Re: binary restrictions?
Quoting "Karsten M. Self" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Because compiled works are less favorable for modifications. They're > not the "best form" of a work. Specifically, they're not the > "preferred > for for making modifications" to the work. Better to go with the > source > form than the compiled form, where appropriate. Likewise > proscriptions > against obfuscated or machine-generated sources. > > This is consistent with traditions of copyright filing with the US > Library of Congress, which identifies "best works" and preferred forms > for making filings. > > Peace. And what about other countries ? Is it as "worldwide" as the copyright rights ? -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: binary restrictions?
"Karsten M. Self" wrote: > Because compiled works are less favorable for modifications. They're > not the "best form" of a work. Specifically, they're not the "preferred > for for making modifications" to the work. Better to go with the source > form than the compiled form, where appropriate. Likewise proscriptions > against obfuscated or machine-generated sources. This was kind of my thinking in the original question; the license we're contemplating would in fact make the source and binaries freely available for personal or corporate use. The source would be freely redistributable as well in its "official" unmodified form. We'd like to reserve the right to distribute binaries to ourselves (for revenue-protection reasons), and we'd want to be the authority "branding" the official release and approving patches. I had thought/hoped that this approach would be reasonably palatible to OSI since it preserved the source modifiability and redistribution, which I think Karsten correctly identified as the "best form." Regards, Ned -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: binary restrictions?
Steve Lhomme wrote: > > - Original Message - > From: "Greg London" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Steve Lhomme" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Sunday, October 07, 2001 5:30 PM > Subject: Re: binary restrictions? > > | Steve Lhomme wrote: > | > | A binary is a derived work. > | > > | > Are you sure of that ? When you compile > | > you USE the code not MODIFY it. > | > There's no derivation. Otherwise using > | > a software and changing the default > | > settings would be a derived work... > | > | > | converting source code to binary is in > | effect a *translation* from one language > | to another. > > That makes good sense. But in this case, > why is their different rules for > source code and binary versions of a > work in most open-source licenses ? I > mean if it's a derived work, the rules > applied are the same one of a derived > work. whoah, wait, there are not different LAWS for open source software versus novels. They both follow copyright law. The original question was whether or not compiling source code was "USE" or "DERIVED WORK" in the eyes of the LAW. Which is a separate issue from why open source LICENSES treat source code and binaries differently. The LAW says the copyright holder retains all rights to derived works. Compiling is a derived work. Therefore LICENSES do not have to grant rights to binaries. why open source licenses treat them differently is a separate issue. But the original question basically was whether or not a software author has the right to restrict binaries in the first place. I think copyright law says authors are given the right to control binary versions of their source code. Greg -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: binary restrictions?
Steve Lhomme scripsit: > Are you sure of that ? When you compile you USE the code not MODIFY it. > There's no derivation. Yes, we're sure. Compiling code is equivalent to translating text from one language to another, and translations are a paradigm case of derived works. A derived work need not share a single bit with the original. Contrariwise, two works can be bit-for-bit identical and not infringe each other. -- 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: binary restrictions?
On Sun, 7 Oct 2001, Steve Lhomme wrote: > That makes good sense. But in this case, why is their different rules > for source code and binary versions of a work in most open-source > licenses ? I mean if it's a derived work, the rules applied are the > same one of a derived work. 1. Because binaries are inherently useful to a wider audience than source (consider it a special case requiring that English translations of Latin texts be redistributable). It is unacceptable to allow people to distribute patches to the source that will result in the binaries. 2. It is also unacceptable to allow people to only distribute the 'final' derivative work, that is, only the binary and not the source (which might also have been modified). It is simply a special case with special rules, because without the special case it isn't what people have been thinking of free software for decades. -- Matthew Weigel Research Systems Programmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] ne [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: binary restrictions?
