RE: license idea (revised)

[Ryo Chijiiwa]

Thanks.  The license was suggested to me off list by someone as well, and
apart from FSF having issues with it
(http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html), it seems like it
fulfills most of my needs.
I'll present this to my users and see what they say.

Thanks again to everyone for your comments.

Ryo

On 7/16/2003, "Lawrence E. Rosen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>The Open Software License deals with ASP use as follows:
>
>   5) External Deployment. The term "External Deployment" means
>   the use or distribution of the Original Work or Derivative Works
>   in any way such that the Original Work or Derivative Works may be
>   used by anyone other than You, whether the Original Work or
>   Derivative Works are distributed to those persons or made available
>   as an application intended for use over a computer network. As an
>   express condition for the grants of license hereunder, You agree
>   that any External Deployment by You of a Derivative Work shall be
>   deemed a distribution and shall be licensed to all under the terms
>   of this License, as prescribed in section 1(c) herein.
>
>/Larry Rosen
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: John Cowan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 2:31 PM
>> To: Mark Rafn
>> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Subject: Re: license idea (revised)
>>
>>
>> Mark Rafn scripsit:
>>
>> > This has been discussed a bit on debian-legal, under the
>> heading "ASP
>> > loophole".  One interesting question is where to draw the
>> line between
>> > use and "deployment".  This e-mail was routed along a box at my ISP
>> > that includes open-source code.  Do I have the right to that code?
>>
>> There is also the question of the line between deployment and
>> private use. Suppose I am a consultant of some sort and I
>> accept people's questions in the form of encrypted emails,
>> which contain the question and a credit card number.  I then
>> research the answer (or pull it out of my butt), charge the
>> credit card, and reply.  I am essentially acting as a slow ASP.
>>
>> Am I obliged to publish all changes that I make to any OSS
>> which I use in my business?  Presumably not; the right to
>> make private changes is protected by (AFAIK) all open-source
>> licenses including the GPL. Deploying software in an ASP is
>> not IMHO essentially different; it is use, not publication.
>>
>> --
>> We call nothing profound
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> that is not wittily expressed.  John Cowan
>> --Northrop Frye (improved)
>> http://www.reutershealth.com
>> --
>> license-discuss archive is at
>> http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
>>
>
>--
>license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3

RE: license idea (revised)

[Lawrence E. Rosen]

The Open Software License deals with ASP use as follows:

   5) External Deployment. The term "External Deployment" means 
   the use or distribution of the Original Work or Derivative Works
   in any way such that the Original Work or Derivative Works may be
   used by anyone other than You, whether the Original Work or
   Derivative Works are distributed to those persons or made available
   as an application intended for use over a computer network. As an
   express condition for the grants of license hereunder, You agree
   that any External Deployment by You of a Derivative Work shall be
   deemed a distribution and shall be licensed to all under the terms
   of this License, as prescribed in section 1(c) herein. 

/Larry Rosen

> -Original Message-
> From: John Cowan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 2:31 PM
> To: Mark Rafn
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: license idea (revised)
> 
> 
> Mark Rafn scripsit:
> 
> > This has been discussed a bit on debian-legal, under the 
> heading "ASP 
> > loophole".  One interesting question is where to draw the 
> line between 
> > use and "deployment".  This e-mail was routed along a box at my ISP 
> > that includes open-source code.  Do I have the right to that code?
> 
> There is also the question of the line between deployment and 
> private use. Suppose I am a consultant of some sort and I 
> accept people's questions in the form of encrypted emails, 
> which contain the question and a credit card number.  I then 
> research the answer (or pull it out of my butt), charge the 
> credit card, and reply.  I am essentially acting as a slow ASP.
> 
> Am I obliged to publish all changes that I make to any OSS 
> which I use in my business?  Presumably not; the right to 
> make private changes is protected by (AFAIK) all open-source 
> licenses including the GPL. Deploying software in an ASP is 
> not IMHO essentially different; it is use, not publication.
> 
> -- 
> We call nothing profound
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> that is not wittily expressed.  John Cowan
> --Northrop Frye (improved)  
> http://www.reutershealth.com
> --
> license-discuss archive is at 
> http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
> 

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

Re: license idea (revised)

[Ryo Chijiiwa]

On 7/16/2003, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:


>> Server software like web servers and mail servers don't have interfaces
>> for end users because that's not the intended audience.
>
>Of course they are.  End users use the http and smtp interfaces of such
>servers every day.  They are intended for end-users.  Most end-users use
>some sort of browser or MTA to use the software, but isn't that what
>you're talking about with your package as well?

The thing is, my package is an MUA that builds the UI on top of HTTP. 
It's client software, that happens to run on a server.  But perhaps
it's more of an intuitive distinction than a logical one, and
apparently, one that's very much open for debate.

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

Re: license idea (revised)

[MAILER-DAEMON]

> On 7/16/2003, "Mark Rafn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >I don't think that most agree that the requirement to give source and
> >distribution rights to all users is an acceptible solution.

On Wed, 16 Jul 2003, Ryo Chijiiwa wrote:
> Perhaps my interpretation of the GPL is incorrect, but I thought that was
> one of the basic requirements in that license.

Nope, giving source and rights is required for distribution of the 
software or derived works.  Use, including use by proxy and use of a 
non-distributed derived work, has no such requirement.

> I agree that this is a grey area.  However, one difference between
> web-applications and server software is the level at which users
> interact with them, and who the intended users are.

The nice thing about free software is that it evolves into uses not 
foreseen by the original author.  Your intended user for your original 
package is likely to be different from my intended user of a modified 
program.  

> Server software like web servers and mail servers don't have interfaces
> for end users because that's not the intended audience.

Of course they are.  End users use the http and smtp interfaces of such
servers every day.  They are intended for end-users.  Most end-users use
some sort of browser or MTA to use the software, but isn't that what
you're talking about with your package as well?
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]  
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3

Re: license idea (revised)

[John Cowan]

Ryo Chijiiwa scripsit:

> Their FAQ (http://www.affero.org/oagf.html) mentions that the license
> "should" be compatible with GPL 3.0, and may be used as a replacement.

The FSF is still thinking about issuing a third version of the GPL, but it
has not yet done so, and may never do so.

-- 
"In my last lifetime,   John Cowan
I believed in reincarnation;http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
in this lifetime,   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I don't."  --Thiagi http://www.reutershealth.com
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3

Re: license idea (revised)

[John Cowan]

Chuck Swiger scripsit:

> Would anyone care to comment on the licensing found here:
> 
> http://www.backplane.com/licensing.html

The examples here make it pretty clear what the rules are.  But in general
the concept of "corporate non-commercial use" is bogus.  Excluding
not-for-profit corporations, everything a corporation does has a
commercial purpose.  If I use the Backplane database software under the
free license to manage in-house email, then I save money on (say)
Microsoft Exchange.  The result is that I can sell my products from
my website with lower overhead, so I have made an "indirect use" of
Backplane to further my e-commerce activities.  Where does one draw
the line?

-- 
Dream projects long deferredJohn Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
usually bite the wax tadpole.http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
--James Lileks  http://www.reutershealth.com
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3

Re: license idea (revised)

[Ryo Chijiiwa]

On 7/16/2003, "John Cowan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>Ryo Chijiiwa scripsit:
>
>> On 7/16/2003, "Mark Rafn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >I don't think that most agree that the requirement to give source and
>> >distribution rights to all users is an acceptible solution.
>>
>> Perhaps my interpretation of the GPL is incorrect, but I thought that was
>> one of the basic requirements in that license.
>
>No.  The GPL requires only that anyone who gets a modified binary gets
>modified source as well.  It does not require that you deliver modified
>source to anyone on demand.  I may make changes to my GPLed software, and
>as long as I don't distribute the binary, I can keep the source to myself.

And we go in circles :-)  What I'm saying is that users of modified
versions of my software should have access to the source code, the same
way users of modified GPL executables have access to the code.  I don't
think that my software being made available for use by others through a
network instead of binary distributions should give it a different
treatment under the same license.  But it does, and that's why I'm
looking for alternatives.

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

Re: license idea (revised)

[Mike Wattier]

> What, do our opinions need to be OSD-conformant now, too?
hehe.. No, not at all, it was simply an honest question as I am trying to 
learn. If I don't ask, I cant learn right?


On Wednesday 16 July 2003 2:52 pm, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
> What, do our opinions need to be OSD-conformant now, too?
>
> Besides, anyone who knows where I'm coming from knows I have no dislike
> for revenue or branding.
>
> /me re-lurks
>
>   Brian
>
> On Wed, 16 Jul 2003, Mike Wattier wrote:
> > Pardon me but, how does a statement like this
> >
> > > Trying to make software less useful in order to protect your revenue or
> > > brand is misguided.
> >
> > Promote and encourage the diversity and co-operation encourgaged in
> >
> > 5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
> > 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
> >
> > thanks
> > Mike
> >
> > On Wednesday 16 July 2003 2:18 pm, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
> > > On Wed, 16 Jul 2003, Mark Rafn wrote:
> > > > My strong recommendation:  Ignore antisocial users (whether they be
> > > > individuals or corporations).  The community has it's own strengths,
> > > > the vast majority of which come from freely-chosen cooperation. 
> > > > Trying to make software less useful in order to protect your revenue
> > > > or brand is misguided.
> > >
> > > Here here!
> > >
> > >   Brian

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

Re: license idea (revised)

[John Cowan]

Ryo Chijiiwa scripsit:

> On 7/16/2003, "Mark Rafn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> >I don't think that most agree that the requirement to give source and
> >distribution rights to all users is an acceptible solution.
> 
> Perhaps my interpretation of the GPL is incorrect, but I thought that was
> one of the basic requirements in that license.

No.  The GPL requires only that anyone who gets a modified binary gets 
modified source as well.  It does not require that you deliver modified
source to anyone on demand.  I may make changes to my GPLed software, and
as long as I don't distribute the binary, I can keep the source to myself.

-- 
John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.reutershealth.com
I amar prestar aen, han mathon ne nen,http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
han mathon ne chae, a han noston ne 'wilith.  --Galadriel, _LOTR:FOTR_
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3

Re: license idea (revised)

[Brian Behlendorf]

What, do our opinions need to be OSD-conformant now, too?

Besides, anyone who knows where I'm coming from knows I have no dislike
for revenue or branding.

/me re-lurks

Brian

On Wed, 16 Jul 2003, Mike Wattier wrote:
> Pardon me but, how does a statement like this
>
> > Trying to make software less useful in order to protect your revenue or
> > brand is misguided.
>
> Promote and encourage the diversity and co-operation encourgaged in
>
> 5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
> 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
>
> thanks
> Mike
>
>
> On Wednesday 16 July 2003 2:18 pm, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
> > On Wed, 16 Jul 2003, Mark Rafn wrote:
> > > My strong recommendation:  Ignore antisocial users (whether they be
> > > individuals or corporations).  The community has it's own strengths, the
> > > vast majority of which come from freely-chosen cooperation.  Trying to
> > > make software less useful in order to protect your revenue or brand is
> > > misguided.
> >
> > Here here!
> >
> > Brian
>
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3

Re: license idea (revised)

[Ryo Chijiiwa]

On 7/16/2003, "Mark Rafn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>On Wed, 16 Jul 2003, Andy Tai wrote:
>
>> Maybe you are looking for is the AGPL,
>>
>> http://www.affero.org/oagpl.html
>
>I don't see this on the opensource.org list, and I hope not to. Debian has
>expressed objections to this license as well.
>
>IMO, this is not a free software license.

Their FAQ (http://www.affero.org/oagf.html) mentions that the license
"should" be compatible with GPL 3.0, and may be used as a replacement.
 However, I haven't found any information on GPL 3.0 anywhere, so I
have no idea about the validity of their claims.

Perhaps someone here would know?

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

Re: license idea (revised)

[Chuck Swiger]

John Cowan wrote:
[ ... ]
Am I obliged to publish all changes that I make to any OSS which I use
in my business?  Presumably not; the right to make private changes
is protected by (AFAIK) all open-source licenses including the GPL.
Deploying software in an ASP is not IMHO essentially different; it is use,
not publication.
Agreed.  The end-user of an ASP is viewing content generated by the application, 
 not necessarily receiving a "redistribution" of the ASP software itself.

	--

Would anyone care to comment on the licensing found here:

http://www.backplane.com/licensing.html

I seem to also find myself producing licenses that are "free" by Matt's 
standards (if not by the semantics defined here or by the FSF)...

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

Re: license idea (revised)

[Mike Wattier]

Pardon me but, how does a statement like this

> Trying to  make software less useful in order to protect your revenue or 
>brand is  misguided.
 
Promote and encourage the diversity and co-operation encourgaged in 

5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor

thanks
Mike


On Wednesday 16 July 2003 2:18 pm, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jul 2003, Mark Rafn wrote:
> > My strong recommendation:  Ignore antisocial users (whether they be
> > individuals or corporations).  The community has it's own strengths, the
> > vast majority of which come from freely-chosen cooperation.  Trying to
> > make software less useful in order to protect your revenue or brand is
> > misguided.
>
> Here here!
>
>   Brian
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3

Re: license idea (revised)

[John Cowan]

Mark Rafn scripsit:

> This has been discussed a bit on debian-legal, under the heading "ASP
> loophole".  One interesting question is where to draw the line between use
> and "deployment".  This e-mail was routed along a box at my ISP that
> includes open-source code.  Do I have the right to that code?

There is also the question of the line between deployment and private use.
Suppose I am a consultant of some sort and I accept people's questions
in the form of encrypted emails, which contain the question and a credit
card number.  I then research the answer (or pull it out of my butt),
charge the credit card, and reply.  I am essentially acting as a slow ASP.

Am I obliged to publish all changes that I make to any OSS which I use
in my business?  Presumably not; the right to make private changes
is protected by (AFAIK) all open-source licenses including the GPL.
Deploying software in an ASP is not IMHO essentially different; it is use,
not publication.

-- 
We call nothing profound[EMAIL PROTECTED]
that is not wittily expressed.  John Cowan
--Northrop Frye (improved)  http://www.reutershealth.com
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3

Re: license idea (revised)

[Ryo Chijiiwa]

On 7/16/2003, "Mark Rafn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>I don't think that most agree that the requirement to give source and
>distribution rights to all users is an acceptible solution.

Perhaps my interpretation of the GPL is incorrect, but I thought that was
one of the basic requirements in that license.

>This has been discussed a bit on debian-legal, under the heading "ASP
>loophole".  

Thanks, I'll look for that.

>One interesting question is where to draw the line between use
>and "deployment".  This e-mail was routed along a box at my ISP that
>includes open-source code.  Do I have the right to that code?

I agree that this is a grey area.  However, one difference between
web-applications and server software is the level at which users
interact with them, and who the intended users are.  Server software
like web servers and mail servers don't have interfaces for end users
because that's not the intended audience.  The intended users are
administrators, and as such, they have various mechanisms that allow for
interaction.  On the other hand, web-applications have distinct
interfaces designed specifically for end users, not just for the
administrators who install and maintain them.

>My strong recommendation:  Ignore antisocial users (whether they be
>individuals or corporations).  The community has it's own strengths, the
>vast majority of which come from freely-chosen cooperation.  Trying to
>make software less useful in order to protect your revenue or brand is
>misguided.

I'm not sure I agree that what I'm trying to do makes the software less
useful.  If requiring users of a modified software to have access to the
source code makes it "less useful", then the GPL itself would make
software "less useful" since it has the same requirements (again, as I
interpret it).  Of course, opponents of the GPL would probably say
that's the case, but I think that's irrelevant in this topic (because
GPL is already an OSI approved license).

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

Re: license idea (revised)

[Brian Behlendorf]

On Wed, 16 Jul 2003, Mark Rafn wrote:
> My strong recommendation:  Ignore antisocial users (whether they be
> individuals or corporations).  The community has it's own strengths, the
> vast majority of which come from freely-chosen cooperation.  Trying to
> make software less useful in order to protect your revenue or brand is
> misguided.

Here here!

Brian

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

Re: license idea (revised)

[Mark Rafn]

On Wed, 16 Jul 2003, Andy Tai wrote:

> Maybe you are looking for is the AGPL, 
> 
> http://www.affero.org/oagpl.html

I don't see this on the opensource.org list, and I hope not to. Debian has 
expressed objections to this license as well.

IMO, this is not a free software license.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]  
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3

Re: license idea (revised)

[Mark Rafn]

On Wed, 16 Jul 2003, Ryo Chijiiwa wrote:

> 
> Would it be possible to have a license identical to the GPL, except one
> which has provisions for deployment of software, rather than the
> distribution of binary executables?

It would be possible to have such a license.  I would object to it on the 
grounds that it restricts usage (which you're calling "deployment" of the 
software), but I'm not sure everyone agrees with me.

>  Web-base applications written in
> languages like PHP do not have binary distributions.  However, the act
> of deploying web applications, that is, the act of making a software
> available for use by others, is analogous to the distribution of
> compiled binaries. 

I strongly disagree that these acts are analogous.

> This is troublesome not just because of branding, but also because I've
> noticed organizations making significant proprietary changes to the
> software, which aren't available to the community (which I think runs
> counter to the spirit of the GPL).

I think that most agree this to be antisocial on the part of those people.  
I don't think that most agree that the requirement to give source and 
distribution rights to all users is an acceptible solution.  Personally, I 
would be very sad if OSI approved such a license.

This has been discussed a bit on debian-legal, under the heading "ASP
loophole".  One interesting question is where to draw the line between use
and "deployment".  This e-mail was routed along a box at my ISP that
includes open-source code.  Do I have the right to that code?

My strong recommendation:  Ignore antisocial users (whether they be
individuals or corporations).  The community has it's own strengths, the
vast majority of which come from freely-chosen cooperation.  Trying to
make software less useful in order to protect your revenue or brand is
misguided.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]  
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3

Re: license idea (revised)

[Andy Tai]

Maybe you are looking for is the AGPL, 

http://www.affero.org/oagpl.html

?


--- Ryo Chijiiwa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> I have since reassessed my needs, and here is a
> revised proposal.
> 
> Would it be possible to have a license identical to
> the GPL, except one
> which has provisions for deployment of software,
> rather than the
> distribution of binary executables?  Web-base
> applications written in
> languages like PHP do not have binary distributions.
>  However, the act
> of deploying web applications, that is, the act of
> making a software
> available for use by others, is analogous to the
> distribution of
> compiled binaries.   As such, I believe
> web-applications should be
> warranted similar provisions as those offered to
> binary executables
> under the GPL.
> 

=
Andy Tai, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Free Software: the software by the people, of the people and for the people! Develop! 
Share! Enhance! Enjoy!
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3

Re: license idea (revised)

[Ryo Chijiiwa]

Thanks for all your comments.  I see that my initial proposal did not fit
the Open Source Definition as outlined by OSI.  I apologize for my lack
of research in that regard.

I have since reassessed my needs, and here is a revised proposal.

Would it be possible to have a license identical to the GPL, except one
which has provisions for deployment of software, rather than the
distribution of binary executables?  Web-base applications written in
languages like PHP do not have binary distributions.  However, the act
of deploying web applications, that is, the act of making a software
available for use by others, is analogous to the distribution of
compiled binaries.   As such, I believe web-applications should be
warranted similar provisions as those offered to binary executables
under the GPL.

Here's a case in point.  My software by default has a link to the
project website in the login page, which is the only "branding" in the
whole interface.  Consider a case where an organization deploys the
software with that link replaced with a link to its own website.  I
believe this is identical to re-branding an existing software package
and distributing it (since the project gets no credit, and the end users
won't know what they're using).  Under the GPL, a vendor who
redistributes rebranded binaries would be required to also make the
source code available, however, an organization that deploys a rebranded
version of my software would not be required to do so (if my
interpretation is correct).

This is troublesome not just because of branding, but also because I've
noticed organizations making significant proprietary changes to the
software, which aren't available to the community (which I think runs
counter to the spirit of the GPL).  Also, if a license required
organizations deploying modified versions of my software to make the
source code available, it is possible that some organizations would
prefer to persue alternative licenses, providing me with a potential
revenue source.

In effect, a license identical to the GPL, but one which replaces
"distribution of binaries" with "deployment of the software" would
be ideal.  Would that work?

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