Re: OSD #6 (fields of endeavor) and research vs commercial rights
Bob Scheifler asked: > So the word "restrict" in OSD#6 (and the word "prevent" in the rationale) > should be interpreted narrowly to mean "completely preclude"? Meaning, > there's no obligation for all fields of endeavor to be on equal footing; I think completely preclude would be *too* narrow. My sense is that you can impose restrictions that require end users to make available (e.g. publish or return copies to the author) and to attribute or not attribute authorship (e.g. you must keep copyright notices marking some work as having come from some source, but you may not use the name of that source otherwise), but not much more. Those restrictions don't have to be levelled equally. However, other types of restrictions are going to be more problematic, e.g. fees to any one group (or even equally levelled) will definitely not fly. Other restrictions that I don't think could be made to fly are restrictions that the software must be (or may not be) used in conjunction with other software. My rule of thumb is that restrictions that preserve "authorship" are likely to pass, but restrictions that preserve "ownership" are not. That is, you can place restrictions that protect your rights as an author of the software, but not restrictions that protect your rights as an owner. However, that is just a personal rule of thumb, based upon my model of what rights are related to authorship and what ones come from ownership--a strict legal interpretation of those words would invalidate the rule of thumb entirely, as copyright law reserves some rights to an author that would not likely be acceptible in an open source license. One area where I think things are gray is in whether restrictions on how derivative works can be made are acceptible. For example, licenses have passed that require special handling of changes to the code (e.g. segregation into patches and keeping the original work intact). However, licesnes that prohibit making derivative works have not (and will not). > Not knowing how this list works, are there people who speak > authoritatively on interpretations of the OSD? There are definitely those who speak more authoritatively than others as they are members of the OSI board, me *not* being among them. No one speaks with absolute authority though, as it is a committee that does the approval and this list is simply advisory, trying to raise issues in specific licenses so that the board can make a more informed decision. There is certainly no requirement that the board listen to the discussion on the list or abide by any of the results of the discussions. -Chris -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: OSD #6 (fields of endeavor) and research vs commercial rights
Yes. This is a trivially approvable open source license: ... I'm the chairman, and I write up the consensus of the list for the OSI board. Thanks very much for the information! - Bob -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: OSD #6 (fields of endeavor) and research vs commercial rights
Bob Scheifler writes: > So the word "restrict" in OSD#6 (and the word "prevent" in the rationale) > should be interpreted narrowly to mean "completely preclude"? Meaning, > there's no obligation for all fields of endeavor to be on equal footing; > it's (definitionally) acceptable for the license to impose arbitrarily > onerous terms on just a single field of endeavor (for example, all > commercial use, or all genetic research), so long as use in that field of > endeavor is not completely precluded? (Not trying to dispute, just trying > to understand.) Yes. This is a trivially approvable open source license: If you're Bob Scheifler, you have to comply with the GPL. Everyone else need only comply with the MIT license. Everybody gets to distribute the software under terms that fall under the Open Source Definition. > Not knowing how this list works, are there people who speak > authoritatively on interpretations of the OSD? This list is the license-discuss committee. In a sense, everyone here speaks authoritatively. I'm the chairman, and I write up the consensus of the list for the OSI board. -- --My blog is at angry-economist.russnelson.com | The USA has turned into a Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | people that are afraid of 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | everything and responsible Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | FWD# 404529 via VOIP | for nothing. -- GF -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: OSD #6 (fields of endeavor) and research vs commercial rights
> APSL 1.2 seems to discriminate between distribution for research use > and distribution for commercial use (by imposing different obligations). Yes, it does, however in both cases the licensing satisfies the Open Source Definition. It's like making boys use the boys room and girls use the girls room. It would be unacceptable discrimination to not have any girls room at all. So the word "restrict" in OSD#6 (and the word "prevent" in the rationale) should be interpreted narrowly to mean "completely preclude"? Meaning, there's no obligation for all fields of endeavor to be on equal footing; it's (definitionally) acceptable for the license to impose arbitrarily onerous terms on just a single field of endeavor (for example, all commercial use, or all genetic research), so long as use in that field of endeavor is not completely precluded? (Not trying to dispute, just trying to understand.) Not knowing how this list works, are there people who speak authoritatively on interpretations of the OSD? - Bob -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: OSD #6 (fields of endeavor) and research vs commercial rights
