OSI Approves Three New Licenses 102
Russ Nelson writes: "In our monthly board meeting this past Wednesday, the Open Source Initiative approved three new licenses for use with OSI Certified Open Source Software: the W3C
license, the Motosoto license,
and the Open
Group Test Suite License. In other action, one license was voted down because it violated the discrimination clause of the Open Source
Definition. Another (the RTSP) was
withdrawn because the license-discuss mailing list convinced the
submittor that it wasn't ready. And one (the DSPL) goes back to
license-discuss because we disagree with their analysis and want to
re-negotiate it with them. Several people have suggested that we post the licenses that we have turned down, and explain just why they don't comply with the Open Source Definition. We don't want to discourage people from submitting licenses, knowing that their license might be held up for public notice. We'd rather encourage people with non-compliant licenses to fix them so they are compliant."
Too Many Already (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Too Many Already (Score:2)
Re:Too Many Already (Score:2)
Re:Too Many Already (Score:2, Insightful)
Sorry everyone - your favourite license just became redundant
Re:Too Many Already (Score:1)
Re:Too Many Already (Score:2)
That's exactly why BSD is less plausible than GPL as a stable one-and-only license.
In a world full of BSD code, you have the freedom to reuse it under a commercial or other non-BSD licence, and someone almost certainly will (and if they won't, why do you care about the freedom to do so?). In a world full of GPL code, you can only reuse it under GPL, so any non-GPL project has to start entirely from scratch.
Re:Too Many Already (Score:2)
Unless of course, the license is beyond casual reading and does not require many hours of a legal team to imagine the implications of the many possible hypothetical special circumstances that always arise.
That said, its always nice to see an old, well proven license when untarring a package.
Re:Too Many Already (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Licence incompatibility ! now a Babel Tower (Score:2)
Soon we will have a kind an open source Babel tower where every project has it's own licence but communicate with others. Talk about an oxymoron
Re:Licence incompatibility ! now a Babel Tower (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Too Many Already (Score:1)
I doubt seriously that licensing concerns will be the "downfall" of OSS. For one thing, once an open source software package is out there, it's out there. There's pretty much no going back. Even if the original author rescinds the license for a later version, the code that has been released can form the basis for a different fork.
I think people should not overlook the fact that the backbone of this wonderful thing we call the Internet runs on a heck of a lot of open source software: bind, apache, sendmail,
Re:Crap (Score:1)
Re:Crap (Score:1, Offtopic)
(Watch Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove or How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love The Bomb for an explanation.)
(OT)Precious Moments bodily fluids? (Score:1)
precious bodily fluids
Are the bodily fluids of the Eloi people (i.e. the people that H. G. Wells wrote about in The Time Machine and which are also depicted in Precious Moments [preciousmoments.com] figurines) significantly different in composition from those of a typical A.D. 2001 American?
Posting bad licenses (Score:1)
That link... (Score:1)
...to the Motosoto license doesn't work.
At least, it didn't for me.
corrected link for Motosoto (Score:2, Informative)
Motosoto license looks like GNU Lesser GPL (Score:1)
After casually reading the Motosoto license, I could not find a significant difference between its terms and those of the GNU Lesser GPL [google.com]. Anyone care to point out how this is different from LGPL?
Re:corrected link for Motosoto (Score:2)
The webmaster@motosoto.org mailbox isn't just not answered, it's rejected as non-existant. The main page loads up blank. Whatever this motosoto thing is, it sure impresses me as worthless.
Re:corrected link for Motosoto (Score:2)
If they wanted to promote their project, they'd have a web site. And in fact they do. But it just loads blank.
And look whose really hiding their AOL origins behind A/C.
More licences is good. (Score:2, Insightful)
that developers have a greater choice over which freedoms they want to give and which they wish to keep.
Not everyone agrees with RMS's philosophy, so we
need alternatives.
Although IMHO the GPL is the best licence out there.
Re:More licences is bad (Score:1, Funny)
For Microsoft, there's BSD.
For everyone else, there's GPL.
Re:More licences is bad (Score:1)
Links (Score:2, Troll)
Here is a link to the current list of OSI liscenses: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html [gnu.org]
Re:Links (Score:1)
Here is the actual link [opensource.org] to currently approved OSI licenses: http://opensource.org/licenses/index.html
This is the very spirit of open source !!! (Score:3, Insightful)
That's exactly what's happening here:
People take the sources of other peoples open source licences, modify them and redistribute them without having to pay any silly license fees.
So, you see the great sucess of open source here: many different licenses exist now and compete with each other and all time new licenses are created.
Some people might say now this is bad because there might be holes which evil guys can abuse, but because the license is open at once a new license is created without the hole and evil men have no chance !!!
So don't believe Microsoft with their evil anti-open source FUD: nobody uses the MS licenses beside MS themselves anymore, because they are closed and they will fail. Soon all licenses will be open source licenses because that's the only licenses people can fit to their needs wihtout paying big bucks !
And laywers can still make money just be providing advice for the licenses without needing to charge fees for the original licenses !!!
Open source-ing Open Source Licenses? (Score:1)
Perhaps what we are seeing here, is not YAOSL, but rather, the license itself being rewritten in the only medium offered to it... re-release with changes, under a new name.
Just a thought...
Re:Open source-ing Open Source Licenses? (Score:3, Informative)
Lets post the licenses and what's right or wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
Why not hold them up to public inspection, show why a license was turned down, and what the implications of the offending clauses were. If they archive the communications with the license authors, it may be usefull to show what the real intent of the authors was down the road in case of disputes. In a world where the shrink-wrapped you gotta agree to it before you even see it license reins supreme, I'd find this refreshing
Re:Lets post the licenses and what's right or wron (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Lets post the licenses and what's right or wron (Score:1)
Re:Lets post the licenses and what's right or wron (Score:2, Informative)
Well, the whole executive committee and merit share holders thing gave the impression of over complexity to me and I doubt it'll be used widely, but I think that scheme is the heart of the licence so I'm sure you want to keep it
One particular point was it seemed to revolve around having elections for every public release of the software, so far as I could see this would mean holding elections for every bug fix. I'm probably reading it too strictly but then there doesn't seem much point in a (quite substantial) written licence unless it's expected to be strictly adhered to.
Is the thing about not being allowed to charge for the software itself important? If I understand correctly you mean I couldn't say "I will charge you $100 for this software" but I could say "I will charge you $100 for making a copy of this software for you" or something like that. If I've got that right, what's achieved by this and would you really want to be in the position of policing it?
The GPL's approach of letting people charge what they want seems to have much the same practical effect given than market forces will bring down the price of freely redistributable software unless you can add some extra value.
I'm not sure it's a good idea to include your interpretation of patent laws:
"While it is not in general illegal to produce or distribute software such as this that uses patented methods, it may be illegal to use such software for any purposes other than 'private experimentation'."
You might be right, I don't know, but I can't see you need to say it in the software licence just include the part about it being their responsibility to comply with the law. I don't know from reading it whether you were thinking of a particular jurisdiction (the USA maybe?) or all countries signed up to particular treaties or what. Stating what the law is "in general" in a licence that presumably may be used internationally doesn't seem like a good idea to me. You may be inadvertently misleading some people.
I think the part about being able to make derivatives licensed under the GPL was good, given the state of the "market" it seems good to me to allow redistribution under one of the leading licences but then I like the GPL and I expect some will disagree
Something I did find odd was that after specifying that derivatives could be under DSPL or GPL it then talks about pre-release versions being under a licence that prohibits further distribution, but with no real limits on what that licence might otherwise say - should this only be valid for a limited period or something?
I'm not sure on the effectiveness of the final clause about using the software as a library. So far as I can see you can take software not released as a library, adapt it so it is now a library, release that library yourself under the DSPL and then link to it in exactly the way that (it seems to me) you're trying to prohibit.
Okay, that was just a series of thoughts probably not entirely coherent that occurred to me as I read throught it. I hope I haven't sounded too negative, I guess I was looking for problems
Good luck with your licence.
Re:Lets post the licenses and what's right or wron (Score:2)
A company that submits a license should not have to worry about getting flooded with flames since their license did not pass..
So "neutralize" the licenses (Score:2)
Re:Lets post the licenses and what's right or wron (Score:1)
Open Group Test Suite License - not Free Software? (Score:3, Insightful)
The FSF's definition of Free Software requires that "A free program must be available for commercial use". [gnu.org]
Re:Open Group Test Suite License - not Free Softwa (Score:1, Insightful)
Open Source Software != Free Software
Re:Open Group Test Suite License - not Free Softwa (Score:2, Insightful)
So in this regard it's essentially the same as the Artistic License. I would criticize them for lifting material from the AL, possibly the most vague, unprofessional, IANAL license of all time.
ObSuicide: CmdrTaco is a big fat penis, I spit on
Yes it IS available for commercial use (Score:2)
I can remember when shareware programs were very prominent, which was especially during the time when dial-up computer bulletin boards were around.
I'm not sure if there was any "official" standard licence, but nearly every shareware author included a licence stating that you could charge for distribution costs of the program, but not for the program itself. Usually this was placed on a shareware version of the program, and anyone wanting the full version would send money to the author or (on the later days) a publishing company.
The thing is that even with this licence, there were still companies that made money - completely legitimately - through distributing shareware programs. Simtel [simtel.com] and various others made CD's full of thousands of shareware programs, an application gold mine at the time, that people could buy in shops for $30. They were really popular for BBS system operators.
There was at least one other company near where I am that was packaging up shareware programs into sleek plastic satchels, and marketing them under their distribution brand in all the computer shops for about $10 each. It was completely legal because they were charging for the the time and effort they'd put into the packaging and distribution.
So in answer to your question about whether that clause in the OTSL prevents programs being available for commercial re-selling, the answer is no it doesn't. It's completely possible for commercial entities to re-sell it. Of course, companies could use it commercially anyway without trying to sell it, and the clause you've highlighted doesn't talk about that at all. I'm not sure how you think any inability to sell the code prevents it from being used commercially. Just because they're not allowed to sell someone's effort doesn't mean they can't use it for their business to make money.
attitude makes the difference (Score:1)
This depends on the attitude with which it is presented, doesn't it? Compare: "These proprietary wannabes tried to muscle in with the following restrictions" with "We felt the OSI model and the requirements imposed by these business plans were incompatible in the following points"
Sure, there's *always* trolls who take offense at business plans on some misguided principle, but anyone who counts will take it as it's meant: a simple lesson in OSI compatibility.
steeling myself for a flaming, but... (Score:1)
Re:steeling myself for a flaming, but... (Score:1, Insightful)
Ermmm... well in general I think that it would be a very bad idea to mark your software as freeware unless it was in fact freeware. These licences are for people who want their software to be licenced under the terms of the licence, not effectively put them into the public domain. It seems rather obvious to be saying that but I guess you were missing it.
Re:steeling myself for a flaming, but... (Score:4, Informative)
Motosoto/Monsanto clarification (Score:1, Offtopic)
It's almost as if the people behind nimda demanded money from you for running their copyrighted software! The sad thing, this is a very good comparison. Genetically modified organic crops are worth much less than pure organic.
