Richard,
Today you finally gave public reasons for your assertion that the AFL is
incompatible with the GPL. Because you are simply wrong on the law and
wrong-headed on a matter of principle, I must file this public response.
You wrote (at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html) that:
Lawrence E. Rosen scripsit:
> ***Anyone*** is free to take software licensed under the AFL and
> re-license it under any license, including licenses not containing the
> Mutual Defense provision ["to use, copy, modify, merge, publish,
> perform, distribute and/or sell copies of the Original Work a
> -Original Message-
> From: John Cowan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 11:49 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Compatibility of the AFL with the GPL
>
>
> Lawrence E. Rosen scripsit:
>
> > *
All IMHO, and IANAL, coz I get burned every time I post here these days...
Despite these clauses being within the spirit of the GPL, they are
still additional restrictions on redistribution.
In the case of the trademark/names, one who creates a derivative work will
always have to worry that your
Brian Behlendort wrote:
> All IMHO, and IANAL, coz I get burned every time I post here
> these days...
Are you afraid I'll slap you 'aside the head? Relax :-)
> Despite these clauses being within the spirit of the GPL,
> they are still additional restrictions on redistribution.
If the g
> > ***Anyone*** is free to take software licensed under the AFL and
> > re-license it under any license, including licenses not
> containing the
>
> I just want to confirm that I have interpreted the above
> statement correctly.
>
> Anyone can take APL licensed software as a whole and
> dis
Lawrence E. Rosen scripsit:
> And anyone who has a copy of W+X or W' has two licenses, one from Person
> A (for that part that was W) and one from Person B (for W+X or W').
> Person A is not responsible in any respect for W+X or W'.
The key question: If Person C who has W' sues Person A for pate
On Tue, 11 Mar 2003, Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:
> Brian Behlendort wrote:
> > All IMHO, and IANAL, coz I get burned every time I post here
> > these days...
>
> Are you afraid I'll slap you 'aside the head? Relax :-)
Let's say I'm trying to be more cognizant of my own lack of formal legal
trai
Brian Behlendorf scripsit:
> But but... your AFL terms persist, so I'm not really relicensing. This
> new one-byte-different derivative work is *not* under an Apache license -
> one who picks up that code and follows only the Apache license may find
> themselves violating your AFL license. The l
Answers interspersed. /Larry
> -Original Message-
> From: John Cowan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 11:20 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: 'Bjorn Reese'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Compatibi
So the "AFL" no longer applies to the derived work, is
that what you are saying?
So I can do whatever I want with my derived work, from
a "AFL" work, licensing my derived work in any terms I
want, and people using the derived work will not be
bound by conditions of the "AFL" but by my terms only?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wednesday 12 March 2003 02:46 pm, Andy Tai wrote:
> So the "AFL" no longer applies to the derived work, is
> that what you are saying?
>
> So I can do whatever I want with my derived work, from
> a "AFL" work, licensing my derived work in any terms
The trademark clause in the AFL merely states that "Neither the names of
Licensor, nor the names of any contributors to the Original Work, nor
any of their trademarks or service marks, may be used to endorse or
promote products derived from this Original Work without express prior
Andy Tai scripsit:
> So the "AFL" no longer applies to the derived work, is
> that what you are saying?
>
> So I can do whatever I want with my derived work, from
> a "AFL" work, licensing my derived work in any terms I
> want, and people using the derived work will not be
> bound by conditions
Alex Russell scripsit:
> So long as your license terms do not contradict the license you received the
> original work under (the AFL), this is my understanding of the situation.
Well, "contradict" is fuzzy. It can be licensed under terms that are
completely different from the AFL's: for example,
Mr. Rosen, why don't you put your statement referenced
below into the AFL, stating that
You are permitted to create derived work and relicense
such work under any license terms of your choice, and
I waive all my rights in regard to all such derived
work, including the requirements of this license
Brian,
First, as to the Mutual Defense provision and its "compatibility" with
the GPL:
Person A writes W and licenses it to everyone under the AFL. Person B
comes along and, in the true spirit of free software, creates and
distributes collective work W+X and derivative work W' under the GPL.
