Re: [License-discuss] License Question

[Kevin Fleming]

Another option is to contact the Software Freedom Conservancy, which
represents a number of people who hold copyrights on code in the Linux
kernel and do pursue violators, primarily to get access to the source code
for everyone's benefit. You likely wouldn't be surprised to learn that they
have a large backlog of violation reports, though, and your report would
have to go into that queue.

On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 1:24 AM, Rick Moen  wrote:

> Quoting Philippe Ombredanne (pombreda...@nexb.com):
>
> > Rick: This is enlightening and well written!
>
> Thank you -- but, really, how could I not help someone working for the
> public schools, as Kelly Jones is?  Teachers are among my heroes.
>
> A small correction to my text, supplying words I omitted because I was
> rushed:
>
>   A party such as the firmware publisher that fails that obligation
>   (as to works under reciprocal licences) is by definition redistributing
>   the work without licence.  Therefore, the redistributor is commiting the
>   tort (civil wrong) against the copyright holders of that work, e.g., the
> ^ of copyright violation
>   copyright holders of the Linux kernel.  They have legal standing to sue
>   for redress of the tort.  You would not, unless you happen to be a
>   credited code contributor.
>
> Apologies for my sloppiness, and best wishes to Kelly Jones.
>
> --
> Cheers, "The crows seemed to be calling his name, thought
> Caw."
> Rick Moen -- Deep Thoughts by Jack
> Handey
> r...@linuxmafia.com
> McQ! (4x80)
> ___
> 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] License Question

[Rick Moen]

Quoting Philippe Ombredanne (pombreda...@nexb.com):

> Rick: This is enlightening and well written!

Thank you -- but, really, how could I not help someone working for the
public schools, as Kelly Jones is?  Teachers are among my heroes.

A small correction to my text, supplying words I omitted because I was
rushed:

  A party such as the firmware publisher that fails that obligation
  (as to works under reciprocal licences) is by definition redistributing
  the work without licence.  Therefore, the redistributor is commiting the
  tort (civil wrong) against the copyright holders of that work, e.g., the
^ of copyright violation
  copyright holders of the Linux kernel.  They have legal standing to sue
  for redress of the tort.  You would not, unless you happen to be a
  credited code contributor. 
 
Apologies for my sloppiness, and best wishes to Kelly Jones.

-- 
Cheers, "The crows seemed to be calling his name, thought Caw."
Rick Moen -- Deep Thoughts by Jack Handey 
r...@linuxmafia.com 
McQ! (4x80)
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] License Question

[Philippe Ombredanne]

On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 7:35 AM, Rick Moen  wrote:
 and ext> [...]
> The company selling the firmware does indeed bear the obligation to
> comply with the licensing terms of the various codebases it ships that
> were written by others, including the Linux kernel,
> [...]
> As a third party who is standing outside the commission of apparent
> torts against some copyright owners of code within the 'firmware' image,
> you have limited leverage, lacking standing for a copyright action.
> [...]
> I'm sure the above is not quite what you were hoping to hear, but I hope
> it proves enlightening, nonetheless.

Rick: This is enlightening and well written!

I guess other courses of action could include:

- getting advice from the FSF [1].
- in the past, discussing on gpl-violations [2] would have been an option,
  but it looks mostly dormant nowadays and its mailing lists pages are 404.
- or if one feels strongly about the topic, public shaming?


[1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.en.html
[2] http://gpl-violations.org
-- 
Cordially
Philippe Ombredanne
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] License Question

[Rick Moen]

Quoting kjones (kjo...@columbus.k12.nc.us):

> I own a piece of hardware that has an embedded system that appears to
> be based in whole on a variant of linux.
> 
> The firmware became corrupted, and so I naively went to the company
> asking if I could have a copy of the firmware that shipped with the
> device. They said only if I would pay $899 annual support fee. I then
> asked them for the source code, to which they responded, it was
> proprietary and they could not release it without a maintenance
> contract. So I was able to break into the firmware and fix the issue
> manually, but now I am very concerned that this company is holding
> hardware hostage, and doing so with firmware that is open source. By
> the way the firmware has linux file structure/linux commands you name
> it.
> 
> Any suggestions-- especially as to what I could say to the company?

Dear Kelly Jones:

First of all, congratulations on breaking into the firmware and fixing
the immediate problem.  I trust that doing so makes the gear useful for you.

The company selling the firmware does indeed bear the obligation to
comply with the licensing terms of the various codebases it ships that
were written by others, including the Linux kernel, which as I'm sure
you know is under GNU General Public Licence v. 2.  The 'firmware'
image, if it is typical of embedded Linux devices, includes binary
instances of many separate works, under diverse licence terms, some open
source, some proprietary.  Of the open source works, some have open
source licences that impose on redistributors and creators of derivative
versions the obligation to grant to all recipients access to matching
source code for the work (as does the Linux kernel), others do not.  The
former category are generically called reciprocal licences; the latter
are called permissive ones.

A party such as the firmware publisher that fails that obligation 
(as to works under reciprocal licences) is by definition redistributing
the work without licence.  Therefore, the redistributor is commiting the
tort (civil wrong) against the copyright holders of that work, e.g., the
copyright holders of the Linux kernel.  They have legal standing to sue
for redress of the tort.  You would not, unless you happen to be a
credited code contributor.

As a third party who is standing outside the commission of apparent
torts against some copyright owners of code within the 'firmware' image,
you have limited leverage, lacking standing for a copyright action.  You
could say to the company that you're getting in contact with
stakeholders whose licences you believe they're violating -- and then do
so.

Unfortunately, these cases often prove frustrating for well-explained
reasons.  Exampleco may be under a reciprocal licence obligation to
Coder A, but physically unable to comply because Exampleco subcontracted
the software work to WeCodeCheap and never got source code from them,
and WeCodeCheap isn't responding now when asked for it.  And/or
Exampleco may find it easier and cheaper to stall when requested for 
matching source code in the knowledge that this product is 2 months away
from being end-of-lifed and replaced with a replacement model.  Model
lifetime in embedded Linux devices tends on average to be short and
product churn rapid.  Once the currently offending product has been
EOLed, Exampleco can say 'We've dealt with the alleged copyright
violation by withdrawing model XYZ from the market', and know that even
parties with standing to sue probably won't bother because there's now
little to be gained.

I'm sure the above is not quite what you were hoping to hear, but I hope
it proves enlightening, nonetheless.

-- 
Cheers,  299792458 meters per second.  Not
Rick Moenjust a good idea.  It's the law.
r...@linuxmafia.com
McQ! (4x80
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

[License-discuss] License Question

[kjones]

Hi all.

I apologize if this is the wrong place for this question.


I own a piece of hardware that has an embedded system that appears to be based 
in whole on a variant of linux.

The firmware became corrupted, and so I naively went to the company asking if I 
could have a copy of the firmware that shipped with the device. They said only 
if I would pay $899 annual support fee. I then asked them for the source code, 
to which they responded, it was proprietary and they could not release it 
without a maintenance contract. So I was able to break into the firmware and 
fix the issue manually, but now I am very concerned that this company is 
holding hardware hostage, and doing so with firmware that is open source. By 
the way the firmware has linux file structure/linux commands you name it.

Any suggestions-- especially as to what I could say to the company?

Kelly Jones
Columbus County Schools
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] License question

[Stefan Kuhn]

Hi Nuno,
I found similar things discussed on the list, so I thought it might be 
worth asking, sorry if that was a misunderstanding.
Unfortunately, I have to disappoint you, I don't know which company you 
are talking about. This is a question related to an open source project. 
I know Himmelkron though, in case you ever come there, visit the former 
monastery. The cloister is nice, if you examine the angels playing music 
on the high points of the arches closely, you will notice that some of 
the play the bagpipe - providing proof that this instrument now 
considered so Scottish was once popular all over Europe.

Cheers,
Stefan

On 05/03/2015 09:51 PM, Nuno Brito wrote:

Hi Stefan,
I think the reason why you're not getting replies is because that
mailing list is mostly intended to propose new license terms before they
are accepted by the OSI.
 From that perspective, you likely won't get many replies because the
case is generic.
Being generic, I looked for more information and imagine that you're the
person behind a certain company in Himmelkron.
For that kind of information you usually need to consult a lawyer and/or
consult an expert on this field.
With kind regards,
Nuno Brito
03.05.2015, 22:21, "Stefan Kuhn" :


Apologies for the html mail, here is plain text.

Hi all,
apologies if this is not the right list to ask. I have a situation where
I am not sure if there is an open source licence which does what I want.
I have a database which serves as the base for algorithms infer
conclusions from it. Some of these algorithms are well known, but there
is still innovation in the area. Without the data though it is pointless
or impossible to write algorithms. Larger collections of such data are
not common and cannot easily be built. I would like to publish my
database under an open source licence and I would want to things to be
enforced: a) derived versions of the database (extended, error corrected
etc.) must be under the same licence again (this could be done by using
the Open Data Commons Open Database License, I think) and b) software
incorporating the database must be under an open source licence as well.
The second bit is the tricky one, I think. Is there a solution to this
or is the whole idea rubbish? I want to make sure that people do not
just take my database, put a well known algorithm round it and sell it.
I think this is a reasonable idea, but I am unsure if it could be
enforced via a licence.
Do you have any ideas about this? Please tell me if you believe my
thinking is flawed.
Thanks,
Stefan
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org 
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss


--
http://triplecheck.net
phone:  +49 615 146 03187


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



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

Re: [License-discuss] License question

[Nuno Brito]

Hi Stefan, I think the reason why you're not getting replies is because that mailing list is mostly intended to propose new license terms before they are accepted by the OSI. From that perspective, you likely won't get many replies because the case is generic. Being generic, I looked for more information and imagine that you're the person behind a certain company in Himmelkron. For that kind of information you usually need to consult a lawyer and/or consult an expert on this field. With kind regards,Nuno Brito 03.05.2015, 22:21, "Stefan Kuhn" :Apologies for the html mail, here is plain text.Hi all,apologies if this is not the right list to ask. I have a situation where I am not sure if there is an open source licence which does what I want. I have a database which serves as the base for algorithms infer conclusions from it. Some of these algorithms are well known, but there is still innovation in the area. Without the data though it is pointless or impossible to write algorithms. Larger collections of such data are not common and cannot easily be built. I would like to publish my database under an open source licence and I would want to things to be enforced: a) derived versions of the database (extended, error corrected etc.) must be under the same licence again (this could be done by using the Open Data Commons Open Database License, I think) and b) software incorporating the database must be under an open source licence as well. The second bit is the tricky one, I think. Is there a solution to this or is the whole idea rubbish? I want to make sure that people do not just take my database, put a well known algorithm round it and sell it. I think this is a reasonable idea, but I am unsure if it could be enforced via a licence.Do you have any ideas about this? Please tell me if you believe my thinking is flawed.Thanks,Stefan___License-discuss mailing listLicense-discuss@opensource.orghttp://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss  -- http://triplecheck.netphone:  +49 615 146 03187 ___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

[License-discuss] License question

[Stefan Kuhn]

Apologies for the html mail, here is plain text.

Hi all,
apologies if this is not the right list to ask. I have a situation where 
I am not sure if there is an open source licence which does what I want. 
I have a database which serves as the base for algorithms infer 
conclusions from it. Some of these algorithms are well known, but there 
is still innovation in the area. Without the data though it is pointless 
or impossible to write algorithms. Larger collections of such data are 
not common and cannot easily be built. I would like to publish my 
database under an open source licence and I would want to things to be 
enforced: a) derived versions of the database (extended, error corrected 
etc.) must be under the same licence again (this could be done by using 
the Open Data Commons Open Database License, I think) and b) software 
incorporating the database must be under an open source licence as well. 
The second bit is the tricky one, I think. Is there a solution to this 
or is the whole idea rubbish? I want to make sure that people do not 
just take my database, put a well known algorithm round it and sell it. 
I think this is a reasonable idea, but I am unsure if it could be 
enforced via a licence.
Do you have any ideas about this? Please tell me if you believe my 
thinking is flawed.

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

[License-discuss] License question

[Stefan Kuhn]

Hi all,

apologies if this is not the right list to ask. I have a situation where I am not sure if there is an open source licence which does what I want. I have a database which serves as the base for algorithms infer conclusions from it. Some of these algorithms are well known, but there is still innovation in the area. Without the data though it is pointless or impossible to write algorithms. Larger collections of such data are not common and cannot easily be built. I would like to publish my database under an open source licence and I would want to things to be enforced: a) derived versions of the database (extended, error corrected etc.) must be under the same licence again (this could be done by using the Open Data Commons Open Database License, I think) and b) software incorporating the database must be under an open source licence as well. The second bit is the tricky one, I think. Is there a solution to this or is the whole idea rubbish? I want to make sure that people do not just take my database, put a well known algorithm round it and sell it. I think this is a reasonable idea, but I am unsure if it could be enforced via a licence.

Do you have any ideas about this? Please tell me if you believe my thinking is flawed.

Thanks,

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

Re: [License-discuss] ECL license question

[Greg Grossmeier]

> Does anyone know anything about osedu.org/Chris Coppola?
> 
> The ECL license:
> 
> http://opensource.org/licenses/ECL-2.0

I helped edit the WP article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educational_Community_License
(since I was at UMich at the time, and working with Dr Chuck et al)

There's this:
http://www.educause.edu/wiki/educational-community-license
(just about the group who created the license and when)

which links to this:
https://scholarworks.iu.edu/dspace/handle/2022/3076
(an academic-y report on it)


But yeah, that's all I got.


Greg

-- 
| Greg GrossmeierGPG: B2FA 27B1 F7EB D327 6B8E |
| http://grossmeier.net   A18D 1138 8E47 FAC8 1C7D |
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

[License-discuss] ECL license question

[Luis Villa]

Does anyone know anything about osedu.org/Chris Coppola?

The ECL license:

http://opensource.org/licenses/ECL-2.0

links to osedu.org, but it is down. Anyone know of a new canonical
location for this license, other than us?

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

Re: Dual license question

[J.M.Piulachs [Sand!]]

I understood that he was helping me to find the right place to get an answer
to my question so all I can said is thanks for the suggestion and for the
answer.

- Original Message - 
From: "anon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 8:38 PM
Subject: Re: Dual license question


> > 1.  I note without particular objection that your question is
> off-topic
> > for this list.  Like practically all other recent posts, it hasn't had
>
> > anything to do with OSI or examining candidate licence for
> > OSD-compliance.
>
> If you didn't object you wouldn't note.
> Why don't you have OSI appoint you moderator?
> Otherwise hop on over to Slashdot with the rest of
> the obnoxious gamers and script-kiddies.
>
> Objection without Irritation Guy
>
>
>
> --
> license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
>
>


--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3

Re: Dual license question

[Rick Moen]

Quoting anon ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):

> If you didn't object you wouldn't note.

We seem to have a quibbler among us.  

> Why don't you have OSI appoint you moderator?
> Otherwise hop on over to Slashdot with the rest of
> the obnoxious gamers and script-kiddies.

Oh wait:  Correction, we seem to have a _flamer_ among us.  Charming.

"Note without particular objection" is a polite way of pointing to the
mailing list's charter, which in my experience is a useful thing to do,
from time to time.  I notice you don't dispute the fact that I alluded
to; you just for some reason object to my having mentioned it.

I figure I can live with that, on the whole.

-- 
May those that love us love us; and those that don't love us, may
God turn their hearts; and if he doesn't turn their hearts, may
he turn their ankles so we'll know them by their limping.
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3

Re: Dual license question

[anon]

> 1.  I note without particular objection that your question is
off-topic
> for this list.  Like practically all other recent posts, it hasn't had

> anything to do with OSI or examining candidate licence for
> OSD-compliance.

If you didn't object you wouldn't note.
Why don't you have OSI appoint you moderator?
Otherwise hop on over to Slashdot with the rest of
the obnoxious gamers and script-kiddies.