Re:Motosoto/Monsanto clarification (Score:2)
all your crops will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.
Re:Motosoto/Monsanto clarification (Score:2)
Yeah, originally I was going for funny. But, despite being about agriculture, this is definitely on-topic. It's a contrast to the "good" licenses discussed above, and how companies can use their patents to force compliance with these licenses even to people who don't want to. If you care about software licenses, you should be interested in biotechnology licenses (both are concerned with protecting IP). While the GPL and its ilk are accused of being viral, here's an example of a license that literally is. Farmers face a terrible plight -- inability to control what they plant and who they buy it from -- and I hope to god that it never comes to computers. How is this possible, you say? Well, I gave you start -- virii -- so start the discussion! Is there some patented technology that will become essential for interoperability (like GIFs, but moreso)? Will passport become necessary to conduct transactions over the web? In the slashdot tradition, go ahead and add your favorite ms conspiracy theory.
And before modding down a seemingly unrelated post down, remember that cross-fertilization (no pun intented!) from other disciplines is an amazing tool to understand something about the topic at hand.
p.s. not to harp on farming, but I thought that the Autonomic Computing [slashdot.org] article made good use of cross-disciplinary comparisons in its whitepaper [ibm.com].
end rant; it wasn't about karma.
Heh, I can see it now :) (Score:2)
And inside, there's a table with 1 cm of dust on it. Around this table are some chairs. Just as many mummies are sitting upon these chairs with their heads on the table, spider rags going from their heads to the table and back again.
Then suddenly one of these heads rises. A low, low voice speaks.
"Guys, people haven't really heard from us lately. Let's approve some licenses, or something."
The other mummy heads also rise from the table. Mumbling. "Yeah, good idea."
;-)
Question (Score:2)
Also if the software goes kaput (or bought out) for any reason, what should the contrib community code licensing do (considering the legal entity holding the original OSI does not exist). If I was a Gate-2.0 I would conceive of an ingeneous bait and switch tactic where the original stuff was OSI but then deliberately strangle the legal holder and change the terms of the now rootless software as individuals with forks won't have the resources to compete.
Synopsys License? (Score:2, Interesting)
If anyone from OSI (esp Bruce) is reading this, I'd be ever so pleased if you could respond. Thanks.
My license (Score:2)
How can I submit my license. It's a cross between the GPL and BSD license, although it's not compatible with either. It also suffers from fewer loopholes than the GPL. Here goes:
Any comments? Anyone see any potential loopholes?
Re:My license (Score:2, Interesting)
It requires unreleased derivative works to be licensed to others.
It allows patented derivative works to be restricted (by the patent).
You are granted a license from the creator of the derivitive work to use the work without restriction. My non-lawyer guess is that this would allow you to use any applicable method regarding patents. Third party patents would still apply of course, but I don't see any way to protect against this. If anyone could come up with a way to fix this, I'd certainly consider it.
Why not just use the GPL?
Because the GPL forces those creating derivitive works to release the source code to those works. I do not believe that the government should be involved in copyright law, and the purpose of this license is to cause all creators of derivitive works to abandon all rights under copyright law for the derivitive work. I do not believe the government should be involved in making sure that the creators of software release source code. Another problem with the GPL is that it is full of loopholes. I have attempted to create a free software license which is copylefted to the fullest extent possible under copyright law. In essence, I do not want the government or courts to ever get involved, except to throw out a copyright suit for a work which is derived from a work licensed under this license.
Re:My license (Score:1)
"Private modifications which are not released are permitted without restriction under fair use."
False. See American Geophysical Union v. Texaco, Inc.
That case was about copying, not creation of derivitive works. Further, the court specifically states my point of view, that a transformative use falls under fair use, at least as to the first factor.
Further, Texaco's use caused "a substantial harm to the value of [American Geophysical Union's] copyrights". This is utterly untrue in the case of my license, and less true than in the Texaco case in any instance of modification, since the modified copies were legally obtained, and it is only the market for the modifications which is being subverted.
I'm sorry, I have to disagree with you here. Private modifications are fair use. Especially and certainly private modifications of source code which is otherwise obtained legally.
"If you don't release a modified work, you have not created a derivitive work."
False. See US Code title 17.
To be honest, I have no idea what I was thinking when I made that statement. You are right.
"If you haven't released it, no one can use it anyway."
If it's licensed to third parties, they can.
Here I just meant physically, not legally. If no one has your changes, no one can use them. Better explained I guess by my next point.
Employees could not be forbidden to release modifications -- they would have a license to them automatically. So, it's a loophole in your license, not the GPL.
Employees could certainly be forbidden to release modifications - through their employment contracts or other contracts. But if those modifications were somehow leaked out, third parties could not be sued, only the employees found responsible, for breach of contract. This is intentional, and not a loophole, because I don't want companies to be able to intentionally leak modifications (anonymously) and then claim copyright on them. Whether or not RMS intends for the GPL to allow that and this is a loophole or not I'm not going to argue any more.
It doesn't say without restriction. You require granting a copyright license, not patent licenses. This is a loophole the GPL fixes.
It most certainly does say without restriction. "Copying, distribution, and use of this work is permitted without restriction." I do not require granting a copyright license, I require granting a license. Since copyright doesn't restrict use, the use part is obviously talking about patent and DMCA restrictions. How does the GPL address this issue? I find part 7 of the GPL to be obvious. If you can't satisfy the terms of the license, you can't use the license. I think that goes without saying. I'd certainly be willing to add part 7 of the GPL to my license though, since it wouldn't hurt my license (other than to make it more complicated to licensees and/or judges and/or juries).
I do not believe that the government should be involved in copyright law."
Then why are you using a copyright license?
My use of copyright law only prevents a prosecution from winning a case against a defendant over copyright law, it will never enable someone to initiate a case against another. This is sharply in contrast to the GPL, over which lawsuits are threatened all the time. I'm not sure I answered your question, but I'm not sure exactly what you're asking. You seem to imply that my being opposed to government involvement in copyright law would somehow preclude me from using copyright law. I disagree with that.
"and the purpose of this license is to cause all creators of derivitive works to abandon all rights under copyright law for the derivitive work."
It doesn't mention public performance rights.
Because there is no public performance right for software.
And if you oppose copyrights, why don't you oppose patents?
I certainly oppose all software patents. I haven't really thought enough about non-software patents to take a stance either way.
If you do oppose patents, then why leave the patent loophole?
I don't believe there is a patent loophole which can be solved within copyright law. If I had the time and money I'd certainly patent all my software and offer a patent license with similar wording, but patents cost a lot and take a lot of time to create.
Finally, you keep mentioning loopholes in the GPL. You clearly don't know much about copyright law, so I don't see how you're qualified to judge.
Like I said earlier, I am just going to drop the whole GPL loophole debate, because without a definitive definition of what the GPL is trying to accomplish, it's impossible for me to say whether or not it accomplishes it.
The GPL's record speaks for itself -- nobody has ever exploited a loophole.
That is both arguable and moot. Arguable because there are certainly those who have subverted the spirit of the GPL through obfuscation, and moot because the GPL has never been tested in court.
Your license is not a Free Software license, and I hope you will reconsider using it.
If you respond to nothing else in this post, please respond to this: how is my license not a Free Software license? It gives the freedom to run the program for any purpose, the freedom to study how the program works and adapt it to your needs, the freedom to redistribute copies, and the freedom to improve the program and release those improvements to the public. It is not copyleft under the definition of GNU, because it does not require derivitive works to be free software, but it most certainly is a free software license.
Re:My license (Score:1)
Re:My license (Score:1)
It brings up the question of who the first and second parties are. If the first party is the originating author and the second party is the creator of the derivative work the the creator of the derivative work could presumably licence it to the originating author under any licence.
Maybe.
Re:My license (Score:1)
I "borrowed" that terminology from the GPL. The idea is that you must license the derivitive work to everyone, this is in place so that you can't say that the third party obtained the work without your permission, and therefore was not given a license. I guess I could say "everyone" but whatever lawyer-people looked over the GPL seemed to like "all third parties". IANAL, though, so I'm not sure...
If the first party is the originating author and the second party is the creator of the derivative work the the creator of the derivative work could presumably licence it to the originating author under any licence.
Just as with the GPL, the creator of the derivative work can license it to anyone under any license, as long as s/he also licenses it under the "whatever I call my license". If s/he licenses it under a more restricive license, this license would still give those additional freedoms for the derivitive. If s/he licenses it under a less restrictive license, this license would still apply in most cases to a derivitive of the derivitive, since that in itself would usually be a derivitive. It might not be a derivitive if it only modifies the modifications, but in that case there is nothing copyright law (notwithstanding state EULA laws) can do anyway.
Re:My license (Score:2)
All derivatives of GPL'd works must be licensed under the GPL exclusively.
Re:My license (Score:1)
All derivatives of GPL'd works must be licensed under the GPL exclusively.
Where does the GPL state this? I don't even see the work exclusive or exclusively in the GPL. How can you explain mozilla code being licensed under multiple licenses?
Perhaps you are misunderstanding me. I am not saying that licensing a derivitive work under a non-GPL license gives anyone any extra priviliges, but that is only because copying or distribution of the derivitive work almost always constitutes a direct infringement of the original work.
U.S. Code Title 17, Section 103(b). Are you telling me that the copyright holder of a derivitive work is not allowed to license his own work under any license he wishes? Not only does he have that right, he exclusively has that right. Now, he is restricted under the GPL that he must cause the work to be licensed under the GPL, but I see no mention that that license must be exclusively given. In fact, the GPL specifically states that "If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works." which is precisely what I am saying.
Re:My license (Score:2)
"Where does the GPL state this? I don't even see the work exclusive or exclusively in the GPL. How can you explain mozilla code being licensed under multiple licenses?"
Sorry, I was unclear. I was assuming that (1) the person making the derivative was not the original copyright holder and (2) that the software in question was licensed exclusively under the GPL.
Only the original copyright holder can institute dual licensing, and derivatives of dual licensed works must follow the terms of one or both licenses.
"Perhaps you are misunderstanding me. I am not saying that licensing a derivitive work under a non-GPL license gives anyone any extra priviliges, but that is only because copying or distribution of the derivitive work almost always constitutes a direct infringement of the original work."
You don't need to license something unless you distribute it.
"Are you telling me that the copyright holder of a derivitive work is not allowed to license his own work under any license he wishes?"
Yes. You are missing section a of 103, which says that usage of a derivative work must be lawful, meaning it must be authorized by the original copyright holder. In the case of the GPL, this means that the copyright holder of the derivative can't distribute it except under the terms of the GPL.
"but I see no mention that that license must be exclusively given."
The derivative writer has no right to distribute her derivative at all unless the original copyright holder consents. The only consent given by the original copyright holder is the GPL (usually, except in dual licensing situations).
"In fact, the GPL specifically states that "If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works." which is precisely what I am saying."
No, it's precisely irrelevent -- these independent sections are not derivative works, so section 103 doesn't apply to them.
Re:My license (Score:1)
The derivative writer has no right to distribute her derivative at all unless the original copyright holder consents.
Only to the extent that distribution of that derivitive work infringes upon the original work. For instance, if I create software which uses a GPLed library, and I have created that derivitive work under the terms of the GPL part 2, I now own the copyright to that work, and can license it under any terms I see fit. In order to have created the work under part 2 I must have already given all third parties a GPL license for the work, but that does not preclude me from also licensing the derivitive work under other licenses. Now say I GPLed and BSD licensed my derivitive work, and a third party wanted to create a derivitive of my work, and that derivitive was not in and of itself a derivitive of the original GPLed work (say another completely different library). In that case that third party would not have to distribute the source.
If my derivitive contained any of the original work, then any third party would have to receive a license from the original party to create a derivitive of that derivitive.
Distribution of a legally created derivitive work (such as one created under part 2 of the GPL) is not restricted by copyright law, unless that derivitive contains the original work in it. Now it could be argued that when you created the derivitive you became bound to a contractual relationship with the original copyright holder, as you accepted the terms of the GPL, but that's out of the scope of copyright law and would vary from state to state (it's essentially an EULA in that case). In any case, the GPL does not restrict dual licensing, so that I would say is perfectly legit, distribution on the other hand would be problematic once you agreed to give up your rights (including possibly the right to first sale) by accepting the GPL.
Re:My license (Score:2)
Aozilla:"Only to the extent that distribution of that derivitive work infringes upon the original work. For instance, if I create software which uses a GPLed library, and I have created that derivitive work under the terms of the GPL part 2, I now own the copyright to that work, and can license it under any terms I see fit."
GPL para 2 puts conditions on the distribution of that derivative work. Among the conditions is a requirement to license the derivative work under the GPL (2b). You do not have permission to distribute it under any other license; to do so would be infringing.
"Distribution of a legally created derivitive work (such as one created under part 2 of the GPL) is not restricted by copyright law, unless that derivitive contains the original work in it."
Incorrect. Consider a movie made from a novel. Even if it has no lines from the original novel in it, it is still derivative of the novel, and is infringing unless licensed.
"Now it could be argued that when you created the derivitive you became bound to a contractual relationship with the original copyright holder, as you accepted the terms of the GPL, but that's out of the scope of copyright law and would vary from state to state (it's essentially an EULA in that case)."
That's not how the GPL works. If you create a derivative work of a GPL'd program, you must follow the terms of the GPL (us code title 17 section 103 (a))
"In any case, the GPL does not restrict dual licensing."
It restricts adding or removing license terms by anyone other than the sole copyright holder(s).
"distribution on the other hand would be problematic once you agreed to give up your rights (including possibly the right to first sale) by accepting the GPL."
I can't understand this statement. What does first sale have to do with any of this?
Re:My license (Score:1)
"Distribution of a legally created derivitive work (such as one created under part 2 of the GPL) is not restricted by copyright law, unless that derivitive contains the original work in it."
Incorrect. Consider a movie made from a novel. Even if it has no lines from the original novel in it, it is still derivative of the novel, and is infringing unless licensed.
Consider a movie made from a novel. Consider that Steven King owns the novel copyright, and Warner Brothers owns the movie copyright (made under a legal agreement with SK). Now consider that I want to distribute the movie. Are you saying that I have to get permission from Steven King? I don't think that's true. Section 106 only gives exclusive rights to the preparation of derivitive works, not the distribution of them. I guess you could interpret Section 106(3) otherwise, but unless I see a case where a person who only distributed a derivitive work was successfully sued under copyright law by the maker of the original work (when that derivitive contained none of the original), I'm not going to buy that interpretation.
"In any case, the GPL does not restrict dual licensing."
It restricts adding or removing license terms by anyone other than the sole copyright holder(s).
Where? A quick search for "add" and "remov" didn't show anything that says that. Actually, the GPL doesn't even require you to license a derivitive work under the GPL unless you distribute or publish it, but that's a whole different story. Actually, "publication" is probably what the U.S. code means when it says "preparation" of a derivitive work. But again that's one where I know no legal precedent, and it's also one where I'm not too sure which way the courts will go if it ever came into place.
"distribution on the other hand would be problematic once you agreed to give up your rights (including possibly the right to first sale) by accepting the GPL."
I can't understand this statement. What does first sale have to do with any of this?
Well, I argue above that a third party has a right to distribute a derivitive of a GPLed work which does not contain any of the original work itself without regard to the wishes of the copyright holder of that original work. This arguably may not apply to the actual creator of the derivitive work, because that creator must have accepted the GPL.
First sale doesn't directly apply in this case, but the courts have ruled that if you legally download software directly to your CD-R, you have a first sale right to resell that CD-R in any way you see fit (including without offering source code). Again, a completely different story, but one which applies to the GPL and indeed any software which is distributed for free (beer) over the internet. Basically, all those license agreements not to redistribute the software are essentially unenforcible since you can download and burn 50,000 CDs and redistribute them (though the courts have ruled that first sale does not apply to electronically redistributing the downloaded software). I'm not even sure how we got into this discussion, but the point I'm asserting is that there is no exclusive right given to the original copyright holder for distribution of a derivitive work (when that derivitive work does not contain any of the original).
Re:My license (Score:1)
The situation isn't the same -- we were talking about you producing and distributing the derivative work. You are Warner Brothers.
