http://www.opensource.org/osd.html "3. Derived Works The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software. (rationale)" We do allow modifications and derived works. We even encourage them by the developer program saying "check back with the results and we eventually pay for your work". If we do not buy anything from that guy, we will not prevent him or anybody else from distributing his modifications as long as it is clear which part is from our side and which part has been developed by somebody else. > In other words, you can claim a license free, but you can't forbid > people from modifying your software to permit them to run it without > paying the fee. > I think, the obligation to pay a license fee is a legal obligation and not bound to any license keys. We could claim fees without any keys. Even if somebody (maybe us) took out the key algorithm and the software would run without any license keys, we would still be entitled to the fee. License Keys are introduced to technically prevent easy license fraud. We all know, that there each and every software has been cracked. Still they are wide spread and that does not only have technical reasons. There are some legal opinions (at least here in Germany), that say you have to make sure to the customer that you are really claiming fees. and your price list is serious stuff A license key is a common thing that does the trick. OSD criteria number 3 does not say: "Each and every line of any text published under an Open Source License must be changeable, if it is relevant for technical progress or not". If I took any GPL program that "normally reads commands interactively when run", simply delete the code lines for displaying the copyright notice and redistribute my modified code, I would be acting illegally according to GPL (2.c of GPL Version 2). The rationale taken from http://www.opensource.org/osd-rationale.html#clause3 reads "3. Derived Works (back) The mere ability to read source isn't enough to support independent peer review and rapid evolutionary selection. For rapid evolution to happen, people need to be able to experiment with and redistribute modifications." We do want "independent peer review and rapid evolutionary selection". IPL is designed to allow exactly for that and this is why we have set up the developer program. Manfred -- - intraDAT AG Wilhelm-Leuschner-Strasse 7 u. 9-11 D - 60329 Frankfurt a. M., Germany Tel.: +49-(0)69-25629-0 Fax: +49-(0)69-25629-256 http://www.intradat.com -
Re: IPL as a burden
Manfred, Most users of software don't consider the availability of source code in their purchasing decisions. Why? Because they are not in the business of writing software, they are simply using an application as a tool. I suspect that most of the people on this list do not fit into that category. They do care about the source code, and they are generally in a position to make good use of it to support whatever application they are using. Should a normal application user care about source code? I suggest that a published data format is much more important to a typical end user than is the availability of source code. As a matter of fact, if an application doesn't have a published data format then a prudent user should reject it completely, regardless of how well it does the job of creating data. An application is a program that manipulates data. The user of any application almost always cares more about the data created than they do about the program used to create that data. The reason why a normal user should care about the open source nature of the application they choose to use is because that guarantees them the protection they need for the data they create. One step below the application source code level of protection is the data format used within the application to encode and/or store that data. An application typically embeds a storage methodology into itself, which it uses to store and retrieve data. If an application vendor only publishes their data format, and doesn't provide the application source code, then a non technical user might actually have a better form of protection for their purposes - provided, of course, that the application vendor didn't lie about the format. In that scenario, if an application vendor ceased to provide a suitable application, the end user could find some way to retrieve the data and to then use another application to continue their work. If the data format were only visible by virtue of the source code, first - on the good side - it would prevent the application vendor from lying and it would be a strong guarantee of data protection to the user, but - on the down side - it would require that someone who wanted to continue working without the original application, have to take the time, and have the expertise, to reverse engineer the data format by examining the application source code in order to have another application built that would allow the user to continue working. If the data is very complex, and, especially if it is created incrementally at numerous places within the application source code, it could be a major undertaking to understand the full extent of the data formatting. Would you put your money into a bank that would not allow you to recover it if the bank went out of business? We have the FDIC to protect us in the financial world, but what would you do if your firm found another application that better suited its business needs, and there was no way to move your legacy data to the new system? Could you afford to, and would it even be possible to recreate that data? Open data formats would protect your investment. That also would greatly simplify the license issues. Do you need to have a complex license to protect data formats or API's? I suggest that information of that nature should be totally free and open, licensed with something as simple as the BSD (XFree86) style