Re: Advertising Clauses in Licenses
Forrest J. Cavalier III writes: Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote (in part) There is much in the OSD which is insufficiently explicit. For example, we have maintained that there are no possible restrictions a license could put on users, because there is no possible mechanism one could use to constraint them, because no approved license can require that the user execute a license (OSD#7). I think it is a problem that execute a license is not defined. As far as I can tell, the GPL is indeed a license. And making a modified version, or distributing a copy, binds you to the license. Isn't that executing a license? You could argue that. We haven't done that, though. Instead, we consider that you are accepting the permissions granted to you by the copyright holder. -- -russ nelson http://russnelson.com | Crypto without a threat Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | model is like cookies 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | without milk. Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Advertising Clauses in Licenses
Bruce Perens writes: From: Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] There is much in the OSD which is insufficiently explicit. For example, we have maintained that there are no possible restrictions a license could put on users, because there is no possible mechanism one could use to constraint them, because no approved license can require that the user execute a license (OSD#7). People should be able to understand the OSD. Sigh. Unfortunately, the OSD is not very well written. For example, it says nothing about use, so multiple parties have tried to say Yeah, you can copy this software, but in order to use it, you have to license it from us. We squashed them using #7 (fortunately!), but the OSD really ought to say If you have a copy of this software, you can do anything you want with it. The people who wrote the OSD never considered that somebody might want to deny usage. -- -russ nelson http://russnelson.com | Crypto without a threat Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | model is like cookies 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | without milk. Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Advertising Clauses in Licenses
Unfortunately, the OSD is not very well written. Of course we had no idea, at the time, that the scope of application of this portion of the Debian Social Contract would grow so large. I think that we'd better fix this particular problem regarding use before we get to the more pervasive issues of the OSD. I am willing to attack those, and can get some money and attorney resources to do so, but it would be a longer haul. Thanks Bruce -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Advertising Clauses in Licenses
It frightens me that no one has (on the list) bothered to ask what the additions might address. Bruce? Bruce isn't an idiot. He wouldn't propose additions we wouldn't be likely to accept. 8^) That, of course, isn't what troubled me. It was that no one seemed curious enough to ask. -- Steve Mallett | http://OSDir.org - Stable, Open Source Apps. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://open5ource.net personal -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Advertising Clauses in Licenses
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote (in part) There is much in the OSD which is insufficiently explicit. For example, we have maintained that there are no possible restrictions a license could put on users, because there is no possible mechanism one could use to constraint them, because no approved license can require that the user execute a license (OSD#7). I think it is a problem that execute a license is not defined. As far as I can tell, the GPL is indeed a license. And making a modified version, or distributing a copy, binds you to the license. Isn't that executing a license? -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Advertising Clauses in Licenses
On Monday 11 February 2002 08:59 am, Bruce Perens wrote: People should be able to understand the OSD. Sigh. This all turned out to be a lot more complicated than we were thinking back in 1997. By and large, I think most people DO understand the OSD. Where we have problems is understanding the cryptic legalese some of these licenses are written in. -- David Johnson ___ http://www.usermode.org pgp public key on website -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Advertising Clauses in Licenses
On February 9, 2002 04:50 pm, Bruce Perens wrote: From: Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bruce Perens writes: I think there needs to be language added to the OSD, protecting the user and developer from odd burdens that the licensor wishes to impose upon them. Russ Nelson: Are you volunteering to write this language yourself, or volunteering someone else? I'd be happy to write the first draft and coordinate comments and changes to it. Of course it would be a group project as I'd need to consult lots of people - attorneys, community leaders, a discussion list, etc. I suspect that some of the things I am worried about fail the current OSD under use restrictions, but not as explicitly as I'd like. It frightens me that no one has (on the list) bothered to ask what the additions might address. Bruce? -- Steve Mallett | http://OSDir.org - Stable, Open Source Apps. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://open5ource.net personal -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Advertising Clauses in Licenses
From: Steve Mallett [EMAIL PROTECTED] On February 9, 2002 04:50 pm, Bruce Perens wrote: It frightens me that no one has (on the list) bothered to ask what the additions might address. Bruce? Badgeware, snoopware, etc., where the requirement is attached to _use_. IMO these already fail the OSD, but not explicitly enough. Thanks Bruce -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Advertising Clauses in Licenses