No
yep. /LR
> -Original Message-
> From: John Cowan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 11:38 AM
> To: Brian Behlendorf
> Cc: Lawrence E. Rosen; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Compatibility of the AFL with the GPL
>
Andy Tai wrote:
> So the "AFL" no longer applies to the derived work, is
> that what you are saying?
>
> So I can do whatever I want with my derived work, from
> a "AFL" work, licensing my derived work in any terms I
> want, and people using the derived work will not be
> bound by conditions of t
> Mr. Rosen, why don't you put your statement referenced
> below into the AFL, stating that
>
> You are permitted to create derived work and relicense
> such work under any license terms of your choice, and
> I waive all my rights in regard to all such derived
> work, including the requirements o
Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:
> And anyone who has a copy of W+X or W' has two licenses, one from Person
> A (for that part that was W) and one from Person B (for W+X or W').
> Person A is not responsible in any respect for W+X or W'.
*Sigh*. OK, now I get it. W+X and W' has *two* licenses, one each
Sorry for copying large segments; I have a feeling we're talking past each
other, and I want to try to avoid that.
On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:
> First, as to the Mutual Defense provision and its "compatibility" with
> the GPL:
>
> Person A writes W and licenses it to everyone un
Brian Behlendorf scripsit:
> My common-sense, non-lawyer brain says that if person B says W+X or W' are
> under the GPL, it's really "GPL to Person B plus AFL to Person A." It
> appears to be Stallman's opinion, and it would be mine as well, that this
> cannot be the case, as the GPL prevents "add
Brian Behlendorf wrote:
> *Sigh*. OK, now I get it. W+X and W' has *two* licenses,
> one each to two different parties. The terms of *both* must
> be followed by Person C.
>
> My common-sense, non-lawyer brain says that if person B says
> W+X or W' are under the GPL, it's really "GPL to Pers
Lawrence E. Rosen scripsit:
> I'm sorry, Brian, I just don't view these things as "additional
> restrictions" -- yet another example of vagueness in the GPL.
I don't see how you can claim that a statement that "If you do X, your
license is void" doesn't count as a restriction imposed by the licen
On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:
> I'm sorry, Brian, I just don't view these things as "additional
> restrictions" -- yet another example of vagueness in the GPL.
I'm confused how something I can do under the GPL but cannot do under the
AFL is not an additional restriction. Ah, wel
> It's not you, the AFL copyright holder, who can choose not to
> care. It's Jimmy Q. Gplauthor, whose copyright is infringed
> by having a derivative work (the GPL+AFL code) distributed
> under more restrictive terms than the GPL.
Huh? Is Jimmy == Person A, Person B or Person C? Keep your p
On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:
> Brian Behlendorf wrote:
> > *Sigh*. OK, now I get it. W+X and W' has *two* licenses,
> > one each to two different parties. The terms of *both* must
> > be followed by Person C.
> >
> > My common-sense, non-lawyer brain says that if person B says
>
On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:
> > It's not you, the AFL copyright holder, who can choose not to
> > care. It's Jimmy Q. Gplauthor, whose copyright is infringed
> > by having a derivative work (the GPL+AFL code) distributed
> > under more restrictive terms than the GPL.
>
> Huh
Lawrence E. Rosen scripsit:
> > It's not you, the AFL copyright holder, who can choose not to
> > care. It's Jimmy Q. Gplauthor, whose copyright is infringed
> > by having a derivative work (the GPL+AFL code) distributed
> > under more restrictive terms than the GPL.
>
> Huh? Is Jimmy == Pers
--- "Lawrence E. Rosen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm sorry, Brian, I just don't view these things as
> "additional
> restrictions" -- yet another example of vagueness in
> the GPL.
