Re: click, click, boom
On Fri, 28 Sep 2001, Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote: > the open source effort should a license be challenged in court. In other > words, the attempts to improve the OSD to make it consistent and actually > helpful is a good thing. I agree - I was simply trying to bring an awareness of the forest to the discussion of the trees :) -- Matthew Weigel Research Systems Programmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] ne [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: click, click, boom
I agree with Matt that almost above all the open source community should value the spirit of openness. Having said that, I think that to the extent that OSI can foster an environment where the open source community continues to rise to the next level of extending the benefits of open source licensing to those who have significant resources at stake in adopting open source licensing, we owe it to the community to perfect the open source definition as well as debug some of the open source licenses, which may have been held in high esteem, but nonetheless contain defects that could adversely impact the open source effort should a license be challenged in court. In other words, the attempts to improve the OSD to make it consistent and actually helpful is a good thing. Rod > >On Tue, 25 Sep 2001, Rick Moen wrote: > >> The DFSG (and thus the OSD) were indeed abstracted out from several >> popular licences (if I remember accounts by Bruce P.). As adopted by > >I'd like to restate this. Prior to the formation of the OSI, the free >software community was an open, friendly place oriented towards sharing >and being friendly. The founders of the OSI were from that community, >and were trying to foster that community in new ways. > >While nitpicking the particulars of the OSD and the OSI is a reasonable >pastime amongst perfectionists, it must also be kept in mind that the >OSD is an attempt to encapsulate an idea, that sharing is good, in a >friendly and open manner. > >The intent was never, as far as I can reckon, to create an ironclad >definition that could be upheld in courts without the participation of >the community; I think the intent was always to make it clear to the >reader what the idea behind open source was. > >Simply, the BSD/MIT license is approved because it adequately >encapsulates the idea behind open source. Given that, there can be no >argument whether the BSD/MIT license belongs - if the OSD suggests that >it doesn't (and this is Greg's interpretation but quite a few people >disagree with him), then throw the OSD out, because the license, better >than the definition, encapsulates the ideas behind open source. >-- > Matthew Weigel > Research Systems Programmer > [EMAIL PROTECTED] ne [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >-- >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: click, click, boom
I'm lurking in the background reading the interesting discussions about the MIT license and issues of the OSD being unclear. As time permits I may comment more extensively about those topics. But one item needs to be clarified: OSI *certifies* software. OSI *approves* licenses. This is a legally significant distinction. OSI approves licenses if and only if the license is consistent with the provisions of the published Open Source Definition. As are others on this list, I am troubled by the fact that the OSD is unclear in some respects. I hope to work with the community in the future (as time permits) to propose clarifications to the OSD for OSI Board of Directors approval. Aspects of licenses that are not related to specific OSD provisions are irrelevant to the approval process, but those aspects may otherwise become important to (1) your selection of third-party software for your use or (2) your selection of an appropriate license under which you will distribute your own software. Distributors can apply the OSI Certified certification mark to their software if and only if the software is distributed under an OSI-approved license. /Larry Rosen > -Original Message- > From: Rick Moen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2001 12:19 AM > To: license discuss > Subject: Re: click, click, boom > > > begin Greg London quotation: > > > If someone puts out a bunch of source code under the MIT > license, and > > the distro is OSI certifiable, there is nothing to prevent someone > > else from redistributing it in binary form only. Their only > "penalty" > > is that they lose OSI certification. > > _Licences_ are OSD-certified. Software is open-source or not, in > accordance with its nature (including but not limited to licensing). > Beyond that, you're not telling us anything we don't already know. > > > So, all I'm saying is that if someone looks at the OSD and likes it, > > they can't just go and pick any OSI approved license and > have it give > > legal enforcability of all the OSD bullets. > > Only _licences_ potentially have legal enforceability. The > OSD is just > a set of guidelines published by the OSI for licence certiification. > > > If I pick the MIT license, then OSD #2 is not enforcable. > > See above. You are suffering category confusion. > > > I don't care what the "spirit" of the OSD is. > > Well, then, the situation is pleasingly symmetrical, since the rest of > us aren't likely to care about your views, either. > > > But the OSD is not a license. > > Nor does it purport to be. > > > And it is the license that controls how a distribution may be > > re-distributed. > > That is self-evident. > > > Unless there is some other implication of enforcemnet to OSI > > certification that I am unaware of. > > Do you have a point, or are you simply ruminating on the vagaries of > power and influence? > > -- > "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 > -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: click, click, boom
begin Greg London quotation: >> _Licences_ are OSD-certified. Software is open-source or not, in >> accordance with its nature (including but not limited to licensing). > > http://www.opensource.org/docs/certification_mark.html > "The OSI Certified mark applies to software, not to licenses. " Was there some particular part of the term "OSD" you did not understand? Take a break, Greg. Think. Read. Then come back and join us. -- "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: click, click, boom
On Wed, Sep 26, 2001 at 10:55:36AM -0400, Greg London wrote: > With 26 licenses, some of them extremely long, > most people will not read all of them,nor understand > the implications of them. I skipped over to the > OSD, read that, and assumed that I could pick > any approved license, and the OSD would be enforced. The OSI is not here to do your legal footwork for you. It _is_ here to provide some guidelines for authors of licenses, and to enforce those guidelines via an approval process. I wouldn't normally say something like this, but I think it is warranted: You are very deeply confused and undereducated about software licensing in general, and are not bringing up anything that people on this list aren't already aware of. On the contrary, you're mixing terms and getting a few people upset. I don't fault you for this (yet), but _please_ do a little outside research on this whole subject and I think you'll find answers to a lot of your questions. I think that everyone is more than happy to debate the intricasies of the OSD, and particulars of certain licenses, but there is a certain minimum level of legal understanding and background knowledge that is required. Blanket, unresearched statements don't contribute much. -drew -- M. Drew Streib <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | http://dtype.org/ FSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>| Linux International <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> freedb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>| SourceForge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PGP signature
Re: click, click, boom
Rick Moen wrote: > > begin Greg London quotation: > > > If someone puts out a bunch of source code under the MIT license, and > > the distro is OSI certifiable, there is nothing to prevent someone > > else from redistributing it in binary form only. Their only "penalty" > > is that they lose OSI certification. > > _Licences_ are OSD-certified. Software is open-source or not, in > accordance with its nature (including but not limited to licensing). http://www.opensource.org/docs/certification_mark.html "The OSI Certified mark applies to software, not to licenses. " Licenses can be "approved" by OSI, but that does not guarantee certification on a piece of software. > Do you have a point, or are you simply ruminating on the vagaries of > power and influence? point (1) it is not clear by the OSI website that there is a distinction between approved licenses and certified software. You confused the two above yourself. someone who has a program they wish to license could come to teh OSI website, do a quick readthrough, and come away with the understanding that an approved license will guarantee the OSD is legally enforced in the license. With 26 licenses, some of them extremely long, most people will not read all of them,nor understand the implications of them. I skipped over to the OSD, read that, and assumed that I could pick any approved license, and the OSD would be enforced. point (2) This is at the root of the whole "yet another public license" discussion. OSI has little incentive to approve YAPL, since OSI's only contribution to open source is through it's certification of software. Approval of another license is independent of software certification. programmers have little incentive to get OSI certification, because it does little measurable for them. The only thing that is concrete for the developer is the wording of the license. Therefore you get all these developers trying to get a slightly modified version of a license approved. A developer submits a license to OSI and says "none of teh currently approved licenses do exactly what I want." OSI (or at least a number of people on this list) respond "you should just use an already existing license and get certified" Developers want certification, but they also know enough that they want a legal license that gives them what they want. OSI will certify software under the MIT license, which effectively means that OSI will certify software licensed in such a way to give away all rights. So it is no surprise that OSI isn't too concerned about YAPL that splits some fine hairs between this right and that right. OSI will certify something that licenses away all rights. Why worry about whether or not you can distribute changes in the form of patches? The MIT license says you can do ANYTHING. Greg -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: click, click, boom
On Tue, 25 Sep 2001, Rick Moen wrote: > The DFSG (and thus the OSD) were indeed abstracted out from several > popular licences (if I remember accounts by Bruce P.). As adopted by I'd like to restate this. Prior to the formation of the OSI, the free software community was an open, friendly place oriented towards sharing and being friendly. The founders of the OSI were from that community, and were trying to foster that community in new ways. While nitpicking the particulars of the OSD and the OSI is a reasonable pastime amongst perfectionists, it must also be kept in mind that the OSD is an attempt to encapsulate an idea, that sharing is good, in a friendly and open manner. The intent was never, as far as I can reckon, to create an ironclad definition that could be upheld in courts without the participation of the community; I think the intent was always to make it clear to the reader what the idea behind open source was. Simply, the BSD/MIT license is approved because it adequately encapsulates the idea behind open source. Given that, there can be no argument whether the BSD/MIT license belongs - if the OSD suggests that it doesn't (and this is Greg's interpretation but quite a few people disagree with him), then throw the OSD out, because the license, better than the definition, encapsulates the ideas behind open source. -- Matthew Weigel Research Systems Programmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] ne [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: click, click, boom
begin Greg London quotation: > If someone puts out a bunch of source code under the MIT license, and > the distro is OSI certifiable, there is nothing to prevent someone > else from redistributing it in binary form only. Their only "penalty" > is that they lose OSI certification. _Licences_ are OSD-certified. Software is open-source or not, in accordance with its nature (including but not limited to licensing). Beyond that, you're not telling us anything we don't already know. > So, all I'm saying is that if someone looks at the OSD and likes it, > they can't just go and pick any OSI approved license and have it give > legal enforcability of all the OSD bullets. Only _licences_ potentially have legal enforceability. The OSD is just a set of guidelines published by the OSI for licence certiification. > If I pick the MIT license, then OSD #2 is not enforcable. See above. You are suffering category confusion. > I don't care what the "spirit" of the OSD is. Well, then, the situation is pleasingly symmetrical, since the rest of us aren't likely to care about your views, either. > But the OSD is not a license. Nor does it purport to be. > And it is the license that controls how a distribution may be > re-distributed. That is self-evident. > Unless there is some other implication of enforcemnet to OSI > certification that I am unaware of. Do you have a point, or are you simply ruminating on the vagaries of power and influence? -- "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: click, click, boom
Rick Moen wrote: > > begin Greg London quotation: > Look, nobody's going to force-feed common sense > to people who don't want to read the OSD in the > spirit intended. One has to find one's own. If someone puts out a bunch of source code under the MIT license, and the distro is OSI certifiable, there is nothing to prevent someone else from redistributing it in binary form only. Their only "penalty" is that they lose OSI certification. There is no legal enforcements in the MIT license to require the source be included with the dist or be made publicly available. And OSD certification is not enforcable, it can only be revoked. so, all I'm saying is that if someone looks at the OSD and likes it, they can't just go and pick any OSI approved license and have it give legal enforcability of all the OSD bullets. If I pick the MIT license, then OSD #2 is not enforcable. The OSI certification can only be revoked. Other than revoking the certification, I see no "teeth" to OSI certification. any other disputes then drop down to the level of the license, which may allow actions that are against the OSD. I don't care what the "spirit" of the OSD is. You can force-feed all the common sense you want about the spirit of the OSD. But the OSD is not a license. And it is the license that controls how a distribution may be re-distributed. Other than the threat of revoking teh OSI certification mark from a distribution, OSI has no recourse to enforce the "spirit of the OSD" if the license used in the distro allows said spirit to be broken. Unless there is some other implication of enforcemnet to OSI certification that I am unaware of. Greg -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: click, click, boom
Greg London writes: > 1) The OSD and the OSI approved licenses (AL) > are totally independent. Nope. You are confused. Have you figured out where yet? -- -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: click, click, boom
begin Greg London quotation: > Ah, several items just fell into place. Yes, but they didn't fit. Look, nobody's going to force-feed common sense to people who don't want to read the OSD in the spirit intended. One has to find one's own. The DFSG (and thus the OSD) were indeed abstracted out from several popular licences (if I remember accounts by Bruce P.). As adopted by the OSI, it was an attempt to enumerate what qualities distinguish a free-software / open-source licence from a proprietary one. That does not prevent someone from finding bizarre and outlandish ways to issue proprietary code, supposedly under an OSD-compliant licence -- e.g., a binary-only package purporting to be MIT-licensed. Nor does it prevent someone from creatively crafting some whack-assed licence grossly violating the OSD's spirit (but arguably not its letter), to which the Board will say "Hell no." Is this insufficiently orderly? Too bad: It's reality. Deal. -- This message falsely claims to have been scanned for viruses with F-Secure Anti-Virus for Microsoft Exchange and to have been found clean. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: click, click, boom
On Tue, Sep 25, 2001 at 09:03:18PM -0400, Greg London wrote: > 6) You can use an OSI approved license and > not be OSI certified. > > See, this clears up a -whole- lot of confusion. > I thought the OSD was somehow related to > the approved OSI licenses. > > Instead, OSI approved its first four licenses > simply because they were the most common. > The OSD is independent of the licenses. There are so many things wrong with these statements that I'm wary to even post here, for fear of being hit by the bullets. Were you being facetious, or was this a serious post? -drew -- M. Drew Streib <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | http://dtype.org/ FSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>| Linux International <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> freedb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>| SourceForge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PGP signature
click, click, boom
Ah, several items just fell into place. 1) The OSD and the OSI approved licenses (AL) are totally independent. 2) Some of the OSI AL's also happen to meet the OSD definition, and some do not. But OSI does not determine this. 3) OSI approved it's licenses not because of how they measured against the OSD, but because they were simply the most common, or someone requested it. 4) OSI certification requires that you A) license your software with an OSI approved license B) distribute your software in a manner that comlies with the OSD. 5) OSI certification does not mean your license meets the OSD, but that your software distribution meets the OSD. 6) You can use an OSI approved license and not be OSI certified. See, this clears up a -whole- lot of confusion. I thought the OSD was somehow related to the approved OSI licenses. Instead, OSI approved its first four licenses simply because they were the most common. The OSD is independent of the licenses. Getting software off the net that uses an OSI aproved license does not mean that software is open source, in the OSD sense of the term. Rather, if you want to know if some software off the net meets the definition of open source, it must be OSI certified. So, to put it in a nice little blurb that could go somewhere on the OSI web page: (probably the approved licenses page) "Just because a license is approved does not mean the license enforces the OSD. However, to get OSI certified, a program must be licensed under an OSI approved license. If an OSI certified program is re-distributed in manner that does not meet the OSD, OSI's only recourse is to revoke certification. Not all OSI approved licences require that re-distributions meet the OSD. Choose your license carefully." Greg -- Greg London x7541 -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
