Slashdot Mirror
OSI Turns Down 4 Licenses; Approves Python Foundation's
Russ Nelson writes "The Open Source Initiative turned down four licenses this week. Not to name names, but one license had a restrictive patent grant that only applied to GPL'ed operating systems. Another was more of a rant than a license. Another was derived from the GPL in violation of the GPL's copyright. And the fourth had insufficient review on the license-discuss
mailing list (archives). The one license that did pass was the Python Software Foundation License."
The GPL allows people to modify code as long as the release the source. It exists entirely to allow this. Why not apply the same rules to the GPL? Having a reasonably complete licence is useful for designing one's own. If it is a good licence, thenb the fork will survive. If it isn't then it will die out.
It's not like we're going to make RMS starve if we copy it. He doesn't make his living selling copies does he?
Another was derived from the GPL in violation of the GPL's copyright.
The GPL license is not itself GPLed?!? If much GPLed software includes the GPL copyright, are they in violation? I thought the whole point of the GPL was (to borrow a quote from the borg) "embrace and extend" what was already created.
OSI Turns Down 4 Licenses; Approves Python Foundation's
should read:
OSI Releases information on licenses, slashdot poster excited, no one else cares.
Open source needs less licences not more..
Now I can have 6 licenses for my open source project.
how do you think OSI feels about the definitive license?
~~~ the problem as i see it is that i have absolutely no personality of my own.
besides using all caps in an agreement/contract and triggering the lame lameness filter;
...OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION...
All that legalease will keep most mortals a hare's breadth away from comprehending.
I wonder if "tortious" action is like a gui user dropping back into his/her "shell"?
{SEG} sorry for the bad puns...I can hear most of you going "tcsh-tcsh"...
Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
In other news, I just had lunch. It was eggs with cheese, sausage and banana bread. Now I'm working on modifying the docs for the app I fixed. If you promise to keep me posted on what licenses OSI is rejecting, I'll promise to let you know when I get my hair cut.
324006
Let the games begin !
Legal language has lots of latin in it, and the words have very precise meanings.
Best Slashdot Co
Rejected licenses:
m l
The Poetic License:
http://www.chrisbrien.co.uk/licensing/poetic.ht
Not to name names, but one license had a restrictive patent grant that only applied to GPL'ed operating systems.
And what a bizarre license that was (not to name names). It was essentially the BSD license word for word, with the aforementioned patent grant. Yet you couldn't legally use the software on a BSD licensed operating system.
Another was more of a rant than a license.
A delicious rant to be sure. I quite enjoyed it, despite its wrongheadedness. It could not be approved of course, since it explicitly denied its own validity.
The one license that did pass was the Python Software Foundation License.
Whoohoo! In this age of a million open source licenses, it's nice to see that a sensible license that fills a gap in open source gets approved while the frivolous crap gets flushed.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Intel modified the BSD license in the following ways:
The Poetic License
states that:
"The software covered by this license makes no claims about copyright, copyleft or even copy centre (where you take it down to the copy centre and copy it). Make as many copies as you want, for whatever purpose, even if it is to sacrifice those copies in a great floppy pyre. You may even claim copyright, ownership of trademark, originality or patent. You may even sue the real originator for a breach of your claimed copyright. However, this license can't guarantee that this will be in any way successful."
(har de har har)
The CMGPL
The GPL without a bunch of sections? Which ones, you ask? Mostly the ones that don't count!
The Intel BSD+Patent License
Like BSD, but grants a patent license. Patent license is specifically not granted to use under non-GPL OS's, or with modified versions, although copyright license is the same as BSD.
Sorry, not all of us are familiar with the OSI Licensing scene -- what are the three rejected licenses? It's kinda hard to get into the story when it assumes you already know what it's talking about.
Anyone care to enumerate the other three licenses?
--
Mod up a post Rob doesn't like and you'll never mod again
Anyone besides me see the humor in the only FSF item which does *not* fall under the GPL is the GPL license itself :-)
So the Kallisys Reflexive License was the one turned down due to insufficient discussion... Right? :)
(It was apparently submitted for application but never approved). Somebody confirm please, me curious
The opinons expressed are those of the voices in the author's head and are not necessarily those of the author.