IYWO (In your wise opinion)
> Regardless, the explicit exclusion of a trademark
> license and the mutual
> defen
Andy Tai scripsit:
> For anyone who writes AFL code, if he wishes to allow
> use in GPL programs, he can dual license under the GPL
> and the AFL. Intent explicitly expressed. Problem
> solved.
That's what I'm doing with TagSoup, the SAX-compatible Java parser for
nasty, ugly HTML at http://ww
OK, guys, play with me one more round. This time, let's do it in the
form of a law school exam question and let's get the lawyers and IANALs
on this list to chime in:
SCENARIO: Several faculty members at Prestigious University have created
a marvelous new package that takes input from a keyboard
Under
U.S. trademark law, anyone can say "I've built a derivative work of
Apache" without using Apache's good name, or yours, to endorse or
promote their software.
It looks like use of Apache's good name to me. If it isn't what it
looks like, I guess these words are not clear.
> The key question: If Person C who has W' sues Person A for
> patent infringement, does that void his license to do things with W'?
If C sues A for patent infringement, C can no longer copy, modify or
distribute W, or W+X, or W', because his license to do those things with
W
On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:
> SCENARIO: Several faculty members at Prestigious University have created
> a marvelous new package that takes input from a keyboard and displays it
> on a monitor faster than any program ever has before. They decide to
> release it to the public und
he initial question concerned "compatibility of the AFL with the GPL." In
that respect, it is worth keeping in mind that "compatibility" is not a term
of legal significance in software licensing matters. As I under the term,
Stallman uses it to evaluate license provisions and how he
Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. scripsit:
> The initial question concerned "compatibility of the AFL with the GPL." In
> that respect, it is worth keeping in mind that "compatibility" is not a term
> of legal significance in software licensing matters.
Well, perhaps not.
Mark Rafn scripsit:
> You lost me after the first GPL violation (putting non-GPL-compatible code
> in the Linux kernel).
Well, that's a question. RMS says it's a violation, but that doesn't make it
one necessarily; Larry, after all, says it isn't one.
--
John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> www.ccil
You are both wrong. The designation of whether one license is incompatible
with the GPL says nothing about "violation." On FSF's website, they
designate some licenses as incompatible with the GPL. The question raised
was why the AFL is included in that list.
Rod
On Thu, 13 Mar 2003, John Cowan w
Rod Dixon scripsit:
>
> You are both wrong. The designation of whether one license is incompatible
> with the GPL says nothing about "violation." On FSF's website, they
> designate some licenses as incompatible with the GPL. The question raised
> was why the AFL is included in that list.
It is wh
Lawrence E. Rosen scripsit:
> Nothing in the GPL
> prohibits such a contingent termination provision for a component of a
> GPL-licensed derivative work.
GPL 2b is generally read to prevent any such encumbrances other than those
enumerated in the GPL itself.
--
A poetical purist named Cowan
I urge you to visit www.fsf.org/licenses/license-list.html; there you will
find a list of free osftware licenses that the FSF has determined to be
"incompatible" with the GPL. The designation, however, is not a
legal
determination, but, rather a matter of whether "restrictions" exist to
render a fr
On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, Mark Rafn wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:
>
[...]
> > Linus Torvalds learns about WhizBanger and he and his team decide to
> > include WhizBanger in their new release of Linux. As usual, they
> > release their new Linux, with full source code, under the
Bottom line: I can assure you, as the license author, that the AFL is
intended to be used for software that can be incorporated into
GPL-licensed software, and I will almost certainly so advise my clients:
I hope you will decide that you owe it to your clients to inform them
that the F
BigCo brings Debian Linux into its research labs.
The name of that distribution is Debian GNU/Linux. (It is a version
of GNU/Linux.)