Steve Mallett writes: On February 9, 2002 04:50 pm, Bruce Perens wrote: I'd be happy to write the first draft and coordinate comments and changes to it. Of course it would be a group project as I'd need to consult lots of people - attorneys, community leaders, a discussion list, etc. Cool. I suspect that some of the things I am worried about fail the current OSD under use restrictions, but not as explicitly as I'd like. There is much in the OSD which is insufficiently explicit. For example, we have maintained that there are no possible restrictions a license could put on users, because there is no possible mechanism one could use to constraint them, because no approved license can require that the user execute a license (OSD#7). It frightens me that no one has (on the list) bothered to ask what the additions might address. Bruce? Bruce isn't an idiot. He wouldn't propose additions we wouldn't be likely to accept. -- -russ nelson http://russnelson.com | Crypto without a threat Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | model is like cookies 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | without milk. Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Advertising Clauses in Licenses
Bruce Perens writes: I think there needs to be language added to the OSD, protecting the user and developer from odd burdens that the licensor wishes to impose upon them. Are you volunteering to write this language yourself, or volunteering someone else? -- -russ nelson http://russnelson.com | If patents were such a Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | great idea, somebody 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | would have patented them Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | already! -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Advertising Clauses in Licenses
From: Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bruce Perens writes: I think there needs to be language added to the OSD, protecting the user and developer from odd burdens that the licensor wishes to impose upon them. Russ Nelson: Are you volunteering to write this language yourself, or volunteering someone else? I'd be happy to write the first draft and coordinate comments and changes to it. Of course it would be a group project as I'd need to consult lots of people - attorneys, community leaders, a discussion list, etc. I suspect that some of the things I am worried about fail the current OSD under use restrictions, but not as explicitly as I'd like. Thanks Bruce -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Advertising Clauses in Licenses
Someone please tell Russ his qmail is rejecting me. Bruce -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Advertising Clauses in Licenses
Bruce, Ok, presumably this will do it. Randy Kramer Bruce Perens wrote: Someone please tell Russ his qmail is rejecting me. Bruce -- 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: Advertising Clauses in Licenses
On Sun, Jan 20, 2002 at 08:56:23PM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote: Perhaps you've never had to put together a Linux distribution, or an embedded Linux product. Consider the overhead this places on Debian, which has up to 5000 packages in a distribution. This is a real issue. I don't think asking people to include credit notices is philosophically at odds with open source software. On the other hand, there is this practical issue: if each license asked you to do something a little different, it's a major headache. The OSD has been presented as a fairly abstract set of principles which a license must adhere to. It's dealing with the question at the abstract level, and certifying a license according to whether it does or does not conflict with those abstract principles. Perhaps this is the wrong way to go about it. Perhaps it's time for the OSD to get a little more dirty and pratical and so something useful like specify exactly what kind of credit requirement would be OK. You could solve the practical problem for Debian by creating a maximum template and if you did the maximum for every software package you would therefore satisfy every OSD certified license. Those that didn't ask for the maximum would surely not complain that you gave them more credit and notice than they were owed. I'm thinking of something like this: An OSD license may ask that users include a credit note in any or all of the following documents: -- any document longer than 1000 words which explains how to use the software (eg: user manual) -- any document which lists the contributors whose source code contributed to the product (eg: About box) -- a credits document which must accompanying the software The credit included above may require the inclusion any or all of the following information: -- a specific copyright statement, up to 100 words -- the name of the included OSD software package -- the author of the OSD software package -- the email address and website for the author -- the email address and website for the product -- the physical address and phone number of the author -- a statement, up to 100 words, describing the software Then if you included all of that information in all of the required documents for all included software you would know that you had satisfied the requirement. The list can debate until either satisfied or blue in the face what the allowed documents and the allowed bits of information should be. What I wrote above is just an example of what it might be. Many people seem to want that, and this approach would eliminate the burden placed on Debian, etc., of having to figure out the exact requirement of each individual license. Justin -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Advertising Clauses in Licenses
John Cowan wrote: Lawrence E. Rosen scripsit: As for the GPL, where does it say that you can't distribute source via a website? As I read it, you must merely distribute source code on a medium customarily used for software interchange. I now get almost all of my software, including proprietary programs, through downloads. See http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DistributeWithSourceOnInternet et seqq. To be clear, that QA covers the case when you initially distributed binaries only. The relevant part is GPL section 3. If you satisfy 3a, (distribute both binaries and source from a web site) then the GPL does not require satisfying 3b (distribute on a medium customarily used...) Further in the GPL, it states it plainly: If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent access to copy the source code from the same place counts as distribution of the source code, even though third parties are not compelled to copy the source along with the object code. The GPL is clear and fair on this point. You are obligated to provide source code to those who received a binary version from you. The Q Public license 1.0 (QPL), for exmaple, says something different. QPL 4 b says you must give source code to all recipients of a binary, without any charges beyond the costs of data transfer (which precludes a profit.) I think that is unfair. Consider that I can decided to sell sources only at $50 profit. Company B takes my sources, distributes executables, and then goes out of business. Company C, who received binaries from B, now can come to me and demand sources without profit. That's not fair, and I don't see how it became OSI approved. Forrest. License analyser and compatibility checker: http://www.mibsoftware.com/librock/lidesc/ -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Advertising Clauses in Licenses
Quoting John Cowan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): Lawrence E. Rosen scripsit: As for the GPL, where does it say that you can't distribute source via a website? As I read it, you must merely distribute source code on a medium customarily used for software interchange. I now get almost all of my software, including proprietary programs, through downloads. See http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DistributeWithSourceOnInternet et seq. RMS has mentioned to me that he's considering changing section 3b to (in some way) require source code availability on tangible physical media; the current (v2) wording does _not_ so require. The coders' intent should logically be inferred from what that wording actually says, not FSF's current exegesis. (Whether a requirement for tangible media would be good for various parties is a separate discussion, which I'm not proposing.) Separately and in addition to that: The above FAQ claims physical media (disk or tape) are necessary because not every user is on a network. But isn't it equally true that not every user can read any specific physical-media format you might nominate as a universal distribution medium? The laptop host I'm typing this on has no floppy drive at the moment; I left it at home. And half the machines in my household are PowerMacs with no floppy or tape drives. For us residents -- as, I think, for many others -- ftp, http, and cvs over rsh _are_ this decade's canonical medium customarily used for software interchange. -- Is it not the beauty of an asynchronous form of discussion that one can go and make cups of tea, floss the cat, fluff the geraniums, open the kitchen window and scream out it with operatic force, volume, and decorum, and then return to the vexed glowing letters calmer of mind and soul? -- The Cube, forum3000.org -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Advertising Clauses in Licenses
Rick Moen scripsit: The above FAQ claims physical media (disk or tape) are necessary because not every user is on a network. But isn't it equally true that not every user can read any specific physical-media format you might nominate as a universal distribution medium? Indeed, the whole point of clause 3 is to make the way of the binary-only distributor hard, by imposing tight requirements. How much easier it is to just send out the source on the same CD, or to make it available in the same FTP directory! -- 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: Advertising Clauses in Licenses
From: John Cowan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Subject: Re: Advertising Clauses in Licenses Lawrence E. Rosen scripsit: As for the GPL, where does it say that you can't distribute source via a website? As I read it, you must merely distribute source code on a medium customarily used for software interchange. I now get almost all of my software, including proprietary programs, through downloads. See http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DistributeWithSourceOnInternet et seqq. I see where the gnu.org site comments on that. But I see no such restrictions in the GPL itself. Not every user is on a network. Every user that wants source is *now* on the Internet. The license provisions rule. Please note that I'm not necessarily recommending this as a standard procedure. I was just trying to suggest an alternative for those who complain that they can't fit all the required notices on a file on disk along with the software. That has to be a subset of a subset of a subset of distributors. /Larry Rosen -- 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: Advertising Clauses in Licenses
