Re: RealNetworks' RTSP Proxy License
At 11:11 14-09-2001 -0700, you wrote: >At 05:20 PM 9/7/01 +0100, Daniel MD wrote: >>AI too have reviewed this license and i think it needs allot of >>modification, some bits are really confusing. >>But i have failed to see any answers from the Author. > >Sorry for going radio silent on this. We're in the process of reviewing >the comments and deciding how to go forward. No problem you are probably concentrating on development, that is much more useful than licensing :-) >In general, the intent was a BSD-like license. Judging from the large >number of comments, we might not have succeeded in that, so I need to go >back to the drawing board with our legal department. > >Thanks everyone for the careful review. > >Rob > > Thank You for your time, Best Regards, and Have a Nice Day... Daniel MD [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] of IM-Thinking Consulting. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: RealNetworks' RTSP Proxy License
At 05:20 PM 9/7/01 +0100, Daniel MD wrote: >AI too have reviewed this license and i think it needs allot of >modification, some bits are really confusing. >But i have failed to see any answers from the Author. Sorry for going radio silent on this. We're in the process of reviewing the comments and deciding how to go forward. In general, the intent was a BSD-like license. Judging from the large number of comments, we might not have succeeded in that, so I need to go back to the drawing board with our legal department. Thanks everyone for the careful review. Rob -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: RealNetworks' RTSP Proxy License
On Monday 10 September 2001 08:46 pm, Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote: > Certainly no insult or attack upon an individual or a project was intended > by my describing a license's objective. I think my point was misunderstood > and I apologize for not being clearer. Apology accepted, just as long as the apples in the top don't start acting like they're better than the ones in the bottom of the barrel :-) -- David Johnson ___ http://www.usermode.org -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
RE: RealNetworks' RTSP Proxy License
Certainly no insult or attack upon an individual or a project was intended by my describing a license's objective. I think my point was misunderstood and I apologize for not being clearer. Rod -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: RealNetworks' RTSP Proxy License
On Sunday 09 September 2001 03:01 pm, Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote: > I consider licenses > like the MIT license to be at the bottom of the open source barrel because > they are ostensibly end-user licenses, at best. They are not as protective > of freedoms as the GNU GPL (no copyleft), they say nothing about source > code (how to you get access?), and they cannot be used for an open source > project (without significant modification). Bottom of the barrel! Gee, you make it sound like those who use MIT and similar licenses are second class citizens somehow! Of course they don't protect the wishes of the author like some licenses do. But not all authors desire that. Not everyone will have the same goals, philosophies or wants as you. And they certainly CAN be used by an Open Source project with ZERO modification. I direct your attention to XFree86 and Apache as two major Open Source projects that are not copyleft, and the innumerous lesser projects that are released under the MIT, BSD and similar licenses. If you prefer to use copyleft licenses, then by all means do so. But do not look down on those of us who don't as some sort of lower caste. That's insulting. -- David Johnson ___ http://www.usermode.org -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
RE: RealNetworks' RTSP Proxy License
IANAL and all that jazz... >> >>Copyright law does state that the copyright holder does not perforce >>reserve >>the right to "use" the work, however that may apply to the work. They may >>not forbid people to read a book, but they may forbid them to read it in >>public. They may not forbid people to *privately* perform a play, or >>rehearse it, but they may forbid them from performing in public. Get the >>idea. >> > >AFAIK in almost all countries making copies has no "public" limitation - >whether the copy is "private" or "public" is irrelevant. I wasn't talking about the copy, merely the use. And for the book I should've said read aloud in public. The point is that every western nation I know of allows for such copying as required for use to be permissable, as the owner of the *copyright* does not reserve the right to use the work, merely to copy it etc etc. So, they've made a copy, and someone else now owns it. The copyright owner cannot stop them using it. This is where a more knotty problem is hit - can someone own a CD-ROM, for example, or a hard drive, which has a copy of the software on it, and yet not own the copy of the software. Most (all?) commercial software companies allege this in their shrink-wrap EULAs, and I am not sure how case law stands in different jursisdictions. If I were arguing the point, I would say "How can I own the paper this book is printed on without owning the book, and therefore being allowed to read it?" - or "How can I own this record, but not the copy of the recording, and thus not be allowed to play it?". You see the point. Of course, if the copy is obtained illegally (software piracy, for example) then there are no rights to use it anyway, regardless of shrink-wrap or absence thereof. Sam -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
RE: RealNetworks' RTSP Proxy License
This is not legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is established. etc etc. >From: "SamBC" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "Humphreys, Noel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, >"License-Discuss@Opensource. Org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: RE: RealNetworks' RTSP Proxy License >Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2001 14:00:50 +0100 > > > -Original Message- > > From: Humphreys, Noel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > > > > Copyright law empowers an author to restrict others from copying the > > work. A user therefore wants the license to allow the user to copy > > the work. In software terms, copying occurs when the user's hard > > drive or RAM receives or records the software, for example. > >Copyright law *does* specify that such copying essential to use is not >considered copying, and is not a reserved right. We've had this out on this >list before. > U.S. and a number of other countries' copyright law indeed permits as an exception the limited ability of making of a copy in the utilization of program on a machine. See section 117 of the U.S. Copyright Act. Laws of many other countries do not provide such an explicit exception. Moreover, most countries in the world do not provide as wide a fair use privilege as the U.S or recognize implied license (or if so, an express license likely trumps). > > >Copyright law does state that the copyright holder does not perforce >reserve >the right to "use" the work, however that may apply to the work. They may >not forbid people to read a book, but they may forbid them to read it in >public. They may not forbid people to *privately* perform a play, or >rehearse it, but they may forbid them from performing in public. Get the >idea. > AFAIK in almost all countries making copies has no "public" limitation - whether the copy is "private" or "public" is irrelevant. >IANAL, but I have had definite answers on these areas... > > >Sam Barnett-Cormack > >-- >license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3 _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
RE: RealNetworks' RTSP Proxy License
