RE: Simple Public License, v0.20
Well, these points all point to the problem areas of using the word "depend." John's point seems to point out another troublesome matter that the GPL language avoided. In fact, there are a number of reasons why a special exception for an OS is quite appropriate. rod ___ Rod Dixon Visiting Assistant Professor of Law Rutgers University School of Law Camden www.cyberspaces.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] General Counsel FreeBuyers Net, LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Seth David Schoen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Seth David Schoen Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2000 1:37 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Simple Public License, v0.20 John Cowan writes: Justin Wells scripsit: Your improvement must not cause our software to depend on additional software unless that additional software is distributed to the public under a license which allows everyone to use and distribute it free of charge; I don't remember if I raised this point before, but this seems to say that a patch allowing the software to run on Windows or VMS is impermissible, since the patch makes the software "depend" on a non-free operating system. This is clearly discrimination against a class of users and as such forbidden by the OSD. It's interesting to compare what the GPL does about this: ... However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable. I think this gives OS vendors the ability to make proprietary extensions to GPLed programs! -- Seth David Schoen [EMAIL PROTECTED] | And do not say, I will study when I Temp. http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | have leisure; for perhaps you will down: http://www.loyalty.org/ (CAF) | not have leisure. -- Pirke Avot 2:5
Re: Simple Public License, v0.20
On Tue, Apr 25, 2000 at 09:10:08PM -0400, Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote: This version is much improved over the last. I think you will end up with something very useful. I will offer suggestions on some of the problem areas, but I like how you are developing your license. Thank you. I will focus my comments on section 3 since that is new, but sections 1 and 2 need to be reviewed carefully because some of the language is unclear. For example, you use the word "improve" when you may mean "modify," and you use the word "copy" when you should use "distribute." I would also re-think using "free of charge." "Use Freely" is the FSF concept you might mean; recall, the cost of the software is not directly pertinent to the open source mission. OK, I have switched to "modify" instead of "improve". I switched to copy from distribute in "provided that you copy all of it", and I added distribute in addition to copy in "and we may copy, display, perform". As for section 3, you use "combined work" when I think you mean "collective work." I'll go look up collective work and see if it is what I mean. The term "bona fide application" has no meaning or copyright significance. You need to define this term or abandone it since it could cause substantial confusion. OK. I'll have to think up a definition for that. The first paragraph of section 3 is a little confusing. I am not sure what the goal is so I cannot suggest how to make it clearer. I would add that you may want to be careful with attempting to set restrictions on "combined" works if the other work is, itself, subject to copyright protection. Your restrictions may not be enforceable. I'll give you my real life situation to help explain section three. My software is called WebMacro, and it is a "template engine" for use in Java servlets. The Apache Software Foundation has a servlet building framework called Turbine, which can make use of WebMacro. They want to use Turbine and WebMacro to create a bug tracking system called Scarab. WebMacro will be under the SPL, Turbine is under the Apache license, and the big question on everyones mind is what conditions will apply to Scarab. It is important to the Apache group that their backers, such as IBM, be able to repackage anything they do in a commercial product--possibly taking it closed source. Though they would prefer an Apache/BSD style license, they have indicated that they would be willing to work with material that was under a license like the MPL, since it doesn't infect their own code. I want changes to *my* code to be published. I could use the MPL, except that I also want a license which promotes the creation of more open source software, and the MPL doesn't do that. I also think the MPL is too lenient in the kinds of changes that it requries publication of--it might be right for Netscape, but I want to go a bit further. I'm trying to strike a balance: 1- WebMacro will always be covered by my license, and all of these "combined" works are really uses of WebMacro as an unmodified library. 2- To use WebMacro as a library, a project must offer something of real value to the open source community, and projects like Scarab and Turbine clearly do. This is the motivation for requiring that the other code be open source and form a bona fide application (which I know needs a better definition). 3- Once a project is using WebMacro, though, it should be able to continue using it even if someone takes the project closed source. So IBM could modify Scarab and Turbine (modifying only the parts under the other license, and doing that under the terms of that other license) and still be allowed to use those modified versions with WebMacro, even though they may now be closed source. 4- People should also be able to fix bugs in WebMacro as well. So they need to be able to make lawful modifications to WebMacro under my license (ie: publishing source), creating a new version of WebMacro, and then combine that new version as an "unmodified" library in their application. It is unmodified in the sense that it has not changed since the source code was published. 5- WebMacro should be redistributable and usable within a project like Scarab in the same manner as Scarab's own license would allow, except for the restriction on modifications to my source itself. Effectively, once you use WebMacro in an open source project with enough substance to be a "bona fide" application, I drop all of my demands except for the requirement that you publish changes to my own source, and that you credit me. This is all pretty complicated, I know, but I think that it's worth the effort. I like having a license that pushes the development of free software, such as the GPL, but it seems wrong to me that in some cases that very same license prevents open source projects from collaborating. Having said