- Original Message - From: "Greg London" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Steve Lhomme" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, October 07, 2001 5:30 PM Subject: Re: binary restrictions? | Steve Lhomme wrote: | > | A binary is a derived work. | > | > Are you sure of that ? When you compile | > you USE the code not MODIFY it. | > There's no derivation. Otherwise using | > a software and changing the default | > settings would be a derived work... | | source code is text that follows the | rules of grammar for a particular language | (C, C++, Perl, Java, Python, etc) | | A binary is text that follows the rules of | grammar for a different language. | The symbols are different from English | alpha-numeric, the rules are different, | but it is a readable language, nonetheless. | (having debugged microcontroller machine | code years ago, I can vouch for readability) | | converting source code to binary is in | effect a *translation* from one language | to another. That makes good sense. But in this case, why is their different rules for source code and binary versions of a work in most open-source licenses ? I mean if it's a derived work, the rules applied are the same one of a derived work. peace -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: binary restrictions?
Steve Lhomme wrote: > | A binary is a derived work. > > Are you sure of that ? When you compile > you USE the code not MODIFY it. > There's no derivation. Otherwise using > a software and changing the default > settings would be a derived work... source code is text that follows the rules of grammar for a particular language (C, C++, Perl, Java, Python, etc) A binary is text that follows the rules of grammar for a different language. The symbols are different from English alpha-numeric, the rules are different, but it is a readable language, nonetheless. (having debugged microcontroller machine code years ago, I can vouch for readability) converting source code to binary is in effect a *translation* from one language to another. I don't know which right of a copyright holder affects translations, but my understanding is that a book author handles foreign translations of their book separately from the original work. I don't know if it's because of the translation (and therefore is a derived work), or if it's because it involves other national governments. I thought it was because the translation was in effect a derived work or something. any lawyer on the list who can clarify how translations are handled for book authors? The only difference between book authors and software authors is that software authors write in a language that is defined rigidly enough that a computer can do the translation automatically. so, how the law applies to book translations should be the way it applies to software translations as well. One could argue that translating source code into machine code should fall under the realm of fair use for software, but I don't know if this has any legal precedence. imagine: Micro$oft open sourced their operating system but said that compiling it is a translation and a right reserved by Micro$oft. Charlie takes the code, compiles it anyway, and distributes the binary, arguing that compiling is 'fair use'. Micro$oft sues. I would have to side with Microsoft in this hypothetical situation, because my understanding is that translation falls under derived works. It would be an interesting case to follow, for sure. IANAL TINLA IMHO YADA YADA YADA Greg -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: binary restrictions?
- Original Message - From: "Russell Nelson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Ned Lilly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2001 10:04 PM Subject: Re: binary restrictions? | Ned Lilly writes: | > Is anyone aware of a license which permits source access and | > modifications, patch contributions, but restricts the right to | > distribute compiled binaries to the sponsoring organization? | | A binary is a derived work. Are you sure of that ? When you compile you USE the code not MODIFY it. There's no derivation. Otherwise using a software and changing the default settings would be a derived work... -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: binary restrictions?
- Original Message - From: "David Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Ned Lilly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 6:38 AM Subject: Re: binary restrictions? | On Tuesday 02 October 2001 09:17 pm, Ned Lilly wrote: | | > Yeah, it kind of *is* to guarantee purchase. That is, purchase from | > Foo, Inc. and no one else (if you want to purchase software in the | > first place). But nothing's stopping you from getting the source | > and compiling it yourself. Is that a hard and fast no-no? | | Yes, that is a hard and fast no-no. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with | doing it your way, but it won't be Open Source. Actually that's a bit like what Microsoft will do with the 'source opening' of Windows... -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: binary restrictions?
Ned Lilly writes: > Is anyone aware of a license which permits source access and > modifications, patch contributions, but restricts the right to > distribute compiled binaries to the sponsoring organization? A binary is a derived work. An open source license has to allow distribution of binaries. That's not to say that you can't create a Source-Available license which prohibited binary distribution, but it wouldn't be Open Source, and we wouldn't certify it. -- -russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | It's a crime, not an act 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | of war. For my take, see: Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | http://quaker.org/crime.html -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: binary restrictions?