Perhaps, I was a little harsh and not succinct. I was thinking of a certain type of open source license (licenses used with open source projects) without explicitly stating so, which, in my opinion, are the only licenses that are related to the issue of enforceability (who is going to complain about the MIT license?). The MIT license is a perfect example of a different type of license. Aside from the warranty disclaimer and the copyright notice requirement, the MIT license, and perhaps, some of its various forms (e.g., BSD, X.org) are nothing more than a non-exclusive grant of copyright. I consider licenses like the MIT license to be at the bottom of the open source barrel because they are ostensibly end-user licenses, at best. They are not as protective of freedoms as the GNU GPL (no copyleft), they say nothing about source code (how to you get access?), and they cannot be used for an open source project (without significant modification). These difficiencies are related to the issues regarding the validity of an open source license that we were discussing. Having said that, I agree that the MIT License is a fine end-user software distribution license. "MIT License Copyright (c) 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. THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE." - Rod Rod Dixon Visiting Assistant Professor of Law Rutgers University Law School - Camden www.cyberspaces.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -Original Message- > From: John Cowan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2001 11:08 AM > To: Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. > Cc: Rick Moen; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: RealNetworks' RTSP Proxy License > > > Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. scripsit: > > > But, do note that the more your > > license terms resemble nothing more than a non-exclusive grant > of copyright > > to the end-user, the more likely your "open source" license should be > > considered a run-of-the-mill copyright license that is governed by the > > Copyright Act, preemptively; if so, your license is probably not an open > > source license. > > Your last clause confuses me. The MIT license is very close to being > "nothing more than a non-exclusive grant of copyright to the end-user", > and it is undoubtedly open source. > > -- > John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Please leave your values| Check your assumptions. In fact, >at the front desk. | check your assumptions > at the door. > --sign in Paris hotel |--Miles Vorkosigan > -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: RealNetworks' RTSP Proxy License
Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. scripsit: > But, do note that the more your > license terms resemble nothing more than a non-exclusive grant of copyright > to the end-user, the more likely your "open source" license should be > considered a run-of-the-mill copyright license that is governed by the > Copyright Act, preemptively; if so, your license is probably not an open > source license. Your last clause confuses me. The MIT license is very close to being "nothing more than a non-exclusive grant of copyright to the end-user", and it is undoubtedly open source. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please leave your values| Check your assumptions. In fact, at the front desk. | check your assumptions at the door. --sign in Paris hotel |--Miles Vorkosigan -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: RealNetworks' RTSP Proxy License
Joseph Reagle scripsit: > On Friday 07 September 2001 14:48, John Cowan wrote: > > Contracts are bilateral in the sense that they are founded on an offer > > and an acceptance. Open source licenses generally tell you that you > > may do certain things (otherwise forbidden by statute) on certain > > conditions. If you don't do the things, the license doesn't accept you. I must have been tired that day. I meant "affect you", of course. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please leave your values| Check your assumptions. In fact, at the front desk. | check your assumptions at the door. --sign in Paris hotel |--Miles Vorkosigan -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
RE: RealNetworks' RTSP Proxy License
> -Original Message- > From: Humphreys, Noel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Copyright law empowers an author to restrict others from copying the > work. A user therefore wants the license to allow the user to copy > the work. In software terms, copying occurs when the user's hard > drive or RAM receives or records the software, for example. Copyright law *does* specify that such copying essential to use is not considered copying, and is not a reserved right. We've had this out on this list before. Copyright law does state that the copyright holder does not perforce reserve the right to "use" the work, however that may apply to the work. They may not forbid people to read a book, but they may forbid them to read it in public. They may not forbid people to *privately* perform a play, or rehearse it, but they may forbid them from performing in public. Get the idea. IANAL, but I have had definite answers on these areas... Sam Barnett-Cormack -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
RE: RealNetworks' RTSP Proxy License
Since the issue whether a shrink-wrap, click-through, or website, license is validly formed in any given case is difficult enough to determine, we should resist the inclination to make this unduly complicated. I hope I can clarify a couple of points that are often raised on license-discuss. Although in some circumstances one might find it useful to distinguish some licenses - - for example, those that are statutory, such as the Copyright Act's compulsory licenses, from other types of legal relations based upon contract - - that is not the case, here, regarding, in my view, properly classified open source licenses. I suspect that some of you are slightly confusing the debate over what commercial law rules should govern software distribution with open source issues. In the software distribution debate, the issue is whether a software license is, in fact, a license or a veil to disguise the selling of a good. This is a critical debate over what the default rules of commerce should be when an end-user or consumer wants to return the software they installed on their home PC or ordered from a catalog. Although this debate remains contested in the minds of many (perhaps, due in part, to the slow or slowed-down adoption of UCITA by most states), this is not the same issue as those we discuss concerning the terms of the GNU GPL or whether an open source license is enforceable; the issues are similar, but distinct. To put it bluntly, if your open source license has a copyleft provision, you should -- give up the desire? -- or abandon the thought that contract formation or license enforcement rules will not apply to your license or that contract principles are inapplicable to your license. (BTW, that is my opinion, not my legal advice). But, do note that the more your license terms resemble nothing more than a non-exclusive grant of copyright to the end-user, the more likely your "open source" license should be considered a run-of-the-mill copyright license that is governed by the Copyright Act, preemptively; if so, your license is probably not an open source license. Rod Rod Dixon Visiting Assistant Professor of Law Rutgers University Law School - Camden www.cyberspaces.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -Original Message- > From: Rick Moen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, September 07, 2001 12:03 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: RealNetworks' RTSP Proxy License > > > begin Laflamme, Elaine quotation: > > There is a recent case in the Southern District in New York holding > > that a similar provision was not enough to create a contract because > > it did not require an affirmative action such as clicking on an Accept > > button before downloading and using Netscape's SmartDownload. > > I believe the question Sam asked was not "Is this an enforceable > contract term?", but rather "Is this an enforceable licence term?" It is > not at all clear that a valid contract must be formed for this licence > (or licences, generally) to exist. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
