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."

Comments

FP

[Anonymous Coward]

FP Beey0tch!!!!11111!1!1!111

wow - this is my third frosty piss this week

[Anonymous Coward]

n/t

Another rejected liscence...

[Anonymous Coward]

...is my liscence to FIRST POST!

blurst roast

[Anonymous Coward]

oh god how i hate all of you. i can't post this for 10 more seconds. tra la la tra la la. wooooohooooo. can i go yet?

Hypocrisy

[91degrees]

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?

Re:Hypocrisy

[Anonymous Coward]

This site is losing all credibility quickly.

Stories about people in Afganistan who dig up commodores and then download / watch divx movies have killed off every last shred of believability this haven for anti-ms zealots ever had.

It is time to get rid of katz

Re:Hypocrisy

[Colin Bayer]

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?

Maybe, after losing the GNOME board election, he's now the high-tech equivalent of the people who hand out communism/socialism/Christianity/[insert social-issue-of-the-week here] pamphlets on street corners.

Re:Hypocrisy

[pope nihil]

He doesn't make a living selling copies of the GPL, but that doesn't mean he won't exploit copyright law to his own ends. Everyone knows he's a control freak. Everything has to be GaNew or someone should make a competing GaNew project that copies the functionality. Linux isn't really an operating system. It should be GaNew/Linux.

Re:Hypocrisy

[Trepidity]

No, the entire reason the GPL exists is to promote Free Software; it's the GNU Foundation's opinion that allowing modification of the GPL would not work towards this goal. The main concern is that there would be a plethora of "GPL-derived" but not Open Source or Free Software licenses, thus diluting the usefulness of the license.

The GPL is, in its essence, an ideological manifesto. Disallowing others from modifying your manifesto is not inconsistent with the GNU philosophy - the only thing they desire is that you allow others to modify your code, not your thoughts.

Re:Hypocrisy

[famazza]

Probably to avoid companies to change the license so it doesn't allow FreeSoftware anymore.

But this is a good idea, why don't we try to submit this modification to GPL v3 or even GPL v4?

Re:Hypocrisy

[kaisyain]

Disallowing others from modifying your manifesto is not inconsistent with the GNU philosophy

From GNU's Free Documentation License:

The purpose of this License is to make a manual, textbook, or other written document "free" in the sense of freedom: to assure everyone the effective freedom to copy and redistribute it, with or without modifying it, either commercially or noncommercially.

It certainly seems that they don't feel that their license needs to be "free" is the sense of the word they apply to other written documents. Does the FSF offer some explanation for why some written documents should be "free" and others not? Does the same line of argument apply to software?

Re:Hypocrisy

[Anonymous Coward]

What *is* inconsistent is telling people that you exist to preserve and extend their freedom, while in reality you exist to force the world to change to according to your vision. The only version of freedom supported by the FSF is the freedom to do things their way. Their message may revolve around freedom, but their actions revolve around control.

Re:Hypocrisy

[TheAwfulTruth]

Since the parent was marked as FLAIMBAIT by people that want to squash the awful truth. I'm reposting it:

From GNU's Free Documentation License:

The purpose of this License is to make a manual, textbook, or other written document "free" in the sense of freedom: to assure everyone the effective freedom to copy and redistribute it, with or without modifying it, either commercially or noncommercially.

It certainly seems that they don't feel that their license needs to be "free" is the sense of the word they apply to other written documents. Does the FSF offer some explanation for why some written documents should be "free" and others not? Does the same line of argument apply to software?

Re:Hypocrisy

[EllisDees]

Nobody is stopping someone from making their own 'extensions' to the GPL, they are just not certifying them as 'open source'.

Re:Hypocrisy

[Anonymous Coward]

The Recursive License:

The included software may be used and distributed without restriction.

The Recursive License License:

The Recursive License may be distributed with any software product provided that it remains intact.

The Recursive License License License:

The Recursive License License may not be distributed except with the Recursive License.

The Recursive License License License License:

The Recursive License License Licence may not be distributed except with the Recursive License License.

The Recursive License License license Licence License:

The Recursive License License License License may not be distributed except with the Recursive License License License.

repeat ad infinitum.

I post as Anonymous Coward because I'm even more paranoid than the rest of the Slashdot Crowd.

Re:Hypocrisy

[sg_oneill]

Nonono. That's not the issue at all. OSI have no say over the GPL. That's controlled by the FSF who , truth be told ,don't always get on well with the FSF. If the OSI facilitated a breach of the FSF's copywrite , I suspect that the FSF wouldnt get legal on the OSI about it, but I'm sure the OSI isn't really into the game of generating invalid licences.

I'm pretty sure you can add your own amendments to the GPL, but I think that's pretty much on a case by case basis and that does not necesarrily give the right to call it a GPL. But don't quote me on it.

Fuck

[Anonymous Coward]

fuck fuck fuckity fuck

Wait a minute!

[ajuda]

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.

Re:Wait a minute!

[DataPath]

That's exactly what we need... the GPLL, the GPL License... they license you use for the GPL and any derivative license. That's the most absurd thing I've heard. We have GPL, we have LGPL, and we have GPL for documentation (don't remember what it's called), and now we in all our arrogance have to make a license for licenses. Absolutely absurd.

Re:Wait a minute!

[Trepidity]

If you'd read the GPL, you would answer your own questions. The GPL is a copyrighted document that grants you explicit permission to redistribute it in unmodified form. Thus the GPLed software that includes the GPL license is obviously not in violation, as they are explicitly granted a right to distribute it. What is not granted is a right to modify the GPL itself. The reasoning for this was that if modification were allowed it would dilute the usefulness of the license, as "GPL-derived" licenses might not even be Free Software or Open Source.

You can however provided added or amended licensing conditions without modifying the actual text of the GPL; for example "this program may be distributed under the terms of the GNU GPL with the added requirement that [blah blah]."

Re:Wait a minute!

[Anonymous Coward]

This isn't a troll. In fact, a post that says something quite similar in this slashdot post was rated insightful are you all on crack??

Re:Wait a minute!

[LMCBoy]

"GPL for documentation (don't remember what it's called)"

Free Documentation License (FDL)

Re:Wait a minute!

[Anonymous Coward]

I recommend upgrading your encryption to ROT-130. It is much more secure.

Re:Wait a minute!

[istartedi]

The reasoning for this was that if modification were allowed it would dilute the usefulness of the license, as "GPL-derived" licenses might not even be Free Software or Open Source.

I disagree. The MPL is more or less GPL-derived. It's just that they got their lawyers together and made it look "different enough" so that nobody would accuse them of hacking the GPL, and that has not diluted the "usefulness" of the GPL.

Also, there are several other licenses (e.g., Sleepycat) that are GPL-like, but not expressly derived from the GPL.

The copyright restriction on the GPL can't prevent the proliferation of licenses. It just makes it harder for people who might want to use the GPL as a starting point. Their desire to prevent the "GPL brand" from being diluted is understandable. A more fair solution would be to allow unlimited modification of the GPL, as long as you didn't call your license the GPL.

Re:Wait a minute!

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting, but by the same argument I can safely say that modification of software would dilute the usefulness of the software.

Re:Wait a minute!

[Jason Earl]

The Free Software Foundation isn't worried about the GPL brand. They simply aren't interested in making a GPL derivative an easy thing to do. The Free Software Foundation wants you to use the GPL (duh!) so they have copyrighted the GPL in order to prevent people from easily making clones. If you want your own GPL-like license then hire your own lawyers and hope that they are as well acquainted with software copyrights as the folks who have worked on the GPL (good luck).

This might seem like a contradiction, but the Free Software Foundation isn't the "Information Must Be Free As In Free Beer Foundation." They are specifically trying to make sure that software comes with source code (and documentation :). They are not trying to make it so that all information is free.

So while you are certainly right that the GPL copyright can't make license proliferation impossible, it certainly does make it more difficult (and more expensive), and that's a net win for the FSF.

Re:Wait a minute!

[poemofatic]

7. By copying, installing or otherwise using the software, Licensee agrees to be bound by the terms and conditions of this License Agreement.


Yeah, right.

I log into a shell account and am held hostage to the wild fantasies of anyone who wrote some innocuous seeming library or kernel module. It's Python, for chrissakes. How can you not end up using it?

This is getting crazy. A previous poster only wants feminists or fetishists to use his work. Sheesh. When do we go back to being normal people? Private citizens are left alone to tinker and share, businesses pay some royalties. If things get muddled up, we have a few beers and then forget what we were fighting about. Ah, the old country.

Re:Wait a minute!

[ClosedSource]

"If you want your own GPL-like license then hire your own lawyers and hope that they are as well acquainted with software copyrights as the folks who have worked on the GPL (good luck)."

Since the GPL hasn't been tested in court, we don't really know how well the authors understand software copyrights.

Re:Wait a minute!

[aozilla]

The GPL is a copyrighted document that grants you explicit permission to redistribute it in unmodified form.

Regardless of what the FSF wants to tell you, licenses which are GPL derivitives are not protected by copyright. The GPL is a functional document, changing any word or letter in it changes the function of the document. Therefore the protections against derivitives of the document fall under patent law, not copyright law, and the GPL has not been patented.

Re:Wait a minute!

[greatone]

The fact that no one has tested it *IS* a sign of how good the license is.

If it were a bad license some dumbass lawyer would have ate it for lunch already.

Re:Wait a minute!

[Anonymous Coward]

I've never used python. It's easy to not use it.

Anyhow, if you don't agree to a license, (clicking an "agree" button, modifying GPL sofware, etc), it's not binding.

Re:Wait a minute!

[beable]

How can they enforce a clause that says that you agree to the terms of the licence by using the software? Do they force you to read the licence before using the software? It's like those signs that I've heard they have at the supermarkets which say something like (I've never read one of these signs, so I'm just guessing here) "By entering this store you agree that we can search your bag when you try to leave". Can you enforce one of those signs? I'm going to the supermarket to buy food, not to read all the signs they stick up all over the place to make sure that I am not "agreeing" to something merely by trying to avoid starvation! Am I required to read all the signs before I enter the store? Even the ones that say "SPECIAL SIX ROLLS OF TOILET PAPER $2.00"? Does anybody read and understand all the terms of a EULA or one of those online "agreements" before they click "OK"? Does "clicking OK" cause a legally binding agreement to be formed? Are law enforcement agents not allowed to enter a pr0n site because of the disclaimer on the front page which says they're not allowed?

Re:Wait a minute!

[Trepidity]

I disagree - the GPL is also an English text, protected by copyright law (it even includes a lengthy philosophical section in the Preamble). The function of the GPL is not protected, as it is not patented. This is why the MPL is legal, despite being heavily GPL-influenced, because it does not contain any actual stolen-from-the-GPL wording.

Yep thats great!

[Anonymous Coward]

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..

Re:Yep thats great!

[Arandir]

Open source needs less licences not more..

That's why this is good news. The licenses rejected were among the most bizarre, redundant or useless licenses yet submitted to OSI. Perhaps that's why they made the news.

important, please read

[Anonymous Coward]

Important message below. Take the time to read it, in its
entirety, to understand how slashdot works, and why you need to
moderate.



In an effort to restore slashdot to
it's previous level of quality, I've begun a two step process. The first
step is a determined effort to point out, and mod down, all obvious karma
whores and trolls. The second step is to rid this site of Jon Katz. The job
is large, but not impossible.


This poster obviously does not care about the topic, rather he
(or she, perhaps), cares only about inflating karma, and to do so, this
person has posted absolute crap.


What qualifies as crap on slashdot? Well, quite honestly, about
half of the comments ranked above 2.


One way to easily spot a karma whore attempt, is to look for an
obvious, but pathetic, post of linux superiority. A linux karma whore will
often attempt to point out that linux is the best for job x, even
though there may be, and probably are, better alternatives, such as
Microsoft for desktops and FreeBSD for servers. These points will be ignored
by linux karma whores, as pointing this out will not ensure the positive
moderation they desire.


Another method for spotting karma whores is to look for comments
posting, verbatim, something stated in the article, or in the editor's
summary. While this often includes italicizing the quote, this is
frequently a ploy to show that the person read the article, even though it's
more likely the person only skimmed to find a comment worth repeating.
Additional signs of the repetitive karma whore are: commentary on a quote
that says nothing, "mirroring" an article that is not slashdotted, or
pointing to google's cache. Also be careful before moderating up posts which
link to obviously related sites: karma whores occasionally search popular search engines to find related
stories in an effort to gain more karma.


The third type of karma whore, one that very often succeeds on
slashdot, is the sympathy whore. A sympathy whore often tries to gain karma
by appealing to the moderator's sense of decency, either with a story about
how they were unfairly fired, perhaps how they were unfairly persecuted, or
occasionally how main stream capitalism is trampling on a sense of global
decency. The latter tends to link common, benine events to horrific events
of the past, making unfair generalizations and calling for action on behalf
of a charity rather than carrying on with one's life. Do not let your heart
be fooled into thinking that they are genuine: the sympathy whores want
nothing more than karma.


Why would someone try to whore karma? Well, the simple answer is
that everyone wants to feel smart, or popular. Many posters on slashdot
describe themselves as nerds or geeks, societal outcasts. Posting to
slashdot is their only true sense of community, and they view karma as a
measure of popularity or status. Others karma whore to try to increase
revenue and traffic to their own websites. Frequent marks of traffic whores
are links in the posts that match the user's homepage, or links to hardware
reviews on small sites, where links to purchase the hardware occupy the
bottom half of the review. Again, do not let these subtle traffic whores
fool you.


Now, turning our attention to Mr. Jon Katz. While he may possess
some talents as a writer, his technical knowledge is seriously lacking.
Furthermore, his credibility as a journalist is next to zero following his
Afghanistan fiasco.. He also has nothing to do with open source,
linux, or free software in general: thus, much like kuro5hin , he no longer fits in OSDN's mission statement. It is for this
reason that we must finish what we star
ted and get rid of Jon
Katz .


With these basic guidelines in mind, go out and moderate. Realize
that many of the higher moderated comments are whores, and mod them back
down. In an effort to increase the quality of comments, try to mod down no
more than 3 posts in a given session ; use your remaining points to moderate
some users UP. This ensures that not only are karma whores eliminated
but that valid posts are acknowledged.

Great!

[Anonymous Coward]

Now I can have 6 licenses for my open source project.

THE license

[chachi8]

how do you think OSI feels about the definitive license?

From the end of the PSF license:

[A_Non_Moose]

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"...

Re:From the end of the PSF license:

[Anonymous Coward]

(this post offtopic but)

I post intelligently; This acct gets modded down. Other acct hits the cap. What is wrong with this picture?

Perhaps we on slashdot have need of a threshhold ABOVE which no comments will be shown. :)

Ummmm...thanks for the update

[BillyGoatThree]

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.

Re:Ummmm...thanks for the update

[bhsx]

This is currently tagged "Flamebait," which it may well be; but man did he just crack my ass up! Cheers... moderators, please take it easy. This was done in good humor, me thinks.

Re:Ummmm...thanks for the update

[Otter]

Flamebait?!? This was at least as informative as the story and vastly more entertaining. Between that and the link someone provided to the "Poetic Licence" I've had my laughs for the afternoon. Moderators, at least keep him above zero.

It was eggs with cheese, sausage and banana bread.

I've got to ask, this _is_ ((eggs+cheese)+sausage+banana bread), right? Not (eggs+cheese+sausage+banana bread), which is how I initally read it.

Re:Ummmm...thanks for the update

[Arandir]

I've got to ask, this _is_ ((eggs+cheese)+sausage+banana bread), right? Not (eggs+cheese+sausage+banana bread), which is how I initally read it.

I think it was ((eggs+cheese)+((sausage+banana)+bread)), or in other words, your normal eggs and cheese as a side to a banana sausage sandwich.

Re:Ummmm...thanks for the update

[Anonymous Coward]

No, I think it was ((eggs+cheese+sausage+banana)bread), which sounds weird, but not any weirder than all those damn OSS licenses.

Re:Ummmm...thanks for the update

[Anonymous Coward]

You're all wrong, he said:

It was eggs with cheese, sausage and banana bread.

Which looks like (eggs+(cheese+sausage+banna_bread))

Look:

It was eggs with (cheese, sausage and banana bread).

That reads like he put cheese, sausage, and banana bread in his eggs, scrambled them, and so on.

Either that, or the eggs were plain, and the cheese, sausage and banana bread were all combined somehow.

Just as bad as calling a Kiwi and Aussie !

[alphaque]

To tie in what was said in the most recent Ask Slashdot, this discussion will evolve into a GPL vs AnythingElse tar pit.

Let the games begin !

Re:Just as bad as calling a Kiwi and Aussie !

[Bob McCown]

...this discussion will evolve into a GPL vs AnythingElse tar pit.

Seeing as this is about *nix licensing, shouldnt that be a tar.gz pit?

Re:Just as bad as calling a Kiwi and Aussie !

[hawk]

>Seeing as this is about *nix licensing, shouldnt that be a tar.gz pit?

ony for the GPL crowd. For everyone else, it's tar.bz2 :)

:)
hawk

Re:Just as bad as calling a Kiwi and Aussie !

[Anonymous Coward]

isn't bzip2 GPL'd? tar.Z (18 months!)

to sum it all up

[Anonymous Coward]

The GPL is crap. Period.

Go ahead, mod this down. Its only true.

Re:to sum it all up

[Anonymous Coward]

bill gates - is that you? I didnt know you hung out on /.

Re:to sum it all up

[GaylordFucker]

he's right you know.. mod that sucker up.. the GPL is a hypocritical, contradicting license.. it's funny how lousy stinking hippies (i.e. RMS) over exaggerate the GPL saying that, and i quote this from a slovak friend who heard RMS at his stupid Saint IGNUcius conference.. "with GPL... we can edit anything.. and everything".. so what if i totally rewrite the source code... change the authors name to mine.. oh no! i violated the GPL.. and hey look, like every other dirty, stinking hippy.. RMS has just made a fool of himself and contradicted what he said.. but i'm not the one to talk.. i'm just another gaylord troll :'(

links to those rejected?

[Anonymous Coward]

anyone have links to copies of the rejected licenses?

tortious

[wiredog]

Tortious refers to torts. Which is the fancy way of saying "lawsuits".

Legal language has lots of latin in it, and the words have very precise meanings.

Re:tortious

[Anonymous Coward]

It was a joke, son.

Besides, you're not entirely correct. A tort is a specific kind of lawsuit that involves compensation from personal injury.

Re:tortious

[Anonymous Coward]

Man, can't you read, a tort is not a lawsuit, it is the WRONG itself.

If I shove a dildo up your ass, assuming you don't want me to, then that is an intentional tort.

Re:tortious

[Rand Race]

Legal language has lots of latin in it, and the words have very precise meanings.

But just the latin words. English words like "free" or "all" and even "no" very often mean "limited", "some", and "a few" in legalese.... especialy in constitutional law.

Let's name some names...

[Anonymous Coward]

Rejected licenses:

The Poetic License:
http://www.chrisbrien.co.uk/licensing/poetic.htm l

Every License is Fancy

[Anonymous Coward]

Everybody's Fancy
© 1967, Fred M. Rogers

Click to listen to the song.

Some are fancy on the outside.
Some are fancy on the inside.
Everybody's fancy.
Everybody's fine.
Your body's fancy and so is mine.

Boys are boys from the beginning.
Girls are girls right from the start.
Everybody's fancy.
Everybody's fine.
Your body's fancy and so is mine.

Girls grow up to be the mommies.
Boys grow up be the daddies.
Everybody's fancy.
Everybody's fine.
Your body's fancy and so is mine.

I think you're a special person
And I like your ins and outsides.
Everbody's fancy.
Everybody's fine.
Your body's fancy and so is mine.

Re:Every License is Fancy

[Anonymous Coward]

That is the most scary troll I've ever seen!

WhooHoo!

[Arandir]

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.

Re:WhooHoo!

[Trepidity]

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.

I'm not denying that it fills a gap, but a cursory reading of the license doesn't seem to indicate to me what gap it's filling. Why was it not possible/desirable to license Python under one of the existing Free Software licenses, and instead necessary to come up with another one?

Re:WhooHoo!

[Jerf]

Would somebody please name names, and maybe get moderated up?

Until that happens, this whole story is as pointless as the whole "It" fiasco, which I note reared it's ugly and decidedly non-pointed head on Wired again today.

Re:WhooHoo!

[Lumpish Scholar]

Why was it not possible/desirable to license Python under one of the existing Free Software licenses, and instead necessary to come up with another one?

Because the Python source code was, at various times, "owned" (copyright was in the name of) Stichting Mathematisch Centrum, the Corporation for National Research Initiatives, BeOpen, Digital Creations, and the Python Software Foundation.

Guido couldn't release it under the GPL, because it wasn't entirely "his" software to license.

(Google cache of the license)

Re:WhooHoo!

[Arandir]

Well, you heard of "weak copyleft?" Well this is "stong unrestricted." You get more permissions than the MIT/BSD license (really), but the license agreement must be retained in all distributions. This is different from the MIT/BSD licenses in that they require the license to be included, but not necessarily applied to, any copies or derivations.

Re:WhooHoo!

[gmhowell]

'It' also reared it's ugly arse in South Park this past week.

(Not only that, but the airline industry got skewered as well. Although not as much as John Travolta;)

Re:WhooHoo!

[lordsutch]

Guido couldn't release it under the GPL, because it wasn't entirely "his" software to license.

More correctly, Guido didn't want to license Python under the GPL, but did want it to be able to be integrated with GPLed software, as well as software under virtually any sort of license.

(25 pages of Python license history snipped... see the full scoop for the current license.)

Restrictive Patent Grant License

[topeka]

The restrictive patent grant license mentioned was probably the submission from Intel, which was a version of the BSD license with patent language added: From this e-mail:

Intel modified the BSD license in the following ways:

1. Intel made OPTIONAL the inclusion of a copyright notice (i.e., "Redistributions of source code of the Software may retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer").
2. Intel added certain definitions derived from the patent license in the Common Public License, and added a license grant under certain Intel patents to distribute Intel software contributions, alone or as incorporated in any operating system licensed under the GPL (version 2.0 or later).

Would they approve this license

[Anonymous Coward]

IMPORTANT: READ CAREFULLY: This Microsoft End-User License Agreement ("EULA") is a legal agreement between you (either an individual or a single entity) and Microsoft Corporation for the Microsoft software product identified above, which includes computer software and may include associated media, printed materials, and "online" or electronic documentation ("SOFTWARE PRODUCT"). The SOFTWARE PRODUCT also includes any updates and supplements to the original SOFTWARE PRODUCT provided to you by Microsoft. Any software provided along with the SOFTWARE PRODUCT that is associated with a separate end-user license agreement is licensed to you under the terms of that license agreement. By installing, copying, downloading, accessing or otherwise using the SOFTWARE PRODUCT, you agree to be bound by the terms of this EULA. If you do not agree to the terms of this EULA, do not install or use the SOFTWARE PRODUCT; you may, however, return it to your place of purchase for a full refund.
{ This means that you cannot return the Microsoft product if you have already used it. Luckily, all OEMs are required to install Windows in such a way that it gives you (on first bootup) the choice of accepting or not accepting the license. See this court ruling for more information. }

SOFTWARE PRODUCT LICENSE
The SOFTWARE PRODUCT is protected by copyright laws and international copyright treaties, as well as other intellectual property laws and treaties. The SOFTWARE PRODUCT is licensed, not sold.

1. GRANT OF LICENSE.
This EULA grants you the following rights:
Systems Software.
You may install and use one copy of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT on a single computer, including a workstation, terminal or other digital electronic device ("COMPUTER").
Storage/Network Use.
You may also store or install a copy of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT on a storage device, such as a network server, used only to install or run the SOFTWARE PRODUCT on your other COMPUTERS over an internal network; however, you must acquire and dedicate a license for each separate COMPUTER on or from which the SOFTWARE PRODUCT is installed, used, accessed, displayed or run. A license for the SOFTWARE PRODUCT may not be shared or used concurrently on different COMPUTERS. Notwithstanding the foregoing, any number of COMPUTERS may access or otherwise utilize the file and print services and peer web services of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT. In addition, you may use the "Multiple Display" feature of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT to expand your desktop as described in the on-line Help file, without obtaining a license for each display.
License Pak.
If this package is a Microsoft License Pak, you may install and use additional copies of the computer software portion of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT up to the number of copies specified above as "Licensed Copies".
2. DESCRIPTION OF OTHER RIGHTS AND LIMITATIONS.
Academic Edition Software.
If the SOFTWARE PRODUCT is identified as "Academic Edition" or "AE," you must be a "Qualified Educational User" to use the SOFTWARE PRODUCT. If you are not a Qualified Education User, you have no rights under this EULA. To determine if you are a Qualified Educational User, please contact the Microsoft Sales Information Center/One Microsoft Way/Redmond, WA 98052-6399 or the Microsoft subsidiary serving your country.
Not For Resale Software.
If the SOFTWARE PRODUCT is labeled "Not For Resale" or "NFR," then, notwithstanding other sections of this EULA, your use of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT is limited to use for demonstration, test, or evaluation purposes and you may not resell, or otherwise transfer for value, the SOFTWARE PRODUCT.
Limitations on Reverse Engineering, Decompilation, and Disassembly.
You may not reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble the SOFTWARE PRODUCT, except and only to the extent that such activity is expressly permitted by applicable law notwithstanding this limitation.
{ Exactly how legal is this statement in the European Union? In France, at least, there's a LAW that provides the legal right for all of the above actions...}
Separation of Components.
The SOFTWARE PRODUCT is licensed as a single product. Its component parts may not be separated for use on more than one computer.
Rental.
You may not rent, lease or lend the SOFTWARE PRODUCT.
Trademarks.
This EULA does not grant you any rights in connection with any trademarks or service marks of Microsoft.
Application Sharing.
The SOFTWARE PRODUCT may contain Microsoft NetMeeting, a product that enables applications to be shared between two or more computers, even if an application is installed on only one of the computers. You may use this technology with all Microsoft application products for multi-party conferences. For non-Microsoft applications, you should consult the accompanying license agreement or contact the licensor to determine whether application sharing is permitted by the licensor.
Support Services.
Microsoft may provide you with support services related to the SOFTWARE PRODUCT ("Support Services"). Use of Support Services is governed by the Microsoft polices and programs described in the user manual, in "on line" documentation and/or other Microsoft-provided materials. Any supplemental software code provided to you as part of the Support Services shall be considered part of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT and subject to the terms and conditions of this EULA. With respect to technical information you provide to Microsoft as part of the Support Services, Microsoft may use such information for its business purposes, including for product support and development. Microsoft will not utilize such technical information in a form that personally identifies you.
Software Transfer.
The initial user of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT may make a one-time permanent transfer of this EULA and SOFTWARE PRODUCT only directly to an end user. This transfer must include all of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT (including all component parts, the media and printed materials, any upgrades, this EULA, and, if applicable, the Certificate of Authenticity). Such transfer may not be by way of consignment or any other indirect transfer. The transferee of such one-time transfer must agree to comply with the terms of this EULA, including the obligation not to further transfer this EULA and SOFTWARE PRODUCT.
Termination.
Without prejudice to any other rights, Microsoft may terminate this EULA if you fail to comply with the terms and conditions of this EULA. In such event, you must destroy all copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT and all of its component parts.
3. UPGRADES.
If the SOFTWARE PRODUCT is labeled as an upgrade, you must be properly licensed to use a product identified by Microsoft as being eligible for the upgrade in order to use the SOFTWARE PRODUCT. A SOFTWARE PRODUCT labeled as an upgrade replaces and/or supplements the product that formed the basis for your eligibility for the upgrade. You may use the resulting upgraded product only in accordance with the terms of this EULA. If the SOFTWARE PRODUCT is an upgrade of a component of a package of software programs that you licensed as a single product, the SOFTWARE PRODUCT may be used and transferred only as part of that single product package and may not be separated for use on more than one computer.
4. COPYRIGHT.
All title and intellectual property rights in and to the SOFTWARE PRODUCT (including but not limited to any images, photographs, animations, video, audio, music, text, and "applets" incorporated into the SOFTWARE PRODUCT), the accompanying printed materials, and any copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT are owned by Microsoft or its suppliers. All title and intellectual property rights in and to the content which may be accessed through use of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT is the property of the respective content owner and may be protected by applicable copyright or other intellectual property laws and treaties. This EULA grants you no rights to use such content. All rights not expressly granted are reserved by Microsoft.
5. DUAL-MEDIA SOFTWARE.
You may receive the SOFTWARE PRODUCT in more than one medium. Regardless of the type or size of medium you receive, you may use only one medium that is appropriate for your single computer. You may not use or install the other medium on another computer. You may not loan, rent, lease, lend or otherwise transfer the other medium to another user, except as part of the permanent transfer (as provided above) of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT.
6. BACKUP COPY.
After installation of one copy of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT pursuant to this EULA, you may keep the original media on which the SOFTWARE PRODUCT was provided by Microsoft solely for backup or archival purposes. If the original media is required to use the SOFTWARE PRODUCT on the COMPUTER, you may make one copy of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT solely for backup or archival purposes. Except as expressly provided in this EULA, you may not otherwise make copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT or the printed materials accompanying the SOFTWARE PRODUCT.
7. U.S. GOVERNMENT RESTRICTED RIGHTS.
The SOFTWARE PRODUCT and documentation are provided with RESTRICTED RIGHTS. Use, duplication, or disclosure by the Government is subject to restrictions as set forth in subparagraph (c)(1)(ii) of the Rights in Technical Data and Computer Software clause at DFARS 252.227-7013 or subparagraphs (c)(1) and (2) of the Commercial Computer Software--Restricted Rights at 48 CFR 52.227-19, as applicable. Manufacturer is Microsoft Corporation/One Microsoft Way/Redmond, WA 98052-6399.
8. EXPORT RESTRICTIONS.
You agree that you will not export or re-export the SOFTWARE PRODUCT to any country, person, entity or end user subject to U.S. export restrictions. You specifically agree not to export or re-export the SOFTWARE PRODUCT: (i) to any country to which the U.S. has embargoed or restricted the export of goods or services, which currently include, but are not necessarily limited to Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria, or to any national of any such country, wherever located, who intends to transmit or transport the products back to such country; (ii) to any end-user who you know or have reason to know will utilize the SOFTWARE PRODUCT or portion thereof in the design, development or production of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons; or (iii) to any end-user who has been prohibited from participating in U.S. export transactions by any federal agency of the U.S. government.
9. NOTE ON JAVA SUPPORT.
THE SOFTWARE PRODUCT MAY CONTAIN SUPPORT FOR PROGRAMS WRITTEN IN JAVA. JAVA TECHNOLOGY IS NOT FAULT TOLERANT AND IS NOT DESIGNED, MANUFACTURED, OR INTENDED FOR USE OR RESALE AS ON-LINE CONTROL EQUIPMENT IN HAZARDOUS ENVIRONMENTS REQUIRING FAIL-SAFE PERFORMANCE, SUCH AS IN THE OPERATION OF NUCLEAR FACILITIES, AIRCRAFT NAVIGATION OR COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS, AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL, DIRECT LIFE SUPPORT MACHINES, OR WEAPONS SYSTEMS, IN WHICH THE FAILURE OF JAVA TECHNOLOGY COULD LEAD DIRECTLY TO DEATH, PERSONAL INJURY, OR SEVERE PHYSICAL OR ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE.
{ Hmm, pot ... kettle ... black :) }

MISCELLANEOUS
If you acquired this product in the United States, this EULA is governed by the laws of the State of Washington.
If you acquired this product in Canada, this EULA is governed by the laws of the Province of Ontario, Canada. Each of the parties hereto irrevocably attorns to the jurisdiction of the courts of the Province of Ontario and further agrees to commence any litigation which may arise hereunder in the courts located in the Judicial District of York, Province of Ontario.
If this product was acquired outside the United States, then local law may apply.
Should you have any questions concerning this EULA, or if you desire to contact Microsoft for any reason, please contact Microsoft, or write:

Microsoft Sales Information Center
One Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA 98052-6399.
LIMITED WARRANTY
LIMITED WARRANTY.
Microsoft warrants that (a) the SOFTWARE PRODUCT will perform substantially in accordance with the accompanying written materials for a period of ninety (90) days from the date of receipt, and (b) any Support Services provided by Microsoft shall be substantially as described in applicable written materials provided to you by Microsoft, and Microsoft support engineers will make commercially reasonable efforts to solve any problem. To the extent allowed by applicable law, implied warranties on the SOFTWARE PRODUCT, if any, are limited to ninety (90) days. Some states/jurisdictions do not allow limitations on duration of an implied warranty, so the above limitation may not apply to you.
CUSTOMER REMEDIES.
Microsoft's and its suppliers' entire liability and your exclusive remedy shall be, at Microsoft's option, either (a) return of the price paid, if any, or (b) repair or replacement of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT that does not meet Microsoft's Limited Warranty and that is returned to Microsoft with a copy of your receipt. This Limited Warranty is void if failure of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT has resulted from accident, abuse, or misapplication. Any replacement SOFTWARE PRODUCT will be warranted for the remainder of the original warranty period or thirty (30) days, whichever is longer. Outside the United States, neither these remedies nor any product support services offered by Microsoft are available without proof of purchase from an authorized international source.
{ Now that is a fascist statement! If the product doesn't work properly, Microsoft gets the choice of what action to take and you, the disgruntled customer, are left without any option but to wait and see what MS will do. I don't understand people trust their business to such an agreement... }

NO OTHER WARRANTIES.
TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, MICROSOFT AND ITS SUPPLIERS DISCLAIM ALL OTHER WARRANTIES AND CONDITIONS, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, IMPLIED WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, TITLE AND NON-INFRINGEMENT, WITH REGARD TO THE SOFTWARE PRODUCT, AND THE PROVISION OF OR FAILURE TO PROVIDE SUPPORT SERVICES. THIS LIMITED WARRANTY GIVES YOU SPECIFIC LEGAL RIGHTS. YOU MAY HAVE OTHERS, WHICH VARY FROM STATE/JURISDICTION TO STATE/JURISDICTION.
LIMITATION OF LIABILITY.
TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, IN NO EVENT SHALL MICROSOFT OR ITS SUPPLIERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF BUSINESS PROFITS, BUSINESS INTERRUPTION, LOSS OF BUSINESS INFORMATION, OR ANY OTHER PECUNIARY LOSS) ARISING OUT OF THE USE OF OR INABILITY TO USE THE SOFTWARE PRODUCT OR THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE SUPPORT SERVICES, EVEN IF MICROSOFT HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. IN ANY CASE, MICROSOFT'S ENTIRE LIABILITY UNDER ANY PROVISION OF THIS EULA SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE GREATER OF THE AMOUNT ACTUALLY PAID BY YOU FOR THE SOFTWARE PRODUCT OR U.S.$5.00; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, IF YOU HAVE ENTERED INTO A MICROSOFT SUPPORT SERVICES AGREEMENT, MICROSOFT'S ENTIRE LIABILITY REGARDING SUPPORT SERVICES SHALL BE GOVERNED BY THE TERMS OF THAT AGREEMENT. BECAUSE SOME STATES/JURISDICTIONS DO NOT ALLOW THE EXCLUSION OR LIMITATION OF LIABILITY, THE ABOVE LIMITATION MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU.

Let's name some more names...

[Anonymous Coward]

errg, hit the submit button by mistake.

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.

Re:Let's name some more names...

[Fnkmaster]

The CMGPL is, well, stupid. They should just use the LGPL if they want to allow linking to proprietary apps. Duh. And axing the preamble? Why bother?

Re:Let's name some more names...

[Anonymous Coward]

And axing the preamble? Why bother?

Some of us like our software and our politics to be two different things, not an indistinguishable black tar that clings to and makes sticky everything it touches. The GPL expressly prohibits removing the sticky black tar of the preamble. For those who don't agree with everything Stallman says, being forced to include his ideological boilerplate with every copy shipped is like forcing the Libertarian Party to attach a free copy of Das Kapital to every campaign poster it puts up.

Re:Let's name some more names...

[Anonymous Coward]

if your foot developed gangrene, you'd want it to be cut off, wouldn't you?

Re:Let's name some more names...

[Trepidity]

Of course the problem with your analogy is that the Libertarian Party would be unlikely to follow the strategies and policies laid out in Das Kapital, while our hypothetical author of GPL software is by the very action of GPL'ing his software following GNU's strategy.

You violated the GPL

[GaylordFucker]

claiming FP... when it's truly meant to be for the people, by the people... lousy, rotten hippies

So what are they?

[Mike Schiraldi]

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?

You violated the M$ EULA

[GaylordFucker]

you used NT in a derogatory comment..

moderators = fascists?

[GaylordFucker]

how is that offtopic you morons... that was a question ON TOPIC... read the fucking articles you hypocritical, self indulging rubber baby buggy bumpers...

GPL

[uslinux.net]

Anyone besides me see the humor in the only FSF item which does *not* fall under the GPL is the GPL license itself :-)

Re:GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

No, I find humor in the fact that the rest of the world is laughing their asses off at the dozens of "open source" licenses out there. I don't even see why there are so many licenses anyway. The BSD and GPL licenses served the purpose before any of these others. Use the BSD if you don't care if commercial people take your shit and use it in closed source stuff, use the GPL if you don't. Big deal. Seems pretty clear to me.

Re:GPL

[uslinux.net]

I'd like to see one more license added to those two. A good commercial one which allows you to modify the hell out of the source code, but when doesn't allow you to distribute the changes outside your organization. I really think THAT is what is keeping a number of companies from writing open source code (free as in speech, not beer). Of course, that wouldn't be an OSI-approved license, but it would encourage companies to open their code, which is the first step towards building truly Open products.

I personally don't have a problem with companies restricting redistribution of code (eg. forcing others to purchase it), so long as once you've purchased it, you get the source and can modify it (or distribute the patches to others who have purchased it). My *guess*, however, is that many companies are afraid they'll be forced to support software others modify if they give out the code.

Re:GPL

[ethereal]

That already exists - since copyright only applies to distribution anyway, you can take any GPL'd code, hack it up whichever way, and use it internally to your organization. As long as you don't distribute any binaries built from it you are under no oblication to ever provide source code.

I don't see how you think this would help companies open up and write Open Source code, though - source that never leaves the company walls is effectively not open, and those changes will never get rolled back into the community. That doesn't seem like a very productive outcome.

Re:GPL

[ajs]

No, there are a great many other documents, objects and other "items" which are owned by the FSF and are not covered by the GPL.

The GPL is a tool which was created with one goal: to allow modification and distribution of software. The goal was not (even given the FSF's fondness for recursion) to allow modification of the GPL.

Re:GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

Copyright also applies to modification, not just distribution. But the GPL allows you to make changes to a program without distributing the source code, as long as you don't distribute the binaries outside of your organization.

Re:GPL

[phossie]

this could have some interesting ramifications for contractors / services-type businesses...

Re:GPL

[aozilla]

Copyright does not apply to modification, it applies to the creation of derivitive works, which private non-distributed modifications are not.

Re:GPL

[ethereal]

Copywrite applies to distribution, not to modification. Private modifications are derivitave works, they just aren't distributed and so never fall under the control of copyright law.

Re:GPL

[aozilla]

See title 17, Section 106(2). In any case, I agree with you as to the law, and it's really just a question of semantics. 106(2) is interpreted to mean that you can't claim copyright on a derivitive work without permission of the author of the original work (and even then your copyright only extends to the modifications). 106(3) covers distribution of the original, and distribution of the derivitive, since the derivitive necessarily contains the original.

Re:GPL

[ethereal]

Well shut my mouth - I guess I learned something today :)

Although in practice 106(2) would be very difficult to enforce. I could be mixing up derivative Britney Spears tracks in my basement (god forbid) for years and no one would be the wiser.

Re:GPL

[aozilla]

Although in practice 106(2) would be very difficult to enforce. I could be mixing up derivative Britney Spears tracks in my basement (god forbid) for years and no one would be the wiser.

Modification for private use almost certainly falls under fair use. But there are exceptions. See Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc. v. Nintendo (game genie is legal), or Micro Star v. FormGen Inc. (Nuke It is not). This is why I said that I think we mainly agree on the law (modifications for private home use are legal), just not on the specific semantics.

copyright

[GaylordFucker]

hey i just said copyright... copyright, trademark, closed source, purchase, restrictions, copyright copyright... oh no! i've just committed blasphemy!! copyright.. COPYRIGHT Linux/UNIX geeks... hear me out... if you're smart and you want money... go against the GPL... any human with common sense will know that the GPL is just another tool used by communists to help spread their propoganda... COPYRIGHT your software... down with the GPL and that communist extraordinare RMS and Alan Cox...

George Harrison dead at 58

[Anonymous Coward]

not a troll. hit CNN.

KRL...

[Gord.ca]

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 :)

Re:KRL...

[Arandir]

There's wasn't much discussion on the KRL. Don't really know why. I read it through several times, couldn't grok it, so never bothered commenting. Remember, license-discuss isn't composed of attorneys, so a license that doesn't parse to laymen English won't get much discussion.

Re:tortious -WRONG

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Artistic license

[Spinality]

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. :-)

Re:Artistic license

[Anonymous Coward]

That is fine and nice if you want to give your program away for anyone to pick up and sell without releasing code whereas other licenses like the GPL are distributed by people who don't want companies to charge per license on work they themsleves did and not the company. What people mistakenly belive is that everyone who licences under these types of licenses belive that everyone else should do the same. I, and I think most other people feel the same, don't care what license one uses as long as my code is used only in GPL compatable software. In this way I retain the rights to MY software, not anyone elses, and don't just give it away.

Re:Artistic license

[Trepidity]

If you're going to use the Artistic License, I'd strongely suggest using v2.0, the new one created for licensing Perl 6. The original Artistic License (used on all previous Perl versions) is badly written - in its attempt to be clever rather than legalistic, it ends up being extremely vague in places, so much so that depending on the legal interpretation of some of the vague passages the license might not be a free software license at all.

When will they approve the MGPL?

[brer_rabbit]

I don't know why more people don't use the MindGuard Public License (as used with MindGuard). An excerpt:

A "work based on the Program" hereinafter means either the Program itself or a work containing a portion or the totality of the Program either with or without modifications, translations, transliterations, or transformations. (Hereinafter, the term "modification" shall include, without limitations, the last four terms of the previous sentence excluding the term "or" unless "or" is used to refer to a boolean function applied to modify the Program or any part of it.) Each licensee is addressed as "you", as in the statement "You are a licensee". (The statement "You are not a licensee" will hereinafter have no logical meaning.)

Re:When will they approve the MGPL?

[komet]

Although this license states that they will not be liable for any damages caused by the program in question, there is no mention of damages caused by the license itself (in my case, coffee spurting out of my nose while reading the license).

I'm gonna sue their asses off!

Just what we need, another type of "free" software

[sup4hleet]

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. :)

I wonder if I should submit my license

[WillSeattle]

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.

-

hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Licences and contracts are copyrightable?

[BlueCoder]

This is just as bad as copyrighted laws and regulations.

Re:Licences and contracts are copyrightable?

[J'raxis]

Why is copyrighting a license in and of itself bad? The license is a work of written text, so it can be copyrighted just like any other text.

absolute freedom is not useful

[raistlinne]

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?

Re:absolute freedom is not useful

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

It's not anywhere near that simple. If I should not be deprived of the freedom to modify and redistribute code, why should I be deprived of the freedom to modify and redistribute a license? In neither case am I depriving anybody of their freedom.

RMS has stated that he believes copyrights are immoral and shouldn't exist. Yet the entire existence of the FSF revolves around establishing, defending, and promoting copyrights. That's hypocrisy.

RMS has stated (along with lots of Slashdotters) that intellectual property is not really property, and that copying, mis-appropriating, or using it against the creator's wishes is not immoral because it doesn't deprive the creator of anything. Yet the FSF spends the majority of it's time and effort trying to expand and control the use of their own intellectual property. That's hypocrisy.

RMS has stated that he believes that releasing software under licenses that take away freedom from software users is immoral. Yet the purpose of "copyleft" is specifically to deny users the freedom to combine GPL software with other software that the FSF hasn't declared to be GPL compatible. That's hypocrisy.

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?

I never did think that. In fact, I don't really think the FSF or RMS supports freedom at all. Furthering GNU is the only thing that really matters to them, and when freedom conflicts with the advancement of GNU, freedom loses. I think the FSF misuses the words "free" and "freedom" and is intellectually dishonest. In reality, RMS aims to control what software people use and how they use it, and in that respect the FSF is fundamentally no different than any other major owner of intellectual property.

Re:Hypocrisy (not)

[ajs]

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.

IRC Clients

[Russ Nelson]

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

Re:IRC Clients

[Anonymous Coward]

i would feel a great sense of agreement. i mean, have you counted those damn things recently?! there's practically more of them than there are text editors out there!

Re:IRC Clients

[Anonymous Coward]

you open source people are so funny. Sitting around all day, reinventing the wheel, yet another IRC client, and another license that has the same meaning as a previous one. No wonder you're so marginalized.

Re:IRC Clients

[BiggyP]

well, i supose people like you don't have any wish to better themselves or improve on existing technologies, you go and play quietly with mIRC, and see how easy it is to get pulled apart by black hats and script kiddies, and all you can do is stare in disblief as windows ME tumbles to the ground around you.

The Cretan License

[fm6]

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.

Is somebody going to post a link, or am I going to have to get nasty?!

Re:The Cretan License

[Anonymous Coward]

links elsewhere in this topic - look for the Poetic License

Re:The Cretan License

[flegged]

The Poetic License
Or here for a plain text (slighly older) version.

Yes, that is my website. Do I get karma for being the subject of a /. story?

Some software covered by the license can be found here, and here. The latter uses DirectX, but works under Wine (that's vanilla Wine (yummy?) not WineX). The source for that is here.

Re:The Cretan License

[Tim Browse]

Do I get karma for being the subject of a /. story?

You would have, except you blew it at the last minute (i.e. penultimate word) in your license by using "it's" instead of "its".

A poet wouldn't have done that ;-)

Tim

A Good License

[Arandir]

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.

Re:A Good License

[Anonymous Coward]

It is not okay to make an obligation be a condition to the entire license.

This is what the GPL does. If you create a derivitive, and make copies of that derivitive, you are not permitted to distribute those copies unless you also distribute the source, even though first sale would allow you to distribute those copies without distributing the source.

Re:A Good License

[Arandir]

No, this obligation is a condition to the permission to distribute. The GPL does not take away any rights given to me under copyright law. I can shout to the world "I disagree" and ignore the GPL at my leisure as I give my friend my sole copy of the software under the aegis of first sale. I cannot, under some pedantic interpretations, keep a copy myself after doing so, or give it to more than one person.

And as an aside, I did not necessarily consider the GPL to be a "good" license by my criteria. It is very borderline. The entirety of the license is be based on copyright law, and clause 5 even says the same. Yet clause 5 is attempting to place it under contract law. I can only assume that this is for the purpose of satisfying the overly pedantic lawyers working with the FSF. There's no way you can read the list of four freedoms of the FSF and conclude that RMS thinks software should be distributed under contract.

Re:A Good License

[sinster]

You're a bit off target here with some facts.

First off, licenses aren't written for end users. Yes, they're purportedly intended to inform a user of their privileges, but the true audience of a license is a judge and a pack of lawyers. The important thing for a license isn't that it's clear to joe blow, but that it's clear in court: a contract that's clear to joe blow is meaningless if a court can't make heads or tails of it. