Re: [License-discuss] I've been asked to license my open source project CC0
Hi Shahar. You already got many answers, but none seem to be complete, so let me have a go... On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 8:09 PM, Shahar Or <mightyiamprese...@gmail.com> wrote: > I have been asked to change the license of an open source project of mine > to CC0. I'm reluctant to do so, as it is not OSI approved. > https://github.com/mightyiam/shields-badge-data/issues/28 > Makes sense. I wouldn't do it either. I should say I think Creative Commons is great and all of what they do is well intended. But for software I think there's no justification to not pick an OSI approved license. (Conversely, CC licenses are primarily designed for copyrighted works that are not software code.) The relevant history here is as follows: A couple years ago people proposed to Creative Commons to submit CC0 for OSI certification. You can find that discussion on license-review list if you want to read with your own eyes. Questions were then raised about the fact that CC0 expressly excludes patents from the grant. (Which is fair in the sense that public domain is a concept related to copyright.) Many reviewers voiced an opinion that explicitly reserving the right to sue your users for patent infringment is clearly not compatible with the Open Source Definition. (Notably, OSI has previously rejected licenses on the same grounds. Search for MXL I believe?) CC then withdrew it's submission. Technically then, it's never been decided whether CC0 is open source or not, but it is not OSI approved. Is there good reason for this request, at all? > Probably not. Maybe they don't want other licenses in their repo. It's quite common for open and closed software to include small parts that are BSD, ISC, MIT, etc licensed, even if the software as a whole is licensed under its own license. If they have an actual reason (that is not a policy or possibly a misinformed reason), it would have to be something that is in the ISC license and not in CC0. Seems like warranty and patents are the 2 alternatives? > I mean, can they not otherwise depend on my software, if their software is > CC0 licensed? > When I conveyed my reluctance it was suggested that I dual-license. > Dual-license is often a good solution! You have 1 license that is OSI approved, so you are clearly open source. Then you have other licenses that meet some other specific need. You need to consider still, whether CC0 is a license you want to use. Is it ok that someone would distribute your software without warranty and with explicitly reserving the right to sue for patents? Note that as long as you keep the ISC in your own repo, then people getting the software from you, will still have both the warranty and whatever patent license may be implied by the short ISC license. henrik -- henrik.i...@avoinelama.fi +358-40-5697354skype: henrik.ingoirc: hingo www.openlife.cc My LinkedIn profile: http://fi.linkedin.com/pub/henrik-ingo/3/232/8a7 ___________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: I've been asked to license my open source project CC0
Yes, but that's because US Federal Government works generally don't have copyright attached within the US, so CC0 was the best option. That may not be the case here. Thanks, Cem Karan --- Other than quoted laws, regulations or officially published policies, the views expressed herein are not intended to be used as an authoritative state of the law nor do they reflect official positions of the U.S. Army, Department of Defense or U.S. Government. > -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Tzeng, Nigel H. > Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2017 1:39 PM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [License-discuss] I've been asked to license my > open source project CC0 > > All active links contained in this email were disabled. Please verify the > identity of the sender, and confirm the authenticity of all links > contained within the message prior to copying and pasting the address to a > Web browser. > > > > > > > > CC0 is accepted as open source by the federal government in the Federal > Source Code Policy. > > > > Caution-https://code.gov/#/policy-guide/docs/overview/introduction > > Caution-https://github.com/GSA/code-gov-web/blob/master/LICENSE.md < > Caution-https://github.com/GSA/code-gov- > web/blob/master/LICENSE.md > > > > > > > From:License-discuss <license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org> on behalf of > Christopher Sean Morrison <brl...@mac.com> > Reply-To: License Discuss <license-discuss@opensource.org> > Date: Tuesday, November 7, 2017 at 1:33 PM > To: License Discuss <license-discuss@opensource.org> > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] I've been asked to license my open source > project CC0 > > > > > > > On Nov 7, 2017, at 12:09 PM, Shahar Or <mightyiamprese...@gmail.com < > Caution-mailto:mightyiamprese...@gmail.com > > wrote: > > I have been asked to change the license of an open source project of > mine to CC0. I'm reluctant to do so, as it is not OSI approved. > > > > That’s a reasonable concern, imho. > > > > > > Caution-https://github.com/mightyiam/shields-badge-data/issues/28 < > Caution-https://github.com/mightyiam/shields-badge- > data/issues/28 > > > > > Is there good reason for this request, at all? > > > > There’s no technical reason. Not permitting incorporation of permissively > licensed code (eg MIT) predominantly means throwing away > attribution. > > > > > > I mean, can they not otherwise depend on my software, if their software > is CC0 licensed? > > > > If your code used a license that applied to combined works (eg GPL), there’d > be an issue. > > > > > > When I conveyed my reluctance it was suggested that I dual-license. > > > > With CC0, I would suggest striking the patent provision or incorporating a > patent grant from contributors in some manner. Dual licensing > with a permissive is an option too. > > Cheers! > > Sean > > smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] I've been asked to license my open source project CC0
On Nov 07, 2017, at 02:27 PM, Shahar Or <mightyiamprese...@gmail.com> wrote: Nigel, in case there's a misunderstanding—I'm not contributing to a CC0 licensed project. A maintainer of a CC0 licensed project has requested me to re-license my ISC licensed project to CC0. What do you mean by "Modifying the stock CC0"? Did they? I presume he was referring to my reply which suggested that if you use CC0, to address patents in some manner. CC0 is in prevalent use so you're probably fine either way, but just be aware that there is uncertainty (or at least disagreement) as to whether CC0's fallback license is consistent with the Open Source Definition (OSD) as defined by OSI. The reason is that it essentially says "no patent grant for you!" which none of the permissives (e.g., ISC) say. To the contrary, licenses like ISC arguably imply a patent license, but this is fully untested. For an artwork asset, it doesn't really matter. For code and contributors, it "could" matter if someone has a patent. My overarching suggestion remains to address CC0's patent clause in *some* manner whether by a contributor agreement, dual-licensing, or amendment and probably in that order of decreasing favor. And what do you mean by "they won’t use your code anyway"? They intend to use it as a dependency, via package management (Node.js/NPM) and specifically include it in their web frontend via bundling (Webpack, probably). To me, their request makes absolutely no sense unless they distribute that frontend code independently of npm. They're basically asking to not have to acknowledge your contribution as having come from you. They're certainly able to do that and not an uncommon desire, but it seems very lame to me to ask that of an ISC code. It appears to me that the maintainers want all the code and art assets under one license and they are using CC0. That’s not too uncommon in general and in this case, it makes even more sense given that shields appears to programmatically makes badges in svg. Except they are extending their desire to non-bundled *dependencies*, which is just bizarre. It's like wanting GPL virality sans copyright ... copyfarleft? The patent provision is meaningless if you don’t own any patents used by your code. It's not necessarily meaningless to contributors and forks and future you. Cheers! Sean ___________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] I've been asked to license my open source project CC0
Nigel, in case there's a misunderstanding—I'm not contributing to a CC0 licensed project. A maintainer of a CC0 licensed project has requested me to re-license my ISC licensed project to CC0. What do you mean by "Modifying the stock CC0"? Did they? And what do you mean by "they won’t use your code anyway"? They intend to use it as a dependency, via package management (Node.js/NPM) and specifically include it in their web frontend via bundling (Webpack, probably). On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 9:05 PM Tzeng, Nigel H. <nigel.tz...@jhuapl.edu> wrote: > Oops, hit send by accident. CC0 is also accepted as GPL compatible and is > a free software license (as judged by the FSF). > > > > It appears to me that the maintainers want all the code and art assets > under one license and they are using CC0. That’s not too uncommon in > general and in this case, it makes even more sense given that shields > appears to programmatically makes badges in svg. I guess they want to be > sure that all of the vectorized images that are in the repo are CC0 to try > to avoid issues. The line between code and art asset are blurrier for this > project than most. > > > > If it bothers you a lot then don’t contribute to the project but there > doesn’t seem to be anything sinister about the request. > > > > The patent provision is meaningless if you don’t own any patents used by > your code. Modifying the stock CC0 probably means they won’t use your code > anyway so either comply with the request or not. You aren’t obligated to > contribute anything but neither are they obligated to change policy. > > > > Regards, > > > > Nigel > > > > *From: *Nigel Tzeng <nigel.tz...@jhuapl.edu> > *Date: *Tuesday, November 7, 2017 at 1:38 PM > > > *To: *License Discuss <license-discuss@opensource.org> > *Subject: *Re: [License-discuss] I've been asked to license my open > source project CC0 > > > > CC0 is accepted as open source by the federal government in the Federal > Source Code Policy. > > > > https://code.gov/#/policy-guide/docs/overview/introduction > > https://github.com/GSA/code-gov-web/blob/master/LICENSE.md > > > > > > *From: *License-discuss <license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org> on > behalf of Christopher Sean Morrison <brl...@mac.com> > *Reply-To: *License Discuss <license-discuss@opensource.org> > *Date: *Tuesday, November 7, 2017 at 1:33 PM > *To: *License Discuss <license-discuss@opensource.org> > *Subject: *Re: [License-discuss] I've been asked to license my open > source project CC0 > > > > > > > On Nov 7, 2017, at 12:09 PM, Shahar Or <mightyiamprese...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > I have been asked to change the license of an open source project of mine > to CC0. I'm reluctant to do so, as it is not OSI approved. > > > > That’s a reasonable concern, imho. > > > > > https://github.com/mightyiam/shields-badge-data/issues/28 > > > > Is there good reason for this request, at all? > > > > There’s no technical reason. Not permitting incorporation of permissively > licensed code (eg MIT) predominantly means throwing away attribution. > > > > > I mean, can they not otherwise depend on my software, if their software is > CC0 licensed? > > > > If your code used a license that applied to combined works (eg GPL), > there’d be an issue. > > > > > When I conveyed my reluctance it was suggested that I dual-license. > > > > With CC0, I would suggest striking the patent provision or incorporating a > patent grant from contributors in some manner. Dual licensing with a > permissive is an option too. > > Cheers! > > Sean > > > ___ > License-discuss mailing list > License-discuss@opensource.org > https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss > ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] I've been asked to license my open source project CC0
Oops, hit send by accident. CC0 is also accepted as GPL compatible and is a free software license (as judged by the FSF). It appears to me that the maintainers want all the code and art assets under one license and they are using CC0. That’s not too uncommon in general and in this case, it makes even more sense given that shields appears to programmatically makes badges in svg. I guess they want to be sure that all of the vectorized images that are in the repo are CC0 to try to avoid issues. The line between code and art asset are blurrier for this project than most. If it bothers you a lot then don’t contribute to the project but there doesn’t seem to be anything sinister about the request. The patent provision is meaningless if you don’t own any patents used by your code. Modifying the stock CC0 probably means they won’t use your code anyway so either comply with the request or not. You aren’t obligated to contribute anything but neither are they obligated to change policy. Regards, Nigel From: Nigel Tzeng <nigel.tz...@jhuapl.edu> Date: Tuesday, November 7, 2017 at 1:38 PM To: License Discuss <license-discuss@opensource.org> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] I've been asked to license my open source project CC0 CC0 is accepted as open source by the federal government in the Federal Source Code Policy. https://code.gov/#/policy-guide/docs/overview/introduction https://github.com/GSA/code-gov-web/blob/master/LICENSE.md From: License-discuss <license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org> on behalf of Christopher Sean Morrison <brl...@mac.com> Reply-To: License Discuss <license-discuss@opensource.org> Date: Tuesday, November 7, 2017 at 1:33 PM To: License Discuss <license-discuss@opensource.org> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] I've been asked to license my open source project CC0 On Nov 7, 2017, at 12:09 PM, Shahar Or <mightyiamprese...@gmail.com<mailto:mightyiamprese...@gmail.com>> wrote: I have been asked to change the license of an open source project of mine to CC0. I'm reluctant to do so, as it is not OSI approved. That’s a reasonable concern, imho. https://github.com/mightyiam/shields-badge-data/issues/28 Is there good reason for this request, at all? There’s no technical reason. Not permitting incorporation of permissively licensed code (eg MIT) predominantly means throwing away attribution. I mean, can they not otherwise depend on my software, if their software is CC0 licensed? If your code used a license that applied to combined works (eg GPL), there’d be an issue. When I conveyed my reluctance it was suggested that I dual-license. With CC0, I would suggest striking the patent provision or incorporating a patent grant from contributors in some manner. Dual licensing with a permissive is an option too. Cheers! Sean ___________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] I've been asked to license my open source project CC0
CC0 is accepted as open source by the federal government in the Federal Source Code Policy. https://code.gov/#/policy-guide/docs/overview/introduction https://github.com/GSA/code-gov-web/blob/master/LICENSE.md From: License-discuss <license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org> on behalf of Christopher Sean Morrison <brl...@mac.com> Reply-To: License Discuss <license-discuss@opensource.org> Date: Tuesday, November 7, 2017 at 1:33 PM To: License Discuss <license-discuss@opensource.org> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] I've been asked to license my open source project CC0 On Nov 7, 2017, at 12:09 PM, Shahar Or <mightyiamprese...@gmail.com<mailto:mightyiamprese...@gmail.com>> wrote: I have been asked to change the license of an open source project of mine to CC0. I'm reluctant to do so, as it is not OSI approved. That’s a reasonable concern, imho. https://github.com/mightyiam/shields-badge-data/issues/28 Is there good reason for this request, at all? There’s no technical reason. Not permitting incorporation of permissively licensed code (eg MIT) predominantly means throwing away attribution. I mean, can they not otherwise depend on my software, if their software is CC0 licensed? If your code used a license that applied to combined works (eg GPL), there’d be an issue. When I conveyed my reluctance it was suggested that I dual-license. With CC0, I would suggest striking the patent provision or incorporating a patent grant from contributors in some manner. Dual licensing with a permissive is an option too. Cheers! Sean _______ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] I've been asked to license my open source project CC0
Sorry, this isn’t an issue.
Q. Does using CC0 affect my ability to disclaim warranties?
A. No. CC0 explicitly disclaims "representations or warranties of any kind"
(see 4(b)). This is not affected by CC0's abandonment of all copyright-related
rights to the extent legally possible. Disposing of an asset (whether or not
gratis) often involves a statement by the prior owner as to the state of the
asset disposed of such that the owner has no responsibility/liability for
things that may go wrong once the asset is no longer theirs. As with a quit
claim used with real property, with CC0 a copyright holder abandons or quits
their interest without any further obligation, including without warranty.
https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/CC0_FAQ#Does_using_CC0_affect_my_ability_to_disclaim_warranties.3F
License Text:
4.b Affirmer offers the Work as-is and makes no representations or warranties
of any kind concerning the Work, express, implied, statutory or otherwise,
including without limitation warranties of title, merchantability, fitness for
a particular purpose, non infringement, or the absence of latent or other
defects, accuracy, or the present or absence of errors, whether or not
discoverable, all to the greatest extent permissible under applicable law.
On 11/7/17, 12:20 PM, "License-discuss on behalf of David Woolley"
<license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org on behalf of
for...@david-woolley.me.uk> wrote:
On 07/11/17 17:09, Shahar Or wrote:
> Is there good reason for this request, at all? I mean, can they not
> otherwise depend on my software, if their software is CC0 licensed?
> When I conveyed my reluctance it was suggested that I dual-license.
Dual licensing is pointless, as CC0 is always more permissive, so there
is really no point in anyone using the alternative licence.
Please request the person making this request to indemnify you against
all actions for damages as a result of using the software, and ensure
they have the resources to back that indemnity.
The reason for not using CC0 is that open source licences generally
always include a waiver of warranty as part of the conditions of the
licence.
_______
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
_______
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] I've been asked to license my open source project CC0
> On Nov 7, 2017, at 12:09 PM, Shahar Or <mightyiamprese...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I have been asked to change the license of an open source project of mine to > CC0. I'm reluctant to do so, as it is not OSI approved. That’s a reasonable concern, imho. > https://github.com/mightyiam/shields-badge-data/issues/28 > > Is there good reason for this request, at all? There’s no technical reason. Not permitting incorporation of permissively licensed code (eg MIT) predominantly means throwing away attribution. > I mean, can they not otherwise depend on my software, if their software is > CC0 licensed? If your code used a license that applied to combined works (eg GPL), there’d be an issue. > When I conveyed my reluctance it was suggested that I dual-license. With CC0, I would suggest striking the patent provision or incorporating a patent grant from contributors in some manner. Dual licensing with a permissive is an option too. Cheers! Sean _______ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] I've been asked to license my open source project CC0
On 07/11/17 17:09, Shahar Or wrote: Is there good reason for this request, at all? I mean, can they not otherwise depend on my software, if their software is CC0 licensed? When I conveyed my reluctance it was suggested that I dual-license. Dual licensing is pointless, as CC0 is always more permissive, so there is really no point in anyone using the alternative licence. Please request the person making this request to indemnify you against all actions for damages as a result of using the software, and ensure they have the resources to back that indemnity. The reason for not using CC0 is that open source licences generally always include a waiver of warranty as part of the conditions of the licence. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
[License-discuss] I've been asked to license my open source project CC0
I have been asked to change the license of an open source project of mine to CC0. I'm reluctant to do so, as it is not OSI approved. https://github.com/mightyiam/shields-badge-data/issues/28 Is there good reason for this request, at all? I mean, can they not otherwise depend on my software, if their software is CC0 licensed? When I conveyed my reluctance it was suggested that I dual-license. Help? ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] MakeHuman, CC0 and AGPL
Diane Peters dixit: >"CC0 is both a public domain dedication and a license. If the dedication AIUI (after several attempts at reading it) CC0 does not licence the work but the right to act in the stead of the work’s author, therefore allowing everyone to put any licence on it. bye, //mirabilos -- I believe no one can invent an algorithm. One just happens to hit upon it when God enlightens him. Or only God invents algorithms, we merely copy them. If you don't believe in God, just consider God as Nature if you won't deny existence. -- Coywolf Qi Hunt ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] MakeHuman, CC0 and AGPL
"CC0 is both a public domain dedication and a license. If the dedication
is effective, then it affects all the manifestations (on a website or a
CD/DVD-ROM) and copies. If it is not, then the permissive license affects
only the copies it is attached to."
The final sentence is incorrect, at least in terms of how CC licenses
operate. If the expression is licensed under a CC license (or the CC0 back
up license, as described here), then that license is available to anyone
who reuses that expression as a matter of copyright and the closely related
rights as defined in CC0 or the CC license.
On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 6:26 PM, John Cowan <co...@ccil.org> wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 12:12 PM, Lindsay Patten <blindsaypat...@gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
>> Can you clarify whether you can you put a copy of a work in the public
>> domain while maintaining a license on another copy? Or is it the work
>> itself that is placed in the public domain, and any ability to enforce
>> copyright on any copies has been surrendered? My understanding was that
>> works are placed in the public domain while copies are licensed, and that
>> placing a work in the public domain renounces any copyright claim you might
>> have on any copies regardless of what license they may have been previously
>> released under. You seem to be saying that a particular copy of a work can
>> be placed in the public domain while other copies remain under copyright
>> restrictions?
>>
> I oversimplified. A work in the copyright sense is really an expression
> of the abstract work. Beethoven's Ninth Symphony is an abstraction
> existing in people's minds (originally only Beethoven's mind) and not in
> itself subject to copyright, whereas each draft of it that he wrote down,
> as well as each recorded performance of any draft, constitute different
> expressions ("fixations" in copyright jargon) of the abstract work.
> Likewise, multiple editions of a book are separate expressions. Each
> expression exists in one or more manifestations. For example, a specific
> recording of the symphony, which is an expression, can be manifested as a
> vinyl disk, a cassette, a CD, a digital version. The manifestations of a
> book might be as a hardback, a paperback, an e-book, or in a single-volume
> vs. a multi-volume version. And each manifestation typically exists in
> multiple copies.
>
> Copyright status attaches to the expression: if a specific expression is
> in the public domain, then all manifestations and copies are too. . The
> 11th Britannica (an expression which manifests as a set of books and
> several websites) is in the public domain, whereas the 15th Britannica is
> not. Licenses can attach to an expression, a manifestation (you may have
> one license for a CD and a different one for digital audio), and
> exceptionally to a copy.
>
> CC0 is both a public domain dedication and a license. If the dedication
> is effective, then it affects all the manifestations (on a website or a
> CD/DVD-ROM) and copies. If it is not, then the permissive license affects
> only the copies it is attached to.
>
>> With regard to bundled exports, it would help me to look at a concrete
>> case. Say we have an export from MakeHuman that consists of three files
>>
>> 1) A 3D mesh that was created starting with a 3D mesh that comes with
>> MakeHuman and transformed by the user using MakeHuman.
>>
>> 2) A meta-data file containing information about the character and its
>> appearance created by the user using MakeHuman
>>
>> 3) A texture in the form of an image file from the MakeHuman collection
>> of texture images.
>>
>> Let's say the user chooses to take the CC0 option. What is the copyright
>> status of the three files? Are all three files now in the public domain?
>> Can the user, or a third party use the individual files without being
>> restricted by the AGPL license that would apply if the CC0 option hadn't
>> been taken? Or is it only the particular combination of the three that is
>> in the public domain while the individual files are still under copyright?
>> If it is only the combination that is in the public domain, does it revert
>> to AGPL if you make any modifications?
>>
> I can't answer this specifically. But in general, a work that combines
> public-domain material and copyrighted material is itself subject to
> copyright, provided the copyrighted material is used under license.
> Obviously, if the creator of the combined work and of the copyrighted
> material are the same, such a license isn't hard to obtain.
>
> --
> John Cowan http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowan co...@c
Re: [License-discuss] resolving ambiguities in OSD (was [License-review])
> Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 18:13:23 -0700 > From: Bruce Perens <br...@perens.com> > To: License submissions for OSI review <license-rev...@opensource.org> > Subject: Re: [License-review] resolving ambiguities in OSD [was Re: > For Approval: License Zero Reciprocal Public License] > > Most of this is implicit within the OSD but they are useful to keep in mind: > > With regard to *simple users,* those who make use of the Open Source > software and do not modify or redistribute it, there should be as close to *no > legal load* as possible. We need to be cognizant that many of these users > are individuals and very small businesses that can't reasonably assume any > legal load at all. We can't protect them from patent issues brought by > others than the licensor of the software, but to the extent that we can > protect them, we should. In particular, *simple users should not ever have > to read the license.* > > We should also endeavor to keep the legal load upon *Open Source developers* > as > low as possible. These are also individuals, small businesses, etc. We > expect them to understand the license somewhat, but they are not legal > experts and do not necessarily have easy access to legal experts or even > the inclination to use them. Bruce, This is fascinating and refreshing. It’s great to be reminded of some of the implicit founding principles that sometimes get diluted over time. This also reminds me of the discussions from a couple months ago where the issue at hand was licenses that explicitly deny a patent grant and thus violate the OSD (by my analysis) IF the licensor/contributor holds patent rights and asserts them via any royalty basis or discriminatory manner. This issue is rather pressing now with so many federal agencies moving into open source, commensurately searching the legal landscape for something close to public domain yet still addressing indemnification and contributor patent grants. Some landed on CC0 (oops), others on preambles and DCOs, others trying to craft new licenses to fill the perceived void. All leading to proliferation and... > So, we can think about some things that would increase the load on those > communities. … increased load. How can OSI decrease this load? Patent rights as they pertain to our source code is an undeniable burden on communities and developers alike currently. One possible solution could be to amend the OSD replacing instances of "license” with “license and all contributors”. Thus, for example, OSD#1 is clearly violated if there is not a patent grant mechanism in place: “The license and all contributors shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software …” and it would likely mean licenses like CC0 fail without an accompanying grant. I can think of a few other possibilities, but that seems like the most direct approach that instills that it’s not just the license that determines whether code is “Open". People do. > License proliferation: We don't want them to have to do more license > combinatorial analysis than should be necessary. Thus, we should not in > general accept new licenses, unless they in some way present a benefit to > the community in a way that presently-accepted licenses do not. Assuming software patents don’t go anywhere anytime soon, logically one can predict an approximate 2x proliferation given only a handful (5?) address patent rights. BSD+Patent is exemplary. > there are a few > unfortunately-OSI-accepted time bombs waiting for new victims. How about creating a deprecation policy? This community could (should?) define formal revocation criteria for delisting, timeframes, appeal process. They dilute and … increase load. Cheers! Sean ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] [License-review] resolving ambiguities in OSD [was Re: For Approval: License Zero Reciprocal Public License]
I've moved this to license-discuss because I'm not sure this is part of discussion of any licence being evaluated, any more. I could be wrong (and am certainly not criticising upthread posts). Quoting Luis Villa (l...@lu.is): > Again, OSI would be well-served by actually writing down the non-OSD > criteria, or publicly admitting that the criteria are not agreed-to and > non-transparent. I realize this would not be easy, but the current > situation benefits no one. When you say 'the non-OSD criteria', this assumes there is a set the Board (and most outside commmenters?) would agree on. That might be true or might not. The set Bruce adduced on license-review strike me as capturing points most often mentioned. Let's suppose that set were listed on https://opensource.org/approval with framing like 'OSI's Board cannot guarantee that the License Review community will be interested in and comment on your license. Reasons participating individuals have cited for disinterest in some past licenses include perception that the license is a vanity license or duplicative, that it is needlessly specific to one business entity, that it is unjustifiably opaque or ambiguous in its wording, that it was not drafted with a lawyer's review or has legal flaws suggesting legal review was inadequate or unheeded, that it is essentially unused by significant amounts of current software and appears unlikely to beecome so, that it unduly burdens use by developers, business, or end-users, or that it increases license proliferation and the complexity of the resulting combinatorial license matrix without adequate compensating merit. All of these criteria are judgement calls be individual participants, and end up mattering to those individuals (the License Review Chair, OSI's Board, and outside participants) irrespective of their being entirely informal and outside the OSD's wording. At other times, otherwise frequent commenters may withhold comment because they lack specialized expertise, or just aren't interested. Please note, too, that individual participants tend to be unswayed by the argument that you assembled your license using bits and pieces of previously approved license, if those other concerns apply in their view.'[1] Ask yourself, is that really an improvement? (Even imaginaing better wordsmithing than mine, I have doubts.) In my experience, submitters invariably think such judgements are wrong in _their_ cases or should be set aside for their benefit. Also, these really _are_ judgement calls: For example, license-review has appeared to take seriously, over the last few years, a number of permissive licenses I considered lacking any reasonable purpose. Other regulars obviously have greater patience in that area. So, whose non-OSD criteria are worthy of mention? Other than mine, of course. ;-> What I'd predict is that this would merely shift the bone of contention. Scorned submitters would rail against non-OSD criteria being unfair, vague, and also wrongly applied (reminiscent of the old joke about 'terrible food, and such small portions!'). This will then be followed by the now-obligatory declaration that OSI is irrelevant and [something du jour] has replaced it. [1] Here I've used Yank-standard spelling because https://opensource.org/approval does. _______ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] MakeHuman, CC0 and AGPL
On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 12:12 PM, Lindsay Patten <blindsaypat...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Can you clarify whether you can you put a copy of a work in the public
> domain while maintaining a license on another copy? Or is it the work
> itself that is placed in the public domain, and any ability to enforce
> copyright on any copies has been surrendered? My understanding was that
> works are placed in the public domain while copies are licensed, and that
> placing a work in the public domain renounces any copyright claim you might
> have on any copies regardless of what license they may have been previously
> released under. You seem to be saying that a particular copy of a work can
> be placed in the public domain while other copies remain under copyright
> restrictions?
>
I oversimplified. A work in the copyright sense is really an expression of
the abstract work. Beethoven's Ninth Symphony is an abstraction existing
in people's minds (originally only Beethoven's mind) and not in itself
subject to copyright, whereas each draft of it that he wrote down, as well
as each recorded performance of any draft, constitute different expressions
("fixations" in copyright jargon) of the abstract work. Likewise, multiple
editions of a book are separate expressions. Each expression exists in one
or more manifestations. For example, a specific recording of the symphony,
which is an expression, can be manifested as a vinyl disk, a cassette, a
CD, a digital version. The manifestations of a book might be as a
hardback, a paperback, an e-book, or in a single-volume vs. a multi-volume
version. And each manifestation typically exists in multiple copies.
Copyright status attaches to the expression: if a specific expression is in
the public domain, then all manifestations and copies are too. . The 11th
Britannica (an expression which manifests as a set of books and several
websites) is in the public domain, whereas the 15th Britannica is not.
Licenses can attach to an expression, a manifestation (you may have one
license for a CD and a different one for digital audio), and exceptionally
to a copy.
CC0 is both a public domain dedication and a license. If the dedication is
effective, then it affects all the manifestations (on a website or a
CD/DVD-ROM) and copies. If it is not, then the permissive license affects
only the copies it is attached to.
> With regard to bundled exports, it would help me to look at a concrete
> case. Say we have an export from MakeHuman that consists of three files
>
> 1) A 3D mesh that was created starting with a 3D mesh that comes with
> MakeHuman and transformed by the user using MakeHuman.
>
> 2) A meta-data file containing information about the character and its
> appearance created by the user using MakeHuman
>
> 3) A texture in the form of an image file from the MakeHuman collection of
> texture images.
>
> Let's say the user chooses to take the CC0 option. What is the copyright
> status of the three files? Are all three files now in the public domain?
> Can the user, or a third party use the individual files without being
> restricted by the AGPL license that would apply if the CC0 option hadn't
> been taken? Or is it only the particular combination of the three that is
> in the public domain while the individual files are still under copyright?
> If it is only the combination that is in the public domain, does it revert
> to AGPL if you make any modifications?
>
I can't answer this specifically. But in general, a work that combines
public-domain material and copyrighted material is itself subject to
copyright, provided the copyrighted material is used under license.
Obviously, if the creator of the combined work and of the copyrighted
material are the same, such a license isn't hard to obtain.
--
John Cowan http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowanco...@ccil.org
My confusion is rapidly waxing
For XML Schema's too taxing:
I'd use DTDs / If they had local trees --
I think I best switch to RELAX NG.
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] MakeHuman, CC0 and AGPL
It's the former if you're using CC0. The work itself -- in whatever form and whatever the number of copies -- is placed as nearly as possible in the public domain. You could try to enforce a license on a particular copy, but you can't enforce it as a matter of copyright and related rights (as defined in CC0). Diane M. Peters General Counsel, Creative Commons Portland, Oregon http://creativecommons.org/staff#dianepeters 13:00-21:00 UTC On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 9:12 AM, Lindsay Patten <blindsaypat...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thank you for your quick response! > > Can you clarify whether you can you put a copy of a work in the public > domain while maintaining a license on another copy? Or is it the work > itself that is placed in the public domain, and any ability to enforce > copyright on any copies has been surrendered? My understanding was that > works are placed in the public domain while copies are licensed, and that > placing a work in the public domain renounces any copyright claim you might > have on any copies regardless of what license they may have been previously > released under. You seem to be saying that a particular copy of a work can > be placed in the public domain while other copies remain under copyright > restrictions? > > With regard to bundled exports, it would help me to look at a concrete > case. Say we have an export from MakeHuman that consists of three files > > 1) A 3D mesh that was created starting with a 3D mesh that comes with > MakeHuman and transformed by the user using MakeHuman. > > 2) A meta-data file containing information about the character and its > appearance created by the user using MakeHuman > > 3) A texture in the form of an image file from the MakeHuman collection of > texture images. > > Let's say the user chooses to take the CC0 option. What is the copyright > status of the three files? Are all three files now in the public domain? > Can the user, or a third party use the individual files without being > restricted by the AGPL license that would apply if the CC0 option hadn't > been taken? Or is it only the particular combination of the three that is > in the public domain while the individual files are still under copyright? > If it is only the combination that is in the public domain, does it revert > to AGPL if you make any modifications? > > Thanks again. > > On 2017-10-25 11:04 AM, John Cowan wrote: > > > > On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 9:30 AM, Lindsay Patten <blindsaypat...@gmail.com> > wrote:. >> >> My understanding of CC0 is that it is a declaration that you have placed >> the work in the public domain, with a fallback license in case the law in a >> particular jurisdiction doesn't permit that. If the user takes the CC0 >> option, what is the status of the individual assets that are bundled into >> the export? Are they in the public domain or still copyrighted by the >> MakeHuman authors? >> > Those particular copies are effectively in the public domain, provided > that the MakeHuman folks actually hold copyright. Third party copyrights > are of course unaffected. > >> What I find confusing is whether CC0 is a license that can be applied to >> a particular copy of a work, >> > Every license is applicable only to particular copies. The self-same > bunch of bits may have a commercial license for one copy that permits > certain acts and forbids others, and a GPL license on another copy which > has completely different conditions from the commercial license. As long > as the licensor is the owner, that's just fine. SImilarly, bits inside an > executable that have been compiled from a BSD source are (at least > arguably) under the GPL if other bits in the same executable come from > GPLed source. > > -- > John Cowan http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowanco...@ccil.org > The whole of Gaul is quartered into three halves. > --Julius Caesar > > > > _______ > License-discuss mailing > listLicense-discuss@opensource.orghttps://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss > > > > ___ > License-discuss mailing list > License-discuss@opensource.org > https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss > > ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] MakeHuman, CC0 and AGPL
Thank you for your quick response! Can you clarify whether you can you put a copy of a work in the public domain while maintaining a license on another copy? Or is it the work itself that is placed in the public domain, and any ability to enforce copyright on any copies has been surrendered? My understanding was that works are placed in the public domain while copies are licensed, and that placing a work in the public domain renounces any copyright claim you might have on any copies regardless of what license they may have been previously released under. You seem to be saying that a particular copy of a work can be placed in the public domain while other copies remain under copyright restrictions? With regard to bundled exports, it would help me to look at a concrete case. Say we have an export from MakeHuman that consists of three files 1) A 3D mesh that was created starting with a 3D mesh that comes with MakeHuman and transformed by the user using MakeHuman. 2) A meta-data file containing information about the character and its appearance created by the user using MakeHuman 3) A texture in the form of an image file from the MakeHuman collection of texture images. Let's say the user chooses to take the CC0 option. What is the copyright status of the three files? Are all three files now in the public domain? Can the user, or a third party use the individual files without being restricted by the AGPL license that would apply if the CC0 option hadn't been taken? Or is it only the particular combination of the three that is in the public domain while the individual files are still under copyright? If it is only the combination that is in the public domain, does it revert to AGPL if you make any modifications? Thanks again. On 2017-10-25 11:04 AM, John Cowan wrote: On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 9:30 AM, Lindsay Patten <blindsaypat...@gmail.com <mailto:blindsaypat...@gmail.com>> wrote:. My understanding of CC0 is that it is a declaration that you have placed the work in the public domain, with a fallback license in case the law in a particular jurisdiction doesn't permit that. If the user takes the CC0 option, what is the status of the individual assets that are bundled into the export? Are they in the public domain or still copyrighted by the MakeHuman authors? Those particular copies are effectively in the public domain, provided that the MakeHuman folks actually hold copyright. Third party copyrights are of course unaffected. What I find confusing is whether CC0 is a license that can be applied to a particular copy of a work, Every license is applicable only to particular copies. The self-same bunch of bits may have a commercial license for one copy that permits certain acts and forbids others, and a GPL license on another copy which has completely different conditions from the commercial license. As long as the licensor is the owner, that's just fine. SImilarly, bits inside an executable that have been compiled from a BSD source are (at least arguably) under the GPL if other bits in the same executable come from GPLed source. -- John Cowan http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowan <http://vrici.lojban.org/%7Ecowan> co...@ccil.org <mailto:co...@ccil.org> The whole of Gaul is quartered into three halves. --Julius Caesar ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] MakeHuman, CC0 and AGPL
On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 9:30 AM, Lindsay Patten <blindsaypat...@gmail.com> wrote:. > > My understanding of CC0 is that it is a declaration that you have placed > the work in the public domain, with a fallback license in case the law in a > particular jurisdiction doesn't permit that. If the user takes the CC0 > option, what is the status of the individual assets that are bundled into > the export? Are they in the public domain or still copyrighted by the > MakeHuman authors? > Those particular copies are effectively in the public domain, provided that the MakeHuman folks actually hold copyright. Third party copyrights are of course unaffected. > What I find confusing is whether CC0 is a license that can be applied to a > particular copy of a work, > Every license is applicable only to particular copies. The self-same bunch of bits may have a commercial license for one copy that permits certain acts and forbids others, and a GPL license on another copy which has completely different conditions from the commercial license. As long as the licensor is the owner, that's just fine. SImilarly, bits inside an executable that have been compiled from a BSD source are (at least arguably) under the GPL if other bits in the same executable come from GPLed source. -- John Cowan http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowanco...@ccil.org The whole of Gaul is quartered into three halves. --Julius Caesar ___________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
[License-discuss] MakeHuman, CC0 and AGPL
Hello, I'm hoping I can get a better understanding of the licenses associated with MakeHuman. MakeHuman is a program that allows you to generate 3D human characters, adjusting numerous parameters such as height, weight, gender, race, facial and body details, clothing, etc. etc. The program is licensed with the AGPL. It creates exports consisting of 3D meshes, material descriptions, and texture images. The exports are licensed AGPL as well, but if they are produced using an unmodified official version of the program the user is granted the option to apply CC0 instead. As a special and limited exception, the copyright holders of the MakeHuman assets grants the option to use CC0 1.0 Universal as published by the Creative Commons, either version 1.0 of the License, or (at your option) any later version, as a license for the MakeHuman characters exported under the conditions that a) The assets were bundled in an export that was made using the file export functionality inside an OFFICIAL and UNMODIFIED version of MakeHuman and/or b) the asset solely consists of a 2D binary image in PNG, BMP or JPG format. My understanding of CC0 is that it is a declaration that you have placed the work in the public domain, with a fallback license in case the law in a particular jurisdiction doesn't permit that. If the user takes the CC0 option, what is the status of the individual assets that are bundled into the export? Are they in the public domain or still copyrighted by the MakeHuman authors? What I find confusing is whether CC0 is a license that can be applied to a particular copy of a work, or if using CC0 means the work itself, not just a particular copy of it, is placed in the public domain. I'm also unsure about licensing a bundle of assets. The complete license is at http://www.makehuman.org/license.php and there is an explanation of it at http://www.makehuman.org/license_explanation.php I am interested in understanding the implications of the current license, and also in knowing if there is a better way to license MakeHuman that prevents MakeHuman non-code assets from being used in closed source software, while still allowing unencumbered use of the exported character. I should say that the vast majority of MakeHuman users do not redistribute the exported character data, they use it to create images or video, which MakeHuman makes no claim on. The only time there are issues is if the generated character is used in a larger work, such as a game, 3D artwork, or VR experience. Thanks, Lindsay ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Guidance for making license information available to users
Jesper Lund Stocholm <4a4553504...@gmail.com> writes: > Hi, > > We are distributing (selling) an application written i JavaScript. Since it > is JavaScript (no obfuscation) all source code is technically available to > anyone who would like to look for it. > > We include a number of components in our application and I am looking for > guidance to how we handle the licenses for them. > You may be interested in the method we've established described at <https://www.fsf.org/news/announcing-js-labels> and <https://www.gnu.org/licenses/javascript-labels-rationale.html>. (Note that the LibreJS software is undergoing a rewrite now, but the format is human readable and does not require LibreJS to be meaningful.) -john -- John Sullivan | Executive Director, Free Software Foundation GPG Key: A462 6CBA FF37 6039 D2D7 5544 97BA 9CE7 61A0 963B https://status.fsf.org/johns | https://fsf.org/blogs/RSS Do you use free software? Donate to join the FSF and support freedom at <https://my.fsf.org/join>. _______ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Guidance for making license information available to users
Hi Jesper: On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 9:39 AM, Jesper Lund Stocholm <4a4553504...@gmail.com> wrote: > We are distributing (selling) an application written i JavaScript. Since it > is JavaScript (no obfuscation) all source code is technically available to > anyone who would like to look for it. > > We include a number of components in our application and I am looking for > guidance to how we handle the licenses for them. > > As an example: > We use a component called "jQDataRangeSlider" > The JavaScript file contained in our app contains this line: > > /*! jQRangeSlider 5.7.2 - 2016-01-18 - Copyright (C) Guillaume Gautreau 2012 > - MIT and GPLv3 licenses.*/ > > However, the MIT license says this at https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT > > Copyright > > Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy > of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to > deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the > rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or > sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is > furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: > > The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in > all copies or substantial portions of the Software. > > Our question is: how do we handle the requirement in the last line? > > It is enough for us to "do nothing" - meaning simply keeping this line in > the JavaScript file: > > /*! jQRangeSlider 5.7.2 - 2016-01-18 - Copyright (C) Guillaume Gautreau 2012 > - MIT and GPLv3 licenses.*/ > ? > > Or do we need to include the entire paragraph from the official MIT license > in our application? IMHO you should also include the MIT license text [1] and eventually the GPL text [2] : "Dual license" technically means both... but the common understanding is that this is a choice of license. What is not clear is if here the choices are something you can or must pass downstream or if you can only pass downstream your MIT choice: including both is simpler. In any case, the authors includes the MIT text in their upstream repo [1] so you would need to include it too. If the text was missing (which is common for JavaScript libraries...) I would add it back. > And how should we handle the complete list of components that we use? > Is it enough simply to write "Contains software licensed under MIT, Apache, > GPLv3 ..."? This may not be enough. I wrote about this in general [3] the context of the GPL [4] and it applies to most open source licenses. At least you might want to include copyrights, notices and the full text of the licenses in your app. > Or do we need to explicitly mention each component somewhere in a > "Readme"-file? > > Like: > > * Uses jQDateRangeSlider licensed under MIT and GPLv3 license, Copyright > Guillaume Gautreau 2012 > * Uses numeral.js licensed under MIT license Copyright Adam Draper This would be much better, but still may miss the license texts and the original notices --if any-- that some licenses have and require. Technically listing the name of the libraries and their licenses is not entirely needed, but it makes sense as a human-readable summary attribution. You could add a link to the upstream library in your list for good measure. > And finally - can we simply add a "readme"-file with license information to > our application such that a developer/techie can find it - or do we need to > create some sort of link/page where "ordinary" users can find it as well? It is typically best to have a link in the user app where a user can find it. Some licenses require this in some form with a "prominent" notice: an about page, a documentation page, etc. and not something semi-hidden is prominent enough and better. Since each license has different requirements, using a highest common denominator is a simple approach that works: attribute all the same way, typically in the code (if it existed) in the doc and some about page. An approach to limit the boilerplate is to use SPDX license expressions and identifiers [5] in the code as Linux kernel maintainers are starting to use them [6] (note that I chipped in to help with this) Also automation can help. Check out some open source tools to scan for licenses and copyrights [7] , review results [8] and generate attribution [9] Note: I maintain or co-maintain these tools. See also this list [10] for other tools. [1] https://github.com/ghusse/jQRangeSlider/blob/master/MIT-License.txt [2] https://github.com/ghusse/jQRangeSlider/blob/master/GPL-License.txt [3] https://opensource.stackexchange.com/a/4587/947 [4] https://opensource.stackexchange.com/a/4582/947 [5] https://spdx.org/sites/cpsta
[License-discuss] Guidance for making license information available to users
Hi, We are distributing (selling) an application written i JavaScript. Since it is JavaScript (no obfuscation) all source code is technically available to anyone who would like to look for it. We include a number of components in our application and I am looking for guidance to how we handle the licenses for them. As an example: We use a component called "jQDataRangeSlider" The JavaScript file contained in our app contains this line: /*! jQRangeSlider 5.7.2 - 2016-01-18 - Copyright (C) Guillaume Gautreau 2012 - MIT and GPLv3 licenses.*/ However, the MIT license says this at https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT Copyright Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. Our question is: how do we handle the requirement in the last line? It is enough for us to "do nothing" - meaning simply keeping this line in the JavaScript file: /*! jQRangeSlider 5.7.2 - 2016-01-18 - Copyright (C) Guillaume Gautreau 2012 - MIT and GPLv3 licenses.*/ ? Or do we need to include the entire paragraph from the official MIT license in our application? And how should we handle the complete list of components that we use? Is it enough simply to write "Contains software licensed under MIT, Apache, GPLv3 ..."? Or do we need to explicitly mention each component somewhere in a "Readme"-file? Like: * Uses jQDateRangeSlider licensed under MIT and GPLv3 license, Copyright Guillaume Gautreau 2012 * Uses numeral.js licensed under MIT license Copyright Adam Draper And finally - can we simply add a "readme"-file with license information to our application such that a developer/techie can find it - or do we need to create some sort of link/page where "ordinary" users can find it as well? ... Thank you :-) -- Jesper Lund Stocholm www.idippedut.dk _______ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the US Government
> -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) > Sent: Monday, August 28, 2017 12:00 PM > To: Richard Fontana <font...@sharpeleven.org> > Cc: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and > the US Government > > > -Original Message- > > From: Richard Fontana [Caution-mailto:font...@sharpeleven.org] > > Sent: Monday, August 28, 2017 11:39 AM > > To: Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) <cem.f.karan@mail.mil> > > Cc: license-discuss@opensource.org > > Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the US > > Government > > > > On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 02:18:10PM +, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY > > RDECOM ARL > > (US) wrote: > > > Hi all, as you know I've been pushing the position that the US > > > Government may have problems using copyright-based licenses on works > > > that do not have copyright attached. One of the lawyers I've been > > > working on this with has been kind enough to dig up the exact > > > statutes and give some clearer legal reasoning on what the issues > > > are. It basically boils down to two issues; first, there is > > > question of severability > > > (Caution-Caution-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severability) which > > > I've touched on before, and the second has to do with copyfraud > > > (Caution-Caution-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyfraud). > > > Copyfraud is defined within 17 U.S.C. 506, section (c) > > > (Caution-Caution-https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2010-title17/html/USCODE-2010-title17-chap5-sec506.htm). > > > I've copied out the relevant language below; the commentary within > > > the brackets is from ARL's lawyer: > > > > > > """ > > > (c) Fraudulent Copyright Notice.- > > > Any person who, with fraudulent intent, places on any article a > > > notice of copyright or words of the same purport that such person > > > knows to be false, or who, with fraudulent intent, publicly > > > distributes or imports for public distribution any article bearing > > > such notice or words that such person knows to be false, shall be fined > > > not more than $2,500. > > > [Note - Any software pushed out under Open Source would not have a > > > notice of copyright affixed to the software. However, would software > > > pushed out under an Open Source license that assumes the existence > > > of copyright be considered tantamount to a notice of copyright and > > > therefore an actionable fraud under this section? Don't know.] """ > > > > > > I know that there were questions at one time about the need for > > > special licenses/agreements like NOSA 2.0, but this is one of those > > > potential problems. Copyright-based licenses are great for works > > > that have copyright attached, but they may be problematic for works > > > that don't have copyright attached. > > > > As has been pointed out before, I think, in software (including but > > not limited to open source) copyright notices are commonly juxtaposed > > with material that is clearly or likely not subject to copyright. > > > > Anyway, the theoretical risk here could be eliminated in lots of ways, > > it seems to me (even without getting into what would be required to > > show 'fraudulent intent'). For example, the US government could > > include a copyright and license notice like the following: > > > > The following material may not be subject to copyright in the United > > States under 17 U.S.C. 105. To the extent it is subject to > > copyright, it is released under the following open source license: > > [...] > > > > There's also the approach that is seen in > > Caution-Caution-https://github.com/deptofdefense/code.mil/blob/master/Proposal/INTENT.md. > > > > > So, given that we had come up with the idea of using two licenses in > > > projects > > > (CC0 for portions of a work that don't have copyright, and an > > > OSI-approved license for portions of a work that do have copyright > > > attached), why should OSI care? The problem is that CC0 is still > > > not OSI-approved (at least, it isn't on the list at > > > Caution-Caution-https://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical). That > > > means that the Government could be putting out works that are in > > > some kind of zombie-like state, half-O
Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: (no subject)
> -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Tzeng, Nigel H. > Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2017 12:10 PM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: (no subject) > > Cem, > > I think I’ve mentioned this in the past but GOSS needs not be bazaar style > open development. Cathedral development that simply open > sources the resulting product still has tremendous value to the community. > > From that perspective CLAs, and dealing with external contributions are a > non-issue because there aren’t any and open sourcing is much > lower risk. All contributions are done by USG employees or contractors. All > the project looks at are JIRA issues and determines if any > warrant any internal action. > > Regards, > > Nigel I see your point with cathedral-style development, but I think that bazaar-style development results in far more progress in a shorter time frame and at lower cost. In addition, the Government has done cathedral-style development for a while now, and (in my opinion), it is time for it to move forwards towards the bazaar. We're not yet at the point that we can just let go of everything and avoid CLAs altogether, but there may come a point in time when we can. At least, I hope that time will come. Thanks, Cem Karan smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature _______ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: (no subject)
Cem, I think I’ve mentioned this in the past but GOSS needs not be bazaar style open development. Cathedral development that simply open sources the resulting product still has tremendous value to the community. From that perspective CLAs, and dealing with external contributions are a non-issue because there aren’t any and open sourcing is much lower risk. All contributions are done by USG employees or contractors. All the project looks at are JIRA issues and determines if any warrant any internal action. Regards, Nigel On 9/5/17, 9:12 AM, "License-discuss on behalf of Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)" <license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org on behalf of cem.f.karan@mail.mil> wrote: > -Original Message- > This is also important for Open Source in general; large organizations tend to protect themselves from being sued by curtailing activities that they see as unnecessary and risky. Open Source has not yet proven itself to the upper levels of the Government as being necessary; that means that for some managers it will be viewed as unnecessary. If there are risks associated with it as well, then there will be a push to end Open Source within the Government. CLAs help reduce risk, which may give Government Open Source the time it needs to prove itself as necessary to upper level managers. _______ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: (no subject)
> -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of John Cowan > Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2017 11:28 AM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: (no subject) > > > On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 9:12 AM, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) > <cem.f.karan@mail.mil < Caution- > mailto:cem.f.karan@mail.mil > > wrote: > > > > The issue is that > 'voluntary' doesn't mean the same thing as 'gratuitous'; I work for the > Government on a voluntary, but not gratuitous basis. > > > I certainly hope that nobody in the U.S. works for the Government or anyone > else on a non-voluntary basis, "except as a punishment for > crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted". > > > > If I, as a Government > employee, accept work from a volunteer without a well-defined contract > in > place regarding payment, there is a chance that someone could send > Congress > a > bill for their contributions, and I could be sent to jail for having > committed > funds I don't have. > > > > Though nobody has ever been prosecuted, much less sentenced, under the ADA. > In any case, anyone can send a bill to Congress for any reason: whether it > gets paid is another story. Francis Hopkinson sent a such a bill > for designing the American flag, asking to be paid a "Quarter Cask of the > Public Wine", but Congress denied it on the grounds that > Hopkinson was already a paid member of Congress at the time. I agree, but there have been administrative punishments for violating it. Moreover, just because no-one has yet been sent to jail for violating the ADA doesn't mean that no-one ever will. > -- > John Cowan Caution-http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowan < > Caution-http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowan > co...@ccil.org < Caution- > mailto:co...@ccil.org > > Linguistics is arguably the most hotly contested property in the academic > realm. It is soaked with the blood of poets, theologians, > philosophers, philologists, psychologists, biologists and neurologists, > along with whatever blood can be got out of grammarians. - Russ > Rymer Thanks, Cem Karan smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: (no subject)
On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 9:12 AM, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) < cem.f.karan@mail.mil> wrote: > The issue is that > 'voluntary' doesn't mean the same thing as 'gratuitous'; I work for the > Government on a voluntary, but not gratuitous basis. I certainly hope that nobody in the U.S. works for the Government or anyone else on a non-voluntary basis, "except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted". If I, as a Government > employee, accept work from a volunteer without a well-defined contract in > place regarding payment, there is a chance that someone could send > Congress a > bill for their contributions, and I could be sent to jail for having > committed > funds I don't have. > Though nobody has ever been prosecuted, much less sentenced, under the ADA. In any case, anyone can send a bill to Congress for any reason: whether it gets paid is another story. Francis Hopkinson sent a such a bill for designing the American flag, asking to be paid a "Quarter Cask of the Public Wine", but Congress denied it on the grounds that Hopkinson was already a paid member of Congress at the time. -- John Cowan http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowanco...@ccil.org Linguistics is arguably the most hotly contested property in the academic realm. It is soaked with the blood of poets, theologians, philosophers, philologists, psychologists, biologists and neurologists, along with whatever blood can be got out of grammarians. - Russ Rymer _______ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: (no subject)
> -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Ben Hilburn > Sent: Friday, September 01, 2017 2:06 PM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [License-discuss] (no subject) > > Hi all - > > I figured I would throw in my thoughts for this discussion. IANAL and all of > the usual disclaimers. My expertise, as it pertains to this > thread, is really in the building & sustainment of F/OSS communities and > projects, albeit outside of the government space. > > > On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 11:13 AM, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) > <cem.f.karan@mail.mil < Caution- > mailto:cem.f.karan@mail.mil > > wrote: > > > > I'm now encountering a slightly different situation in government, is > there a way to ensure modifications and fixes are made > available to > > the originator in a limited distribution scenario? Something like a > limited distribution GPL, but unlike before, there would be no > non- > > government contribution's copyright to piggyback off of. > > If this is government-only, then it is possible to use various contract > mechanisms to enforce what you want. ARL has done this > kind of thing for a long time now, and can share what we do with you > directly (contact me off list). > > > > > In my experience, contracts are tremendous burden, both for individuals and > organizations, and pose a significant barrier to both adoption > and upstreaming. As an FSF maintainer of a large GNU project, I can tell you > that even the FSF CLA causes significant issue for many > groups, and outright inhibits growth of the developer community. I can't > speak to how burdensome it is to get contracts signed within a > government agency, but I have to imagine it is still burdensome. And > requiring a contract for not just upstreaming, but adoption, in my > opinion would cripple all but the largest projects. > > Related - If you haven't yet, I highly recommend reading these two articles: > Caution-https://opensource.com/law/11/7/trouble-harmony-part-1 < > Caution-https://opensource.com/law/11/7/trouble-harmony-part-1 > > Caution-https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2014/jun/09/do-not-need-cla/ < > > Caution-https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2014/jun/09/do-not- > need-cla/ > > > > Have you seen something different at ARL? How have you worked things to be > successful with your F/OSS projects and external groups? > I'm really interested to learn more about your approach and the results > you've seen. > <> > Cheers, > Ben There are a number issues at work here. First, since ARL is part of the Government, we're governed by the Anti-deficiency Act (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antideficiency_Act). The issue is that 'voluntary' doesn't mean the same thing as 'gratuitous'; I work for the Government on a voluntary, but not gratuitous basis. If I, as a Government employee, accept work from a volunteer without a well-defined contract in place regarding payment, there is a chance that someone could send Congress a bill for their contributions, and I could be sent to jail for having committed funds I don't have. ARL has a CLA that covers this particular issue for this exact reason. Second, there is the question of liability and warranty; in theory, the Government can hold a contributor liable for their contribution, and demand support for it, even if the contribution was gratuitous. I suspect that most contributions are going to be done on an 'as-is' basis, with no offer of support. That is made explicit in ARL's CLA, protecting the contributor from the Government. Third, there are the usual IP rights declarations that need to be fully spelled out. I suspect that in 99.% of the contributions that the Government receives, none of this will be a problem. However, the Government is a very large entity, which means that the Law of Truly Large Numbers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_truly_large_numbers) applies. Basically, since the Government is a very large entity, and since under Federal Source Code Policy it is dedicated to trying to make 20% of all of its custom written code be Open Source (https://code.gov/#/policy-guide/docs/overview/introduction), there are going to be a very, very large number of external contributions being made to Government projects. Given this, even if there is less than a 0.0001% probability that someone will sue over a particular contribution, it is almost certain that there will be a lawsuit over something at some point in time. To avoid being sued, the Government needs to take steps to protect itself, and CLAs are one part of that. This is also important for Open Source in genera
Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the US Government
> -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of John Cowan > Sent: Friday, September 01, 2017 1:22 PM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and > the US Government > > > On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 10:44 AM, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) > <cem.f.karan@mail.mil < Caution- > mailto:cem.f.karan@mail.mil > > wrote: > > > Wait... what??? You mean the copyright goes on until the next two world > wars occur? How do they define a world war? What if > we luck out and no world wars occur? > > > > No, it's that the expiration of copyright was retroactively tolled by > specific French legislation (one for WWI, one for WWII) for the time > that publication in France was under military censorship, preventing French > authors from fully exploiting their commercial rights. > Presumably if France was occupied again, a similar law would be passed when > the occupation was lifted. The status of these increases > under the current life + 70 years regime is not very clear, since that added > 20 years and the maximum extension was only 15 years. > > In addition, authors who are "mort pour la France" (either as soldiers or as > civilians killed in war) are granted an additional 30 years of > copyright (thus life + 100) in compensation for whatever works they did not > get to create. There are only about 35 creators in this > position officially, but new ones could in principle be recognized at any > time. OK, that makes a lot more sense. Thanks! > > Just to double check, droit d’auteur is the equivalent of moral rights, > correct? > > > > Yes, but it generally extends to all types of works. > > -- > John Cowan Caution-http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowan < > Caution-http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowan > co...@ccil.org < Caution- > mailto:co...@ccil.org > > Verbogeny is one of the pleasurettes of a creatific thinkerizer. > --Peter da Silva smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] (no subject)
Hi all - I figured I would throw in my thoughts for this discussion. IANAL and all of the usual disclaimers. My expertise, as it pertains to this thread, is really in the building & sustainment of F/OSS communities and projects, albeit outside of the government space. On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 11:13 AM, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) < cem.f.karan@mail.mil> wrote: > > I'm now encountering a slightly different situation in government, is > there a way to ensure modifications and fixes are made available to > > the originator in a limited distribution scenario? Something like a > limited distribution GPL, but unlike before, there would be no non- > > government contribution's copyright to piggyback off of. > > If this is government-only, then it is possible to use various contract > mechanisms to enforce what you want. ARL has done this kind of thing for a > long time now, and can share what we do with you directly (contact me off > list). > In my experience, contracts are tremendous burden, both for individuals and organizations, and pose a significant barrier to both adoption and upstreaming. As an FSF maintainer of a large GNU project, I can tell you that even the FSF CLA causes significant issue for many groups, and outright inhibits growth of the developer community. I can't speak to how burdensome it is to get contracts signed within a government agency, but I have to imagine it is still burdensome. And requiring a contract for not just upstreaming, but adoption, in my opinion would cripple all but the largest projects. Related - If you haven't yet, I highly recommend reading these two articles: https://opensource.com/law/11/7/trouble-harmony-part-1 https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2014/jun/09/do-not-need-cla/ Have you seen something different at ARL? How have you worked things to be successful with your F/OSS projects and external groups? I'm really interested to learn more about your approach and the results you've seen. On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 12:26 PM, Tzeng, Nigel H. <nigel.tz...@jhuapl.edu> wrote: > UCL (upstream compatibility license) was recently approved by the OSI. The > original body of work is licensed UCL while all new derivative works must > be licensed Apache. It doesn’t force the downstream to provide the > upstream developer with fixes and changes but if it’s put into an external > repo the original upstream developer has rights to use the new work because > of Apache. The intent was if an entity (like say a federal agency) > released a large completed project as open source that it could never get > locked out of downstream modifications made by the OSS community. The core > code is always UCL and the new derivative changes are always Apache. > I like the UCL a lot, and I agree, the mechanism and license do seem especially pertinent to this discussion. Cheers, Ben ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the US Government
On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 10:44 AM, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) < cem.f.karan@mail.mil> wrote: Wait... what??? You mean the copyright goes on until the next two world > wars occur? How do they define a world war? What if we luck out and no > world wars occur? > No, it's that the expiration of copyright was retroactively tolled by specific French legislation (one for WWI, one for WWII) for the time that publication in France was under military censorship, preventing French authors from fully exploiting their commercial rights. Presumably if France was occupied again, a similar law would be passed when the occupation was lifted. The status of these increases under the current life + 70 years regime is not very clear, since that added 20 years and the maximum extension was only 15 years. In addition, authors who are "mort pour la France" (either as soldiers or as civilians killed in war) are granted an additional 30 years of copyright (thus life + 100) in compensation for whatever works they did not get to create. There are only about 35 creators in this position officially, but new ones could in principle be recognized at any time. > Just to double check, droit d’auteur is the equivalent of moral rights, > correct? > Yes, but it generally extends to all types of works. -- John Cowan http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowanco...@ccil.org Verbogeny is one of the pleasurettes of a creatific thinkerizer. --Peter da Silva _______ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] (no subject)
Tom, I disagree that you can’t get useful adoption without contributions from non-federal entities. The NASA WorldWind Java API project (https://worldwind.arc.nasa.gov) didn’t take in any external contributions for a very long time (if ever) but did see reasonably high adoption until Java desktop apps were largely replaced by webapps. You can do cathedral development and release via a GOSS license (NOSA) and still provide significant value to the user community. With an OSS license release I can “clone and own” moving forward and accept upstream changes as desired even if the upstream developer never takes any of our pull requests. We leverage Core Flight Executive (cFE) from NASA Goddard in that manner. Goddard uses cFE for their cFS flight system where we use cFE as the foundation of our own flight software system. UCL (upstream compatibility license) was recently approved by the OSI. The original body of work is licensed UCL while all new derivative works must be licensed Apache. It doesn’t force the downstream to provide the upstream developer with fixes and changes but if it’s put into an external repo the original upstream developer has rights to use the new work because of Apache. The intent was if an entity (like say a federal agency) released a large completed project as open source that it could never get locked out of downstream modifications made by the OSS community. The core code is always UCL and the new derivative changes are always Apache. If we used GPL, all the downstream modifications would be GPL. If we pulled that back into the original project then it becomes potentially problematic for commercial performers to integrate in their proprietary code. If we used Apache then the downstream modifications are not certain to be FOSS. So downstream derivative modifications are virally permissive…I hope anyway as that was the intent. Regards, Nigel From: License-discuss <license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org> on behalf of Tom Bereknyei <t...@dds.mil> Reply-To: License Discuss <license-discuss@opensource.org> Date: Friday, September 1, 2017 at 9:47 AM To: License Discuss <license-discuss@opensource.org> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] (no subject) Cem, Yes, only in the case of fully public domain do our approaches differ. Our view was that a project that never had a contribution from a non-federal entity would likely not reach a critical mass of adoption anyway. This isn't perfect, but the best we could come up with. I'm glad though that at least part of the problem has a clear path forward. Anyone, I'm now encountering a slightly different situation in government, is there a way to ensure modifications and fixes are made available to the originator in a limited distribution scenario? Something like a limited distribution GPL, but unlike before, there would be no non-government contribution's copyright to piggyback off of. -- Maj Tom Bereknyei Defense Digital Service t...@dds.mil<mailto:t...@dds.mil> (571) 225-1630<tel:%28571%29%20225-1630> _______ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: (no subject)
> -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Tom Bereknyei > Sent: Friday, September 01, 2017 9:48 AM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [License-discuss] (no subject) > > Cem, > > Yes, only in the case of fully public domain do our approaches differ. Our > view was that a project that never had a contribution from a > non-federal entity would likely not reach a critical mass of adoption anyway. > This isn't perfect, but the best we could come up with. I'm > glad though that at least part of the problem has a clear path forward. I think I see what you're trying to accomplish, but it could lead to issues transporting code across jurisdictions. If it is possible for DDS to 'level the playing field' so that everyone is subject to the same terms for a particular piece of code, it may make it easier for downstream users to adopt. > Anyone, > > I'm now encountering a slightly different situation in government, is there a > way to ensure modifications and fixes are made available to > the originator in a limited distribution scenario? Something like a limited > distribution GPL, but unlike before, there would be no non- > government contribution's copyright to piggyback off of. If this is government-only, then it is possible to use various contract mechanisms to enforce what you want. ARL has done this kind of thing for a long time now, and can share what we do with you directly (contact me off list). > Maj Tom Bereknyei > Defense Digital Service > t...@dds.mil < Caution-mailto:t...@dds.mil > > (571) 225-1630 < tel:%28571%29%20225-1630 > Thanks, Cem Karan smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the US Government
> -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Thorsten Glaser > Sent: Friday, September 01, 2017 8:26 AM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and > the US Government > > Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) dixit: > > >Does the EU define copyright and other IP rights for all member > > Only guidelines that have to be implemented in national law. > The various countries still differ, even in the duration of the protection > (France, for example, has an extra clause to extend protection of > some works for the duration of the two world wars), but not much. Wait... what??? You mean the copyright goes on until the next two world wars occur? How do they define a world war? What if we luck out and no world wars occur? > AIUI the UK copyright law is much closer to US law than to that of other EU > member countries which have a French/German- style droit d’auteur law. > > bye, > //mirabilo Just to double check, droit d’auteur is the equivalent of moral rights, correct? Thanks, Cem Karan smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature _______ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] (no subject)
Cem, Yes, only in the case of fully public domain do our approaches differ. Our view was that a project that never had a contribution from a non-federal entity would likely not reach a critical mass of adoption anyway. This isn't perfect, but the best we could come up with. I'm glad though that at least part of the problem has a clear path forward. Anyone, I'm now encountering a slightly different situation in government, is there a way to ensure modifications and fixes are made available to the originator in a limited distribution scenario? Something like a limited distribution GPL, but unlike before, there would be no non-government contribution's copyright to piggyback off of. -- Maj Tom Bereknyei Defense Digital Service t...@dds.mil (571) 225-1630 ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the US Government
Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) dixit:
>Does the EU define copyright and other IP rights for all member
Only guidelines that have to be implemented in national law.
The various countries still differ, even in the duration of
the protection (France, for example, has an extra clause to
extend protection of some works for the duration of the two
world wars), but not much.
AIUI the UK copyright law is much closer to US law than to
that of other EU member countries which have a French/German-
style droit d’auteur law.
bye,
//mirabilos
--
11:56⎜«liwakura:#!/bin/mksh» also, i wanted to add mksh to my own distro │
i was disappointed that there is no makefile │ but somehow the Build.sh is
the least painful built system i've ever seen │ honours CC, {CPP,C,LD}FLAGS
properly │ looks cleary like done by someone who knows what they are doing
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the US Government
> -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Thorsten Glaser > Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2017 3:50 PM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and > the US Government > > > Hi list, > > during this discussion I re-read CC0 and came to the conclusion that it does > not license the work itself but the right to act in the stead of > the author (e.g. issue licences on it). That’s interesting and allows for a > _lot_ of possibilities. > What possibilities? > > Of course… > > >Making CC0 + a patent release officially OSI-approved would solve a lot > >of > > … the explicit patent exclusion remains a problem, as there is not only no > licence on the work saying one gets permission to use it but also > an explicit exclusion of patents from the grant. > > But this helps with e.g. the question of sublicensing (both in the EU and USA > sense which apparently, another thing I learnt yesternight, > differ from each other) and the question of what exactly a derivative of a > CC0 work needs to be put under. Does the EU define copyright and other IP rights for all member states? That is, are the IP rights exactly the same between France and Germany simply because they are both a part of the EU? When Brexit happens, what then? > JFYI, IANAL, etc. > //mirabilos smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the US Government
Hi list, during this discussion I re-read CC0 and came to the conclusion that it does not license the work itself but the right to act in the stead of the author (e.g. issue licences on it). That’s interesting and allows for a _lot_ of possibilities. Of course… >Making CC0 + a patent release officially OSI-approved would solve a lot of … the explicit patent exclusion remains a problem, as there is not only no licence on the work saying one gets permission to use it but also an explicit exclusion of patents from the grant. But this helps with e.g. the question of sublicensing (both in the EU and USA sense which apparently, another thing I learnt yesternight, differ from each other) and the question of what exactly a derivative of a CC0 work needs to be put under. JFYI, IANAL, etc. //mirabilos -- I believe no one can invent an algorithm. One just happens to hit upon it when God enlightens him. Or only God invents algorithms, we merely copy them. If you don't believe in God, just consider God as Nature if you won't deny existence. -- Coywolf Qi Hunt ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the US Government
We're doing something very close to, but not quite the same as what DDS is
suggesting; we're stating that if a work (or portion of a work) does not have
copyright attached within the US, then that work (or portion of a work) is
licensed world-wide under CC0. All other works are licensed under an
OSI-approved license of some type. To get a better sense of what I'm talking
about, clone
https://github.com/USArmyResearchLab/ARL-Open-Source-Guidance-and-Instructions
and checkout the 'develop' branch. The reason for doing it this way is to
ensure that the license for a chunk of code remains the same regardless of
where it is in the world; without that guarantee, users would have to know
where they are to know if they are in compliance or not (under the DDS scheme,
flying from the lower 48 states through Canada to Alaska would mean that code
could go from being public domain, to copyrighted, to public domain
midflight).
All that said, your second point is EXACTLY the kind of issues I'm worried
about. JOSS (http://joss.theoj.org/) is one journal that will only accept
code under OSI-approved licenses. There may be others as well, but I haven't
done my homework on that.
In addition, there are projects (like Debian) that will only accept software
that is Open Source. In the case of Debian, I think that CC0 + a patent
waiver would be sufficient (I haven't pushed this on the Debian lists, and I
can't speak for the Debian project, it is just my personal belief that it
would be OK), but I suspect that there are other projects where this isn't
possible, and your code has to be under an OSI-approved license to be
accepted.
Making CC0 + a patent release officially OSI-approved would solve a lot of
problems. If you want an example of what ARL is doing, clone
https://github.com/USArmyResearchLab/ARL-Open-Source-Guidance-and-Instructions,
checkout the 'develop' branch, and look at LICENSE.txt. It is an example of
where ARL is trying to go (note that the develop branch is not yet official
policy, and won't be until and unless it goes through ARL's official channels,
so take it as a possible direction we're going in). I've combined CC0 and
Apache 2.0, explained which portions of the code are under which license, and
I've included the patent clause from the Apache license as a new clause
overriding the CC0 patent clause. That might be sufficient for OSI as well.
Thanks,
Cem Karan
PS, I'm actively (as in whenever I'm not typing out emails today) working on
the develop branch, so depending on what time you clone it, you might see
different stuff up there.
> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On
> Behalf Of Marc Jones
> Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2017 2:05 PM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and
> the US Government
>
> Cem,
>
> Has your organization considered using the approach that the Defense Digital
> Service is taking. It seems like their use of a INTENT file that
> clearly calls out the fact that the code written by federal employees as not
> being subject to copyright would address the "copyfraud"
> concern.
>
> > Licensing Intent
> >
> > The intent is that this software and documentation ("Project") should be
> > treated as if it is licensed under the license associated with the
> Project ("License") in the LICENSE.md file. However, because we are part of
> the United States (U.S.) Federal Government, it is not that
> simple.
> >
> > The portions of this Project written by United States (U.S.) Federal
> > government employees within the scope of their federal employment
> are ineligible for copyright protection in the U.S.; this is generally
> understood to mean that these portions of the Project are placed in the
> public domain.
> >
> > In countries where copyright protection is available (which does not
> > include the U.S.), contributions made by U.S. Federal government
> employees are released under the License. Merged contributions from private
> contributors are released under the License.
> Caution-https://github.com/deptofdefense/code.mil/blob/master/Proposal/INTENT.md
>
> < Caution-
> https://github.com/deptofdefense/code.mil/blob/master/Proposal/INTENT.md >
>
>
>
> In regards to the second issue, if I recall your organization has expressed
> pretty strongly that they prefer to have a license approved by OSI
> before regarding it as "open source." I do not mean to rehash the argument
> that OSI does not have any right to control the use of the
> phrase "open source." So I will leave that aside.
>
> But to take your concern seriously I did recently encounter a situation
> where a clie
Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the US Government
Cem,
Has your organization considered using the approach that the Defense
Digital Service is taking. It seems like their use of a INTENT file that
clearly calls out the fact that the code written by federal employees as
not being subject to copyright would address the "copyfraud" concern.
> Licensing Intent
>
> The intent is that this software and documentation ("Project") should be
treated as if it is licensed under the license associated with the Project
("License") in the LICENSE.md file. However, because we are part of the
United States (U.S.) Federal Government, it is not that simple.
>
> The portions of this Project written by United States (U.S.) Federal
government employees within the scope of their federal employment are
ineligible for copyright protection in the U.S.; this is generally
understood to mean that these portions of the Project are placed in the
public domain.
>
> In countries where copyright protection is available (which does not
include the U.S.), contributions made by U.S. Federal government employees
are released under the License. Merged contributions from private
contributors are released under the License.
https://github.com/deptofdefense/code.mil/blob/master/Proposal/INTENT.md
In regards to the second issue, if I recall your organization has expressed
pretty strongly that they prefer to have a license approved by OSI before
regarding it as "open source." I do not mean to rehash the argument that
OSI does not have any right to control the use of the phrase "open source."
So I will leave that aside.
But to take your concern seriously I did recently encounter a situation
where a client's funding was dependent on releasing the software under a
"open source license as defined by the Open Source Initiative or as Free
Software as defined by the Free Software Foundation." Perhaps if your
organization is facing a similar situation and they are looking for a
external arbitrator of what counts as FOSS, they should consider looking at
other lists of FOSS licenses. Creative Commons is listed as a "free
software" license by the Free Software Foundation. So in that situation if
they wanted to use CCO I would probably argue 1) you can use public domain
software in a "Open source" licensed under a OSI approved license, as DDS
is asserting. And 2) CC0 is considered "free software" by FSF. (
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#CC0)
Not sure if reframing the issue in those terms is an option for your
organization.
-Marc
On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 4:45 PM Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) <
cem.f.karan@mail.mil> wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On
> > Behalf Of Tzeng, Nigel H.
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2017 2:32 PM
> > To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud
> and
> > the US Government
> >
> > CC has to submit CC0 according to tradition/rules. For them to bother,
> since
> > they won't amend CC0 itself, probably there needs to be
> > some assurance it will at least get a vote at the next board meeting, if
> not
> > assurance it would pass.
> >
> > Neither seems likely.
> >
> > Easier to just to shrug their shoulders and ignore the whole OSI approval
> > thing.
>
> Well, that's a pain. In that case, unless NOSA 2.0 gets approved, I
> suspect
> that at least some Government code is going to be zombie code, partly Open
> Source and partly CC0.
>
> Thanks,
> Cem Karan
> ___
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss@opensource.org
> https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
>
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the US Government
> -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Tzeng, Nigel H. > Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2017 2:32 PM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and > the US Government > > CC has to submit CC0 according to tradition/rules. For them to bother, since > they won't amend CC0 itself, probably there needs to be > some assurance it will at least get a vote at the next board meeting, if not > assurance it would pass. > > Neither seems likely. > > Easier to just to shrug their shoulders and ignore the whole OSI approval > thing. Well, that's a pain. In that case, unless NOSA 2.0 gets approved, I suspect that at least some Government code is going to be zombie code, partly Open Source and partly CC0. Thanks, Cem Karan smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature _______ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the US Government
CC has to submit CC0 according to tradition/rules. For them to bother, since they won't amend CC0 itself, probably there needs to be some assurance it will at least get a vote at the next board meeting, if not assurance it would pass. Neither seems likely. Easier to just to shrug their shoulders and ignore the whole OSI approval thing. From: Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) <cem.f.karan@mail.mil<mailto:cem.f.karan@mail.mil>> Date: Tuesday, Aug 29, 2017, 11:25 AM To: license-discuss@opensource.org <license-discuss@opensource.org<mailto:license-discuss@opensource.org>> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the US Government > -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Tzeng, Nigel H. > Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2017 11:03 AM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Cc: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and > the US Government > > I think that given that the USG is already saying that CC0 is a valid Open > Source license for the purposes of open source release on > Code.gov the CC0 train has already left the station without OSI approval. > > The FSF recommends it for public domain releases and states it is GPL > compatible. > > CC states it is suitable for software when a public domain software release > is desired. > > You guys can debate this all you like but it doesn't appear to me to matter > much any more. Thank you Nigel! Given all that, can we PLEASE have a vote on approving CC0 as being Open Source, and add it to the approved list? Thanks, Cem Karan ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the US Government
> -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Tzeng, Nigel H. > Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2017 11:03 AM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Cc: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and > the US Government > > I think that given that the USG is already saying that CC0 is a valid Open > Source license for the purposes of open source release on > Code.gov the CC0 train has already left the station without OSI approval. > > The FSF recommends it for public domain releases and states it is GPL > compatible. > > CC states it is suitable for software when a public domain software release > is desired. > > You guys can debate this all you like but it doesn't appear to me to matter > much any more. Thank you Nigel! Given all that, can we PLEASE have a vote on approving CC0 as being Open Source, and add it to the approved list? Thanks, Cem Karan smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature _______ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the US Government
I'm on active duty at Treasury until the close of business on Thursday, myself. I wouldn't presume for either of us to lobby. Filtering issues up the chain for The President to lobby The Congress about is the rule for the two of us in many cases. The main problem I see in using licenses for USG-produced works is that the federal government is unlike most software producers. If it doesn't like an aspect of copyright law, it can change it. It can negotiate changes to the Berne Convention. If it doesn't like a court decision, it can change the law. Most open source authors cannot directly do things like this regardless of how well drafted a license may become. A consistent USG-wide policy is needed. Using licenses rooted in copyright law doesn't seem right when applied to the government itself and is part of the continuing issues in finding an appropriate pre-existing license. Executive-Legislative action seems best to resolve pending questions. Stephen Michael Kellat On August 29, 2017 8:46:41 AM EDT, "Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)" <cem.f.karan@mail.mil> wrote: >Since I'm a Federal employee, and since putting together an Open Source >policy >for the Army Research Laboratory is part of my job, I'm barred from >directly >lobbying Congress on this matter [1-3]. ARL's legal counsel have also >told me >that I'm not allowed to encourage or discourage anyone to lobby >Congress on >behalf of ARL. As an outside group, OSI can do what it feels like. > >Thanks, >Cem Karan > >[1] https://ethics.od.nih.gov/topics/lobbying.htm >[2] https://www.ethics.usda.gov/rules/guides/lobbying.htm >[3] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1913 > >> -Original Message- >> From: Stephen Michael Kellat [mailto:smkel...@yahoo.com] >> Sent: Monday, August 28, 2017 12:35 PM >> To: license-discuss@opensource.org; Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM >ARL (US) >> <cem.f.karan@mail.mil>; Richard Fontana >> <font...@sharpeleven.org> >> Cc: license-discuss@opensource.org >> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, >Copyfraud and >> the US Government >> >> As bad as it sounds, would a brief statutory clarification be useful >in this >> instance? We can write around Congress all we want but getting >> them to fix this to be public domain globally is best done by >amending the >> law. A small rider proposed through channels per the >> Recommendations Clause in Article II, Section 3 of the federal >constitution >> would work nicely. >> >> Stephen Michael Kellat >> >> >> >> On August 28, 2017 11:59:44 AM EDT, "Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM >ARL >> (US)" <cem.f.karan@mail.mil> wrote: >> >> >> >> -Original Message- >> From: Richard Fontana [Caution-mailto:font...@sharpeleven.org] >> Sent: Monday, August 28, 2017 11:39 AM >> To: Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) ><cem.f.karan@mail.mil> >> Cc: license-discuss@opensource.org >> Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the US >Government >> >> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 02:18:10PM +, Karan, Cem F CIV >> USARMY >RDECOM >> ARL >> (US) wrote: >> >> Hi all, as you know I've been pushing the position >> that the US >> Government may have problems using copyright-based >> licenses on >works >> that do not have copyright attached. One of the >> lawyers I've >been >> working on this with has been kind enough to dig up >> the exact >statutes >> and give some clearer legal reasoning on what the >> issues are. It >> basically boils down to two issues; first, there is >> question of >> severability >> >> (Caution-Caution-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severability < >> Caution-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severability >> > ) which I've >> touched on before, and the second has to do with >> copyfraud >> >> (Caution-Caution-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyfraud < >> Caution-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyfraud > >> ). >> Copyfraud is defined within 17 U.S.C. 506, section (c) >> >> >(Caution-Caution-https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2010-title17/html/USCODE-2010-title17-chap5- >> sec506.htm < >> &
Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the US Government
> -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Chris Travers > Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2017 9:14 AM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and > the US Government > > On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL > (US) <cem.f.karan@mail.mil> wrote: > >> -Original Message- > >> From: License-discuss > >> [Caution-mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf Of > >> Thorsten Glaser > >> Sent: Monday, August 28, 2017 4:33 PM > >> To: Stephen Michael Kellat <smkel...@yahoo.com> > >> Cc: license-discuss@opensource.org > >> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, > >> Copyfraud and the US Government > >> > >> Stephen Michael Kellat dixit: > >> > >> >them to fix this to be public domain globally is best done by > >> >amending > >> > >> There’s no such thing as voluntarily releasing a work into the Public > >> Domain in several countries of the world, so this is futile at best, worse > >> hamful. > >> > >> > >> Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) dixit: > >> > >> >> So, in the end, “we” need a copyright licence “period”. > >> > > >> >Not exactly. This is where CC0 comes into play, at least here at > >> >the > >> > >> Yes, that’d be a way to express the same thing *if* CC0 were > >> sublicenseable. It currently sorta works, but… > >> > >> >even if the work could have copyright attached in Germany, people > >> >there know that the work is under CC0. This covers the really hard > >> >question of a US Government work being exported to Germany, > >> >modified, and then re-exported back to the US. The goal (at least at > >> >ARL) is to > >> > >> … this could be tricky. > >> > >> If it were sublicenseable, the thing exported back to the USA could > >> be fully under a proper copyright licence as the work of the person who > >> created the modified work (assuming it passes threshold of > originality, of course). > >> > >> But I’m assuming it’d also work with just CC0, except CC themselves > >> asked for it to not be certified as Open Source due to problems with it (I > >> don’t know which ones exactly). > >> > >> >make sure that everyone world-wide knows what the terms are, and > >> >that they are the same regardless of where you live, and where you > >> >are > >> > >> This is never true. > >> > >> Under the Berne Convention, a work from country A is, in country B, > >> subject to the same protection as a work from country B. That means for a > >> work originating in the USA, in Germany, only(!) German > copy‐ right law applies. In France, only French law, etc. > >> > >> I kinda like Richard Fontana’s approach to state a proper Open Source > >> licence for where copyright law applies. > > > > I see your point, but CC0 is an attempt to even out the use cases as far > > possible. Basically, a person in Germany should not have to > wonder if they'll be sued for using a US Government work that is in the > public domain in the US. CC0 answers that question as far as it is > possible given the various jurisdictions around the world. > > What about jurisdictions where moral rights cannot be legally waived? Not really a concern; the issue is whether or not others can feel safe using some code that is under CC0. Even if you have moral rights to the code, if you put it under CC0, then I know I have the right to use it. Thanks, Cem Karan smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the US Government
I think that given that the USG is already saying that CC0 is a valid Open Source license for the purposes of open source release on Code.gov the CC0 train has already left the station without OSI approval. The FSF recommends it for public domain releases and states it is GPL compatible. CC states it is suitable for software when a public domain software release is desired. You guys can debate this all you like but it doesn't appear to me to matter much any more. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the US Government
On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) <cem.f.karan@mail.mil> wrote: >> -Original Message----- >> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On >> Behalf Of Thorsten Glaser >> Sent: Monday, August 28, 2017 4:33 PM >> To: Stephen Michael Kellat <smkel...@yahoo.com> >> Cc: license-discuss@opensource.org >> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and >> the US Government >> >> Stephen Michael Kellat dixit: >> >> >them to fix this to be public domain globally is best done by amending >> >> There’s no such thing as voluntarily releasing a work into the Public Domain >> in several countries of the world, so this is futile at best, >> worse hamful. >> >> >> Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) dixit: >> >> >> So, in the end, “we” need a copyright licence “period”. >> > >> >Not exactly. This is where CC0 comes into play, at least here at the >> >> Yes, that’d be a way to express the same thing *if* CC0 were sublicenseable. >> It currently sorta works, but… >> >> >even if the work could have copyright attached in Germany, people there >> >know that the work is under CC0. This covers the really hard question >> >of a US Government work being exported to Germany, modified, and then >> >re-exported back to the US. The goal (at least at ARL) is to >> >> … this could be tricky. >> >> If it were sublicenseable, the thing exported back to the USA could be fully >> under a proper copyright licence as the work of the person >> who created the modified work (assuming it passes threshold of originality, >> of course). >> >> But I’m assuming it’d also work with just CC0, except CC themselves asked >> for it to not be certified as Open Source due to problems with >> it (I don’t know which ones exactly). >> >> >make sure that everyone world-wide knows what the terms are, and that >> >they are the same regardless of where you live, and where you are >> >> This is never true. >> >> Under the Berne Convention, a work from country A is, in country B, subject >> to the same protection as a work from country B. That means >> for a work originating in the USA, in Germany, only(!) German copy‐ right >> law applies. In France, only French law, etc. >> >> I kinda like Richard Fontana’s approach to state a proper Open Source >> licence for where copyright law applies. > > I see your point, but CC0 is an attempt to even out the use cases as far > possible. Basically, a person in Germany should not have to wonder if > they'll be sued for using a US Government work that is in the public domain > in the US. CC0 answers that question as far as it is possible given the > various jurisdictions around the world. What about jurisdictions where moral rights cannot be legally waived? ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the US Government
> -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Thorsten Glaser > Sent: Monday, August 28, 2017 4:33 PM > To: Stephen Michael Kellat <smkel...@yahoo.com> > Cc: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and > the US Government > > Stephen Michael Kellat dixit: > > >them to fix this to be public domain globally is best done by amending > > There’s no such thing as voluntarily releasing a work into the Public Domain > in several countries of the world, so this is futile at best, > worse hamful. > > > Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) dixit: > > >> So, in the end, “we” need a copyright licence “period”. > > > >Not exactly. This is where CC0 comes into play, at least here at the > > Yes, that’d be a way to express the same thing *if* CC0 were sublicenseable. > It currently sorta works, but… > > >even if the work could have copyright attached in Germany, people there > >know that the work is under CC0. This covers the really hard question > >of a US Government work being exported to Germany, modified, and then > >re-exported back to the US. The goal (at least at ARL) is to > > … this could be tricky. > > If it were sublicenseable, the thing exported back to the USA could be fully > under a proper copyright licence as the work of the person > who created the modified work (assuming it passes threshold of originality, > of course). > > But I’m assuming it’d also work with just CC0, except CC themselves asked for > it to not be certified as Open Source due to problems with > it (I don’t know which ones exactly). > > >make sure that everyone world-wide knows what the terms are, and that > >they are the same regardless of where you live, and where you are > > This is never true. > > Under the Berne Convention, a work from country A is, in country B, subject > to the same protection as a work from country B. That means > for a work originating in the USA, in Germany, only(!) German copy‐ right law > applies. In France, only French law, etc. > > I kinda like Richard Fontana’s approach to state a proper Open Source licence > for where copyright law applies. I see your point, but CC0 is an attempt to even out the use cases as far possible. Basically, a person in Germany should not have to wonder if they'll be sued for using a US Government work that is in the public domain in the US. CC0 answers that question as far as it is possible given the various jurisdictions around the world. Thanks, Cem Karan smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the US Government
Since I'm a Federal employee, and since putting together an Open Source policy for the Army Research Laboratory is part of my job, I'm barred from directly lobbying Congress on this matter [1-3]. ARL's legal counsel have also told me that I'm not allowed to encourage or discourage anyone to lobby Congress on behalf of ARL. As an outside group, OSI can do what it feels like. Thanks, Cem Karan [1] https://ethics.od.nih.gov/topics/lobbying.htm [2] https://www.ethics.usda.gov/rules/guides/lobbying.htm [3] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1913 > -Original Message- > From: Stephen Michael Kellat [mailto:smkel...@yahoo.com] > Sent: Monday, August 28, 2017 12:35 PM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org; Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) > <cem.f.karan@mail.mil>; Richard Fontana > <font...@sharpeleven.org> > Cc: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and > the US Government > > As bad as it sounds, would a brief statutory clarification be useful in this > instance? We can write around Congress all we want but getting > them to fix this to be public domain globally is best done by amending the > law. A small rider proposed through channels per the > Recommendations Clause in Article II, Section 3 of the federal constitution > would work nicely. > > Stephen Michael Kellat > > > > On August 28, 2017 11:59:44 AM EDT, "Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL > (US)" <cem.f.karan@mail.mil> wrote: > > > >-Original Message- >From: Richard Fontana [Caution-mailto:font...@sharpeleven.org] >Sent: Monday, August 28, 2017 11:39 AM >To: Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) > <cem.f.karan@mail.mil> >Cc: license-discuss@opensource.org >Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the US > Government > >On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 02:18:10PM +, Karan, Cem F CIV > USARMY RDECOM > ARL >(US) wrote: > >Hi all, as you know I've been pushing the position > that the US >Government may have problems using copyright-based > licenses on works >that do not have copyright attached. One of the > lawyers I've been >working on this with has been kind enough to dig up > the exact statutes >and give some clearer legal reasoning on what the > issues are. It >basically boils down to two issues; first, there is > question of >severability > > (Caution-Caution-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severability < > Caution-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severability > > ) which I've >touched on before, and the second has to do with > copyfraud > > (Caution-Caution-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyfraud < > Caution-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyfraud > > ). >Copyfraud is defined within 17 U.S.C. 506, section (c) > > (Caution-Caution-https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2010-title17/html/USCODE-2010-title17-chap5- > sec506.htm < > Caution-https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2010-title17/html/USCODE-2010-title17-chap5-sec506.htm > > ). >I've copied out the relevant language below; the > commentary within the >brackets is from ARL's lawyer: > >""" >(c) Fraudulent Copyright Notice.- >Any person who, with fraudulent intent, places on any > article a notice >of copyright or words of the same purport that such > person knows to be >false, or who, with fraudulent intent, publicly > distributes or imports >for public distribution any article bearing such > notice or words that >such person knows to be false, shall be fined not more > than $2,500. >[Note - Any software pushed out under Open Source > would not have a >notice of copyright affixed to the software. However, > would software >pushed out under an Open Source license that assumes > the existence of >copyright be considered tantamount to a notice of > copyright and >therefore an actionable fraud under this section? > Don't know.] """ > >I know that there we
Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the US Government
John Cowan dixit: >Also under the Berne convention, country B may (but is not required to) >treat a work that is out of copyright in its originating country as out of >copyright >in country B as well. OK, but, as you said yourself… >The U.S. does not exercise this option, and the >EU countries are effectively forbidden to do so by EU case law. … this is irrelevant here. Nevertheless, thanks for the correction. bye, //mirabilos -- Stéphane, I actually don’t block Googlemail, they’re just too utterly stupid to successfully deliver to me (or anyone else using Greylisting and not whitelisting their ranges). Same for a few other providers such as Hotmail. Some spammers (Yahoo) I do block. _______ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the US Government
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 4:32 PM, Thorsten Glaser <t...@mirbsd.de> scripsit: Under the Berne Convention, a work from country A is, in country B, > subject to the same protection as a work from country B. That means > for a work originating in the USA, in Germany, only(!) German copy‐ > right law applies. In France, only French law, etc. > Up to a point, Minister. Also under the Berne convention, country B may (but is not required to) treat a work that is out of copyright in its originating country as out of copyright in country B as well. The U.S. does not exercise this option, and the EU countries are effectively forbidden to do so by EU case law. -- John Cowan http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowanco...@ccil.org But the next day there came no dawn, and the Grey Company passed on into the darkness of the Storm of Mordor and were lost to mortal sight; but the Dead followed them. --"The Passing of the Grey Company" ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the US Government
Stephen Michael Kellat dixit:
>them to fix this to be public domain globally is best done by amending
There’s no such thing as voluntarily releasing a work into
the Public Domain in several countries of the world, so this
is futile at best, worse hamful.
Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) dixit:
>> So, in the end, “we” need a copyright licence “period”.
>
>Not exactly. This is where CC0 comes into play, at least here at the
Yes, that’d be a way to express the same thing *if* CC0 were
sublicenseable. It currently sorta works, but…
>even if the work could have copyright attached in Germany, people
>there know that the work is under CC0. This covers the really hard
>question of a US Government work being exported to Germany, modified,
>and then re-exported back to the US. The goal (at least at ARL) is to
… this could be tricky.
If it were sublicenseable, the thing exported back to the USA
could be fully under a proper copyright licence as the work of
the person who created the modified work (assuming it passes
threshold of originality, of course).
But I’m assuming it’d also work with just CC0, except CC themselves
asked for it to not be certified as Open Source due to problems
with it (I don’t know which ones exactly).
>make sure that everyone world-wide knows what the terms are, and that
>they are the same regardless of where you live, and where you are
This is never true.
Under the Berne Convention, a work from country A is, in country B,
subject to the same protection as a work from country B. That means
for a work originating in the USA, in Germany, only(!) German copy‐
right law applies. In France, only French law, etc.
I kinda like Richard Fontana’s approach to state a proper Open Source
licence for where copyright law applies.
bye,
//mirabilos
--
11:56⎜«liwakura:#!/bin/mksh» also, i wanted to add mksh to my own distro │
i was disappointed that there is no makefile │ but somehow the Build.sh is
the least painful built system i've ever seen │ honours CC, {CPP,C,LD}FLAGS
properly │ looks cleary like done by someone who knows what they are doing
___________
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the US Government
> On Aug 28, 2017, at 12:34 PM, Stephen Michael Kellat <smkel...@yahoo.com> > wrote: > > As bad as it sounds, would a brief statutory clarification be useful in this > instance? We can write around Congress all we want but getting them to fix > this to be public domain globally is best done by amending the law. A small > rider proposed through channels per the Recommendations Clause in Article II, > Section 3 of the federal constitution would work nicely. It would likely take a handful of folks just to figure out exactly what clause is unclear or what position is being changed. Given the USG currently asserts copyright internationally, such an amendment would probably receive considerable resistance, but let’s assume it passes. If Title 17 were changed to say no copyright protection internationally, that could clear up the issue in Article 18 of the Berne Convention — there would be expiry internationally in the country of origin, thus public domain internationally. On the other end of the spectrum, Title 17 could be changed to remove the exemption of USG works, the implications there would be utterly HUGE, but would allow the USG to use any license. Somewhere in the middle, Title 17 could explain the effect of putting “Copyright US Government” on a pure work of the USG, whether that constitutes fraud or invalidate protections or that it always only applies internationally. There was discussion last year about having (official) public discourse on the Federal Register regarding the new Federal Open Source Policy and these exact issues. That would probably be a better starting point. The Open Source community could strategize for months, only to be shot down by a single influential DoD contractor citing market interference or harm by the USG. Cheers! Sean _______ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the US Government
As bad as it sounds, would a brief statutory clarification be useful in this instance? We can write around Congress all we want but getting them to fix this to be public domain globally is best done by amending the law. A small rider proposed through channels per the Recommendations Clause in Article II, Section 3 of the federal constitution would work nicely. Stephen Michael Kellat On August 28, 2017 11:59:44 AM EDT, "Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)" <cem.f.karan@mail.mil> wrote: >> -Original Message- >> From: Richard Fontana [mailto:font...@sharpeleven.org] >> Sent: Monday, August 28, 2017 11:39 AM >> To: Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) ><cem.f.karan@mail.mil> >> Cc: license-discuss@opensource.org >> Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the US >Government >> >> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 02:18:10PM +, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY >RDECOM ARL >> (US) wrote: >> > Hi all, as you know I've been pushing the position that the US >> > Government may have problems using copyright-based licenses on >works >> > that do not have copyright attached. One of the lawyers I've been >> > working on this with has been kind enough to dig up the exact >statutes >> > and give some clearer legal reasoning on what the issues are. It >> > basically boils down to two issues; first, there is question of >> > severability >> > (Caution-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severability) which I've >> > touched on before, and the second has to do with copyfraud >> > (Caution-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyfraud). >> > Copyfraud is defined within 17 U.S.C. 506, section (c) >> > >(Caution-https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2010-title17/html/USCODE-2010-title17-chap5-sec506.htm). >> > I've copied out the relevant language below; the commentary within >the >> > brackets is from ARL's lawyer: >> > >> > """ >> > (c) Fraudulent Copyright Notice.- >> > Any person who, with fraudulent intent, places on any article a >notice >> > of copyright or words of the same purport that such person knows to >be >> > false, or who, with fraudulent intent, publicly distributes or >imports >> > for public distribution any article bearing such notice or words >that >> > such person knows to be false, shall be fined not more than $2,500. >> > [Note - Any software pushed out under Open Source would not have a >> > notice of copyright affixed to the software. However, would >software >> > pushed out under an Open Source license that assumes the existence >of >> > copyright be considered tantamount to a notice of copyright and >> > therefore an actionable fraud under this section? Don't know.] """ >> > >> > I know that there were questions at one time about the need for >> > special licenses/agreements like NOSA 2.0, but this is one of those >> > potential problems. Copyright-based licenses are great for works >that >> > have copyright attached, but they may be problematic for works that >> > don't have copyright attached. >> >> As has been pointed out before, I think, in software (including but >not >> limited to open source) copyright notices are commonly juxtaposed >> with material that is clearly or likely not subject to copyright. >> >> Anyway, the theoretical risk here could be eliminated in lots of >ways, it >> seems to me (even without getting into what would be required to >> show 'fraudulent intent'). For example, the US government could >include a >> copyright and license notice like the following: >> >> The following material may not be subject to copyright in the >United >> States under 17 U.S.C. 105. To the extent it is subject to >> copyright, it is released under the following open source license: >[...] >> >> There's also the approach that is seen in >> >Caution-https://github.com/deptofdefense/code.mil/blob/master/Proposal/INTENT.md. >> >> > So, given that we had come up with the idea of using two licenses >in >> > projects >> > (CC0 for portions of a work that don't have copyright, and an >> > OSI-approved license for portions of a work that do have copyright >> > attached), why should OSI care? The problem is that CC0 is still >not >> > OSI-approved (at least, it isn't on the list at >> > Caution-https://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical). That means >> > that the Government could be putting out works that are in some >kind >>
Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the US Government
> -Original Message- > From: Richard Fontana [mailto:font...@sharpeleven.org] > Sent: Monday, August 28, 2017 11:39 AM > To: Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) <cem.f.karan@mail.mil> > Cc: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the US Government > > On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 02:18:10PM +, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL > (US) wrote: > > Hi all, as you know I've been pushing the position that the US > > Government may have problems using copyright-based licenses on works > > that do not have copyright attached. One of the lawyers I've been > > working on this with has been kind enough to dig up the exact statutes > > and give some clearer legal reasoning on what the issues are. It > > basically boils down to two issues; first, there is question of > > severability > > (Caution-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severability) which I've > > touched on before, and the second has to do with copyfraud > > (Caution-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyfraud). > > Copyfraud is defined within 17 U.S.C. 506, section (c) > > (Caution-https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2010-title17/html/USCODE-2010-title17-chap5-sec506.htm). > > I've copied out the relevant language below; the commentary within the > > brackets is from ARL's lawyer: > > > > """ > > (c) Fraudulent Copyright Notice.- > > Any person who, with fraudulent intent, places on any article a notice > > of copyright or words of the same purport that such person knows to be > > false, or who, with fraudulent intent, publicly distributes or imports > > for public distribution any article bearing such notice or words that > > such person knows to be false, shall be fined not more than $2,500. > > [Note - Any software pushed out under Open Source would not have a > > notice of copyright affixed to the software. However, would software > > pushed out under an Open Source license that assumes the existence of > > copyright be considered tantamount to a notice of copyright and > > therefore an actionable fraud under this section? Don't know.] """ > > > > I know that there were questions at one time about the need for > > special licenses/agreements like NOSA 2.0, but this is one of those > > potential problems. Copyright-based licenses are great for works that > > have copyright attached, but they may be problematic for works that > > don't have copyright attached. > > As has been pointed out before, I think, in software (including but not > limited to open source) copyright notices are commonly juxtaposed > with material that is clearly or likely not subject to copyright. > > Anyway, the theoretical risk here could be eliminated in lots of ways, it > seems to me (even without getting into what would be required to > show 'fraudulent intent'). For example, the US government could include a > copyright and license notice like the following: > > The following material may not be subject to copyright in the United > States under 17 U.S.C. 105. To the extent it is subject to > copyright, it is released under the following open source license: [...] > > There's also the approach that is seen in > Caution-https://github.com/deptofdefense/code.mil/blob/master/Proposal/INTENT.md. > > > So, given that we had come up with the idea of using two licenses in > > projects > > (CC0 for portions of a work that don't have copyright, and an > > OSI-approved license for portions of a work that do have copyright > > attached), why should OSI care? The problem is that CC0 is still not > > OSI-approved (at least, it isn't on the list at > > Caution-https://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical). That means > > that the Government could be putting out works that are in some kind > > of zombie-like state, half-Open Source, and half not. If OSI approved > > CC0 as being an Open Source license, or if NOSA 2.0 was approved, then the > > problems could be fixed. So, where are we in either case? > > As I've pointed out before, CC0 itself does not eliminate the problem your > colleagues say they are concerned about, because CC0 assumes > copyright ownership. If they sincerely think it's dangerous to use the MIT > license then they should be consistent and say it's dangerous to > use CC0 too. > > I think the use you are suggesting for use of CC0 is not actually how > CC0 is meant to be used. CC0 is designed for the case where copyright > ownership is likely or plausibly present but the owner wishes to get > as close as possible to waiving all of their rights. I think you are saying > you want CC
Re: [License-discuss] NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the US Government
>> Hi all, as you know I've been pushing the position that the US Government >> may >> have problems using copyright-based licenses on works that do not have >> copyright attached. One of the lawyers I've been working on this with has > > How is their position if the works are in the Public Domain only > in the USA? Their own copyright FAQ says that even US government > work may be copyright-protected e.g. in Germany. That’s why the language is specifically “works that do not have copyright attached”. Just because there’s no copyright protection does not mean the USG can’t sell/share/trade to some other country (think US selling a tank to Germany) under some agreement/contract/convention/treaty. What the copyright act makes clear is that there simply is no default copyright protection, but it doesn’t preclude holding copyright or restricting rights through other means. The interesting question (to me) is what happens when an agency uses contract law to restrict a right the copyright act specifically covers. For example, attribution. To date, the answer has been “nothing". The FAQ does imply that some license is needed because of the international context. To limit license proliferation, it would be desirable to leverage what’s already in place. This is what the code.gov <http://code.gov/> guys are trying with a simple INTENT declaration. Previously, the main players were (and are still) relying on contract law (e.g., NASA) or acquiring copyright through assignment. > So, in the end, “we” need a copyright licence “period”. Government Services Administration folks have started testing the theory, but not all departments agree. Without case precedence, it has kept unanswered questions of fraud and license validity (and implications therein like severability) from the folks in the “you need a contract” camp. Cheers! Sean _______ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the US Government
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 02:18:10PM +, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) wrote: > Hi all, as you know I've been pushing the position that the US Government may > have problems using copyright-based licenses on works that do not have > copyright attached. One of the lawyers I've been working on this with has > been kind enough to dig up the exact statutes and give some clearer legal > reasoning on what the issues are. It basically boils down to two issues; > first, there is question of severability > (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severability) which I've touched on before, > and > the second has to do with copyfraud > (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyfraud). > Copyfraud is defined within 17 U.S.C. 506, section (c) > (https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2010-title17/html/USCODE-2010-title17-chap5-sec506.htm). > > I've copied out the relevant language below; the commentary within the > brackets is from ARL's lawyer: > > """ > (c) Fraudulent Copyright Notice.- > Any person who, with fraudulent intent, places on any article a notice of > copyright or words of the same purport that such person knows to be false, or > who, with fraudulent intent, publicly distributes or imports for public > distribution any article bearing such notice or words that such person knows > to be false, shall be fined not more than $2,500. [Note - Any software pushed > out under Open Source would not have a notice of copyright affixed to the > software. However, would software pushed out under an Open Source license > that > assumes the existence of copyright be considered tantamount to a notice of > copyright and therefore an actionable fraud under this section? Don't know.] > """ > > I know that there were questions at one time about the need for special > licenses/agreements like NOSA 2.0, but this is one of those potential > problems. Copyright-based licenses are great for works that have copyright > attached, but they may be problematic for works that don't have copyright > attached. As has been pointed out before, I think, in software (including but not limited to open source) copyright notices are commonly juxtaposed with material that is clearly or likely not subject to copyright. Anyway, the theoretical risk here could be eliminated in lots of ways, it seems to me (even without getting into what would be required to show 'fraudulent intent'). For example, the US government could include a copyright and license notice like the following: The following material may not be subject to copyright in the United States under 17 U.S.C. 105. To the extent it is subject to copyright, it is released under the following open source license: [...] There's also the approach that is seen in https://github.com/deptofdefense/code.mil/blob/master/Proposal/INTENT.md. > So, given that we had come up with the idea of using two licenses in projects > (CC0 for portions of a work that don't have copyright, and an OSI-approved > license for portions of a work that do have copyright attached), why should > OSI care? The problem is that CC0 is still not OSI-approved (at least, it > isn't on the list at https://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical). That > means that the Government could be putting out works that are in some kind of > zombie-like state, half-Open Source, and half not. If OSI approved CC0 as > being an Open Source license, or if NOSA 2.0 was approved, then the problems > could be fixed. So, where are we in either case? As I've pointed out before, CC0 itself does not eliminate the problem your colleagues say they are concerned about, because CC0 assumes copyright ownership. If they sincerely think it's dangerous to use the MIT license then they should be consistent and say it's dangerous to use CC0 too. I think the use you are suggesting for use of CC0 is not actually how CC0 is meant to be used. CC0 is designed for the case where copyright ownership is likely or plausibly present but the owner wishes to get as close as possible to waiving all of their rights. I think you are saying you want CC0 to be used to ceremonially declare (possibly in some cases incorrectly or misleadingly) that something that is not subject to copyright ownership in the first place is indeed ... not subject to copyright ownership in the first place -- which is not what CC0 says. Richard ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the US Government
> -Original Message- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Thorsten Glaser > Sent: Monday, August 28, 2017 10:32 AM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [License-discuss] NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the > US Government > > Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) dixit: > > >Hi all, as you know I've been pushing the position that the US > >Government may have problems using copyright-based licenses on works > >that do not have copyright attached. One of the lawyers I've been > >working on this with has > > How is their position if the works are in the Public Domain only in the USA? > Their own copyright FAQ says that even US government work > may be copyright-protected e.g. in Germany. > > So, in the end, “we” need a copyright licence “period”. Not exactly. This is where CC0 comes into play, at least here at the US Army Research Laboratory (ARL), and I hope in other parts of the US Government too. If the work doesn't have copyright attached within the US, it is licensed under CC0, which is a **world-wide** license. Thus, even if the work could have copyright attached in Germany, people there know that the work is under CC0. This covers the really hard question of a US Government work being exported to Germany, modified, and then re-exported back to the US. The goal (at least at ARL) is to make sure that everyone world-wide knows what the terms are, and that they are the same regardless of where you live, and where you are exporting your modifications to. Does that make sense? Thanks, Cem Karan smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature _______ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the US Government
Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) dixit: >Hi all, as you know I've been pushing the position that the US Government may >have problems using copyright-based licenses on works that do not have >copyright attached. One of the lawyers I've been working on this with has How is their position if the works are in the Public Domain only in the USA? Their own copyright FAQ says that even US government work may be copyright-protected e.g. in Germany. So, in the end, “we” need a copyright licence “period”. Thanks, //mirabilos -- I believe no one can invent an algorithm. One just happens to hit upon it when God enlightens him. Or only God invents algorithms, we merely copy them. If you don't believe in God, just consider God as Nature if you won't deny existence. -- Coywolf Qi Hunt _______ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
[License-discuss] NOSA 2.0, Copyfraud and the US Government
Hi all, as you know I've been pushing the position that the US Government may have problems using copyright-based licenses on works that do not have copyright attached. One of the lawyers I've been working on this with has been kind enough to dig up the exact statutes and give some clearer legal reasoning on what the issues are. It basically boils down to two issues; first, there is question of severability (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severability) which I've touched on before, and the second has to do with copyfraud (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyfraud). Copyfraud is defined within 17 U.S.C. 506, section (c) (https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2010-title17/html/USCODE-2010-title17-chap5-sec506.htm). I've copied out the relevant language below; the commentary within the brackets is from ARL's lawyer: """ (c) Fraudulent Copyright Notice.- Any person who, with fraudulent intent, places on any article a notice of copyright or words of the same purport that such person knows to be false, or who, with fraudulent intent, publicly distributes or imports for public distribution any article bearing such notice or words that such person knows to be false, shall be fined not more than $2,500. [Note - Any software pushed out under Open Source would not have a notice of copyright affixed to the software. However, would software pushed out under an Open Source license that assumes the existence of copyright be considered tantamount to a notice of copyright and therefore an actionable fraud under this section? Don't know.] """ I know that there were questions at one time about the need for special licenses/agreements like NOSA 2.0, but this is one of those potential problems. Copyright-based licenses are great for works that have copyright attached, but they may be problematic for works that don't have copyright attached. So, given that we had come up with the idea of using two licenses in projects (CC0 for portions of a work that don't have copyright, and an OSI-approved license for portions of a work that do have copyright attached), why should OSI care? The problem is that CC0 is still not OSI-approved (at least, it isn't on the list at https://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical). That means that the Government could be putting out works that are in some kind of zombie-like state, half-Open Source, and half not. If OSI approved CC0 as being an Open Source license, or if NOSA 2.0 was approved, then the problems could be fixed. So, where are we in either case? Thanks, Cem Karan smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature _______ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
[License-discuss] NOSA 2.0?
ping And to Richard Fontana... **PING** Thanks, Cem Karan smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Is Sun Identity Manager (Oracle Waveset) Open Source compliant ?
On 11/08/17 09:33, Ilona A.M. Fleck wrote: I am posting this question in the assumption that there is a register of all products which are compliant. There is a list of approved licenses, not of approved products. Vetting products for compliance with upstream licences would not be possible for a not for profit with no mechanism for charging fees. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
[License-discuss] Is Sun Identity Manager (Oracle Waveset) Open Source compliant ?
Hello all, maybe this question is far to generic. But in the moment I do not have any more information. Is the old Sun Identity Manager (Oralce Waveset) product Open Source compliant with the Open Source license terms and conditions ? Which compenents (if any) ? Is the _javascript_ implementation wiht Sun Identity Manager Open Source compliant ? It has to do with the question if software will be transported to clients when using _javascript_. I am posting this question in the assumption that there is a register of all products which are compliant. Maybe I am wrong with this assumption. Thank you Ilona -- ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] New maintainer, changing license?
On Sat, Jul 29, 2017 at 11:22 AM, Thorsten Glaser <t...@mirbsd.de> wrote: > > Note that this only applies in the USA, not, for example, > in Germany, where such a thing is impossible. > Well, yes and no. It is impossible to transfer the moral rights, but since 2008 the right of exploitation of all uses known and unknown can be transferred exclusively, which amounts to the same thing. -- John Cowan http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowanco...@ccil.org Awk!" sed Grep. "A fscking python is perloining my Ruby; let me bash him with a Cshell! Vi didn't I mount it on a troff?" --Francis Turner ___________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] New maintainer, changing license?
David Woolley dixit: > On 29/07/17 10:27, Johnny A. Solbu wrote: >> The copyright holder stopped working on the project in 2005. >> I am continuing the development, but do not have the copyright. > > You should get the copyright owner to assign copyright to you, as, Note that this only applies in the USA, not, for example, in Germany, where such a thing is impossible. bye, //mirabilos -- “It is inappropriate to require that a time represented as seconds since the Epoch precisely represent the number of seconds between the referenced time and the Epoch.” -- IEEE Std 1003.1b-1993 (POSIX) Section B.2.2.2 _______ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] New maintainer, changing license?
On 29/07/17 10:27, Johnny A. Solbu wrote: The copyright holder stopped working on the project in 2005. I am continuing the development, but do not have the copyright. You should get the copyright owner to assign copyright to you, as, currently, no-one is able to enforce the licence except for non-trivial parts of the code contributed by third parties, given the current owner seems to have lost interest. If it is an important project, the FSF might also be willing to buy the copyright for a token amount (one cent or one dollar), but I think that would require that right in all contributions have been assigned to the original owner. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] New maintainer, changing license?
On Saturday 29. July 2017 11.16, David Woolley wrote: > On 29/07/17 09:38, Johnny A. Solbu wrote: > > I am the new upstream maintainer of the cd ripper Grip > > What do you mean by the maintainer? The copyright holder stopped working on the project in 2005. I am continuing the development, but do not have the copyright. > To the extent that you do not own the copyright in any particular file, > you can redistribute that file under the relevant version 3 licence. > > If you have accepted non-trivial changes without copyright being > assigned to you, or the right to re-licence, you do not fully own the > copyright in the affected files and cannot make an arbitrary change of > licence, but can still upgrade to version 3. My intention is to upgrade to GPL version 3, provided that is allowed. Sorry if that was unclear. My understanding is that this is allowed, but I wanted to check with this list that my understanding is correct. :-) -- Johnny A. Solbu web site, http://www.solbu.net PGP key ID: 0x4F5AD64DFA687324 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. _______ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] New maintainer, changing license?
On 29/07/17 09:38, Johnny A. Solbu wrote: I am the new upstream maintainer of the cd ripper Grip What do you mean by the maintainer? If you are the actual copyright owner, you can distribute it under any licence you like, as long as you continue to honour requests to supply the source code for versions you previously distributed. To the extent that you do not own the copyright in any particular file, you can redistribute that file under the relevant version 3 licence. If you have accepted non-trivial changes without copyright being assigned to you, or the right to re-licence, you do not fully own the copyright in the affected files and cannot make an arbitrary change of licence, but can still upgrade to version 3. The code licence is stated as follows: == * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or * modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as * published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the * License, or (at your option) any later version. == Some files are licenced under the Lesser GPL, with the same type of terms saying that one can use a later version. My question is: Does this mean that I can change it to say it's released under GPL version 3 and later? ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] New maintainer, changing license?
My layman understanding is that that is exactly what it says. On Sat, Jul 29, 2017 at 11:38 AM, Johnny A. Solbu <joh...@solbu.net> wrote: > Hi. > I am the new upstream maintainer of the cd ripper Grip > The code licence is stated as follows: > > == > * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or > * modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as > * published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the > * License, or (at your option) any later version. > == > Some files are licenced under the Lesser GPL, with the same type of terms > saying that one can use a later version. > > My question is: Does this mean that I can change it to say it's released > under GPL version 3 and later? > > -- > Johnny A. Solbu > web site, http://www.solbu.net > PGP key ID: 0x4F5AD64DFA687324 > > _______ > License-discuss mailing list > License-discuss@opensource.org > https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss > -- henrik.i...@avoinelama.fi +358-40-5697354skype: henrik.ingoirc: hingo www.openlife.cc My LinkedIn profile: http://fi.linkedin.com/pub/henrik-ingo/3/232/8a7 ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
[License-discuss] New maintainer, changing license?
Hi. I am the new upstream maintainer of the cd ripper Grip The code licence is stated as follows: == * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or * modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as * published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the * License, or (at your option) any later version. == Some files are licenced under the Lesser GPL, with the same type of terms saying that one can use a later version. My question is: Does this mean that I can change it to say it's released under GPL version 3 and later? -- Johnny A. Solbu web site, http://www.solbu.net PGP key ID: 0x4F5AD64DFA687324 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
[License-discuss] NOSA 2.0?
What is the current progress on the NOSA 2.0 license? I just got out of a meeting with some NASA lawyers, and they want to know where it's going, and if it's stuck, why it's stuck. Thanks, Cem Karan smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
[License-discuss] Some formerly-approved licenses not listed under opensource.org/licenses/ (was: SPDX License List v1.14 & OSI questions)
There was a 2012 discussion [1] about some licenses (e.g. the AFL-1.0 and AFL-1-1, etc.) which were approved by the OSI (e.g. [2,3]) but are not currently listed on the website [4,5]. As of at least 2005, Larry (the AFL author) was saying that the earlier licenses were superseded, but it didn't sound like he was suggesting them for retirement [6]. By the 2012 discussion, Larry was suggesting versions before 3.0 be retired [7]. And John took a dive into the Internet Archive to unearth the history for a number of licenses [8]. He didn't find the original AFL-1.0, but it's there on 2002-08-05 [9]. Karl (CCed) sounded like he was planning on updating the website to include the previously approved, now superseded/retired, currently unlisted licenses [10], but that doesn't seem to have happened yet. Are there still plans to restore these unlisted licenses (to [5])? It would be nice to have the version-controlled, machine-readable source at [11] be canonical and be used as source for the website [4,5]. It sounds like Paul (CCed) was planning on something like that as of January this year [12]. But with the authoritative-ness of that repo still in flux, maybe it's better to update the Drupal database [13] directly? Also, the superseded/retired page is not very discoverable. I'd recommend linking to it from [4], and also from [14] (which already has “superseded licenses, or retired licenses” text which could be turned into a link). Cheers, Trevor [1]: https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss/2012-April/017762.html Subject: SPDX License List v1.14 & OSI questions Date: Mon Apr 30 17:25:11 UTC 2012 [2]: https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss/2002-June/005443.html Subject: Academic Free License Date: Thu Jun 27 12:38:39 UTC 2002 [3]: https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss/2002-August/005736.html Subject: Academic Free License Date: Wed Aug 21 19:00:35 UTC 2002 [4]: https://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical [5]: https://opensource.org/licenses/do-not-use.html [6]: https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss/2005-August/010528.html Subject: de-recomendation of Larry Rosen's licenses/clarify web site Date: Tue Aug 16 01:34:12 UTC 2005 [7]: https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss/2012-April/017771.html Subject: SPDX License List v1.14 & OSI questions Date: Mon Apr 30 20:19:24 UTC 2012 [8]: https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss/2012-April/017766.html Subject: SPDX License List v1.14 & OSI questions Date: Mon Apr 30 19:19:14 UTC 2012 [9]: http://wayback.archive.org/web/20020805135807/http://www.opensource.org:80/licenses/academic.php [10]: https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss/2012-April/017772.html Subject: SPDX License List v1.14 & OSI questions Date: Mon Apr 30 22:38:27 UTC 2012 [11]: https://github.com/OpenSourceOrg/licenses [12]: https://github.com/OpenSourceOrg/licenses/issues/47#issuecomment-27006 Subject: Is this still not authoritative? Date: Jan 2, 2017, 6:46 PM PST [13]: https://opensource.org/faq#improve-osi-site [14]: https://opensource.org/licenses/ -- This email may be signed or encrypted with GnuPG (http://www.gnupg.org). For more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Moderator Advice
Quoting Lawrence Rosen (lro...@rosenlaw.com): > That said, I remain concerned about our antique mailing list procedures that > impose tricky processing exceptions merely to defeat spam. With great respect: It's not that. The GNU Mailman default setting of 10 maximum To: and Cc: recipients for a posting to propagate through without being queued for manual approval is, in my experience, about right, even though the de-facto limit with that default setting appears to be 1 or 2 fewer (probably a fencepost error in the code). Mail with a higher number of To: and Cc: recipients has a very high correlation with spamicity and with posting misbehaviour such as attempts to foment cross-mailing-list flamewars. The listadmins could, if they wish, (say) double that default number, raising the limit to 20. I'm betting that a significantly higher amount of problematic traffic would get through over time (albeit I could be wrong). But, additionally, as a reminder, what Simon actually suggested was that people avoid _cross-posting_. I concur that this is a good suggestion for numerous reasons, including it making a lot more work for the listadmins of each included forum (given limited overlap of the subscriber bases). A better practice, if you wish to have a similar discussion on multiple mailing lists, is to post to each one separately. Yes, that's not the least-effort course of action. You'll probably have noticed that The Right Thing seldom is. ;-> > I am frustrated that my "reply-all" can cause a multi-day delay in the > dissemination of my "deep wisdom" or delay the "deep wisdom" of my > colleagues here. IIRC, the problem wasn't reply-all as such (which is A Good Thing), but rather inclusion of a rather large number of To: and Cc: recipients in part because of cross-posting across multiple mailing lists. Which gets us back to Simon's point. ___________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] FreeAndFair license
On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 3:59 PM, Rick Moen <r...@linuxmafia.com> wrote: The author in your hypothetical is not actually violating his/her own > licence, because he/she already had statutory rights to the work's > copyright-covered rights, and didn't need a licence to get them. > Indeed; I should have put "violate" in scare quotes. This is no hypothetical, though; it is the term rewriting language Pure < https://agraef.github.io/pure-lang>, which I recommend to anyone interested in dynamically typed languages that use pattern matching (and lack constructor discipline a la Haskell). -- John Cowan http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowanco...@ccil.org In the sciences, we are now uniquely privileged to sit side by side with the giants on whose shoulders we stand. --Gerald Holton _______ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Moderator Advice
Yes, Simon and Rick, I'm sorry I misunderstood Simon's use of the term "moderated." As a moderator of another opensource.org list, I can assure you I wasn't being disrespectful of moderators. That said, I remain concerned about our antique mailing list procedures that impose tricky processing exceptions merely to defeat spam. I am frustrated that my "reply-all" can cause a multi-day delay in the dissemination of my "deep wisdom" or delay the "deep wisdom" of my colleagues here. That is technology defeating communication. There is better open source technology for discussion lists! /Larry -Original Message- From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf Of Rick Moen Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2017 1:03 PM To: license-discuss@opensource.org Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Moderator Advice Quoting Simon Phipps (webm...@opensource.org): > I now regret expending volunteer effort trying to help Mr Rosen & > others avoid delays getting their deep wisdom disseminated. I hope and expect that Mr Rosen merely misunderstood, and that he joins me in deeply appreciating your efforts. (My apologies for mistyping your surname, by the way.) (Yes, BTW, I am a fellow listadmin. ;-> ) _______ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss _______ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Moderator Advice
Quoting Simon Phipps (webm...@opensource.org): > I now regret expending volunteer effort trying to help Mr Rosen & others > avoid delays getting their deep wisdom disseminated. I hope and expect that Mr Rosen merely misunderstood, and that he joins me in deeply appreciating your efforts. (My apologies for mistyping your surname, by the way.) (Yes, BTW, I am a fellow listadmin. ;-> ) _______ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] FreeAndFair license
Quoting John Cowan (co...@ccil.org): > I know of a program which consists of a fairly large library which does > most of the work, issued under a permissive license, and a small > interactive main program which provides the command line. This main > program is provided in two versions. One works with GNU readline and is > GPLed; the other does not provide line editing and is under the same > permissive license as the library. The author can do this because he is > free to violate his own license to create the readline-free version of the > code, but users would not be. Will you forgive a quibble, John? I don't mean to distract from your overall point, which is well-taken. The author in your hypothetical is not actually violating his/her own licence, because he/she already had statutory rights to the work's copyright-covered rights, and didn't need a licence to get them. I'm mentioning this because some people seem to think licence conditions flow up the licensor's arm and attach to his/her brain, when in fact they're just a property he/she can attach to a specific codebase instance, which explains how different instances can exist with differing licence regimes. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Moderator Advice
On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 8:42 PM, Rick Moen <r...@linuxmafia.com> wrote:
> Quoting Lawrence Rosen (lro...@rosenlaw.com)i, who I think was
> addressing this question to Simon Phipps:
>
> > I dislike mailman defaults. Why are you moderating my emails at all?
> > Or John Cowan's? Or Henrik Ingo's?
>
> I think there's some confusion here caused by inexact wording and the
> word 'moderated' having overloaded meanings:
>
I now regret expending volunteer effort trying to help Mr Rosen & others
avoid delays getting their deep wisdom disseminated.
> Simon Philpps (part of a group of OSI listadmins) mentioned having to
> appprove several recent postings from the listadmin queue that were held
> because of 'too many recipients'. The Mailman default setting for this
> item ('Ceiling on acceptable number of recipients for a posting', on
> page Privacy Options, Recipient Filters) is 10, though in practice the
> filter seems to trigger on a slightly lower number of recipients.
>
> I infer that Simon, when he spoke of having to 'moderate through'
> postings, meant merely ones that landed in the listadmin queue. He was
> quite correctly and very benignly giving people advice on how to avoid
> the admin queue.
>
> license-discuss appears to not set any subscriber's 'moderated' flag by
> default -- which again is GNU Mailman's default configuration. So, I
> strongly suspect that you (Lawrence), and John, and Henrik, do _not_
> have that flag set. (IMO:) Smart list administration, like smart system
> administration, aspires to automate, to limit manual exception-handling to
> a bare minimum.
>
Exactly, thanks for the explanation.
S.
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Moderator Advice
Quoting Lawrence Rosen (lro...@rosenlaw.com)i, who I think was
addressing this question to Simon Phipps:
> I dislike mailman defaults. Why are you moderating my emails at all?
> Or John Cowan's? Or Henrik Ingo's?
I think there's some confusion here caused by inexact wording and the
word 'moderated' having overloaded meanings:
Simon Philpps (part of a group of OSI listadmins) mentioned having to
appprove several recent postings from the listadmin queue that were held
because of 'too many recipients'. The Mailman default setting for this
item ('Ceiling on acceptable number of recipients for a posting', on
page Privacy Options, Recipient Filters) is 10, though in practice the
filter seems to trigger on a slightly lower number of recipients.
I infer that Simon, when he spoke of having to 'moderate through'
postings, meant merely ones that landed in the listadmin queue. He was
quite correctly and very benignly giving people advice on how to avoid
the admin queue.
license-discuss appears to not set any subscriber's 'moderated' flag by
default -- which again is GNU Mailman's default configuration. So, I
strongly suspect that you (Lawrence), and John, and Henrik, do _not_
have that flag set. (IMO:) Smart list administration, like smart system
administration, aspires to automate, to limit manual exception-handling to
a bare minimum.
> I also moderate an opensource.org mailing list. What a drag to discard
> or ignore spam every day!
The only effective way to reduce that, IMO, is to improve automated
spam-rejection at the receiving MTA, which is a hard problem. Short of
that, set a short retention period (I like 3 days) on 'Discard held
messages older than this number of days', which is at the bottom of the
General Options page -- where GNU Mailman's default is zero (no
automatic discarding). A short retention period makes spam expire out
of queue rapidly without listadmin work. Three-day retention gives
listadmins enough time to notice held non-spam over a holiday weekend.
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Moderator Advice
Johnny Solbu wrote: > I moderate many mailman lists (using listadmin), and my experience is that > the happens because some people uses «Reply to all» when responding. I did a "reply-all" in this thread on purpose, because I had reason to believe that at least some of the people CC'd and interested in the thread were not subscribed to license-discuss@. I dislike mailman defaults. Why are you moderating my emails at all? Or John Cowan's? Or Henrik Ingo's? I also moderate an opensource.org mailing list. What a drag to discard or ignore spam every day! But we try to set our list defaults so that we don't have to moderate each other even if we intentionally CC third parties. There is nothing secret or frightening on our public list. /Larry -Original Message----- From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf Of Johnny A. Solbu Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2017 10:20 AM To: license-discuss@opensource.org Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Moderator Advice On Wednesday 21. June 2017 19.04, Simon Phipps wrote: > I just moderated through a set of messages that were all held by an > anti-spam rule because they had too many recipients in To/Cc. Please > avoid cross-posting to avoid this. I moderate many mailman lists (using listadmin), and my experience is that the happens because some people uses «Reply to all» when responding. -- Johnny A. Solbu web site, http://www.solbu.net PGP key ID: 0x4F5AD64DFA687324 _______ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Moderator Advice
Quoting Johnny A. Solbu (joh...@solbu.net): > I moderate many mailman lists (using listadmin), and my experience is > that the happens because some people uses «Reply to all» when > responding. FWIW, if more MUAs (mail user agents) were updated to become compliant with RFC 2369 section 3.4 (as is my mailer, mutt, also Thunderbird, KMail, many others), and thus heed the List-Post header, that would no longer happen. I refer to this SMTP header in every post: List-Post: <mailto:license-discuss@opensource.org> Gradually, news of this two-decade old Internet standard is making its way out to mailer authors. Perhaps via Pony Express. ;-> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/6378773/correct-email-headers-for-delivering-mailing-list-mail _______ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Moderator Advice
On Wednesday 21. June 2017 19.04, Simon Phipps wrote: > I just moderated through a set of messages that were all held by an > anti-spam rule because they had too many recipients in To/Cc. Please avoid > cross-posting to avoid this. I moderate many mailman lists (using listadmin), and my experience is that the happens because some people uses «Reply to all» when responding. -- Johnny A. Solbu web site, http://www.solbu.net PGP key ID: 0x4F5AD64DFA687324 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. _______ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
[License-discuss] Moderator Advice
I just moderated through a set of messages that were all held by an anti-spam rule because they had too many recipients in To/Cc. Please avoid cross-posting to avoid this. Thanks, Simon ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] FreeAndFair license
Thank you for including me in these discussions. I'm now subscribed to license-discuss. In short, the reason we have made our software available in the fashion that we have is exactly because of the fear factor surrounding GPL and, secondarily, we do not want competitors to sell our software without contributing back to the community. We have yet to interact with a single elections official who understands and is comfortable with GPL, let alone demands GPL. The most common licenses mentioned by EOs is BSD and Apache. Zero election officials have expressed an interest in the OSET public license to date. As with all R we do at Free & Fair and Galois, we listen to our customers and do what they ask. Thus, we release most everything we do under BSD, unless we are forced towards another OSI license due to build dependencies etc. Joe On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 11:58 AM, John Cowan <co...@ccil.org> wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 2:44 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lro...@rosenlaw.com> > wrote: > > > So, I still don't understand what role "principle" plays in BSD and > > GPL dual licensing? > > The principle in question should be a legal maxim but isn't. "Damnunt > quod non intelligunt", people fear what they do not understand. > > -- > John Cowan http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowanco...@ccil.org > Objective consideration of contemporary phenomena compel the conclusion > that optimum or inadequate performance in the trend of competitive > activities exhibits no tendency to be commensurate with innate capacity, > but that a considerable element of the unpredictable must invariably be > taken into account. --Ecclesiastes 9:11, Orwell/Brown version > > ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] FreeAndFair license
On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 2:44 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lro...@rosenlaw.com> wrote: > So, I still don't understand what role "principle" plays in BSD and > GPL dual licensing? The principle in question should be a legal maxim but isn't. "Damnunt quod non intelligunt", people fear what they do not understand. -- John Cowan http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowanco...@ccil.org Objective consideration of contemporary phenomena compel the conclusion that optimum or inadequate performance in the trend of competitive activities exhibits no tendency to be commensurate with innate capacity, but that a considerable element of the unpredictable must invariably be taken into account. --Ecclesiastes 9:11, Orwell/Brown version _______ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] FreeAndFair license
John Cowan wrote: > (Nowadays this wouldn't be necessary, as there are drop-in replacements for > readline, but the principle is still the same.) All copyrighted software can have "drop-in replacements" if someone wants to build them. Only patents may prevent that, but that's not the topic here. This drop-in alternative is valid even for the open source election software that Brent Turner is concerned about. If someone releases such software under a more restrictive license (such as the FreeAndFair or the OSET licenses), copyright law allows a BSD or GPL alternative to be dropped in (with engineering effort!) to replace it. That's the value of all open source copyright licenses. So, I still don't understand what role "principle" plays in BSD and GPL dual licensing? /Larry From: John Cowan [mailto:co...@ccil.org] Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2017 11:17 AM To: Brent Turner <turnerbre...@gmail.com> Cc: Lawrence Rosen <lro...@rosenlaw.com>; license-discuss@opensource.org; Alan Dechert <dech...@gmail.com>; Joe Kiniry <kin...@freeandfair.us> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] FreeAndFair license On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 9:12 AM, Brent Turner <turnerbre...@gmail.com <mailto:turnerbre...@gmail.com> > wrote: John. Can you explain why a group such as Oset or FFE would not want to simply use GPL ? I don't know those organizations. But if you issue software under the GPL, you reduce your market share by people who want to modify it and won't or can't accept the GPL terms, or who just want to use it and are irrationally afraid of or hostile to the GPL. Likewise, if you issue software on BSD terms, you reduce your market share by people who are irrationally hostile to BSD software, or fear that if a proprietary fork is made it will somehow affect their BSD rights or cut them off from their only available source of improvements. If you do both, you have some hope of retaining these people who would otherwise be lost. I know of a program which consists of a fairly large library which does most of the work, issued under a permissive license, and a small interactive main program which provides the command line. This main program is provided in two versions. One works with GNU readline and is GPLed; the other does not provide line editing and is under the same permissive license as the library. The author can do this because he is free to violate his own license to create the readline-free version of the code, but users would not be. (Nowadays this wouldn't be necessary, as there are drop-in replacements for readline, but the principle is still the same.) -- John Cowan http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowanco...@ccil.org <mailto:co...@ccil.org> Business before pleasure, if not too bloomering long before. --Nicholas van Rijn _______ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] FreeAndFair license
On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 2:21 PM, Brent Turner <turnerbre...@gmail.com> wrote: I assume this is not relevant as I am only interested in public elections - > which is where the corps I mentioned dwell-- and there would be no reason > for government to be hostile to GPL .so under that reasoning again I can > not figure out why they would be opting for license other than GPL > I can only speculate. But looked at with a lawyerly eye that isn't used to the wonderful world of free software licensing, the GPL looks *weird*. Where's the consideration? Where are the restrictive terms? WHAT DO THEY WANT? Gummint lawyers can be just as fearful of what they don't understand as any other lawyers. Indeed, their clients probably have more to lose. -- John Cowan http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowanco...@ccil.org In my last lifetime, I believed in reincarnation; in this lifetime, I don't. --Thiagi _______ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] FreeAndFair license
On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 9:12 AM, Brent Turner <turnerbre...@gmail.com> wrote: John. Can you explain why a group such as Oset or FFE would not want to > simply use GPL ? I don't know those organizations. But if you issue software under the GPL, you reduce your market share by people who want to modify it and won't or can't accept the GPL terms, or who just want to use it and are irrationally afraid of or hostile to the GPL. Likewise, if you issue software on BSD terms, you reduce your market share by people who are irrationally hostile to BSD software, or fear that if a proprietary fork is made it will somehow affect their BSD rights or cut them off from their only available source of improvements. If you do both, you have some hope of retaining these people who would otherwise be lost. I know of a program which consists of a fairly large library which does most of the work, issued under a permissive license, and a small interactive main program which provides the command line. This main program is provided in two versions. One works with GNU readline and is GPLed; the other does not provide line editing and is under the same permissive license as the library. The author can do this because he is free to violate his own license to create the readline-free version of the code, but users would not be. (Nowadays this wouldn't be necessary, as there are drop-in replacements for readline, but the principle is still the same.) -- John Cowan http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowanco...@ccil.org Business before pleasure, if not too bloomering long before. --Nicholas van Rijn _______ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] FreeAndFair license
On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 6:45 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lro...@rosenlaw.com> wrote: I am surprised by offers at GitHub and elsewhere of open source software to > the public under "either the BSD or the GPL". Take the BSD! It is fully > compatible with the GPL anyway. Always take the more generous offer of > software! I'm not sure if you meant this to go to the public license-discuss list. Some people are ideologues who refuse to have anything to do with software under one or another license. Offering multiple licenses is a strategy (misguided, in my opinion) to satisfy (some) such ideologues without alienating others. -- John Cowan http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowanco...@ccil.org Sound change operates regularly to produce irregularities; analogy operates irregularly to produce regularities. --E.H. Sturtevant, ca. 1945, probably at Yale _______ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] FreeAndFair license
I have seen github repositories with MIT or GPL dual licensing (essentially same as what you say). The explanation was that they wanted to use MIT (as is common in Node/JavaScript circles) but also wanted to be GPL compatible, so had added that as an explicit option. (The particular project then dropped the GPL license, after assurances that MIT is considered to be GPL compatible.) henrik On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 1:45 AM, Lawrence Rosen <lro...@rosenlaw.com> wrote: > Thanks for your comments, Joe. Please let me know how OSI responds to your > license questions. > > > > I'd like to make one other comment on dual licensing. I support that as a > commercial business strategy. But the only practical dual licensing > strategies for a licensor that makes sense to me are choices between the GPL > or AGPL and a complex (and perhaps more profitable) commercial license. Your > "FreeAndFair" choice between the GPL and the BSD – assuming it is a fair > dual licensing choice and not, as in your license, a discriminatory > provision between categories of users – presents an obvious choice for a > licensee to make: The BSD is always a better license than the GPL. > > > > I am surprised by offers at GitHub and elsewhere of open source software to > the public under "either the BSD or the GPL". Take the BSD! It is fully > compatible with the GPL anyway. Always take the more generous offer of > software! > > > > I'm also copying some friends at OSI, but I'm not copying your email. > > > > /Larry > > > > Lawrence Rosen > > Rosenlaw (www.rosenlaw.com) > > 3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482 > > Cell: 707-478-8932 > > > > From: Joe Kiniry [mailto:kin...@freeandfair.us] > Sent: Tuesday, June 6, 2017 10:55 AM > To: lro...@rosenlaw.com > Cc: Brent Turner <turnerbre...@gmail.com>; Alan Dechert <dech...@gmail.com> > Subject: Re: FreeAndFair license > > > > > > > ___ > License-discuss mailing list > License-discuss@opensource.org > https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss > -- henrik.i...@avoinelama.fi +358-40-5697354skype: henrik.ingoirc: hingo www.openlife.cc My LinkedIn profile: http://fi.linkedin.com/pub/henrik-ingo/3/232/8a7 ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] GPLv1?
2017-06-18 10:59 GMT-04:00 Thorsten Glaser <t...@mirbsd.de>: Is it deliberate or accident that the GPLv1 is not on > https://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical ? What’s > the stance on it? > The GPLv2 was grandfathered, but licenses normally have to be submitted to OSI by the steward, so you'd have to talk to the FSF. Do substantial parts of your material lack the phrase "or, at your option, any later version" in their copyright notices? If not, then this would be a simple solution. I would support its recognition and placing in the "historic" category, for what that's worth. The differences as shown by wdiff are chiefly editorial, with the exception of sections 7 and 8 of the GPLv2, which don't exist in GPLv1. -- John Cowan http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowanco...@ccil.org Even a refrigerator can conform to the XML Infoset, as long as it has a door sticker saying "No information items inside". --Eve Maler ___________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
[License-discuss] GPLv1?
Hi,
is it deliberate or accident that the GPLv1 is not on
https://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical ? What’s
the stance on it?
It’s probably no real problem, but I maintain software
that’s got a very long history, which is GPLv1, and some
hosting platforms prescribe an OSI-approved licence.
Thanks,
//mirabilos
--
> emacs als auch vi zum Kotzen finde (joe rules) und pine für den einzig
> bedienbaren textmode-mailclient halte (und ich hab sie alle ausprobiert). ;)
Hallo, ich bin der Holger ("Hallo Holger!"), und ich bin ebenfalls
... pine-User, und das auch noch gewohnheitsmäßig ("Oooohhh"). [aus dasr]
_______
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] FreeAndFair license
Hi Larry, On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lro...@rosenlaw.com> wrote: > Joe Kiniry wrote: > > > In short, the reason we have made our software available in the fashion > that we have is exactly because of the fear factor surrounding GPL and, > secondarily, we do not want competitors to sell our software without > contributing back to the community. > > > > Hi Joe, welcome to this list. :-) > Thanks. As a short preface to my involvement here, my brief bio relevant to this topic is probably worthwhile. I've been releasing software as open source and running or contributing to open source projects since the late 1980s. I have given public talks on OSS, software patents, and much more in my many years of being an academic and an entrepreneur. Thus, I have deep knowledge of these topics. > Let's talk license fear factors. One of them is the mistaken impression > that any open source license can ever prevent competitors from selling your > software. But if you also insist that they contribute back to the > community, then don't be afraid of the GPL; that is the principle of that > license regardless of the licensees' fear. That is one major reason for > Brent Turner and others to recommend the GPL for election software. > > I do not have this mistaken impression. Certainly it is the case that many of our customers have such a mistaken impression, as well as many others, about OSS. I'm not afraid of GPL: my customers are. If all of the customers I care about say "Yay! GPL!" then we'll be using GPL. At the moment, we are very far from this situation. By the way, nowadays I personally prefer *either* the Apache License > (rather than the BSD) or the reciprocal MPL 2.0 (rather than the GPL). But > it would be foolish for a licensor to offer both Apache and MPL as a *dual > license*. Take the Apache License rather than the MPL if the foolish > licensor offers that dual license choice. It is always better for a > licensee. > I agree. We don't do that. All things being equal, I do wish that this were very simple and we could provide our software under a single OSI-approved license. But because of the business landscape—particularly with regards to the naiveté of our customers and the ethics of our competitors—we cannot do that quite yet. Joe > > > /Larry > > > > > > *From:* Joe Kiniry [mailto:kin...@freeandfair.us] > *Sent:* Wednesday, June 14, 2017 12:13 PM > *To:* John Cowan <co...@ccil.org> > *Cc:* Lawrence Rosen <lro...@rosenlaw.com>; Brent Turner < > turnerbre...@gmail.com>; license-discuss@opensource.org; Alan Dechert < > dech...@gmail.com> > *Subject:* Re: [License-discuss] FreeAndFair license > > > > Thank you for including me in these discussions. I'm now subscribed to > license-discuss. > > > > In short, the reason we have made our software available in the fashion > that we have is exactly because of the fear factor surrounding GPL and, > secondarily, we do not want competitors to sell our software without > contributing back to the community. > > > > We have yet to interact with a single elections official who understands > and is comfortable with GPL, let alone demands GPL. The most common > licenses mentioned by EOs is BSD and Apache. Zero election officials have > expressed an interest in the OSET public license to date. > > > > As with all R we do at Free & Fair and Galois, we listen to our > customers and do what they ask. Thus, we release most everything we do > under BSD, unless we are forced towards another OSI license due to build > dependencies etc. > > > > Joe > > > > On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 11:58 AM, John Cowan <co...@ccil.org> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 2:44 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lro...@rosenlaw.com> > wrote: > > > > So, I still don't understand what role "principle" plays in BSD and > > > GPL dual licensing? > > > > The principle in question should be a legal maxim but isn't. "Damnunt > quod non intelligunt", people fear what they do not understand. > > > > -- > > John Cowan http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowanco...@ccil.org > > Objective consideration of contemporary phenomena compel the conclusion > > that optimum or inadequate performance in the trend of competitive > > activities exhibits no tendency to be commensurate with innate capacity, > > but that a considerable element of the unpredictable must invariably be > > taken into account. --Ecclesiastes 9:11, Orwell/Brown version > > > > > > ___ > License-discuss mailing list > License-discuss@opensource.org > https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss > > ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] FreeAndFair license
Thanks for your comments, Joe. Please let me know how OSI responds to your license questions. I'd like to make one other comment on dual licensing. I support that as a commercial business strategy. But the only practical dual licensing strategies for a licensor that makes sense to me are choices between the GPL or AGPL and a complex (and perhaps more profitable) commercial license. Your "FreeAndFair" choice between the GPL and the BSD – assuming it is a fair dual licensing choice and not, as in your license, a discriminatory provision between categories of users – presents an obvious choice for a licensee to make: The BSD is always a better license than the GPL. I am surprised by offers at GitHub and elsewhere of open source software to the public under "either the BSD or the GPL". Take the BSD! It is fully compatible with the GPL anyway. Always take the more generous offer of software! I'm also copying some friends at OSI, but I'm not copying your email. /Larry Lawrence Rosen Rosenlaw ( <http://www.rosenlaw.com/> www.rosenlaw.com) 3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482 Cell: 707-478-8932 From: Joe Kiniry [mailto:kin...@freeandfair.us] Sent: Tuesday, June 6, 2017 10:55 AM To: lro...@rosenlaw.com Cc: Brent Turner <turnerbre...@gmail.com>; Alan Dechert <dech...@gmail.com> Subject: Re: FreeAndFair license ___________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] EU Commission Publication of EUPL v1.2
For those wanting UTF-8 coding, please find it attached Greetings, 2017-05-22 13:28 GMT+02:00 Philippe Ombredanne <pombreda...@nexb.com>: > On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 10:29 AM, Patrice-Emmanuel Schmitz > <pe.schm...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > The new version of the European Union Public Licence is published ! > > (OJ 19/05/2017 L128 p. 59–64 ) > > > > attached the .txt and some information. > > Greetings, > > FWIW, your attached text files are using a less common, non-ASCII > encoding e.g. ISO-8859-2 which is likely to trigger mojibake > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mojibake > It could be best to use UTF-8 instead? > > > -- > Cordially > Philippe Ombredanne > -- Patrice-Emmanuel Schmitz pe.schm...@googlemail.com tel. + 32 478 50 40 65 The new version of the European Union Public Licence (EUPL) is published in the 23 EU languages in the EU Official Journal: Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/863 of 18 May 2017 updating the open source software licence EUPL to further facilitate the sharing and reuse of software developed by public administrations (OJ 19/05/2017 L128 p. 59–64 ). What it changed in the new licence? • EUPL v1.2 has a wider coverage: it cover “the Work” (any copyrighted work) and not exclusively “the software”. Therefore it is easier to apply the EUPL v1.2 to data, documents, standard specifications etc. • EUPL v1.2 has a wider compatibility: the software itself (copies or modifications/improvements) will stay covered by the EUPL without possibilities of re-licensing by recipients, but it may also be merged in a new – other - larger work with other software components covered by compatible licences. When needed and for avoiding licence conflicts, this other derivative work can then be distributed under the compatible licence. The list of compatible licences includes both the GPLv2 and v3, the AGPL, MPL, EPL, LGPL and other licences. Regarding documents, compatibility includes the Creative Common licence CC BY SA. • EUPL v1.2 provides more flexibility concerning the additional agreements: any additional provision that is not in contradiction with the licence is valid, including the selection of a specific applicable law, of a specific arbitration court etc. • EUPL v1.2 has adapted its terminology to the evolution of European law and has now a Croatian working version Does it apply to projects already covered by EUPL v1.1? • In case a work is currently licensed “under the EUPL” or “under the EUPL v1.1 or later”, the new EUPL v1.2 applies. In case a work is licensed “under the EUPL v1.1” (sometimes adding “v1.1 only”) no automatic update is foreseen. The project owner is invited to check the opportunity of updating its notices. Since the list of compatible licences includes the MPL, the EPL, the LGPL and more other licences, is the “copyleft” of the EUPL v1.2 weaker than before? • The European law (in particular recitals 10 and 15 of Directive 2009/24/EC on the protection of computer programs) seems to invalidate the idea of “strong copyleft”: any portion of code that is strictly necessary for implementing interoperability can be reproduced without copyright infringement. This means that linking cannot be submitted to conditions or restricted by a so-called “strong copyleft licence”. As a consequence, linking two programs does not produce a single derivative of both (each program stay covered by its primary licence). Therefore the question is not relevant: the EUPL v1.2 is copyleft (or share-alike) for protecting the covered software only from exclusive appropriation, but it has no pretention for any “viral extension” to other software in case of linking. EUROPEAN UNION PUBLIC LICENCE v. 1.2 EUPL © the European Union 2007, 2016 This European Union Public Licence (the ‘EUPL’) applies to the Work (as defined below) which is provided under the terms of this Licence. Any use of the Work, other than as authorised under this Licence is prohibited (to the extent such use is covered by a right of the copyright holder of the Work). The Work is provided under the terms of this Licence when the Licensor (as defined below) has placed the following notice immediately following the copyright notice for the Work: Licensed under the EUPL or has expressed by any other means his willingness to license under the EUPL. 1.Definitions In this Licence, the following terms have the following meaning: — ‘The Licence’:this Licence. — ‘The Original Work’:the work or software distributed or communicated by the Licensor under this Licence, available as Source Code and also as Executable Code as the case may be. — ‘Derivative Works’:the works or software that could be created by the Licensee, based upon the Original Work or modifications thereof. This Licence does not define the extent of modification or dependence on the Original Work requ
[License-discuss] EU Commission Publication of EUPL v1.2
The new version of the European Union Public Licence is published ! (OJ 19/05/2017 L128 *p. 59–64* <http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/FR/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2017.128.01.0059.01.FRA=OJ:L:2017:128:TOC> ) attached the .txt and some information. Greetings, -- Patrice-Emmanuel Schmitz pe.schm...@googlemail.com tel. + 32 478 50 40 65 Understanding the EUPL v1.2 EUPL v1.2 published in the Official Journal The new version of the European Union Public Licence (EUPL) is published in the 23 EU languages in the EU Official Journal: Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/863 of 18 May 2017 updating the open source software licence EUPL to further facilitate the sharing and reuse of software developed by public administrations (OJ 19/05/2017 L128 p. 59–64 ). What it changed in the new licence? * EUPL v1.2 has a wider coverage: it cover “the Work” (any copyrighted work) and not exclusively “the software”. Therefore it is easier to apply the EUPL v1.2 to data, documents, standard specifications etc. * EUPL v1.2 has a wider compatibility: the software itself (copies or modifications/improvements) will stay covered by the EUPL without possibilities of re-licensing by recipients, but it may also be merged in a new – other - larger work with other software components covered by compatible licences. When needed and for avoiding licence conflicts, this other derivative work can then be distributed under the compatible licence. The list of compatible licences includes both the GPLv2 and v3, the AGPL, MPL, EPL, LGPL and other licences. Regarding documents, compatibility includes the Creative Common licence CC BY SA. * EUPL v1.2 provides more flexibility concerning the additional agreements: any additional provision that is not in contradiction with the licence is valid, including the selection of a specific applicable law, of a specific arbitration court etc. * EUPL v1.2 has adapted its terminology to the evolution of European law and has now a Croatian working version Does it apply to projects already covered by EUPL v1.1? * In case a work is currently licensed “under the EUPL” or “under the EUPL v1.1 or later”, the new EUPL v1.2 applies. In case a work is licensed “under the EUPL v1.1” (sometimes adding “v1.1 only”) no automatic update is foreseen. The project owner is invited to check the opportunity of updating its notices. Since the list of compatible licences includes the MPL, the EPL, the LGPL and more other licences, is the “copyleft” of the EUPL v1.2 weaker than before? * The European law (in particular recitals 10 and 15 of Directive 2009/24/EC on the protection of computer programs) seems to invalidate the idea of “strong copyleft”: any portion of code that is strictly necessary for implementing interoperability can be reproduced without copyright infringement. This means that linking cannot be submitted to conditions or restricted by a so-called “strong copyleft licence”. As a consequence, linking two programs does not produce a single derivative of both (each program stay covered by its primary licence). Therefore the question is not relevant: the EUPL v1.2 is copyleft (or share-alike) for protecting the covered software only from exclusive appropriation, but it has no pretention for any “viral extension” to other software in case of linking. EUROPEAN UNION PUBLIC LICENCE v. 1.2 EUPL © the European Union 2007, 2016 This European Union Public Licence (the ‘EUPL’) applies to the Work (as defined below) which is provided under the terms of this Licence. Any use of the Work, other than as authorised under this Licence is prohibited (to the extent such use is covered by a right of the copyright holder of the Work). The Work is provided under the terms of this Licence when the Licensor (as defined below) has placed the following notice immediately following the copyright notice for the Work: Licensed under the EUPL or has expressed by any other means his willingness to license under the EUPL. 1.Definitions In this Licence, the following terms have the following meaning: — ‘The Licence’:this Licence. — ‘The Original Work’:the work or software distributed or communicated by the Licensor under this Licence, available as Source Code and also as Executable Code as the case may be. — ‘Derivative Works’:the works or software that could be created by the Licensee, based upon the Original Work or modifications thereof. This Licence does not define the extent of modification or dependence on the Original Work required in order to classify a work as a Derivative Work; this extent is determined by copyright law applicable in the country mentioned in Article 15. — ‘The Work’:the Original Work or its Derivative Works. — ‘The Source Code’:the human-readable form of the Work which is the most convenient for people to study and modify. — ‘The Executable Code’:any code which has generally been compiled and which is
Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] patents & interoperability
International law is a difficult problem to solve, but one that, in my personal opinion, needs to be solved as far as we can reasonably do. It would be embarrassing to have a project Open Sourced, only to have people in one jurisdiction unable to exercise their rights because of a mistake concerning patent rights. Thanks, Cem Karan > -Original Message- > From: Rajneesh N. Shetty [mailto:shettyrajne...@aol.com] > Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 9:46 AM > To: Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) <cem.f.karan@mail.mil> > Cc: lro...@rosenlaw.com; Tzeng, Nigel H CTR (US) <nigel.tz...@jhuapl.edu>; > license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: [Non-DoD Source] patents & interoperability > > All active links contained in this email were disabled. Please verify the > identity of the sender, and confirm the authenticity of all links > contained within the message prior to copying and pasting the address to a > Web browser. > > > ________ > > > > I found your email exchanges @ license-disc...@opensourc.org quite > interesting..& well-researched as well > > historical grants of most patents especially as it relates to vital > infrastructure, has always been dependent on "national interests" & rarely > based on international interests.. > > when a coupla' of my friends & myself wrote PC Paint sometime between > 1989-95, we hardly expected it to be as big as it is today. We > guys led separate lives since Uni & now it's always about checking > interoperabilities & scope of projects & innovation, more than anything > else > > Caution-www.getpaint.net > Caution-www.distrowatch.com > > > > Rajneesh N. Shetty > Weblogs : > Caution-www.bolluru.blogspot.com > Caution-www.rns-thoughts.blogspot.com > > Tel : (+61)4750-32-666 > > Note : Please always reply to my email from this ID to : icpain...@gmail.com > < Caution-mailto:icpain...@gmail.com > > > smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Free Public License/0 Clause BSD License with Zlib Warranty Disclaimer
Hello Nate, I was actually having the same question as you and I don't know if you have found an answer yet. I just have found this page : https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:MIT?rd=Licensing/MIT, where MIT licence variants are described. Some of them have a minimal no-waranty clause and are close to the license text you want to have, especially the very last one. The first sentence of the page states that : " There are many MIT variants, all of which are functionally identical.". Based on that, I conclude that there is no issue with your license text because it is functionally identical to the Free Public License (and to any of the MIT variants as well). That being said, I am not an expert. Hope it did help and happy Easter , Jonas _______ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Free Public License/0 Clause BSD License with Zlib Warranty Disclaimer
Hello Nate, I was actually having the same question as you and I don't know if you have found an answer yet. I just have found this page : https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:MIT?rd=Licensing/MIT, where MIT licence variants are described. Some of them have a minimal no-waranty clause and are close to the license text you want to have, especially the very last one. The first sentence of the page states that : " There are many MIT variants, all of which are functionally identical.". Based on that, I conclude that there is no issue with your license text because it is functionally identical to the Free Public License (and to any of the MIT variants as well). That being said, I am not an expert. Hope it did help and happy Easter :-), Jonas _______ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] notes on a systematic approach to "popular" licenses
On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 9:20 PM, Luis Villa <l...@lu.is> wrote: > What's the "right" level to scan at? Top-level project-declared LICENSE > file? Or per-file throughout the tree? (Note that often those two measures > don't agree with each other.) MO is that the right level is scan at both levels and if needed surface any inconsistencies or contradictions. Scanning only the simpler top-level project-declared LICENSE or COPYING file is not enough and too often incomplete or inaccurate data based on my experience at scale. That said, I am the maintainer of the open source ScanCode toolkit, a fresh take to build a better mousetrap for license scanning: https://github.com/nexB/scancode-toolkit My goal is simple: I want the licensing of every open source code to be a problem solved. Not a question mark. e.g. working towards 100% licensing clarity and eventually ensure that no piece of existing open source code raises questions wrt. licensing to a user or aspiring user. For that I would like to scan it **all**... and setup some community peer review site so we can help every open source project add, refine or cleanup any missing, incomplete, inaccurate or contradicting licensing. Or at least make the data open and available for anyone to query otherwise. The main drag is as always resource availability (as in both human time, network , bandwidth and computing power) to fetch and scan everything from every package managers, forge, Sourceforge, Github, etc which represents a significant[sic] number of terabytes. This could become a lesser issue on the fetch side when softwareheritage.org is fully operational. But still. If anyone is interested by this, please contact me! -- Cordially Philippe Ombredanne _______ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