"unless I see a case where a person who only distributed a derivitive work was successfully sued under copyright law by the maker of the original work (when that derivitive contained none of the original), I'm not going to buy that interpretation."
OK, here's Stewart v. Abend:
http://www2.tltc.ttu.edu/Cochran/Cases%20&%20Re
Finally, in the GPL software universe, the case of a derivative work that doesn't include any of the original is *very* rare.
"Well, I argue above that a third party has a right to distribute a derivitive of a GPLed work which does not contain any of the original work itself without regard to the wishes of the copyright holder of that original work. This arguably may not apply to the actual creator of the derivitive work, because that creator must have accepted the GPL."
And if the creator accepted and followed the GPL, she has only distributed copies licensed under the GPL, so the third party who has recieved copies from her has also gotten them under the terms of the GPL.
"First sale doesn't directly apply in this case, but the courts have ruled that if you legally download software directly to your CD-R, you have a first sale right to resell that CD-R in any way you see fit (including without offering source code)."
This is definately a different case, because it doesn't involve modification. Also, it
applies to any content that is sold electronically, not just GPL software. Yes, it even
applies to your license.
This scenario still doesn't allow relicensing , *modifying*, or renting.
Also, I would like to see this specific case that you mention, because I have never heard of it, and would be surprised if it were true -- there is no way the courts will respect "first sale" if the alternative is the end of digital copyright, which is more-or-less the case here. Basically, if you tried to tell a judge this, they would laugh you out of court.
Re:My license (Score:1)
The situation isn't the same -- we were talking about you producing and distributing the derivative work. You are Warner Brothers.
Maybe that's what you were talking about, but I have said over and over that I am not talking about the creator of the derivitive work, as that could fall under breach of contract (but not copyright), assuming the creator accepts the GPL (would fall under copyright if s/he doesn't).
"unless I see a case where a person who only distributed a derivitive work was successfully sued under copyright law by the maker of the original work (when that derivitive contained none of the original), I'm not going to buy that interpretation."
OK, here's Stewart v. Abend
Wow, that's a very good reference. Of course, I agree with it completely. In its essence it is saying "Therefore, if the author dies before the renewal period, then the assignee may continue to use the original work only if the author's successor transfers the renewal rights to the assignee. [...] Application of this rule to this case should end the inquiry" [emphasis mine]. It also states that "The aspects of a derivative work added by the derivative author are that author's property, but the element drawn from the pre-existing work remains on grant from the owner of the pre-existing work." But I think in this case we're both actually right...
Finally, in the GPL software universe, the case of a derivative work that doesn't include any of the original is *very* rare.
In fact, it seems that the court rules here that it is impossible to create a derivitive work which is independent of the original.
So maybe in fact we're both right.
And if the creator accepted and followed the GPL, she has only distributed copies licensed under the GPL, so the third party who has recieved copies from her has also gotten them under the terms of the GPL.
That is the part where I disagree, because as I say, there is no restriction in the GPL from distributing copies which are licensed under the GPL and another license. The other license would only apply to the new parts of the work, but in this hypothetical we were asserting that all of the derivitive work was new. Perhaps that hypothetical is impossible, but I hope you at least can agree that the creator of a derivitive work has the right to license the new parts of that derivitive work under any license s/he sees fit (barring any contractual agreement not to do so).
Also, I would like to see this specific case that you mention, because I have never heard of it, and would be surprised if it were true -- there is no way the courts will respect "first sale" if the alternative is the end of digital copyright, which is more-or-less the case here. Basically, if you tried to tell a judge this, they would laugh you out of court.
As it turns out, I was misinformed that it was a court case, but it was in the U.S. Copyright office's report on the DMCA [loc.gov], page 78 (pdf page 120).
This is definately a different case, because it doesn't involve modification. Also, it applies to any content that is sold electronically, not just GPL software. Yes, it even applies to your license.
Well, it applies to my license, but my license already permits distribution without restriction, so it's a moot point.
This scenario still doesn't allow relicensing , *modifying*, or renting.
I agree on relicensing and renting, which are pretty much unnecessary for something which is GPLed anyway. By modifying I assume you mean preparation of derivitive works, which is a much different thing. I only asserted that it allowed distribution of GPLed binaries without distribution of source code, which, hell, is what my license allows too.
Speaking of which, I'm thinking about adding another sentence to my license. "Circumvention of any technological measure or measures which effectively control access to this work is permitted without restriction." At least that would stop someone who added access control (maybe a serial number check) from suing someone who bypasses that serial number check. It would still allow the serial number check to be added, but that's intentional (the purpose of my license is to get the government out of copyright infringement, not to stop companies from adding copyright controls to their software). Actually, one of the main purposes is to ensure that I can never be sued for infringing on a derivitive of my own software.
Re:My license (Score:1)
| Maybe that's what you were talking about, but I have said over and over that I am not talking about the creator of the derivitive work, as that could fall under breach of contract (but not copyright), assuming the creator accepts the GPL (would fall under copyright if s/he doesn't).
Violating the GPL is a copyright violation, not a contract violation, in all the situations I have heard of. If you aren't talking about the creator of a derivative work, then who are you talking about? What is your point here?
||| unless I see a case where a person who only distributed a derivitive work was successfully sued under copyright law by the maker of the original work (when that derivitive contained none of the original), I'm not going to buy that interpretation."
|| OK, here's Stewart v. Abend
| Wow, that's a very good reference. Of course, I agree with it completely. In its essence it is saying "Therefore, if the author dies before the renewal period, then the assignee may continue to use the original work only if the author's successor transfers the renewal rights to the assignee. [...] Application of this rule to this case should end the inquiry". It also states that "The aspects of a derivative work added by the derivative author are that author's property, but the element drawn from the pre-existing work remains on grant from the owner of the pre-existing work." But I think in this case we're both actually right...