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Lawrence E. Rosen writes:
> OK, guys, play with me one more round. This time, let's do it in the
> form of a law school exam question and let's get the lawyers and IANALs
> on this list to chime in:
Nahhh. None of this is necessary. There's nothing in the AFL that
says that you must use the
On Friday, 14 March 2003, Russell Nelson wrote:
Lawrence E. Rosen writes:
> OK, guys, play with me one more round. This time, let's do it in the
> form of a law school exam question and let's get the lawyers and IANALs
> on this list to chime in:
Nahhh. None of this is necessary.
Eben Moglen writes:
> No, that's not quite right. We do have to resolve one question, which
> is whether the effect of the AFL is to pass through the patent-
> retaliation provision on code which is relicensed.
Larry's taught me not to paraphrase, so let's look at the actual
language:
Mut
> Lawrence E. Rosen writes:
> > OK, guys, play with me one more round. This time, let's do it in the
> > form of a law school exam question and let's get the lawyers and IANALs
> > on this list to chime in:
>
> Nahhh. None of this is necessary. There's nothing in the AFL that
> says that you
Greg Pomerantz writes:
> > Lawrence E. Rosen writes:
> > > OK, guys, play with me one more round. This time, let's do it in the
> > > form of a law school exam question and let's get the lawyers and IANALs
> > > on this list to chime in:
> >
> > Nahhh. None of this is necessary. There'
e same whether the AFL passes-through or not.
/Larry Rosen
> -Original Message-
> From: Russell Nelson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 7:20 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Eben Moglen'
> Subject: Re: Compatibility of the A
Lawrence E. Rosen writes:
> Sorry to have to knock that leg of the chair out from under you,
Foo. And I was on such a roll!
> That's why the term "compatibility" has been such a sore point for me.
The point of the law school exam being for anyone to be able to show a
difference in people's be
The point of the law school exam being for anyone to be able to show a
difference in people's behavior in re GPLed code versus AFL+GPLed
code. How can the licenses be said to be incompatible if the supposed
incompatibility causes no change in anyone's behavior?
The presence of the
Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:
Richard,
Today you finally gave public reasons for your assertion that the AFL is
incompatible with the GPL. Because you are simply wrong on the law and
wrong-headed on a matter of principle, I must file this public response.
So I think I understand the controvery regardi
I realize that this question was specifically addressed to Larry and RMS,
but please permit me to press my point once more since I am beginning to
recognize that despite the reputation of lawyers for over-complicating
matters, computer scientists seem to suffer from the same affliction. The
final q
All that being said, I'd still like an answer.
-Andy
Rod Dixon wrote:
I realize that this question was specifically addressed to Larry and RMS,
but please permit me to press my point once more since I am beginning to
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
On Fri, 14 Mar 2003, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
> Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:
> > Richard,
> >
> > Today you finally gave public reasons for your assertion that the AFL is
> > incompatible with the GPL. Because you are simply wrong on the law and
> > wrong-headed on a matter of principle, I must file th
> Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 5:12 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: What about LGPL? Re: Compatibility of the AFL with the GPL
>
>
> Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:
> > Richard,
> >
> > Today you finally gave public reasons for your assertion
> that the AF
-
From: news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andrew C. Oliver
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 5:12 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: What about LGPL? Re: Compatibility of the AFL with the GPL
Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:
Richard,
Today you finally gave public reasons for your assertion
that
Just to keep everyone clear, the "AFL" in this week's discussion is the
Academic Free License:
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/academic.php
it is NOT the Apache License.
The Apache license as it currently stands is not compatible with the GPL,
we recognize this; whether it's compatible with th
On Fri, 14 Mar 2003, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
> > Since it's the Trove4J folks who would have standing in any case involving
> > LGPL-nonconformance, *not* the FSF, it really only matters how the Trove4J
> > folks intend the LGPL's language around derivative works and interfaces to
> > be interpret
Hi Brian,
Thank you for taking time to reply.
The Apache Software Foundation takes a cautious stance on the matter, that
says you can't assume that all authors who release code under the LGPL
will interpret it to allow the kind of combination you are asking about.
If those authors *do* allow it,
63 matches
Mail list logo