On Tuesday 02 October 2001 09:17 pm, Ned Lilly wrote: > Yeah, it kind of *is* to guarantee purchase. That is, purchase from > Foo, Inc. and no one else (if you want to purchase software in the > first place). But nothing's stopping you from getting the source > and compiling it yourself. Is that a hard and fast no-no? Yes, that is a hard and fast no-no. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with doing it your way, but it won't be Open Source. One rule of thumb that I use (and it isn't necessarily an accurate rule) to determine open-sourcedness, is whether I can sell a CD containing the source code, modifications and binary, without having to ask anyone. > ISTM that Section 2 is more concerned with source code (and > downloadability, non-obfuscation, etc.) Why should restricting > binaries be an issue if the source is 100% free? Quick answer: Because not everyone has a compiler. Slightly longer answer: because Open Source allows me to distribute derivative works, and a binary is a derivative of the source code. -- David Johnson ___ http://www.usermode.org -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: binary restrictions?
> On Tuesday 02 October 2001 03:04 pm, I wrote: > > > Is anyone aware of a license which permits source access and > > modifications, patch contributions, but restricts the right to > > distribute compiled binaries to the sponsoring organization? > > It wouldn't be Open Source. Section 2 of the OSD says "The program must > include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as > compiled form." > > What is your purpose in wishing to restrict distribution of the binaries? If > it is to provide a mechanism that guarantees purchase, then no OSS license > will do. But if it is to protect the name and reputation of the software, > then there are several avenues you can take to accomplish that. Yeah, it kind of *is* to guarantee purchase. That is, purchase from Foo, Inc. and no one else (if you want to purchase software in the first place). But nothing's stopping you from getting the source and compiling it yourself. Is that a hard and fast no-no? ISTM that Section 2 is more concerned with source code (and downloadability, non-obfuscation, etc.) Why should restricting binaries be an issue if the source is 100% free? Re: Karsten and John's other thread, I did intend it as a patch license - that is, anyone could distribute the "official" source, but not the modified source as a whole. If they wanted to distribute their patches somehow, that would be fine. Thanks, Ned -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: binary restrictions?
Karsten M. Self scripsit: > It's not clear whether or not condition 1 implies that all > modifications and derived works must be freely distributable, The MIT and BSD licenses make no such demand. GPL != Open Source. > > Anyone could redistribute > > the "official" source (but *not* modified source). > ^ > This expressly violates condition 3. Not. Licenses that only permit patch distribution can be 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: binary restrictions?
On Tuesday 02 October 2001 03:04 pm, Ned Lilly wrote: > Is anyone aware of a license which permits source access and > modifications, patch contributions, but restricts the right to > distribute compiled binaries to the sponsoring organization? It wouldn't be Open Source. Section 2 of the OSD says "The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form." What is your purpose in wishing to restrict distribution of the binaries? If it is to provide a mechanism that guarantees purchase, then no OSS license will do. But if it is to protect the name and reputation of the software, then there are several avenues you can take to accomplish that. -- David Johnson ___ http://www.usermode.org -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
binary restrictions?
Hello all, Apologies if this question has been covered before. I haven't been on this list for many months. Is anyone aware of a license which permits source access and modifications, patch contributions, but restricts the right to distribute compiled binaries to the sponsoring organization? So if I started project Foo, anyone could download from foo.org, use Foo in their business, modify the code at will, and submit patches (if desired) for consideration by Foo leaders. Anyone could redistribute the "official" source (but *not* modified source). But only Foo, Inc. could redistribute binaries. Have I missed something obvious? The situation I'm contemplating is for a new company, with privately developed software. No patent or third-party issues to worry about, just a desire to protect the application from whole-cloth hijacking by bigger fish. Any comments welcome. Thanks, Ned -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