Re: Simple Public License, v0.20
Hi Rod, On Tue, Apr 25, 2000 at 09:10:08PM -0400, Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote: I would also re-think using "free of charge." "Use Freely" is the FSF concept you might mean; recall, the cost of the software is not directly pertinent to the open source mission. I dropped one use of "free of charge" in my license, but a few remain. I think in those cases I really mean "free of charge"--for example, where the license insists that modifications be made available to the public under an open source license "free of charge", that is there to prevent someone from saying that the open source version is available for $100,000 to anyone who wants it. However, I dropped it from my grant of rights, and now simply say you may use(...) our software, rather than "use(...) our software free of charge". It didn't seem to add anything there. As for section 3, you use "combined work" when I think you mean "collective work." The term "bona fide application" has no meaning or copyright significance. You need to define this term or abandone it since it could cause substantial confusion. OK, these are related and I've tried to define them now. I now use the term "collective work" as part of the definition of "combined work". Here are my definitions from section 5: A "combined work" is a collective work where the parts are linked, used, and distributed together as an application, but remain distinct and are separately licensed. A "bona fide application" has substantial functionality beyond that of other works it is combined with. And here is the revised section 3, where these definitions are used: (3) "COMBINE OUR SOFTWARE WITH YOUR WORK" You may combine an unmodified copy of our software as a whole, or a compiled version of it, with your own separate source materials to create a combined work which you may use, display, and perform. You may distribute your combined work to anyone provided your separate source materials form a bona fide application which you distribute to the public, free of charge, and including all source code, under any open source license approved by the Open Source Initiative (opensource.org) or under this agreement. You may permit third party recipients to use, display, perform, copy, and distribute your combined work as a whole, without modification, in any manner also permitted for your separate source materials. You may permit third party recipients to modify your separate source material under your license (possibly without disclosing source code) and modify our software under section (2). The modified parts may then be recombined to form a new version of the combined work which may be used under the same terms as the original. Thus your combined work may be treated as if it were covered by your license, except that modifications to our software itself must occur under section (2) of this agreement. The full text of the license can be found here, for reference: http://shimari.com/SPL/ Hopefully it is getting clearer now, and thanks yet again for your help! Justin
RE: Simple Public License, v0.20
Yes, you changes sound fine. After your explanation of what you were attempting to do, I think you have done a good job with it. ___ Rod Dixon Visiting Assistant Professor of Law Rutgers University School of Law Camden www.cyberspaces.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] General Counsel FreeBuyers Net, LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Justin Wells [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2000 4:32 PM To: Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Simple Public License, v0.20 Hi Rod, On Tue, Apr 25, 2000 at 09:10:08PM -0400, Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote: I would also re-think using "free of charge." "Use Freely" is the FSF concept you might mean; recall, the cost of the software is not directly pertinent to the open source mission. I dropped one use of "free of charge" in my license, but a few remain. I think in those cases I really mean "free of charge"--for example, where the license insists that modifications be made available to the public under an open source license "free of charge", that is there to prevent someone from saying that the open source version is available for $100,000 to anyone who wants it. However, I dropped it from my grant of rights, and now simply say you may use(...) our software, rather than "use(...) our software free of charge". It didn't seem to add anything there. As for section 3, you use "combined work" when I think you mean "collective work." The term "bona fide application" has no meaning or copyright significance. You need to define this term or abandone it since it could cause substantial confusion. OK, these are related and I've tried to define them now. I now use the term "collective work" as part of the definition of "combined work". Here are my definitions from section 5: A "combined work" is a collective work where the parts are linked, used, and distributed together as an application, but remain distinct and are separately licensed. A "bona fide application" has substantial functionality beyond that of other works it is combined with. And here is the revised section 3, where these definitions are used: (3) "COMBINE OUR SOFTWARE WITH YOUR WORK" You may combine an unmodified copy of our software as a whole, or a compiled version of it, with your own separate source materials to create a combined work which you may use, display, and perform. You may distribute your combined work to anyone provided your separate source materials form a bona fide application which you distribute to the public, free of charge, and including all source code, under any open source license approved by the Open Source Initiative (opensource.org) or under this agreement. You may permit third party recipients to use, display, perform, copy, and distribute your combined work as a whole, without modification, in any manner also permitted for your separate source materials. You may permit third party recipients to modify your separate source material under your license (possibly without disclosing source code) and modify our software under section (2). The modified parts may then be recombined to form a new version of the combined work which may be used under the same terms as the original. Thus your combined work may be treated as if it were covered by your license, except that modifications to our software itself must occur under section (2) of this agreement. The full text of the license can be found here, for reference: http://shimari.com/SPL/ Hopefully it is getting clearer now, and thanks yet again for your help! Justin
Simple Public License, v0.20
I have a revised version of the SPL, which incorporates some of the comments Rod made on the last version. I've also been talking to several people who wish to use my software in conjunction with software under the Apache/BSD license, and so I have added a section which I believe allows them to do that. I am especially interested to hear people's comments on section (3), which allows use of the SPL with other open source licenses. It's new material, and so it's the most likely to have problems. I have dropped the language about consultants from the SPL, since Rod thinks that this would not be feasible. Instead I will do as he suggested and offer a separate license for consulting use. Also, I've dropped the "beneficial owner" clause. I still want to include some language like that, but it's going to be difficult to get right. It occurs to me that I could do the beneficial owner statement as a separate release later, independent of whatever license my software is released under. So I will work on that as a separate document, not directly related to the license itself. I'm hoping that the SPL will become a generally useful license, and I'm very glad to have your comments, as well as those of everyone else on the list. Everyone's comments have been extremely useful. I've attached the annotated version of the license below. Text, HTML, postscript, and PDF versions are available here: http://shimari.com Thanks again! Justin - - - Simple Public License Version 0.20 "Our software" refers to the copyrighted work licensed under this agreement. "We", "us", and "our" refer to the copyright owners. "You" and "your" refer to each licensee. You are granted the non-exclusive rights set forth in this agreement provided you agree to and comply with all of its conditions. You indicate your acceptance of these terms by any use of our software. Any member of the public can be "you". "We" include all of the copyright holders. "Our software" has been placed under this license, probably in a statement attached to the software itself. This is how you wind up coming to accept this agreement: you don't get to use the software unless you do. (1) "USE AND COPY OUR SOFTWARE FOR FREE" You may use, display, and perform our software free of charge. You may copy and distribute our software on its own, or as part of an aggregate collection, provided that you copy all of it. Basic rights of use. I specifically mention aggregate collections so that they aren't treated as derived works. (2) "SHARE IMPROVEMENTS" You may improve our software provided that prior to any public or third party use you distribute the improved version to the public, including all source code, free of charge, through an electronic medium customarily used for software exchange. An improvement is an alteration to the source code, structure, sequence, or organization of our software, including alterations performed by linking or patching. You grant the following irrevocable, non-exclusive, worldwide rights to your improved version: any recipient may use it under this agreement, and we may copy, display, perform, adapt, and sublicense it. This is the basic copyleft. Note that it is weakened by section 3. The phrase "prior to any public or third party use" is intended to capture modified versions of the software that are not distributed, but are put up on a public application server. I want modifications to those as well. The phrase "electronic medium" is intended to include email, websites, public CVS archives, ftp sites, and so forth. Your improvement must not cause our software to depend on additional software unless that additional software is distributed to the public under a license which allows everyone to use and distribute it free of charge; also, under any patent claim licensable by you which would be infringed by use of your improvement, you grant to each recipient a worldwide non-exclusive royalty-free patent license to use, sell, import, and transfer the improvement as part of our software or adaptations of it. You can't fool the world into relying on your modifications, and then pull the rug out from under everyone and announce your patent and/or charge a lot of money for the software you've created dependencies on. (3) "COMBINE OUR SOFTWARE WITH YOUR WORK" You may include or otherwise combine an unmodified copy of our software as a whole, plus a compiled version of it, with your own separate source materials to create a combined work. You may distribute your combined work to anyone provided your separate source materials form a bona fide application which you distribute to the public, free of charge and including all source code, under any open source license approved by the Open Source Initiative (opensource.org) or under this agreement. You can combine our software with other
Re: Simple Public License, v0.20
Justin Wells scripsit: Your improvement must not cause our software to depend on additional software unless that additional software is distributed to the public under a license which allows everyone to use and distribute it free of charge; I don't remember if I raised this point before, but this seems to say that a patch allowing the software to run on Windows or VMS is impermissible, since the patch makes the software "depend" on a non-free operating system. This is clearly discrimination against a class of users and as such forbidden by the OSD. -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] I am a member of a civilization. --David Brin
Re: Simple Public License, v0.20
John Cowan writes: Justin Wells scripsit: Your improvement must not cause our software to depend on additional software unless that additional software is distributed to the public under a license which allows everyone to use and distribute it free of charge; I don't remember if I raised this point before, but this seems to say that a patch allowing the software to run on Windows or VMS is impermissible, since the patch makes the software "depend" on a non-free operating system. This is clearly discrimination against a class of users and as such forbidden by the OSD. It's interesting to compare what the GPL does about this: ... However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable. I think this gives OS vendors the ability to make proprietary extensions to GPLed programs! -- Seth David Schoen [EMAIL PROTECTED] | And do not say, I will study when I Temp. http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | have leisure; for perhaps you will down: http://www.loyalty.org/ (CAF) | not have leisure. -- Pirke Avot 2:5