license. We should encourage open, standard data formats and API's. Companies who create their value by writing application which create and manipulate your data could then recover their investment by charging suitable fees for their application. There would be no business need to insist on open source applications unless the vendor has been proven guilty of past deception, such as things like having hidden API hooks in an OS to enable better performance of their own applications. Companies who are guilty of those type of practices should be punished by requiring all of their source code to be open, and all of their data formats to be accurately documented and published. Regards, Frank Manfred Schmid wrote: > Hi Brian > > > You seem to labor under a very strange idea. That idea is that open > > source developers are "not paid." Exactly where did this idea come from? > > Every open source developer i know is quite well compensated and > > generally gets paid a certain amount of their time to work exclusively > > on their open source projects of their choice. Any consulting group will > > set aside research and development costs to further their code base. > > This is one of the persistent myths that non open source companies have > > about the open source software movement ie the developers are largely > > college students who are not paid. All the open source developers I know > > are highly compensated professionals. Programming skills are rare and > > highly prized. I doubt very much that there are legions of unpaid > > starving programmer
Re: IPL as a burden
>The Open Source Movement is getting more and more commercial and is has >to be to remain successful. Economics have their own dynamics. > >I do agree with you, that programmers do not starve in todays world but >a lot of Open Source work is done by "normal" people, who are not being >compensated by anybody for their contributions. > >I do agree that all the star Open Source developers are being paid >pretty well by somebody. Economically, this "somebody" calculates >indirect profit by enhancing the knowledge base, building up credibility >or whatever. If this somebody wants to donate something, fine as well, >but you cannot build an industry on donations. > >The current structure will not scale, since the ecoonomics are not >clear. Do you think, any consulting group or other commercial entity >would feel bad, if they had income from Open Source contributions? As an ISV, I agree with your concerns that the open source model has not shown that it will prove profitable enough to attract and maintain the commercial application base that I believe Linux needs to be successful. Maybe the model will prove out. I think TrollTech creative use of a dual GPL/commercial licensing scheme could provide one successful model. Perhaps there are others that deal with non-library products. However, you are unlikely to get far trying to convince this group to ease up on their criteria of what an open source license should be. They have defined it (after much painful discussion!), and I don't see any consensus that the license fits their criteria. I suspect that they would modify their criteria only if the "community at large" acknowledged that they needed to change. They are the "police" not the "law makers". Regards, Mark
Re: IPL as a burden
Manfred Schmid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > As of today, I do not know of Open Source Software, that asks for > License Fees. We are the first (to my knowledge) to do so and I think > that we will not be the only ones. Our customers did not mind to pay > fees for VShop 2.x (closed source) and I do not see any reason why they > should mind to pay fees for VShop3 since we are providing added value. Your existing customers probably won't mind. The reason that no open source software requires a licensing fee is pretty obvious: anybody who did not want to pay would simply modify the software to remove the licensing code. If they can not modify the software in this manner, then it is not open source. > To me, the spirit of Open Source is the availablity of the source and a > set of freedoms and rights provided along with the source to guarantee > better software and solutions. When looking at > http://www.opensource.org/osd.html I do see no point stating "You must > not claim license fees for an Open Source product" You're right, you can claim a license fee. However, OSD criteria number 3 says that you must permit modifications and derived works. If the IPL forbids people from removing the licensing code, then it violates OSD criteria number 3. In other words, you can claim a license free, but you can't forbid people from modifying your software to permit them to run it without paying the fee. Ian
Re: IPL as a burden
Hi Brian > You seem to labor under a very strange idea. That idea is that open > source developers are "not paid." Exactly where did this idea come from? > Every open source developer i know is quite well compensated and > generally gets paid a certain amount of their time to work exclusively > on their open source projects of their choice. Any consulting group will > set aside research and development costs to further their code base. > This is one of the persistent myths that non open source companies have > about the open source software movement ie the developers are largely > college students who are not paid. All the open source developers I know > are highly compensated professionals. Programming skills are rare and > highly prized. I doubt very much that there are legions of unpaid > starving programmers out there. The Open Source Movement is getting more and more commercial and is has to be to remain successful. Economics have their own dynamics. I do agree with you, that programmers do not starve in todays world but a lot of Open Source work is done by "normal" people, who are not being compensated by anybody for their contributions. I do agree that all the star Open Source developers are being paid pretty well by somebody. Economically, this "somebody" calculates indirect profit by enhancing the knowledge base, building up credibility or whatever. If this somebody wants to donate something, fine as well, but you cannot build an industry on donations. The current structure will not scale, since the ecoonomics are not clear. Do you think, any consulting group or other commercial entity would feel bad, if they had income from Open Source contributions? > Actually what you are stating here is categorically false. Charging > licence fees is not the only way to make money on your software. I know > what I am talking about as I was the CEO of a open source software > company for three years before my company's acquisition be VA. Our > software was/is licensed under the GPL and we sold the software neatly > packaged and also built a very lucratative consulting business around > it. Our software is an e-commerce product and was/is sold at the highest > levels of the enterprise. As everyone on this list knows you cannot > require license fees and claim your product is open source. As of today, I do not know of Open Source Software, that asks for License Fees. We are the first (to my knowledge) to do so and I think that we will not be the only ones. Our customers did not mind to pay fees for VShop 2.x (closed source) and I do not see any reason why they should mind to pay fees for VShop3 since we are providing added value. To me, the spirit of Open Source is the availablity of the source and a set of freedoms and rights provided along with the source to guarantee better software and solutions. When looking at http://www.opensource.org/osd.html I do see no point stating "You must not claim license fees for an Open Source product" Manfred Schmid CFO -- - intraDAT AG Wilhelm-Leuschner-Strasse 7 u. 9-11 D - 60329 Frankfurt a. M., Germany Tel.: +49-(0)69-25629-0 Fax: +49-(0)69-25629-256 http://www.intradat.com -
Re: IPL as a burden
Manfred Schmid wrote: > > Hi Mark, > > [...] > > sendmail.org, apache.org, abisource.com, etc. etc. > > Whatever they are working on, at the end of the day everybody has to pay > his bills. That applies to Open Source Developers as well. > > Developing software requires a serious amount of investment concerning > time, money, brain etc. > > If enough enthusiasts are willing to pledge that investment, fine. This > has brought Linux, Apache etc. to where it is now and it has been a > great job. > > But this does not scale to the extent needed in the future. For a > company, an investment has to pay off. The Support & Consulting approach > may work well for established products like Apache etc. for the time > being. > > But who will fund the investments in future? Designated sponsors > forever? Enthusiasts pouring time in it to allow BIG companies to do the > Support & Consulting thing? > > We are proposing a new structure to give a commercially viable answer to > a simple question: Who pays the developers? You seem to labor under a very strange idea. That idea is that open source developers are "not paid." Exactly where did this idea come from? Every open source developer i know is quite well compensated and generally gets paid a certain amount of their time to work exclusively on their open source projects of their choice. Any consulting group will set aside research and development costs to further their code base. This is one of the persistent myths that non open source companies have about the open source software movement ie the developers are largely college students who are not paid. All the open source developers I know are highly compensated professionals. Programming skills are rare and highly prized. I doubt very much that there are legions of unpaid starving programmers out there. > > > > > Your license violates those freedoms. > > > > We are preserving the freedoms mentiones above and give a developer the > chance to pay his bills. Do you think that this is such a bad idea? When > thinking about paying developers, you have to know where the money comes > from. > > Any company we are working for produces something. They know, that a > product has a price and software is no exception to that. We therefor > think that Licence Fees seem a quite appropriate answer to the money > question. > > Unfortunately, we must not ask for these, if we would use GPL. As CFO I > could not finance a developer program and give the guys out there their > fair share. Actually what you are stating here is categorically false. Charging licence fees is not the only way to make money on your software. I know what I am talking about as I was the CEO of a open source software company for three years before my company's acquisition be VA. Our software was/is licensed under the GPL and we sold the software neatly packaged and also built a very lucratative consulting business around it. Our software is an e-commerce product and was/is sold at the highest levels of the enterprise. As everyone on this list knows you cannot require license fees and claim your product is open source. I assume you have a 25-50 man development team and a similar amount of marketing/admin/support people? > > Manfred Schmid > CFO > > -- > > - > intraDAT AG > Wilhelm-Leuschner-Strasse 7 u. 9-11 > D - 60329 Frankfurt a. M., Germany > Tel.: +49-(0)69-25629-0 > Fax: +49-(0)69-25629-256 > http://www.intradat.com > - -- = Brian DeSpainVA Linux Systems Practice Lead http://www.bravenewworlds.com E-Commerce Practice http://www.symphero.com 620 South Raymond Avenue Suite #5 http://www.valinux.com Pasadena, CA 91105 U.S.A. Voice: +1.626.584.9335 x22 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fax: +1.626.584.9364 Board Member: Linux International (R)Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds in several countries.
Re: IPL as a burden
Hi Mark, [...] > sendmail.org, apache.org, abisource.com, etc. etc. Whatever they are working on, at the end of the day everybody has to pay his bills. That applies to Open Source Developers as well. Developing software requires a serious amount of investment concerning time, money, brain etc. If enough enthusiasts are willing to pledge that investment, fine. This has brought Linux, Apache etc. to where it is now and it has been a great job. But this does not scale to the extent needed in the future. For a company, an investment has to pay off. The Support & Consulting approach may work well for established products like Apache etc. for the time being. But who will fund the investments in future? Designated sponsors forever? Enthusiasts pouring time in it to allow BIG companies to do the Support & Consulting thing? We are proposing a new structure to give a commercially viable answer to a simple question: Who pays the developers? The answer is simple as well: We do! (see below) > Those are only 2 of the 4 basic freedoms. > There is also the freedom to redistribute copies, as well as the freedom > to improve the program and release your improvements to the public. If you want to redistribute it, go ahead. If you want to change it and release it, great. All we are asking for is a clear distinction between stuff released by us and stuff made by somebody else (same with GPL). If you have improved our code (bugfixes, added features etc.), check out the developer program. We charge money, but we are willing to PAY for contributions on the other hand. > > Your license violates those freedoms. > We are preserving the freedoms mentiones above and give a developer the chance to pay his bills. Do you think that this is such a bad idea? When thinking about paying developers, you have to know where the money comes from. Any company we are working for produces something. They know, that a product has a price and software is no exception to that. We therefor think that Licence Fees seem a quite appropriate answer to the money question. Unfortunately, we must not ask for these, if we would use GPL. As CFO I could not finance a developer program and give the guys out there their fair share. This is why we think, that (another) License is needed: IPL Best Regards Manfred Schmid CFO -- - intraDAT AG Wilhelm-Leuschner-Strasse 7 u. 9-11 D - 60329 Frankfurt a. M., Germany Tel.: +49-(0)69-25629-0 Fax: +49-(0)69-25629-256 http://www.intradat.com -
Re: IPL as a burden
Ralf, I think you have misunderstood my comments. I have no problem with companies making money in an open source environment. My comments did not refer to money in any way, they were directed at the human element - i.e.,, time - that it takes to negotiate the interactions between all of the licenses used by players in our community when many pieces of software are used as components of larger projects. I also deliberately avoided stating my personal opinions regarding the use of the GPL, LGPL, or any open source license. For the record, I believe that only API's, data formats, and OS infrastructure code needs to be open source. Any time company A has to pay a toll to company B for the right to interact with company C, then there is a problem. That has nothing to do with the license discussion at hand, but is just in reply to your divergence to philosophy.Back to your IPL proposal. The license may be approved by some Washington law firm, and if you feel it is adequate, then it is obviously your decision. I just gave you my opinion - an opinion you solicited. If you were just looking for an endorsement of your proposed license, then I apologize for interfering. Regards, Frank Ralf Schwoebel wrote: > Frank LaMonica wrote: > > > but differ from the GPL or LGPL. Each such license places additional burdens on > > the entire open source community. Those burdens devolve from the inevitable > > Dear Frank, > > thanks for the input, but I have to disagree. The lack of the word > money is the burden of the OpenSource community and even companies > like VA or RedHat have to feel that these days. And the GPL comes > from a time when students changed the world and coolness was a skill. > > Now we have 2001 and the idea of Open Source needs a kick, because > we need applications now and everybody thinks its cooler to work > on an operating system, not an application. > We see no other possibility than enabling people to charge money for > sources without violating the basics of OpenSource: > > Anyone is allowed to use the software, everybody has access to > the sources, etc. pp. > > This money goes to the developers and they can pay their bills. > > And by the way: > Our license is approved by a very good and accepted lawyer in > Washington DC (some senators and HUGE software vendors agree to that) > and is suitable for the Virginia law, since software licenses have to > fit the state laws, not the federal law in the US. > > -- > best regards, > Ralf "puzzler" Schwoebel > CEO, intraDAT international inc. > 11250 Roger Bacon Drive (#3) > Reston, VA 20190 > Tel.: 703 796 begin:vcard n:LaMonica;Frank tel;fax:1 (512) 378-3004 tel;home:1 (512) 378-3003 tel;work:1 (512) 378-3003 x-mozilla-html:FALSE org:VA Linux Systems Inc.;Marketing adr:;;114 South Prize Oaks Dr.;Cedar Park;TX;78613;USA version:2.1 email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] title:Strategic Director of Multi-Media x-mozilla-cpt:;-1184 fn:Frank LaMonica end:vcard
Re: IPL as a burden