RE: RealNetworks' RTSP Proxy License
Be careful here. A license is a type of contractual arrangement. John's description of open source licensing is correct except for his last sentence about acceptance. For purposes of setting forth distinctions between open source licensing and other forms of software licenses, you are headed in the wrong direction by reference to acceptance. Ostensibly, a licensee must consent to the terms of the license in order to be bound - - as is true of any contract. How that consent manifests itself is a different question. John was also correct that the important factor distinguishing open source licenses from other software licenses has much more to do with the grant clause (i.e. users may copy, modify, distribute...). Sorry, Joseph, I am not convinced formalisms such as whether the license permits acceptance by unilateral performance or bilateral promise is anything more than a dead-end as far as open source is concerned. Rod Rod Dixon Visiting Assistant Professor of Law Rutgers University Law School - Camden www.cyberspaces.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -Original Message- > From: John Cowan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, September 07, 2001 2:49 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: Jeffry Smith; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: RealNetworks' RTSP Proxy License > > > Joseph Reagle scripsit: > > > I've noted this distinction between an acceptance of a license > > (unilateral?) and contract (bilateral?) before [1]; it's an interesting > > (and perhaps) important distinction that I don't completely > understand yet. > > Contracts are bilateral in the sense that they are founded on an offer > and an acceptance. Open source licenses generally tell you that you > may do certain things (otherwise forbidden by statute) on certain > conditions. If you don't do the things, the license doesn't accept you. > > > -- > John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Please leave your values| Check your assumptions. In fact, >at the front desk. | check your assumptions > at the door. > --sign in Paris hotel |--Miles Vorkosigan > -- > license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3 > -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: RealNetworks' RTSP Proxy License
On Friday 07 September 2001 14:48, John Cowan wrote: > Contracts are bilateral in the sense that they are founded on an offer > and an acceptance. Open source licenses generally tell you that you > may do certain things (otherwise forbidden by statute) on certain > conditions. If you don't do the things, the license doesn't accept you. To state my (no doubt flawed) understanding then: In ProCD v. Zeidenberg [1] the court found that while Zeidenberg was *not* restricted by copyright law from posting the factual information from the CD on the Web, he had entered into an orthogonal contract when he obtained that information that restricted his use of this material to that end. So he had volunteered (given the upholding of the legitimacy of shrinkwrap) something he had (the ability to post factual information) via contract in order to access it in the first place: But whether a particular license is gen- erous or restrictive, a simple two-party contract is not "equivalent to any of the exclusive rights within the gen- eral scope of copyright" and therefore may be enforced. [1] (There's a number of cases that differ with respect to where on the page, or how prominent the notice of contract is [2], including Specht v. Netscape, but they don't seem to mitigate the trend of "shrinwrap" authority.) With the GPL, I have no right to make a copy regardless, and the license grants me that right given certain terms and conditions. So it's the inverse of the shrinkwrap scenario in that I am a "complete stranger" to the FSF (or whomever) and there is no actual contract...? [1] http://www.law.emory.edu/7circuit/june96/96-1139.html [2] http://www.phillipsnizer.com/int-click.htm BTW: Interesting reading: http://www.law.emory.edu/7circuit/june96/96-1139.html Whether there are legal differences between "contracts" and "licenses" (which may matter under the copyright doctrine of first sale) is a subject for another day. See Microsoft Corp. v. Harmony Computers & Electronics, Inc., 846 F. Supp. 208 (E.D. N.Y. 1994). Microsoft Corp. v. Harmony Computers & Electronics, Inc., 846 F. Supp. 208 (E.D. N.Y. 1994). http://web.lexis-nexis.com/universe/document?_m=85b81ab9e2a38e7ef867a887f89a1c7c&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLSlV-lSlzV&_md5=b446936dc16c1a2d90f78bb79c3b797f ... Defendants argue, however, that because the Products they sold were purchased from Microsoft licensees, they are immune from liability for copyright infringement under the first sale doctrine. In response, plaintiff argues that the first sale doctrine does not apply to the present case because Microsoft never sells but rather only licenses its Products. ... To the extent that defendants bought their [**15] Microsoft Products from authorized Microsoft licensees, they were subject to the same licensing restrictions under which those licensees operated. ... Finally, plaintiff's claim that defendants exceeded the scope of its license [**19] agreements states a claim for copyright infringement rather than breach of contract. Not being parties to any license agreement with Microsoft, defendants are "complete strangers" to Microsoft, and their violations of the licensing restrictions must of necessity be seen as claims arising under the copyright laws rather than the law of contracts. See Marshall v. New Kids on the Block Partnership, 780 F. Supp. 1005, 1008 (S.D.N.Y. 1991). Even if defendants were seen as parties to Microsoft's license agreements, their undisputed distribution of Products outside the scope of the license agreements puts them in the same position as an infringer having no contractual relationship with the copyright holder and again makes them "strangers" to Microsoft. Id. at 1009; Kanakos v. MX Trading Corp., 1981 WL 1377, *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 16, 1981). Accordingly, plaintiff's allegation that defendants exceeded the scope of the license agreement states a claim for copyright infringement. ... -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: RealNetworks' RTSP Proxy License
On Fri, Sep 07, 2001 at 05:01:46PM -0400, Humphreys, Noel wrote: > There can be no assurance that a court would find that a simple > statement to the effect that use of the code constitutes acceptance of > the license terms will be effective to bind the user. The parties However, the default license grants no terms or rights, whatsoever, correct? So not seeing a license at all doesn't give me the right to simply copy and redistribute a work, code or otherwise. A book doesn't have a 'click through' license, but I am bound to its terms of copyright. -drew -- M. Drew Streib <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | http://dtype.org/ FSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>| Linux International <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> freedb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>| SourceForge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PGP signature
RE: RealNetworks' RTSP Proxy License