Well, your contention was that the original author has no rights to prohibit or license derivative works that contain none of the original (but are not independent, of course). The movie Rear Window contained none of the story (AFAICS), not even the title, but was still derivative. The case shows that your contention is incorrect.
|| Finally, in the GPL software universe, the case of a derivative work that doesn't include any of the original is *very* rare.
| In fact, it seems that the court rules here that it is impossible to create a derivitive work which is independent of the original.
Well, of course it is -- if it were independent, it wouldn't be derivative. But you were suggesting that different rules might apply to a derivative work which contained none of the original code (but would still not be independent). I said that this was unlikely.
| Section 6 of the 1909 Act, 17 U.S.C. 7 (1976 ed.) - which provides that derivative works when produced with the consent of the copyright proprietor of the pre-existing work "shall be regarded as new works subject to copyright . .
| So maybe in fact we're both right.
I can see that I'm right that derivative works of all kinds require consent of the original author to be distributed, but I can't see where you're right.
|| And if the creator accepted and followed the GPL, she has only distributed copies licensed under the GPL, so the third party who has recieved copies from her has also gotten them under the terms of the GPL.
| That is the part where I disagree, because as I say, there is no restriction in the GPL from distributing copies which are licensed under the GPL and another license. The other license would only apply to the new parts of the work, but in this hypothetical we were asserting that all of the derivitive work was new. Perhaps that hypothetical is impossible, but I hope you at least can agree that the creator of a derivitive work has the right to license the new parts of that derivitive work under any license s/he sees fit (barring any contractual agreement not to do so).
If the new parts are not independent, then they are derivative works of the original, and they fall under the terms of section 2. If they are independent, then they may be licensed as you like, as the GPL explicitly states.
|| Also, I would like to see this specific case that you mention, because I have never heard of it, and would be surprised if it were true -- there is no way the courts will respect "first sale" if the alternative is the end of digital copyright, which is more-or-less the case here. Basically, if you tried to tell a judge this, they would laugh you out of court.
| As it turns out, I was misinformed that it was a court case, but it was in the U.S. Copyright office's report on the DMCA, page 78 (pdf page 120).
Doing it multiple times would probably still be construed as violating 106 (3). The next 20 pages are extremely clear that first sale is a limited right. Most salient is the following passage:
"The Supreme Court drew a sharp distinction between the two rights, creating an exception to the vending (i.e., distribution) right only to the extent that it didn't interfere with the reproduction right." (pdf page 80).
|| This scenario still doesn't allow relicensing , *modifying*, or renting.
| I only asserted that it allowed distribution of GPLed binaries without distribution of source code, which, hell, is what my license allows too.
Since this must be of limited scope (see above), and since it only applies to unmodified binaries, it is not a major threat to the GPL.
| Speaking of which, I'm thinking about adding another sentence to my license. "Circumvention of any technological measure or measures which effectively control access to this work is permitted without restriction."
Unfortunately, you can't over-rule US law here -- Note that Dmitry Sklyarov is being prosecuted by the US government, not Adobe.
| Actually, one of the main purposes is to ensure that I can never be sued for infringing on a derivitive of my own software.
That seems rather pointless to me because I think the terms of the GPL are all good, and I think that violations (even by the original authors) ought to be stopped.
Re:My license (Score:2)
The movie Rear Window contained none of the story (AFAICS), not even the title, but was still derivative. The case shows that your contention is incorrect.
My assumption was that the movie contained the same basic story as the book (but not the same title).
Doing it multiple times would probably still be construed as violating 106 (3).
If I buy one copy of Windows, I can sell that one copy. If I buy two copies, I can sell both copies. If I buy 50,000 copies, I can sell all 50,000. Likewise, if I download one copy of Red Hat, I can sell that one copy, if I download 50,000 copies, I can sell 50,000 copies. Further, if my friend downloads one copy, modifies it, and lets me download 50,000 copies, I can sell those 50,000 copies, without distributing the source. My friend would only be required under the GPL to give the source to me. Nothing more. But again, that has little to do with the point that we were discussing (although, if my friend is I, and no one realizes that, well, I guess it is what we're discussing).
Since this must be of limited scope (see above), and since it only applies to unmodified binaries, it is not a major threat to the GPL.
Because of the scenario I outline above (with the friend), I believe it is a major threat to the GPL.
Speaking of which, I'm thinking about adding another sentence to my license. "Circumvention of any technological measure or measures which effectively control access to this work is permitted without restriction."
Unfortunately, you can't over-rule US law here -- Note that Dmitry Sklyarov is being prosecuted by the US government, not Adobe.
Emphasis mine. You are allowed to circumvent copyright protections with the permission of the copyright holder. Also, note that Dmitry's software was for circumventing the copyright of the book owners, not the copyright of Adobe. Also, he got permission, if you can call it that, after the fact, not before. And finally, he created circumvention software, which is perhaps not made legal by adding that clause to my license. Although, it would possibly make it legal to write the software to circumvent if the circumvention itself was not illegal. I haven't looked into that very deeply.
Re:My license (Score:2)
|My assumption was that the movie contained the same basic story as the book (but not the same title).
Ack, s/story/words/. Yeah, it contained the same story.
||Doing it multiple times would probably still be construed as violating 106 (3).
| Likewise, if I download one copy of Red Hat, I can sell that one copy, if I download 50,000 copies, I can sell 50,000 copies. Further, if my friend downloads one copy, modifies it, and lets me download 50,000 copies, I can sell those 50,000 copies, without distributing the source. My friend would only be required under the GPL to give the source to me. Nothing more. But again, that has little to do with the point that we were discussing (although, if my friend is I, and no one realizes that, well, I guess it is what we're discussing).
No court anywhere would uphold that.
|| Since this must be of limited scope (see above), and since it only applies to unmodified binaries, it is not a major threat to the GPL.
| Because of the scenario I outline above (with the friend), I believe it is a major threat to the GPL.
For the reason I describe above (and in the quote from the copyright office, which you snipped), I think it's not.
|| Unfortunately, you can't over-rule US law here -- Note that Dmitry Sklyarov is being prosecuted by the US government, not
Adobe.
| to ''circumvent a technological measure'' means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner;
| Emphasis mine. You are allowed to circumvent copyright protections with the permission of the copyright holder.
1201b doesn't mention permission, and that's what Sklyarov is charged with violating. So, your added clause would (unfortunately) be useless. Only requiring the provision of source in a machine-readable format, and forbidding other restrictions (GPL 7, IIRC) will allow you to fully make derivative works of your software forever.
Re:My license (Score:1)
1201b doesn't mention permission, and that's what Sklyarov is charged with violating. So, your added clause would (unfortunately) be useless.
Which is what I said, that this wouldn't necessary protect against 1201b. I still think it could, since I find it hard to believe that a law banning trafficking in software which is designed solely for performing legal acts could possibly be constitutional. And even if it is, I think a judge and/or jury would throw it out anyway. But, even if this doesn't protect against 1201b (and I can't think of a way to definitively do that without breaking my rules for my licence), it still protects against 1201a, and therefore it isn't useless.
Only requiring the provision of source in a machine-readable format, and forbidding other restrictions (GPL 7, IIRC) will allow you to fully make derivative works of your software forever.
I don't see how providing the source in (I assume you mean human-readable) format makes any difference. Circumvention is circumvention, whether you do it by hacking the binary, or by modifying the source.
Re:My license (Score:1)
hard to believe that a law banning trafficking in software which is designed solely for performing legal acts
could possibly be constitutional.
What if they use a standard commercial system to encrypt it? Then your software would have non-lawful uses.
| I don't see how providing the source in (I assume you mean human-readable) format makes any difference. Circumvention is circumvention, whether you do it by hacking the binary, or by modifying the source.
I mean machine-readable, so that they can't ship you a ream of printouts in MS Comic Sans when you ask for the source. It helps because that requirement makes it illegal for them to give you just an encrypted binary. They have to give you the source in a way you can use it.
Oh, I remembered the other reason your desires were silly -- it's no use to be able to modify a program when all you have is the binary. Sure, there are decompilers, but they don't work very well. You ought to require the source, and you ought to use a license looked over by a lawyer: the GPL.
Re:My license (Score:1)
What if they use a standard commercial system to encrypt it? Then your software would have non-lawful uses.
The owner of the encryption system is meaningless. The permission you need is from "the copyright holder". I can only assume that means the copyright holder of the encrypted work. You agree with that, right?
Oh, I remembered the other reason your desires were silly -- it's no use to be able to modify a program when all you have is the binary.
The permission to create derivitive works is not very useful for those who choose to not redistribute source. But I by no means believe that will be the majority. Don't throw me into the goals of those supporting the GPL, my goals are probably closer to those supporting the BSD license. My major problem with the license is that companies like Apple can create completely proprietary software derived from BSD software. Under my license, if Apple did such a thing, anyone could download the OS, copy it, and distribute it for any price for any fee or for free. I'm not sure how that desire is silly.
Sure, there are decompilers, but they don't work very well.
But for the original creator of the work (which is my main concern, since I intend to use this licence mainly for my own original creations), decompilation of the entire source isn't necessary, only reverse engineering of the modified parts. For this reason, even the GPL is less beneficial to me. If minor changes (or major changes for which source is released) are made to the software, I do not have to obtain permission from the maker of those changes to incorporate them into my work, even if I license my work to others (for a fee) under less strict licenses. With the GPL, I would have to have the copyright of the changes signed over to me, or these changes would have to be incorporated through a clean room implementation. So besides the idealistic reasons, that I don't believe source should have to be distributed, there is this practical reason as well.
Re:My license (Score:1)
| The owner of the encryption system is meaningless. The permission you need is from "the copyright holder". I can only assume that means the copyright holder of the encrypted work. You agree with that, right?
Yeah, I agree. But the issue is that Software Hoarder would use SoftLock (before they went out of business), so your cracking program would also crack other locked programs, and would thus be illegal.
We'll have to agree to disagree on the rest, I'm afraid.
Re:My license (Score:1)
But the issue is that Software Hoarder would use SoftLock (before they went out of business), so your cracking program would also crack other locked programs, and would thus be illegal.
I don't know enough about the details of SoftLock to say for sure, but I'd imagine there must be a way to create a crack for one program without it cracking the rest. Actually, I'm positive there is a way, the question is how difficult it would be to implement. Software Hoarder must have a way to generate keys (and presumably can only generate keys for its own program). Well, that's all speculation since I don't know the details of SoftLock.
In any case, if there were software such as SoftLock which actually worked, I personally have no problem with someone using it to protect their software from "piracy". My big problem is with the government setting up laws which are impossible to enforce and which are broken by 90% of the population. I have no problem with companies who protect their copyrights through technological means, only when they spend my tax money enforcing it.
We'll have to agree to disagree on the rest, I'm afraid.
I agree (that we should agree to disagree) :).