-Original Message- From: Richard Stallman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, January 21, 2002 1:40 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Advertising Clauses in Licenses I think you have identified three separate questions: * Requiring credit notices in derivative works. * Requiring credit notices in manuals. * Requiring credit notices in advertisements. It is only the last of these which, we argue, causes a practical problem. 3. The end-user documentation included with the redistribution, if any, must include the following acknowledgment: This product includes software developed by the Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/). Alternately, this acknowledgment may appear in the software itself, if and wherever such third-party acknowledgments normally appear. This is not the advertising clause, and I have never argued that this is harmful. I now understand and appreciate the distinction you are drawing. Thanks for the clarification. But I still have a concern. I have always argued that we should review and approve licenses according to a published standard. This prevents us from being (or appearing to be) arbitrary and capricious. So where in the OSD, or in the GPL, do we make it clear that potentially burdensome license requirements (however those are defined) are not allowed? /Larry Rosen -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Advertising Clauses in Licenses
On Mon, Jan 21, 2002 at 09:34:10AM -0800, Lawrence E. Rosen wrote: But I still have a concern. I have always argued that we should review and approve licenses according to a published standard. This prevents us from being (or appearing to be) arbitrary and capricious. So where in the OSD, or in the GPL, do we make it clear that potentially burdensome license requirements (however those are defined) are not allowed? Larry, I'm not sure we can create a definition of burdensome, even in statutory language, that would be sufficient for inclusion in the OSD. However, you can make it part of the published role of the OSI board to review proposed licenses for undue burden on the developer and user, and you can give some examples - the combinatorial problem, user burdens such as badgeware, etc. This is an activity that the OSI has previously carried out well, and I most strongly urge that they should continue to do so. To fail to do that will inevitably lead to all sorts of perversions of Open Source as people figure out creative loopholes. I do not believe, and never have, that any version of the OSD should be applied as an automated process. Do courts never consider the spirit of the law? I think you are coming at this from an urge to eliminate any possible litigation situations in which an OSI decision is challenged. There has to be some risk, but you can still make this a fruitless game for the challenger without decerebrating the license approval process. Thanks Bruce -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Advertising Clauses in Licenses
Quoting Karsten M. Self ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): If the request is taken to be to any third party...on a medium customarially used for software interchange, and the third party in question doesn't have network access, I'd grant the FSF wiggle room for their argument. Otherwise you are discriminating against third parties lacking (effective or affordable) network access. That tapping you feel on your shoulder is from an iBook owner with no tape drive, wearing a sign that says I'm an illustrative counterexample. (He's not heard of René Magritte.) -- Cheers, A good man has few enemies; a ruthless man has none. Rick Moen [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
RE: Advertising Clauses in Licenses
Forrest J. Cavalier III wrote: The Q Public license 1.0 (QPL), for exmaple, says something different. QPL 4 b says you must give source code to all recipients of a binary, without any charges beyond the costs of data transfer (which precludes a profit.) I think that is unfair. Consider that I can decided to sell sources only at $50 profit. Company B takes my sources, distributes executables, and then goes out of business. Company C, who received binaries from B, now can come to me and demand sources without profit. That's not fair, and I don't see how it became OSI approved. I don't think this is correct (however, IANAL). According to this clause in the QPL, Company B is obliged to distribute the sources to company C without any charges beyond the cost of data transfer *if* company C demands such sources. Since *you* have nothing to do with company C (their deal was with company B, not you), you are not obliged to distribute the source code to company C at all, whether or not company B goes out of business. Regards, Marc Rauw. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Advertising Clauses in Licenses
So where in the OSD, or in the GPL, do we make it clear that potentially burdensome license requirements (however those are defined) are not allowed? I recommend you allow them but deprecate them. That is what we do. We always did recognize the old BSD license as a free software license, but we said people should avoid it because of its annoying practical consequences. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Advertising Clauses in Licenses
Are you assuming that they will not admit new ones? After my conversation with Larry today, and getting a better idea of the way he wants the license approval process to work, I'm going to change my stance. I think there needs to be language added to the OSD, protecting the user and developer from odd burdens that the licensor wishes to impose upon them. These burdens are mostly not directly connected with software development. For example: usage-reporting, or taking attribution to a greater level than simply putting developer's names with the software license on a disk where the end-user or creator of a derived work can read them. Such language needs to be general enough to admit whatever new burdens people decide to invent. You should not be asked to bind the developer's name as a sign on thy hand and as frontlets between thy eyes. Thanks Bruce On Mon, Jan 21, 2002 at 10:39:42PM -0700, Richard Stallman wrote: So where in the OSD, or in the GPL, do we make it clear that potentially burdensome license requirements (however those are defined) are not allowed? I recommend you allow them but deprecate them. That is what we do. We always did recognize the old BSD license as a free software license, but we said people should avoid it because of its annoying practical consequences. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
RE: Advertising Clauses in Licenses
The generally-deprecated advertising clause used by Apache (a phrase used in an earlier email to this list) is, in my opinion, an entirely appropriate license provision. The clause reads: 3. The end-user documentation included with the redistribution, if any, must include the following acknowledgment: This product includes software developed by the Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/). Alternately, this acknowledgment may appear in the software itself, if and wherever such third-party acknowledgments normally appear. The rationale accompanying section 4 of the OSD (http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.html) recognizes that encouraging lots of improvement is a good thing, but users have a right to know who is responsible for the software they are using. Authors and maintainers have reciprocal right to know what they're being asked to support and protect their reputations. How better to achieve those objectives than by a simple one-sentence notice that must be included with derivative works either in end-user documentation or in the software itself? The FSF website (http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/bsd.html), specifically discussing the obnoxious BSD advertising clause, argues that advertising clauses in licenses potentially lead to long lists of acknowledgements in derivative works. RMS wrote that in 1997 he counted 75 such sentences that needed to be included in one version of NetBSD. I am unmoved by this perceived threat to free or open source software. The individuals and communities who create free and open source software deserve to receive credit for their contributions. Is it asking too much to require the authors of derivative works to acknowledge the contributions through simple notices? Suppose the list of contributions grows long. Is it expecting too much for the authors of derivative works to include a text file listing those contributions along with the software? And finally, although it does impose a burden on the authors of derivative works to take the time to identify the contributors of software they are using, that task is *essential* to avoid copyright infringement or breach of contract. Those notices required by the advertising clauses should help make this task much easier. All-in-all, I praise the advertising clause and encourage it to be used. /Larry Rosen -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
RE: Advertising Clauses in Licenses
Hi, On Sun, 2002-01-20 at 21:07, Lawrence E. Rosen wrote: The generally-deprecated advertising clause used by Apache (a phrase used in an earlier email to this list) is, in my opinion, an entirely appropriate license provision. The clause reads: [... New version from the 1.1 license ...] I think the original mail from Bruce was about the old one in the 1.0 version. The FSF website (http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/bsd.html), specifically discussing the obnoxious BSD advertising clause, argues that advertising clauses in licenses potentially lead to long lists of acknowledgements in derivative works. RMS wrote that in 1997 he counted 75 such sentences that needed to be included in one version of NetBSD. This page also talks about the old deprecated BSD version of the clause. The old version of the original BSD license and the old 1.0 Apache License really were obnoxious because they demanded that All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software should add specific comments about some of the authors. Not just in the software and/or the documentation distributed together with the product/derived work. All-in-all, I praise the advertising clause and encourage it to be used. I agree. But maybe we need a new term to distinquish the old obnoxious version of this 'advertising clause' and this new 'acknowledgement clause' which seems very reasonable. Cheers, Mark -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Advertising Clauses in Licenses
On Sun, Jan 20, 2002 at 12:07:53PM -0800, Lawrence E. Rosen wrote: I am unmoved by this perceived threat to free or open source software. Perhaps you've never had to put together a Linux distribution, or an embedded Linux product. Consider the overhead this places on Debian, which has up to 5000 packages in a distribution. Some volunteer has to go through and check each of those 5000 packages for an acknowledgement requirement with every release, and make sure that the end-user documentation stays in sync, which is one less person making free software for a pretty long time. The individuals and communities who create free and open source software deserve to receive credit for their contributions. Is it asking too much to require the authors of derivative works to acknowledge the contributions through simple notices? Every package generally gets to publish its credits in the place in the user software, where the online copyright statement is kept. This can be managed automaticaly, so it's not a hassle. But to put it in the user manuals and advertising can become quite a burden. One of the goals of the OSD was to have software that the user could run without having to read the license or take any special action. Note that this is the user, not the creator of a derived work. But if the software licenses ask the user to put badges on their home page, that really blows the premise that the user can run it without having to investigate anything. Suppose the list of contributions grows long. Is it expecting too much for the authors of derivative works to include a text file listing those contributions along with the software? No, not as long as it can be handled automaticaly, as with the files in (on Debian) /usr/share/doc/package-name . Thanks Bruce -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Advertising Clauses in Licenses
A simple solution seems to be simply requiring a URL for the appropriate credit. The list of credits could be automatically compiled using an appropriate convention and be as long as necessary. It would certainly save space. I suppose there is some technical legal reason why this won't work, right? On Sun, 20 Jan 2002, Karsten M. Self wrote: on Sun, Jan 20, 2002 at 12:07:53PM -0800, Lawrence E. Rosen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: The FSF website (http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/bsd.html), specifically discussing the obnoxious BSD advertising clause, argues that advertising clauses in licenses potentially lead to long lists of acknowledgements in derivative works. RMS wrote that in 1997 he counted 75 such sentences that needed to be included in one version of NetBSD. I am unmoved by this perceived threat to free or open source software. The individuals and communities who create free and open source software deserve to receive credit for their contributions. Is it asking too much to require the authors of derivative works to acknowledge the contributions through simple notices? Suppose the list of contributions grows long. Is it expecting too much for the authors of derivative works to include a text file listing those contributions along with the software? These comments are meant to amplify Bruce's comments. It depends on where this text must be kept, relative to the software. I worked with RMS and Tom Oehser of Tom's Root Boot (TRB), a 1.77 MiB formatted floppy disk with a live GNU/Linux system on it. In this particular instance, space (and project management) are at a premium -- the obligation to carry license on the disk itself means that software would be displaced. TRB is a study in code compaction and squeezing the most functionality out of every available byte. In this case, both license and source obligations were managed by keeping files separate. A downside is that the previous symmetry of TRB was broken -- there's a component which must be distributed separately of the distribution's working files, where previously it was possible to create an archive from the floppy, and a floppy from the archive. The result is the following clause in TRB's license file: Caveat Emptor *** * This license file must be included with tomsrtbt whenever it is * * redistributed. If components are redistributed, the respective * * portions must be included, that is, the GPL, LGPL, BSD, and the * * programs they cover, must always be distributed together. This * * means it must certainly be a violation of license to distribute * * the tomsrtbt floppy to anyone without including these licenses! * * These licenses ARE NOT included on the floppy itself, it breaks * * the license terms if you do not include it ALONG WITH the disk! * * If you really want to be safe, distribute tomsrtbt as a double- * * diskette set, with this file being the contents of diskette #2. * *** TRB is hardly unique in this regard. Various bootable media (Trinux, muLinux, LNX-BBC, the Linuxcare BBC, Knoppix, etc.) are both increasingly popular, and damned useful (I literally never leave home without at least two), and we'll likely see migration from floppies and CDs to memory sticks and DVDs in the next year or so. For embedded systems (watches, PDAs, various devices) similar size constraints exist. Free software must be careful about thousand-cuts practices. There are requests which seem reasonable in the single instance which become a prohibitive burden in aggregate. Close-binding obligations (e.g.: the obligation follows directly with the software, and can't be satisfied on secondary media or means) not directly related to software performance runs this risk. Multiplied out 8,776 times (the number of packages listed in my Debian packages list today), they become a nightmare -- that's 8,776 cuts. Peace. -- -- Michael Bauer[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.michaelbauer.com -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
RE: Advertising Clauses in Licenses
A simple solution seems to be simply requiring a URL for the appropriate credit. The list of credits could be automatically compiled using an appropriate convention and be as long as necessary. It would certainly save space. I suppose there is some technical legal reason why this won't work, right? I can't think of a reason why that wouldn't work. /Larry -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
RE: Advertising Clauses in Licenses
-Original Message- From: John Cowan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Subject: Re: Advertising Clauses in Licenses Lawrence E. Rosen scripsit: I can't think of a reason why that wouldn't work. Primarily because URLs aren't that stable: they come and go, but free software goes on for decades in certain cases. This is why it's not enough under the GPL, when distributing software in binary form, to say Download source from here! You have to be willing to send it out on tape or CD-ROM or what have you. When the URL goes away, so will the distribution of the derivative work. Software, too, comes and goes. Such is life. As for the GPL, where does it say that you can't distribute source via a website? As I read it, you must merely distribute source code on a medium customarily used for software interchange. I now get almost all of my software, including proprietary programs, through downloads. /Larry Rosen -Original Message- From: John Cowan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2002 11:08 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: 'Michael Bauer'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Advertising Clauses in Licenses Lawrence E. Rosen scripsit: I can't think of a reason why that wouldn't work. Primarily because URLs aren't that stable: they come and go, but free software goes on for decades in certain cases. This is why it's not enough under the GPL, when distributing software in binary form, to say Download source from here! You have to be willing to send it out on tape or CD-ROM or what have 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