Objection without Irritation Guy



--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3

Re: Dual license question

[Rick Moen]

Quoting J.M.Piulachs [Sand!] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):

> One simple question ... If I have relased a dual licensed software
> product (GNU and comercial license) can other GNU licensed software be
> added to my code base without license issues?

1.  I note without particular objection that your question is off-topic
for this list.  Like practically all other recent posts, it hasn't had
anything to do with OSI or examining candidate licence for
OSD-compliance.

2.  The term "commercial licence" is meaningless:  Practically any
licence can be used in commerce.  You probably mean proprietary licence.

3.  You can answer your question for yourself, if you realise that you
attach a particular licence to an _instance_ of your work.  When you or
someone else then uses a copy of that instance to create a derivative
work, the resulting derivative either does or doesn't suffer from
licence conflict.  The nature and licensing of other instances of your
work has nothing to do with the matter.

-- 
Cheers,Ceterum censeo, Caldera delenda est.
Rick Moen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3

Dual license question

[J.M.Piulachs [Sand!]]

Hi all,

One simple question ... If I have relased a dual licensed software product (GNU and 
comercial license) can other GNU licensed software be added to my code base without 
license issues?

Thanks
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3

RE: Apache License Question

[Aflatoon Aflatooni]

If anyone could give me an idea regarding what I should do, I would very
much appreciate it. I am not sure if there are lawyers that specialize in
this field.
At least can someone point me in a direction.
Thanks
Af

-Original Message-
From: Aflatoon Aflatooni [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2002 10:28 AM
To: 'Forrest J. Cavalier III'; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: Apache License Question


I do include the old license in the software itself.
So on top of every program from the old source code, it reads:

***START HEADING***
/**
 * Copyright (C) 2001 Yasna.com. All rights reserved.
 *
 * ===
 * The Apache Software License, Version 1.1
 *
 * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
 * modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
 * are met:
 *
 * 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
 *notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
 *
 * 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
 *notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in
 *the documentation and/or other materials provided with the
 *distribution.
 *
 * 3. The end-user documentation included with the redistribution,
 *if any, must include the following acknowledgment:
 *   "This product includes software developed by
 *Yasna.com (http://www.yasna.com)."
 *Alternately, this acknowledgment may appear in the software itself,
 *if and wherever such third-party acknowledgments normally appear.
 *
 * 4. The names "Yazd" and "Yasna.com" must not be used to
 *endorse or promote products derived from this software without
 *prior written permission. For written permission, please
 *contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 *
 * 5. Products derived from this software may not be called "Yazd",
 *nor may "Yazd" appear in their name, without prior written
 *permission of Yasna.com.
 *
 * THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED ``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED
 * WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES
 * OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE
 * DISCLAIMED.  IN NO EVENT SHALL YASNA.COM OR
 * ITS CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL,
 * SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT
 * LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF
 * USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND
 * ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY,
 * OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT
 * OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF
 * SUCH DAMAGE.
 * 
 *
 * This software consists of voluntary contributions made by many
 * individuals on behalf of Yasna.com. For more information
 * on Yasna.com, please see <http://www.yasna.com>.
 */

/**
 * Copyright (C) 2000 CoolServlets.com. All rights reserved.
 *
 * ===
 * The Apache Software License, Version 1.1
 *
 * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
 * modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
 * are met:
 *
 * 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
 *notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
 *
 * 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
 *notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in
 *the documentation and/or other materials provided with the
 *distribution.
 *
 * 3. The end-user documentation included with the redistribution,
 *if any, must include the following acknowledgment:
 *   "This product includes software developed by
 *CoolServlets.com (http://www.coolservlets.com)."
 *Alternately, this acknowledgment may appear in the software itself,
 *if and wherever such third-party acknowledgments normally appear.
 *
 * 4. The names "Jive" and "CoolServlets.com" must not be used to
 *endorse or promote products derived from this software without
 *prior written permission. For written permission, please
 *contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 *
 * 5. Products derived from this software may not be called "Jive",
 *nor may "Jive" appear in their name, without prior written
 *permission of CoolServlets.com.
 *
 * THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED ``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED
 * WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES
 * OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE
 * DISCLAIMED.  IN NO EVENT SHALL COOLSERVLE

RE: Apache License Question

[Aflatoon Aflatooni]

THE POSSIBILITY OF
 * SUCH DAMAGE.
 * 
 *
 * This software consists of voluntary contributions made by many
 * individuals on behalf of CoolServlets.com. For more information
 * on CoolServlets.com, please see <http://www.coolservlets.com>.
 */

***END HEADING 

But on the site itself I am just using the first Apache license. And I did
that because this is a new software, the code was based on the old software,
and the license of the new software is the first Apache license.
Your help is greatly appreciated.

AA

-Original Message-
From: Forrest J. Cavalier III [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2002 8:19 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Apache License Question


> The new program files that are added would only have the new
> Apache
> license.
> I have had the impression the new software "Yazd" would be
> distributed
> under the new Apache license. Therefore, the new license would be
> the license of the software, and there is no need to mention the old
> one on the site.


You must comply with the old license if you are distributing anything
which is derived from that software.

I'd say at a minimum, the warranty disclaimer and copyrights of the old
software must be propagated to the new downloaders.  That is one
purpose of the Apache 1.1 clause #2:

  2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
 notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in
 the documentation and/or other materials provided with the
 distribution.

(And clause #1 generally preserves the notice in source forms.)


> The original software creators have complained that the license on
the site
> should also have the old license too. I was wondering if this is true.

You must comply with the old license terms.  Depending on how you
are distributing and what your phrase "license on the site" means,
you could be OK or not.


But I would point out that I dislike license surprises when I
download.  I dislike reading a license before downloading, and then
finding a different license after downloading.







> If anyone could help me out with this I would very much appreciate
it.
> Best Regards
>
> Aflatoon Aflatooni
> Yasna Inc.
> http://www.yasna.com/
>
>
> --
> license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
>
>

--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3

--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3

Re: Apache License Question

[Forrest J. Cavalier III]

> The new program files that are added would only have the new
> Apache
> license.
> I have had the impression the new software "Yazd" would be
> distributed
> under the new Apache license. Therefore, the new license would be
> the license of the software, and there is no need to mention the old
> one on the site.


You must comply with the old license if you are distributing anything
which is derived from that software.

I'd say at a minimum, the warranty disclaimer and copyrights of the old 
software must be propagated to the new downloaders.  That is one
purpose of the Apache 1.1 clause #2:

  2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright 
 notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in
 the documentation and/or other materials provided with the 
 distribution.

(And clause #1 generally preserves the notice in source forms.)


> The original software creators have complained that the license on the site
> should also have the old license too. I was wondering if this is true.

You must comply with the old license terms.  Depending on how you 
are distributing and what your phrase "license on the site" means,
you could be OK or not.


But I would point out that I dislike license surprises when I 
download.  I dislike reading a license before downloading, and then 
finding a different license after downloading.  







> If anyone could help me out with this I would very much appreciate it.
> Best Regards
> 
> Aflatoon Aflatooni
> Yasna Inc.
> http://www.yasna.com/
> 
> 
> --
> license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
> 
> 

--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3

Apache License Question

[Aflatoon Aflatooni]

Hi,
I have a license question.
There was an open-source software under the Apache license that the
original creators decided to discontinue the open-source software and sell
it instead.
I, as a big fan of open-source, decided to take the last version of the
open-source software and continue to add functionality and maintaining the
software as open-source.
I decided to maintain the software under the Apache license.
So under the Apache license, I kept the original license (with the original
name of the software, and everything else) intact on the programs, and added
a second block of Apache license with the new name to the program files.
Under the site where the software is distributed (http://yazd.yasna.com)
the new license is only mentioned.
The original software creators have complained that the license on the site
should also have the old license too. I was wondering if this is true.
The new program files that are added would only have the new Apache
license.
I have had the impression the new software "Yazd" would be distributed
under the new Apache license. Therefore, the new license would be the
license of the software, and there is no need to mention the old one on the
site.
If anyone could help me out with this I would very much appreciate it.
Best Regards

Aflatoon Aflatooni
Yasna Inc.
http://www.yasna.com/


--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3

Re: License Question

[David Johnson]

I can't remember if I have already responded to this. If I have, please 
forgive me...

On Thursday 21 June 2001 03:27 am, Stephane Routelous wrote:
> I've read the Q Public License V1.0 . They are saying :
> (§6-c)
> If the items are not available to the general public ( Here I understand
> commercial (?)), and the initial developer of the software ( it's me )
> requests a copy of the items, then you must supply one.
>
> What do they mean with a copy ? it is a copy of the binary ( of the
> application ), or it is the source code of the application ?

I believe it refers to whatever is being distributed. If it is only binaries, 
then you may request a binary.

> Is it also a way to force the modifications of MyLibrary to be included in
> MyLibrary ( in the QPL ( §3 ), they are allowing to distribute separately
> the modifications if the License of the modification are not release under
> the QPL ) ?

No, not under the QPL. If the modifications are distributed under th QPL, 
then you get a non-exclusive royalty free right to use them. But the QPL does 
not require modifications to also be under the QPL.

It sounds like, from the ordering of the clauses, that the QPL does not 
require modifications to be open sourced, like it does for applications and 
components linked to Qt.

> I didn't think that it was so complicated to choose a license !!

Which is why most people just use one license, once they discover one that 
works for them.

-- 
David Johnson
___
http://www.usermode.org

RE: License Question

[Dave J Woolley]

> From: Stephane Routelous [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> 
> If my Library is under the GPL,  the users are not able to sell an
> application using my Library.
[DJW:]  
This is not true.  They can sell a copy of the library for any 
price that the market will bear.  What they can't do is prevent
anyone downstream from also selling or giving away copies.  Also,
if the source code is not in the iniital sale, they can only 
charge for its later supply on the basis of the true cost of
copying and shipping it, not on the basis of development costs
or a market price in the absence of such a rule.
-- 
--- DISCLAIMER -
Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender,
except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of BTS.

>  

Re: License Question

[Stephane Routelous]

Hello,

thanks for your help.

Basically , I want to developp a Class Libary , extending an OpenSource
Class Libary licensed under a pseudo-LGPL.

If my Library is under the GPL,  the users are not able to sell an
application using my Library.
If my Library is under the LGPL, the users can sell their products without
saying "thanks" .

So I would like to have a license allowing the free softwares done with my
Library to be free, and I get nothing in this case.
But if the sofware using my Library is a commercial software, I would like
to have something from the developpers of the commercial software ( perhaps
not money, but for example they send me the commercial application and a
valid license of the commercial application).

I've read the Q Public License V1.0 . They are saying :
(§6-c)
If the items are not available to the general public ( Here I understand
commercial (?)), and the initial developer of the software ( it's me )
requests a copy of the items, then you must supply one.

What do they mean with a copy ? it is a copy of the binary ( of the
application ), or it is the source code of the application ?

Is it also a way to force the modifications of MyLibrary to be included in
MyLibrary ( in the QPL ( §3 ), they are allowing to distribute separately
the modifications if the License of the modification are not release under
the QPL ) ?

If the modifications are included by other users ( developers ), what
happens with the copyright ?
Are the developers including their modifications in MyLibrary owning the
copyright of their code ?
In this case, can I sold the library if some other people have copyright
code in this library ?

I didn't think that it was so complicated to choose a license !!

Stephane

Re: License Question

[David Johnson]

On Wednesday 20 June 2001 09:58 pm, Mitchell Baker wrote:

> The Mozilla Public License allows one to charge for executable versions of
> products built using MPL code. The source version of MPL code must
> always be available free of charge under the MPL. But one is allowed
> take that source code, compile it and sell the executables. his may
> be hard since others can do the same. But if you have the brand, or
> user base that will pay for this, then one is free to do it.

First, turn off the html formatting in your email client :-(

Second, the MPL is hardly the only license that allows this. As I recall, so 
do all other open source licenses. You might not be able with some to 
explicitly charge for the software itself, but you can charge a reasonable 
fee for copying and media. Go check out what the FSF charges for their 
software. In my mind that stretches the boundaries of what is reasonable :-) 

I think what the original poster was asking, was whether it was possible to 
be assured of payment for commercial use. No open source license allows this, 
as nothing prevents the consumer from aquiring it from someone other than the 
producer.

But since some licenses prohibit derivation in closed source products, and 
since the vast majority of commercial software is closed source, offering the 
software under an option of either open source or closed source licensing is 
a viable means to achieve this.

It sounds to me like Stephane's software is a library of sorts, since he says 
"if the Sofware is used in a commercial application". Trolltech is 
commercially successful with their library, so I suggested that route.

-- 
David Johnson
___
http://www.usermode.org

Re: License Question

[Mitchell Baker]

The Mozilla Public License allows one to charge for executable versions of
products built using MPL code.  The source version of MPL code must always
be available free of charge under the MPL.  But one is allowed take that
source code, compile it and sell the executables.  this may be hard since
others can do the same.  But if you have the brand, or user base that will
pay for this, then one is free to do it.

And of course, one can combine MPL code with other code into a product and
charge for the combined product; a number of companies do this.

Mitchell 

David Johnson wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">On Wednesday 20 June 2001 08:59 am, Stephane Routelous wrote:
  Hello,I'm a newbie in License considerations.Does exists an OpenSource license which allow to be paid if the Sofware isused in a commercial application ?Thanks,

No there isn't. But it may be possible to use an Open Source license in conjunction with a closed license to achieve the same thing. It depends upon the nature of your software, and what you consider "commercial."Trolltech licenses its Qt library under a dual QPL/GPL license. The only way you can use it for your own software is to make your stuff open source. If you want to release closed source software using Qt, you must purchase the professional license for quite a few dollars.Commercial software is NOT the same thing as closed source. But 99% of it in the real world is. A scheme like Trolltech's may work for you if your software is used for the creation of other software.

Re: License Question

[David Johnson]

On Wednesday 20 June 2001 08:59 am, Stephane Routelous wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm a newbie in License considerations.
>
> Does exists an OpenSource license which allow to be paid if the Sofware is
> used in a commercial application ?
> Thanks,

No there isn't. But it may be possible to use an Open Source license in 
conjunction with a closed license to achieve the same thing. It depends upon 
the nature of your software, and what you consider "commercial."

Trolltech licenses its Qt library under a dual QPL/GPL license. The only way 
you can use it for your own software is to make your stuff open source. If 
you want to release closed source software using Qt, you must purchase the 
professional license for quite a few dollars.

Commercial software is NOT the same thing as closed source. But 99% of it in 
the real world is. A scheme like Trolltech's may work for you if your 
software is used for the creation of other software.

-- 
David Johnson
___
http://www.usermode.org

RE: License Question

[Dave J Woolley]

> From: Stephane Routelous [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> 
> Does exists an OpenSource license which allow to be paid if the Sofware is
> used in a commercial application ?
[DJW:]  
Allow: yes. Require: I believe not.

In addition, you may insist on payment before supplying the
software, but you cannot prevent anyone who already has it
from undercutting your price, and supplying it themselves.

-- 
--- DISCLAIMER -
Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender,
except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of BTS.


>  

License Question

[Stephane Routelous]

Hello,

I'm a newbie in License considerations.

Does exists an OpenSource license which allow to be paid if the Sofware is
used in a commercial application ?
Thanks,

Stephane

Qualcomm License Question

[Derek J. Balling]

The Freshmeat page for Qpopper LX 4.0 (http://freshmeat.net/releases/28080/
) indicates that the license is "OSI-approved").

I can't find a qualcomm license on the opensource.org page, and since
qpopper lx 4.0 has a per-cpu license fee, I can't picture that meeting the
OSI criteria. Is something inaccurate somewhere?

D
-- 
+-+-+
| [EMAIL PROTECTED]  | "Conan! What is best in life?"  |
|  Derek J. Balling   | "To crush your enemies, see them|
| |driven before you, and to hear the   |
| |lamentation of their women!" |
+-+-+