Ralf Schwoebel wrote: [...] > Now we have 2001 and the idea of Open Source needs a kick, because > we need applications now and everybody thinks its cooler to work > on an operating system, not an application. It is my perception that the majority of Open Source/Free Software hackers work on applications rather than operating systems. You might want to take a look at koffice.kde.org, mozilla.org. gimp.org, sendmail.org, apache.org, abisource.com, etc. etc. > We see no other possibility than enabling people to charge money for > sources without violating the basics of OpenSource: There is nothing in "the basics of OpenSource" that stands in the way of people asking money for their software. > Anyone is allowed to use the software, everybody has access to > the sources, etc. pp. Those are only 2 of the 4 basic freedoms. There is also the freedom to redistribute copies, as well as the freedom to improve the program and release your improvements to the public. Your license violates those freedoms. > This money goes to the developers and they can pay their bills. > > And by the way: > Our license is approved by a very good and accepted lawyer in > Washington DC (some senators and HUGE software vendors agree to that) > and is suitable for the Virginia law, since software licenses have to > fit the state laws, not the federal law in the US. Let's not start about that Virginia law... :-) While I believe that you are well-intentioned, I think you are proposing a very wrong solution to a problem that doesn't exist. In other words, fixing "problems" with Open Source / Free Software by making the software only half-free is not the way to go. Mark
Re: IPL as a burden
Ralf Schwoebel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Frank LaMonica wrote: > > > but differ from the GPL or LGPL. Each such license places additional >burdens on > > the entire open source community. Those burdens devolve from the >inevitable > >Dear Frank, > >thanks for the input, but I have to disagree. The lack of the word >money is the burden of the OpenSource community and even companies >like VA or RedHat have to feel that these days. And the GPL comes >from a time when students changed the world and coolness was a skill. It is clear that you don't understand open source. >Now we have 2001 and the idea of Open Source needs a kick, because >we need applications now and everybody thinks its cooler to work >on an operating system, not an application. >We see no other possibility than enabling people to charge money for >sources without violating the basics of OpenSource: You are not producing open source. You are producing something that violates every principle of open source and then lying by calling it open source. If you wish to produce proprietary software, go ahead. But don't try to lie and call it open source. >Anyone is allowed to use the software, everybody has access to >the sources, etc. pp. They are only allowed if they have your license key. I am not allowed to take my knowledge of your software and freely start a consulting business if I think that you have been doing a piss-poor job. This is not open source. >This money goes to the developers and they can pay their bills. > >And by the way: >Our license is approved by a very good and accepted lawyer in >Washington DC (some senators and HUGE software vendors agree to that) >and is suitable for the Virginia law, since software licenses have to >fit the state laws, not the federal law in the US. > UCITA is generally detested by all except organizations whose attitudes towards intellectual property are also generally detested. Once again, your license is not open source. Nor will you find that people in the open source community generally willing to accept it. Regards, Ben _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: IPL as a burden
begin Ralf Schwoebel quotation: > Now we have 2001 and the idea of Open Source needs a kick Possibly, but _not_ an on-the-fly redefinition to suit your convenience. You have now been cited numerous fundamental aspects in which your licence does not follow the principles of the Open Source Definition (http://www.opensource.org/osd.html). Therefore, although your licence may, as Mr. Lincoln said, be the sort of thing that will be enjoyed by those who enjoy that sort of thing, it is not an open source licence. Thus, please do not refer to it that way; that will save the open source community a great deal of work contradicting your firm's assertions to the contrary at every turn, and save your firm a public-relations problem. -- Cheers, "Because film is the pre-eminent American art form. You don't hear Rick Moen people saying 'You know, this movie would make a really great epic [EMAIL PROTECTED] poem.'" -- Orson Scott Card, book signing, 7 Jan 2001
Re: IPL as a burden
Frank LaMonica wrote: > but differ from the GPL or LGPL. Each such license places additional burdens on > the entire open source community. Those burdens devolve from the inevitable Dear Frank, thanks for the input, but I have to disagree. The lack of the word money is the burden of the OpenSource community and even companies like VA or RedHat have to feel that these days. And the GPL comes from a time when students changed the world and coolness was a skill. Now we have 2001 and the idea of Open Source needs a kick, because we need applications now and everybody thinks its cooler to work on an operating system, not an application. We see no other possibility than enabling people to charge money for sources without violating the basics of OpenSource: Anyone is allowed to use the software, everybody has access to the sources, etc. pp. This money goes to the developers and they can pay their bills. And by the way: Our license is approved by a very good and accepted lawyer in Washington DC (some senators and HUGE software vendors agree to that) and is suitable for the Virginia law, since software licenses have to fit the state laws, not the federal law in the US. -- best regards, Ralf "puzzler" Schwoebel CEO, intraDAT international inc. 11250 Roger Bacon Drive (#3) Reston, VA 20190 Tel.: 703 796