This is not legal advice, and you are not entitled to rely on this for any purpose. I merely suggest these thoughts to help the discussion along. Copyright law empowers an author to restrict others from copying the work. A user therefore wants the license to allow the user to copy the work. In software terms, copying occurs when the user's hard drive or RAM receives or records the software, for example. Copyright law empowers an author to restrict others from making copies of the work to distribute to others. A user therefore wants the license to allow the user to make copies for distribution to others. Open source licenses need to allow users to make copies for distribution to others on limited terms (for example, source code must accompany the copy). Copyright law empowers an author to restrict others from making derivative works based on the original work. An open source license needs to permit the users to make changes to the original code, which is the "work," in copyright terms. The result of the changes is a "derivative work." Copyright law empowers an author to restrict others from displaying or performing the work in public. A user wants to know that the license authorizes the user to display or perform the work---the code---in public. Copyright words were not first written with software in mind, and the fit isn't comfortable when you try to shoehorn computer software into copyright language. "Use" is not a copyright concept. These licenses are usually analyzed as bilateral contracts, in contract lawyer terms. Each side gives up something of value. The licensor, for example, gives up the legal right to charge for distribution of the code or, for example, the right to keep others from changing the code. The licensee gives up, for example, the right to charge subsequent users for the source code or the right to distribute in object code form only. "Consideration" need not be money. The more prominent or unmistakable the licensee's assent to the terms of the license, the more likely it is that a court would find that the licensee is bound by the terms of the license. If you make the licensee push the "Yes, I accept" button three times after scrolling through the license before he is allowed access to the code, a court is more likely to find that he is subject to the terms of the license than in a case where the user can have access to the code in a manner that does not call attention to the limits on the user's rights in relation to that code. There can be no assurance that a court would find that a simple statement to the effect that use of the code constitutes acceptance of the license terms will be effective to bind the user. The parties gain confidence in the likely effectiveness of the license by making the statement more prominent. The statement may be thought more prominent if it appears in all caps or in red or in bigger letters or first, for example. I hope that's helpful. -Original Message- From: Matthew C. Weigel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, September 07, 2001 4:14 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: RealNetworks' RTSP Proxy License On Fri, 7 Sep 2001, Jeffry Smith wrote: > OK, not being a lawyer, I may not have the full grasp, but from my > one term of Business Law, I don't see how a license is enforceable > EXCEPT under contract law. Nothing in Copyright Law specifies the > "Licenses" (at least what I've read of the 1976 law and the DMCA), > only what the default rights of the parties are. I don't mean to make specific factual legal claims, but I was under the impression that a license is a "grant" of rights. Copyright law specifies default rights of all parties, and - importantly - the ability for the various parties to grant rights they hold to other parties. For instance, it makes little sense that there must be a contract for a copyright holder to grant any user the right to copy and distribute their publication (I've seen stuff like this from some of the lovely street-side preachers here in town, who *really* want to get their message out). It seems to also make sense that such grants could be subject to restrictions, i.e., only granting a 'part' of the right. It further seems reasonable that this freeform grant of rights would have developed its own body of law, and come to be known as licenses whether copyright law actively addresses it or not. However, this is definitely beyond me, and I am hoping to be corrected (at least on my grossest errors). -- Matthew Weigel Research Systems Programmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] ne [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3 The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. This message may be an attorney-cli
Re: RealNetworks' RTSP Proxy License
On Fri, 7 Sep 2001, Jeffry Smith wrote: > OK, not being a lawyer, I may not have the full grasp, but from my > one term of Business Law, I don't see how a license is enforceable > EXCEPT under contract law. Nothing in Copyright Law specifies the > "Licenses" (at least what I've read of the 1976 law and the DMCA), > only what the default rights of the parties are. I don't mean to make specific factual legal claims, but I was under the impression that a license is a "grant" of rights. Copyright law specifies default rights of all parties, and - importantly - the ability for the various parties to grant rights they hold to other parties. For instance, it makes little sense that there must be a contract for a copyright holder to grant any user the right to copy and distribute their publication (I've seen stuff like this from some of the lovely street-side preachers here in town, who *really* want to get their message out). It seems to also make sense that such grants could be subject to restrictions, i.e., only granting a 'part' of the right. It further seems reasonable that this freeform grant of rights would have developed its own body of law, and come to be known as licenses whether copyright law actively addresses it or not. However, this is definitely beyond me, and I am hoping to be corrected (at least on my grossest errors). -- Matthew Weigel Research Systems Programmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] ne [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: RealNetworks' RTSP Proxy License
Joseph Reagle scripsit: > I've noted this distinction between an acceptance of a license > (unilateral?) and contract (bilateral?) before [1]; it's an interesting > (and perhaps) important distinction that I don't completely understand yet. Contracts are bilateral in the sense that they are founded on an offer and an acceptance. Open source licenses generally tell you that you may do certain things (otherwise forbidden by statute) on certain conditions. If you don't do the things, the license doesn't accept you. > However, based on this thread I went and had a look and most of the OSI > license *do* restrict use: > > http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.html > Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without > modification, > > http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.html > Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to > use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell > copies of the Software > > http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mozilla1.0.html > (a) to use, reproduce, modify, display, perform, sublicense and distribute > the Original Code (or portions thereof) with or without Modifications, or > as part of a Larger Work These licenses allow, rather than restricting, use. IMHO (IANAL) allowing use is mere excess, having no effect. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please leave your values| Check your assumptions. In fact, at the front desk. | check your assumptions at the door. --sign in Paris hotel |--Miles Vorkosigan -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: RealNetworks' RTSP Proxy License
Joseph Reagle said: >On Friday 07 September 2001 12:01, Jeffry Smith wrote: >> A key point that I've found on Open Source - you place the license on >> REDISTRIBUTION, not use. Remember that, under standard Copyright, the >> user has the right to use the software, but not redistribute new or >> modified copies. The Open Source licenses are what enable that. Thus, >> by only specifying redistribution, you can mimic the GPL, and say, in >> effect "You don't have to agree with this license, but nothing else gives >> you the rights included. Use of these rights indicates acceptance of >> this license." > >I've noted this distinction between an acceptance of a license >(unilateral?) and contract (bilateral?) before [1]; it's an interesting >(and perhaps) important distinction that I don't completely understand yet. > >However, based on this thread I went and had a look and most of the OSI >license *do* restrict use: Although I would argue they don't need the "use" word in there, all of the ones you quote actually grant unlimited use (as in running the program). Except the GPL, which explicitly does not cover use (because copyright covers it). jeff -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: RealNetworks' RTSP Proxy License
Rick Moen said: >begin Laflamme, Elaine quotation: >> There is a recent case in the Southern District in New York holding >> that a similar provision was not enough to create a contract because >> it did not require an affirmative action such as clicking on an Accept >> button before downloading and using Netscape's SmartDownload. > >I believe the question Sam asked was not "Is this an enforceable >contract term?", but rather "Is this an enforceable licence term?" It is >not at all clear that a valid contract must be formed for this licence >(or licences, generally) to exist. OK, not being a lawyer, I may not have the full grasp, but from my one term of Business Law, I don't see how a license is enforceable EXCEPT under contract law. Nothing in Copyright Law specifies the "Licenses" (at least what I've read of the 1976 law and the DMCA), only what the default rights of the parties are. > >This point keeps coming up (and not being resolved) concerning >open-source software specifically, usually when someone cleverly notices >the lack of any obvious "consideration" (one of the required elements >for contract formation) and rushes to the hasty conclusion that the >software's licence is without force. That is a problem with most EULAs. However, in the case of Open Source (GPL specifically, as that's the one I've used in this arguement), there is "consideration." The recipient of the code gains the consideration of being able to redistribute, the author gains the consideration of their controls on that redistribution are respected. Note that "consideration" does NOT have to be monitary. jeff -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: RealNetworks' RTSP Proxy License
On Friday 07 September 2001 12:01, Jeffry Smith wrote: > A key point that I've found on Open Source - you place the license on > REDISTRIBUTION, not use. Remember that, under standard Copyright, the > user has the right to use the software, but not redistribute new or > modified copies. The Open Source licenses are what enable that. Thus, > by only specifying redistribution, you can mimic the GPL, and say, in > effect "You don't have to agree with this license, but nothing else gives > you the rights included. Use of these rights indicates acceptance of > this license." I've noted this distinction between an acceptance of a license (unilateral?) and contract (bilateral?) before [1]; it's an interesting (and perhaps) important distinction that I don't completely understand yet. However, based on this thread I went and had a look and most of the OSI license *do* restrict use: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.html Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.html Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mozilla1.0.html (a) to use, reproduce, modify, display, perform, sublicense and distribute the Original Code (or portions thereof) with or without Modifications, or as part of a Larger Work etc. [1] http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html 5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: RealNetworks' RTSP Proxy License
At 09:03 9/7/01 -0700, you wrote:
>begin Laflamme, Elaine quotation:
> > There is a recent case in the Southern District in New York holding
> > that a similar provision was not enough to create a contract because
> > it did not require an affirmative action such as clicking on an Accept
> > button before downloading and using Netscape's SmartDownload.
>
>I believe the question Sam asked was not "Is this an enforceable
>contract term?", but rather "Is this an enforceable licence term?" It is
>not at all clear that a valid contract must be formed for this licence
>(or licences, generally) to exist.
>
>This point keeps coming up (and not being resolved) concerning
>open-source software specifically, usually when someone cleverly notices
>the lack of any obvious "consideration" (one of the required elements
>for contract formation) and rushes to the hasty conclusion that the
>software's licence is without force.
>
>To review, the RTSP Proxy Kit License terms are at
>http://www.rtsp.org/2001/proxy/license.html .
>
> This License Agreement ("License Agreement") is a legal agreement
> between you (either an individual or an entity) and RealNetworks, Inc.
> ...
>
>This smells mildly of contract (as opposed to a grant of non-default
>rights under copyright law) -- and I think lawyers put language like
>this into software licences reflexively because they're used to thinking
>of software as part of an exchange transaction.
>
>And of course we have:
>
> YOU AGREE THAT YOUR USE OF THE SOFTWARE ACKNOWLEDGES THAT YOU HAVE
> READ THIS LICENSE, UNDERSTAND IT, AND AGREE TO BE BOUND BY ITS TERMS
> AND CONDITIONS.
>
>Again, smells of intended contract, which is at best a bit confusing,
>but I'd speculate (IANAL) that it wouldn't prevent the licence being
>effective as a grant under copyright law.
>
> Subject to the provisions contained in this License Agreement, RN
> hereby grants you a non-exclusive, non-transferable, perpetual,
> worldwide license
>
>Consistent with a grant of non-default rights under copyright law.
>
>(The terms "agreement" and "agree" also occur elsewhere in sundry places.
>But my point is that answering "Is it a valid contract?" is not
>disposative of the more-central question "Is it enforceable?")
I too have reviewed this license and i think it needs allot of
modification, some bits are really confusing.
But i have failed to see any answers from the Author.
>--
>Cheers, Founding member of the Hyphenation Society, a grassroots-based,
>Rick Moen not-for-profit, locally-owned-and-operated, cooperatively-managed,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] modern-American-English-usage-improvement
>association
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: RealNetworks' RTSP Proxy License
begin Laflamme, Elaine quotation:
> There is a recent case in the Southern District in New York holding
> that a similar provision was not enough to create a contract because
> it did not require an affirmative action such as clicking on an Accept
> button before downloading and using Netscape's SmartDownload.
I believe the question Sam asked was not "Is this an enforceable
contract term?", but rather "Is this an enforceable licence term?" It is
not at all clear that a valid contract must be formed for this licence
(or licences, generally) to exist.
This point keeps coming up (and not being resolved) concerning
open-source software specifically, usually when someone cleverly notices
the lack of any obvious "consideration" (one of the required elements
for contract formation) and rushes to the hasty conclusion that the
software's licence is without force.
To review, the RTSP Proxy Kit License terms are at
http://www.rtsp.org/2001/proxy/license.html .
This License Agreement ("License Agreement") is a legal agreement
between you (either an individual or an entity) and RealNetworks, Inc.
...
This smells mildly of contract (as opposed to a grant of non-default
rights under copyright law) -- and I think lawyers put language like
this into software licences reflexively because they're used to thinking
of software as part of an exchange transaction.
And of course we have:
YOU AGREE THAT YOUR USE OF THE SOFTWARE ACKNOWLEDGES THAT YOU HAVE
READ THIS LICENSE, UNDERSTAND IT, AND AGREE TO BE BOUND BY ITS TERMS
AND CONDITIONS.
Again, smells of intended contract, which is at best a bit confusing,
but I'd speculate (IANAL) that it wouldn't prevent the licence being
effective as a grant under copyright law.
Subject to the provisions contained in this License Agreement, RN
hereby grants you a non-exclusive, non-transferable, perpetual,
worldwide license
Consistent with a grant of non-default rights under copyright law.
(The terms "agreement" and "agree" also occur elsewhere in sundry places.
But my point is that answering "Is it a valid contract?" is not
disposative of the more-central question "Is it enforceable?")
--
Cheers, Founding member of the Hyphenation Society, a grassroots-based,
Rick Moen not-for-profit, locally-owned-and-operated, cooperatively-managed,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] modern-American-English-usage-improvement association
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: RealNetworks' RTSP Proxy License
"Laflamme, Elaine" said: >There is a recent case in the Southern District in New York holding that a sim >ilar provision was not enough to create a contract because it did not require >an affirmative action such as clicking on an Accept button before downloading >and using Netscape's SmartDownload. The court also considered where the "cont >ract language" was positioned. Here, at the bottom of the download page (requ >iring users to scroll down to see it), there was a sentence stating "Please re >view and agree to the terms of >the Netscape SmartDownlaod software license agreement before downloading and u >sing the software." The statement is linked to a page with License and Suppor >t Agreements. The first paragraph of that page contains the licensing languag >e. The court in this case recognized three types of licenses, shrink-wrap, cl >ick-wrap and browse-wrap and classified Netscape's license as a browse-wrap . > The case name is Specht v. Netscape Communications Corp., 00Civ. 4871 (AKH), >00 Civ. 6219 (AKH), 00 Cive. >6269(AKH)(S.D.N.Y. July 3, 2001). > >-Original Message- >From: David Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 9:50 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: RealNetworks' RTSP Proxy License > > >On Thursday 06 September 2001 02:36 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >YOU AGREE THAT YOUR USE OF THE SOFTWARE ACKNOWLEDGES THAT YOU HAVE READ >> >THIS LICENSE, UNDERSTAND IT, AND AGREE TO BE BOUND BY ITS TERMS AND >> >CONDITIONS. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE AGREEMENT, >> > DO NOT USE THE SOFTWARE. >> >> IANAL, but my understanding from this list, and otehr sources, is that use >> of software is not a reserved right and therefore cannot be used to signal >> agreement. Only the exercising of granted rights, which must be ones >> initially reserved, cna be used to signal agreement. I might be wrong of >> course, and if this is already used in open source approved license ignore >> me (but please tell me you are doing so) > >This caught me the first time through. What if I disagree with the license? >Can I still use the software? Will I get sued if I do? This is silly. A key point that I've found on Open Source - you place the license on REDISTRIBUTION, not use. Remember that, under standard Copyright, the user has the right to use the software, but not redistribute new or modified copies. The Open Source licenses are what enable that. Thus, by only specifying redistribution, you can mimic the GPL, and say, in effect "You don't have to agree with this license, but nothing else gives you the rights included. Use of these rights indicates acceptance of this license." jeff -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
RE: RealNetworks' RTSP Proxy License
There is a recent case in the Southern District in New York holding that a similar provision was not enough to create a contract because it did not require an affirmative action such as clicking on an Accept button before downloading and using Netscape's SmartDownload. The court also considered where the "contract language" was positioned. Here, at the bottom of the download page (requiring users to scroll down to see it), there was a sentence stating "Please review and agree to the terms of the Netscape SmartDownlaod software license agreement before downloading and using the software." The statement is linked to a page with License and Support Agreements. The first paragraph of that page contains the licensing language. The court in this case recognized three types of licenses, shrink-wrap, click-wrap and browse-wrap and classified Netscape's license as a browse-wrap . The case name is Specht v. Netscape Communications Corp., 00Civ. 4871 (AKH), 00 Civ. 6219 (AKH), 00 Cive. 6269(AKH)(S.D.N.Y. July 3, 2001). -Original Message- From: David Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 9:50 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: RealNetworks' RTSP Proxy License On Thursday 06 September 2001 02:36 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >YOU AGREE THAT YOUR USE OF THE SOFTWARE ACKNOWLEDGES THAT YOU HAVE READ > >THIS LICENSE, UNDERSTAND IT, AND AGREE TO BE BOUND BY ITS TERMS AND > >CONDITIONS. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE AGREEMENT, > > DO NOT USE THE SOFTWARE. > > IANAL, but my understanding from this list, and otehr sources, is that use > of software is not a reserved right and therefore cannot be used to signal > agreement. Only the exercising of granted rights, which must be ones > initially reserved, cna be used to signal agreement. I might be wrong of > course, and if this is already used in open source approved license ignore > me (but please tell me you are doing so) This caught me the first time through. What if I disagree with the license? Can I still use the software? Will I get sued if I do? This is silly. -- David Johnson ___ http://www.usermode.org -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3 The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. This message may be an attorney-client communication and/or work product and as such is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail, and delete the original message. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: RealNetworks' RTSP Proxy License
On Thursday 06 September 2001 02:36 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >YOU AGREE THAT YOUR USE OF THE SOFTWARE ACKNOWLEDGES THAT YOU HAVE READ > >THIS LICENSE, UNDERSTAND IT, AND AGREE TO BE BOUND BY ITS TERMS AND > >CONDITIONS. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE AGREEMENT, > > DO NOT USE THE SOFTWARE. > > IANAL, but my understanding from this list, and otehr sources, is that use > of software is not a reserved right and therefore cannot be used to signal > agreement. Only the exercising of granted rights, which must be ones > initially reserved, cna be used to signal agreement. I might be wrong of > course, and if this is already used in open source approved license ignore > me (but please tell me you are doing so) This caught me the first time through. What if I disagree with the license? Can I still use the software? Will I get sued if I do? This is silly. -- David Johnson ___ http://www.usermode.org -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: RealNetworks' RTSP Proxy License
Here is my review of RealNetworks' RTPS Proxy License.
Please, do correct or complement my comments wend necessary.
At 12:46 05-09-2001 -0700, you wrote:
>Response:
>This is very similar to the BSD license. The jurisdiction for disputes is
>changed to the State of Washington, and there's a section on export
>restrictions.
Well IMHO, it is more similar to the Intel Open Source License than to the
BSD License.
>==
>B. Full text of the license
>--
>
>RTSP Proxy Kit License (2001-02-06)
>
>This License Agreement ("License Agreement") is a legal agreement between
>you (either an individual or an entity)
Persons and corporations are equivalent entities under the law. You might
wanna create
a Definition Section.
>and RealNetworks, Inc. and its suppliers and licensors (collectively "RN")
>for the for RealNetworks' RTSP Proxy Reference Kit ("Software").
for the for ? And This is a little messy i suggest you rewrite this part.
>YOU AGREE THAT YOUR USE OF THE SOFTWARE ACKNOWLEDGES THAT YOU HAVE READ
>THIS LICENSE, UNDERSTAND IT, AND AGREE TO BE BOUND BY ITS TERMS AND
>CONDITIONS. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE AGREEMENT, DO
>NOT USE THE SOFTWARE.
I think you RN have the obligation to put this warning on the download
page, but not in the license, and "IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THE TERMS OF THIS
LICENSE AGREEMENT, DO NOT USE THE SOFTWARE.", is unnecessary, they have to
agree with the license or else they cannot use it. It is like saying to a
kid, "if you don't put a coin on the pinball machine, don't use it". look
at the this part from Sun Bin. License (it is not OSI approved) but i think
this is what you want you really wanna say.
READ THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT AND ANY PROVIDED SUPPLEMENTAL LICENSE
TERMS (COLLECTIVELY "AGREEMENT") CAREFULLY BEFORE OPENING THE SOFTWARE
MEDIA PACKAGE. BY OPENING THE SOFTWARE MEDIA PACKAGE, YOU AGREE TO THE
TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT. IF YOU ARE ACCESSING THE SOFTWARE ELECTRONICALLY,
INDICATE YOUR ACCEPTANCE OF THESE TERMS BY SELECTING THE "ACCEPT" BUTTON AT
THE END OF THIS AGREEMENT. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO ALL THESE TERMS, PROMPTLY
RETURN THE UNUSED SOFTWARE TO YOUR PLACE OF PURCHASE FOR A REFUND OR, IF
THE SOFTWARE IS ACCESSED ELECTRONICALLY, SELECT THE "DECLINE" BUTTON AT THE
END OF THIS AGREEMENT.
Try to modify this warning to meet your needs, or erase the warning from
the license completely.
>1. GRANT OF LICENSE.
>
>Subject to the provisions contained in this License Agreement, RN hereby
>grants you a non-exclusive, non-transferable, perpetual, worldwide license
>to use, modify or redistribute the Software subject to the following terms
>and conditions:
>
>(a) The copyright notice ("(c) 2001 RealNetworks, Inc.") and this copy of
>this License Agreement shall appear on all copies and/or any derivative
>versions of the Software you create or distribute.
Change the wording "derivative versions" to "derived works".
>(b) You acknowledge and agree that RN is and shall be the exclusive owner
>of all right, title and interest, including copyright, in the Software.
>All rights not expressly granted to you are reserved to RN.
I think this is Clause 3 Derived works incompatible. you might want to
modify this.
>2. SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE AND UPGRADES.
>
>RN is not obligated to provide maintenance or updates to you for the
>Software. However, any maintenance or updates provided by RN shall be
>covered by this Agreement.
I don't get this clause, "RN is not obligated to provide maintenance or
updates...", this is common sense, this is open source software license, it
is not a contract of services, you don't need to put this on the
license, delete it, and simply release the updates, maintenance ( i
suppose RN you mean patches ?) under the same license.
>3. DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTY.
>
>The Software is deemed accepted by you. Because RN is providing you the
>Software for free, the Software is provided to you AS IS, WITHOUT WARRANTY
>OF ANY KIND. TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW,
>REALNETWORKS FURTHER DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION
>ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
>PURPOSE, AND NONINFRINGEMENT. THE ENTIRE RISK ARISING OUT OF THE USE OR
>PERFORMANCE OF THE SOFTWARE REMAINS WITH YOU. TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT
>PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, IN NO EVENT SHALL REALNETWORKS OR ITS
>SUPPLIERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CONSEQUENTIAL, INCIDENTAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT,
>SPECIAL, PUNITIVE, OR OTHER DAMAGES WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING, WITHOUT
>LIMITATION, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF BUSINESS PROFITS, BUSINESS INTERRUPTION,
>LOSS OF BUSINESS INFORMATION, OR OTHER PECUNIARY LOSS) ARISING OUT OF THIS
>AGREEMENT OR THE USE OF OR INABILITY TO USE THE SOFTWARE, EVEN IF
>REALNETWORKS HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. BECAUSE
>SOME STATES/JURISDICTIONS DO NOT ALLOW THE EXCLUSION O
Re: RealNetworks' RTSP Proxy License
Rob Lanphier writes: > 2.Tell us which existing OSI-approved license is most similar to >your license. Explain why that license will not suffice for your >needs. If your proposed license is derived from a license we >have already approved, describe exactly what you have >changed. This document is not part of the license; it is solely to >help the board understand and review your license. > > Response: > This is very similar to the BSD license. The jurisdiction for disputes is > changed to the State of Washington, and there's a section on export > restrictions. Well, the permission is most similar to the BSD license, but the license isn't similar to the BSD license. For example, the BSD license doesn't have an export clause, nor an indemnification clause. > This should be entirely compatible with all OSI-approved licenses, assuming > that the BSD license (newer version) is compatible with all OSI-approved > licenses. FYI, RMS believes that since the GPL does not specify jurisdiction, that any license which does is imposing extra constraints which is incompatible with the GPL. > (b) You acknowledge and agree that RN is and shall be the exclusive owner > of all right, title and interest, including copyright, in the Software. As several people have pointed out, it's not clear who you think owns a copyright on derivative works. Are you imposing a requirement for copyright assignment? Can't do that since it's a secondary requirement and the OSD disallows that. I think you've got to change this language to make it clear that you're asking for an agreement that RN owns a copyright on the version of the software distributed under this license. > 2. SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE AND UPGRADES. > > RN is not obligated to provide maintenance or updates to you for the > Software. This is not necessary since you disclaim all warranties in #3. > However, any maintenance or updates provided by RN shall be > covered by this Agreement. I'm not sure this is necessary. When you supply the updates, license them under the RTSP license. I'd remove section 2 entirely. > 4. INDEMNIFICATION. > > You hereby agree to defend, indemnify, and hold RN, its directors, > officers, employees and agents, harmless I believe that defense and indemnification requirements are widely violated in the industry. That is, people will copy this software with no intention to defend you or indemnify you. I would take those two requirements out. But if you do, is there any difference between #3 and #4? > Elliott, Suite 1000/Seattle, Washington 98121. You are responsible for > complying with all trade regulations and laws both foreign and domestic. We persuaded Intel to leave off the language that follows this, and I expect we will succeed with you as well. :-) As Jeffry Smith points out, it discriminates, and that's verboten. We approved somewhat similar language in the APSL 1.0 and it was a mistake. -- -russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | The most basic moral/ethical 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | question is who gets to use Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | force, and when -- ESR -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
RE: RealNetworks' RTSP Proxy License
>YOU AGREE THAT YOUR USE OF THE SOFTWARE ACKNOWLEDGES THAT YOU HAVE READ >THIS LICENSE, UNDERSTAND IT, AND AGREE TO BE BOUND BY ITS TERMS AND >CONDITIONS. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE AGREEMENT, DO >NOT USE THE SOFTWARE. IANAL, but my understanding from this list, and otehr sources, is that use of software is not a reserved right and therefore cannot be used to signal agreement. Only the exercising of granted rights, which must be ones initially reserved, cna be used to signal agreement. I might be wrong of course, and if this is already used in open source approved license ignore me (but please tell me you are doing so) Sam Barnett-Cormack -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: RealNetworks' RTSP Proxy License
Rob Lanphier said: >Hi all, > >I'd like to submit the RealNetworks' RTSP Proxy license for OSI >certification. The text of the license can be found at the URL below as >well as in section B of this email: >http://www.rtsp.org/2001/proxy/license.html > >Thanks >Rob >== >A. Answers to process questions >-- >Below are the responses to the first four points in the certification mark >process (steps 5-8 do not seem to require response): >http://www.opensource.org/docs/certification_mark.html#approval > >Text of process included for convenience: > >1.Put the license on a web page in HTML form. We will convert it > into the same style as the existing approved licenses. You can > help us by publishing it in that style yourself to save us the > conversion step. > >Response: >Done. It's not in your template, but the license itself is between >tags, so it'll go into whatever template you want pretty easily. >http://www.rtsp.org/2001/proxy/license.html > >2.Tell us which existing OSI-approved license is most similar to > your license. Explain why that license will not suffice for your > needs. If your proposed license is derived from a license we > have already approved, describe exactly what you have > changed. This document is not part of the license; it is solely to > help the board understand and review your license. > >Response: >This is very similar to the BSD license. The jurisdiction for disputes is >changed to the State of Washington, and there's a section on export >restrictions. Problem right there - you restrict the usage: <> >From the OSI Definition: <<5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons. Rationale: In order to get the maximum benefit from the process, the maximum diversity of persons and groups should be equally eligible to contribute to open sources. Therefore we forbid any open-source license from locking anybody out of the process. Some countries, including the United States, have export restrictions for certain types of software. An OSD-conformant license may warn licensees of applicable restrictions and remind them that they are obliged to obey the law; however, it may not incorporate such restrictions itself. >> You specifically forbid reexport. What if the rules change? Also, what if I'm in France? Am I still bound by the rules? Recommendation: Cut the paragraph off after: "You are responsible for complying with all trade regulations and laws both foreign and domestic." Note: I don't have a say in this, just a member of the discuss list. > >3.Explain how software distributed under your license can be > used in conjunction with software distributed under other open > source licenses. Which license do you think will take > precedence for derivative or combined works? Is there any > software license that is entirely incompatible with your > proposed license?. > >Response: >This should be entirely compatible with all OSI-approved licenses, assuming >that the BSD license (newer version) is compatible with all OSI-approved >licenses. Also, I'm not certain about: "(b) You acknowledge and agree that RN is and shall be the exclusive owner of all right, title and interest, including copyright, in the Software." Define Software - your original Distro (which you could protect by simply declaring "Copyright RealNetwork"), or all derivative works? jeff -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: RealNetworks' RTSP Proxy License
On Wednesday 05 September 2001 15:46, Rob Lanphier wrote:
> I'd like to submit the RealNetworks' RTSP Proxy license for OSI
> certification. The text of the license can be found at the URL below as
> well as in section B of this email:
> http://www.rtsp.org/2001/proxy/license.html
Hi Rob, my comments have no official standing, I have no affiliation with
OSI, I'm just trying to make myself useful.
> 2.Tell us which existing OSI-approved license is most similar to
> Response:
> This is very similar to the BSD license. The jurisdiction for disputes
> is changed to the State of Washington, and there's a section on export
> restrictions.
Which license? If I run a diff with [1], which is the "new" post
advertising-requirement BSD license, it's not that similar.
[1] http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.html
> Response:
> This should be entirely compatible with all OSI-approved licenses,
> assuming that the BSD license (newer version) is compatible with all
> OSI-approved licenses.
Please give the URI to the stated BSD license.
> http://www.rtsp.org/2001/proxy/license.html
> 1. GRANT OF LICENSE.
>
> Subject to the provisions contained in this License Agreement, RN hereby
> grants you a non-exclusive, non-transferable, perpetual, worldwide
> license to use, modify or redistribute the Software subject to the
> following terms and conditions:
>
> (a) The copyright notice ("(c) 2001 RealNetworks, Inc.") and this copy of
> this License Agreement shall appear on all copies and/or any derivative
> versions of the Software you create or distribute.
> (b) You acknowledge and agree that RN is and shall be the exclusive owner
> of all right, title and interest, including copyright, in the Software.
You mean the original software or the derived software? Or are you saying
the derivatives works are exclusively owned by RN as well (but under this
license)? For instance, if I made a build on it next year, I would expect
to be able to use the following statement:
Copyright 2001 RealNetwork, Inc. Copyright 2002 Joseph Reagle.
This software is distributed under the RN Software License.
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