From: The 'Lectric Law Library's Lexicon
TORT - A negligent or intentional civil wrong not arising out of a contract or statute. These include "intentional torts" such as battery or defamation, and torts for negligence.
A tort is an act that injures someone in some way, and for which the injured person may sue the wrongdoer for damages. Legally, torts are called civil wrongs, as opposed to criminal ones. (Some acts like battery, however, may be both torts and crimes; the wrongdoer may face both civil and criminal penalties.)
Under traditional law, family members were prohibited from suing each other for torts. The justification was that allowing family members to sue each other would lead to a breakdown of the family. Today, however, many states recognize that if family members have committed torts against each other, there often already is a breakdown in family relationships. Thus, they no longer bar members from suing each other. In these states, spouses may sue each other either during the marriage or after they have separated.
Normally, tort lawsuits against a spouse are brought separate and apart from any divorce, annulment or other family law case. Alabama, Georgia, Nevada, New York and Tennessee, however, allow or encourage combining the tort case with the family law case; New Jersey requires it.
The jurisdictions that still prohibit one family member from suing another include Arizona, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Missouri, Ohio, Texas, Utah, Wyoming and Washington, D.C. These places may make an exception when the tort is intentional. See, for example, Bounds v. Candle, 611 S.W.2d 685 (Texas 1980); Townsend v. Townsend, 708 S.W.2d 646 (Missouri 1986) and Green v. Green, 446 N.E.2d 837 (Ohio 1982).
An injury; a wrong; hence the expression "an executor de son tort", of his own wrong.
Torts may be committed with force, as trespasses, which may be an injury to the person, such as assault, battery, imprisonment; to the property in possession; or they may be committed without force. Torts of this nature are to the absolute or relative rights of persons, or to personal property in possession or reversion, or to real property, corporeal or encorporeal, in possession or reversion: these injuries may be either by nonfeasance, malfeasance, or misfeasance.
The Artistic License is one I like. I'm always suspicious of an open source license that either a) has a polemical preamble that tries to coerce your behavior, b) reads like the team of lawyers who wrote the license are making a lot more money than the developers, or c) presumes that the only good programmer is one who either programs as a hobby, is an academic, works for a big company that can afford to subsidize the programmer's time, or works for an end-user company that can afford to build complex systems strictly for internal use -- in other words, that there's no moral way to be a software vendor.
:-)
Yeah, I know there's plenty of room for argument all around, but my sympathies are with small software vendors who need some way to get enough revenue from 100-5000 licenses to pay salaries. The Artistic License strikes me as compact and commonsensical, and a good model for many situations. And of course it has the coolest name.
-- We all have enough strength to endure the misfortunes of other people. La Rochefoucauld
As if free-as-in-speach and free-as-in-beer weren't enough, now we can add free-as-in-Python to the list. :)
Seriously. I wrote a lot of public domain code a while back, that I found in many systems later on.
And then for some of my political software work, I used the Freeware for Feminists license - basically free, so long as the user was sympathetic with a feminist cause, and not granted for anti-feminist usage. Kind of viral, but I did make a splash screen and gave out source code with the compiled code.
-
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
what about all the dozens of licenses they have
IGNORED in the past 2 years?
if you have big $, OSI will grant approval. if not, you will be ignored.
This is just as bad as copyrighted laws and regulations.
if you want absolute freedom, go kill yourself. Then you'll be completely free in the sense of having no restrictions at all.
Once you acknowledge that all who live are bound, discussing freedom becomes a matter of discussing how they should be bound, and to what they should be free.
The FSF takes the position that people should have certain things as freedoms, and other things, such s the ability to deprive people of those freedoms, they should not have as freedoms.
Neither the FSF or RMS ever claimed to want anarchy or complete freedom (i.e. no rules at all). Where on earth did you ever think that they did?
Hell, the abolitionists in the US wanted all people to be free in the sense of not being slaves - they didn't want people to be free in the sense of free to own slaves. Were they hypocrits?