Bob Scheifler writes: > APSL 1.2 seems to discriminate between distribution for research use > and distribution for commercial use (by imposing different obligations). Yes, it does, however in both cases the licensing satisfies the Open Source Definition. It's like making boys use the boys room and girls use the girls room. It would be unacceptable discrimination to not have any girls room at all. -- --My blog is at angry-economist.russnelson.com | The USA has turned into a Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | people that are afraid of 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | everything and responsible Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | FWD# 404529 via VOIP | for nothing. -- GF -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: OSD #6 (fields of endeavor) and research vs commercial rights
Thanks for the response. My take on the discrimination against fields of endeavor means that a license can't be restricted for use in any particular industry. The phrasing of term #6, as well as the written rationale for it, seem to me to be broader than particular industry. The term itself gives two examples, "used in a business" (which I take to mean "commercial use") and "genetic research" (which I take to be an example of "particular industry"), I assume because they are not equivalent examples. The rationale talks specifically about commercial use in the broad. - Bob -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: OSD #6 (fields of endeavor) and research vs commercial rights
Thanks for the response. Just in case this helps clarify things in terms of the APSL (can't speak for the Reciprocal Public License, sorry)... (My intent was not to knock specific licenses, but to give some possible examples to help set context.) The APSL 1.2 (currently now the APSL 2.0, which has no distinction between commercial use or research) does *not* grant different rights depending on whether you use it for commercial or research only. Understood (both to the assertion and the age of 1.2). The distinction only comes into play in terms of when a user's obligations to post source of modifications kick in (when "Deployment" is triggered). In APSL 1.2, as I read it, Deploy is specific to commercial use only. I take this abstractly as imposing more obligations on commercial use than on research use. To me, imposing different obligations on commercial vs research is still a form of discrimination. This is similar to other OSI licenses, such as the Mozilla Public License -- the trigger point there is "Commercial Use", i.e., distribution to a third party; GPL/LGPL - same thing, it kicks in upon distribution to a third party. It does not seem equivalent to me. The MPL treats all distribution to third parties uniformly, regardless of whether that distribution was for research or commercial purpose; there's no discrimination. APSL 1.2 seems to discriminate between distribution for research use and distribution for commercial use (by imposing different obligations). - Bob -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: OSD #6 (fields of endeavor) and research vs commercial rights
My take on the discrimination against fields of endeavor means that a license can't be restricted for use in any particular industry. I don't see where the RPL does that. Everyone that enhances or modifies RPL code is required to share their resulting code(if they use it) with the world. Granted, the RPL doesn't have the same privacy protections as the GPL--and some organizations with privacy concerns might find the GPL acceptable and the RPL repugnant-but I don't see how the organizations that choose to avoid RPL code are being discriminated against. --- Bob Scheifler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Looking at OSD #6, No Discrimination Against Fields > of Endeavor, > I had imagined that it meant, among other things, > that the > license could not have one set of terms for > commercial use and > a different set of terms for research use. Yet there > appear > to be a few approved licenses that make such a > discrimination, > such as the Apple Public Source License (ver 1.2), > and the > Reciprocal Public License (ver 1.1). Can someone > clarify? > Thanks. > > - Bob > > -- > license-discuss archive is at > http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3 > __ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/ -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
OSD #6 (fields of endeavor) and research vs commercial rights
Looking at OSD #6, No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor, I had imagined that it meant, among other things, that the license could not have one set of terms for commercial use and a different set of terms for research use. Yet there appear to be a few approved licenses that make such a discrimination, such as the Apple Public Source License (ver 1.2), and the Reciprocal Public License (ver 1.1). Can someone clarify? Thanks. - Bob -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
OSD #6 (fields of endeavor) and research vs commercial rights
Looking at OSD #6, No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor, I had imagined that it meant, among other things, that the license could not have one set of terms for commercial use and a different set of terms for research use. Yet there appear to be a few approved licenses that make such a discrimination, such as the Apple Public Source License (ver 1.2), and the Reciprocal Public License (ver 1.1). Can someone clarify? Thanks. - Bob -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