They laughed at Einstein. They laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. -- C. Sagan
You're reading GNU's Free Documentation License (as you note). This license is intended to apply to user manuals, technical references and such. If you stop to think about the goal of Free Software (I'm not going into OS vs FS here), it's to make sure that Stallman can get the source to his printer drivers, modify them and then give them out to others (imagine a world where that printer had come with source under a BSD-like license!)
So, with that goal in mind, how would you construct a license that is both modifiable under the terms of the GFDL (which you quote) and still accomplishes the stated goal? The GPL can be used as a guide in creating your own license. This has certainly been done often enough. But, to modify the license itself would hurt the aim of Free Software.
I'm also not certain what the legal implications are if a license agreement affords me the right to modify it. The GPL has teeth that come directly from copyright law. Under copyright law, you are not allowed to modify or distribute the code except in accordance with fair use doctrin. The GPL acknowledges this fact, and then offers you an "out" in the form of a license (this is in direct contrast to EULAs and other "shrink-wrap licenses", which require you to accept the license before USING the software) which you can take or leave as you see fit.
Now, if you were allowed to modify the license, your software would have to refer to some "license archetype", perhaps backing that usage up using trademark (e.g. you can modify the GPL, but only if you give it your own name). This is sticky, and keep in mind that the GPL was a daring bit of legal hackery that has still yet to be tested in court. To add yet another complication to the core oddity of defending right-to-modify with copyright law would risk the basic goal by making the GPL harder to defend than it already was.
All that asside, I think it's of questionable value to refer to the restrictions on the GPL as hypocritical. The GPL is a software license, not a work of art or engineering. I'm not quite certain why you feel that it would be hypocritical to say that software is an area of human endevor where freedom to modify is important but contracts and licenses are not. You may disagree, and you are most welcome to. But even if I accept that the two should be treated the same (and I do not, obviously), you make a challenge of hypocricy here which I do not believe you have explained.
I wonder ... how you would feel if I said that the Open Source world needs less IRC clients, not more. Seems to me that the stength of open source is its diversity. Microsoft's strength is its fascistic control. One EULA to bind them all....
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
After seeing half a million OSS licenses, I have concluded that the vast majority of them just don't get it. I'm not talking about the four "freedoms" of the FSF, but rather the freedom of the user not to be insulted by the licensing. Lawyers may love confusing, convoluted and non-parsable legalese, but the users do not.
(The following is my opinion, so please read it as such. When I refer to a "good" open source license, I am making a qualitative assessment, and not trying to set up criteria for any approval process but my own.)
The purpose of open source licenses are to grant the user a broad set of permissions and rights over and above those granted by copyright law. Their purpose is not to bind the user to the will of the licensor. A good open source license must be based on copyright law, not contract law.
The first thing a good license should do is grant unconditional permission to use the software. This should be so basic it to not be worth mentioning, but you would be surprised as some of the licensed submitted. Additionally, the use of the software should not be trigger for anything else. We don't want any EULA's here, thank you. The second thing a good license should do is clearly inform the user of their permissions. These permissions must not be predicated upon acceptance of any agreement. A permission may have conditions attached to it. If there is anything you wish the user NOT to do, make it a condition. Next the license should have a warranty disclaimer, to assure the user that they will not be sued if they contribute stuff to the project. You may (and should if you're a commercial project) include a real warranty as a separate legal document.
Notice that I haven't included anything about what you require the user to do. No blanket obligations. That's on purpose. Open Source and Free Software are NOT about making people do things. It is okay to make an obligation be a condition to a permission. It is not okay to make an obligation be a condition to the entire license. Remember, this is about what the user can and cannot do.
Software licenses as contracts was an invention of the proprietary software industry. There was a time not that long ago when copyright law as very vague as to the status of software. So the industry decided to use contract law instead, and created licenses that had such bizarre phrases in them as "by reading this sentence you agree to the following obligations...". That's bullshit and Open Source and Free Software should have nothing to do with such rubbish.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Their definition of freedom seemed to apply to all written materials. Saying it only applies to user manuals makes as much sense as saying the GPL only applies to compilers.
I didn't say there was anything hypocritical going on. I said I don't understand what is going on. I would have to understand before I could accuse them of hypocrisy.
This opinion is meant for educational purposes only. Any resemblance
to real persons, living or dead is purley coincidental. Void where
prohibited. Some assembly required. List each check separately by
bank number. Batteries not included. Contents may settle during
shipment. Use only as directed. No other warranty expressed or
implied. Do not use while operating a motor vehicle or heavy
equipment. Postage will be paid by addressee. Subject to CAB
approval. This is not an offer to sell securities. Apply only to
affected area. May be too intense for some viewers. Do not stamp.
Use other side for additional listings. For recreational use only.
Do not disturb. All models over 18 years of age. If condition
persists, consult your physician. No user-serviceable parts inside.
Freshest if eaten before date on carton. Subject to change without
notice. Times approximate. Simulated picture. No postage necessary
if mailed in the United States. Breaking seal constitutes acceptance
of agreement. For off-road use only. As seen on TV. One size fits
all. Many suitcases look alike. Contains a substaintial amount of
non-tobacco ingredients. Colors may, in time, fade. We have sent
the forms which seem to be right for you. Slippery when wet. For
in any mailbox. Edited for television. Keep cool; process promptly.
Post office will not deliver without postage. List was current at
time of printing. Return to sender, no forwarding order on file,
unable to forward. Not responsible for direct, indirect, incidental
or consequential damages resulting from any defect, error or failure
to perform. At participating locations only. Not the Beatles.
Penalty for private use. See label for sequence. Substantial
penalty for early withdrawal. Do not write below this line. Falling
rock. Lost ticket pays maximum rate. Your cancelled check is your
recipt. Add toner. Place stamp here. Avoid contact with skin.
Sanitized for your protection. Be sure each item is properly
endorsed. Sign here without admitting guilt. Slightly higher west
of the Mississippi. Employees and their families are not eligible.
Beware of dog. Contestants have been briefed on some questions
before the show. Limited time offer, call now to insure prompt
delivery. You must be present to win. No passes accepted for this
engagement. No purchase necessary. Processed at location stamped in
code at top of carton. Shading within a garment may occur. Use only
in well-ventilated area. Keep away from fire or flame. Replace with
same type. Approved for veterans. Booths for two or more. Check
here if tax deductible. Some equipment shown is optional. Price
does not include taxes. No Canadian coins. Not recommended for
children. Prerecorded for this time zone. Reproduction strictly
prohibited. No solicitors. No alcohol, dogs, or horses. No
anchovies unless otherwise specified. Restaurant package, not for
resale. List at least two alternate dates. First pull up, then pull
down. Call toll free before digging. Driver does not carry cash.
Some of the trademarks mentioned in this product appear for
identification purposes only. Record additional transactions on back
of previous stub.
This supersedes all previous notices.
sucks major butt, but you don't know that because when you make the conversion you don't know it...you think you're still cool
Why do we have an organisation telling us what licenses we can and cannot use? I used a disapproved of, but still open source IMHO license...what then? Will the OSI call up the FBI to bust down my door?
Fuck the establishment, we don't need anymore conformity factories.
--Roy
Basically, with the GPL under copyright, you can say "this software is licensed under the GNU GPL" and it's unambiguous what the terms are.
This isn't necessary for, say, BSD-style licenses (BSD, ZLib, LibPNG) because they're simpler and shorter - it's reasonable to include the entire BSD license in each file of your source, so you don't say "this is BSD-licensed", you say "you may do this, this and this but not this". "BSD license" is just a convenient shorthand for describing things - but from a legal point of view, the license consists of a couple of paragraphs embedded in each source file.
However, it's obviously not reasonable to include the whole GPL in the same way. The GPL is long (20K?) because of copyleft - it's less permissive than the BSD license, so it can't just grant blanket permissions like the BSD license does (although an abbreviated GPL without the preamble/manifesto would be nice, since they're not really part of the license as such).
If the GPL was free (in the FSF sense of the word) or open source, you'd get people redefining what it meant, and much confusion would ensue. ("Our software is licensed under the GPL." "No it isn't, ours is the real GPL!")
But isn't this what OSI is for? They approve the license as open source or not. If someone modifies the GPL but it still statisfies the OSI requirments then it shouldn't be an issue if it was derived or not. The spirit of the license is the same as the GPL. In fact the derivative may be an attempt to strengthen that spirit in a court of law. If the derived work is suitable to the OSI then the FSF should allow it.
Now I can see issues if the derived license wasn't OSI compliant but that doesn't seem to be the case here.
No, you'd have people claiming to use a "GPL-style license", just as you've mentioned "BSD-style" licenses.
Nobody redefines what the BSD license means.
I did not know that they applied? Funny I never thought that they where techinical incline except for terry of course
An OS means different things to different people. Linux has GPLed parts, but many BSD licensed parts, X licensed parts, QPL / MPL licensed parts, and more. Is a GUI an essecntial part of the OS? Are all the BSD licensed IP tools?
/opt is defined by including `optional' software. Nobodies defeinition is the same and its asking for a major disagreement.
Licensing something for GPLed `OS's is nearly as bad as the FHS saying
Is it just me or is everyone today comming up with their own license [i.e license unique to gcc, gimp, apache, mozilla, etc...]
Why not just a common sense license?
1. Don't copy this without giving credit.
2. Don't remove this license
3. Goto 1.
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
This software comes with no warranty. If it breaks, you get to keep both pieces.
This page accidentally left blank
1. No Poofters
2. This program may not be used in a bat of custard if there is anyone looking
3. Three shall be the number of the count and the number of the count shall be three, thou shalt not count to two unless thou also counteth to three, nor shall thou count to four, five is right out.
4. There is no 4
5. Is right out
6. SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM! Wonder SPAM! Wonderful SPAM
7. The program to which this license is attached may be used for any purpose whatsoever without payment provided that (1) this license is included in its entirety intact and (2) the provisions of sections 2, 4, 5 and 8 are complied with on alternate Wednesdays and sections 8, 9 and 4 are complied with at all other times
8. All copies of this program be distributed with the distributors choice of (a) the program source or (b) a bottle of Wostershire Sauce made from genuine Wostershires.
9. EEEK!
10. Naaawwwwww...
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
TEH LOLZ @ retarded slashdot
I think the heart of the matter is sociological rather than legalistic or economic. It's a question of how to create and sustain a user community. You might regard a piece of code as 'your baby,' and only be prepared to share it with people who promise not to make money off your baby. In that case, it's 'all about you.' But you might instead want to get as many people excited about your baby as possible -- in which case giving new users the ability to make some money off it is a positive inducement. To use an extreme example: Suppose you designed a kewl language, wrote an efficient compiler, and got lots of praise from your initial users. But you craft a license agreement that not only restricts sale of the compiler code, but further restricts users from selling any applications built with your language. You might get praise from RMS and others who feel that all software should in principle be free; but you won't win the hearts and minds of developers whose salaries depend on the ability to build software products. It's so hard to promulgate a new language anyway; and this extra restriction would cut out the very people most likely to have an open mind about new technology. Even end-user organizations would balk at building their custom apps with your language, if they must give up the option of ever reselling them, and if their software vendors aren't embracing it.
So I guess my point is that I see a need for several licensing regimes, appropriate for different kinds of software and software users.
There are certain applications that are too specialized and expensive to get built through an open source community, and will thus require a commercial R&D team that can only be funded through proprietary licensing.
There are widely-used and widely-needed applications that are best served by communities working under something like GPL or LGPL.
And there are certain components that should be as widely-distributed as possible, where everybody benefits through standardization even outside the open source community; and if these components have very nonrestrictive licenses, it's easier to proselytize effectively and reduce the temptation or need for anybody to roll their own solution.
But of course, that's only my opinion.
-- We all have enough strength to endure the misfortunes of other people. La Rochefoucauld
GNU already has an Artistic License. They never could resist a pun. Which is why I overlooked the link -- my aging brain confused "poetic" and artistic". And it's also why the Poetic License is less funny than it hoped to be.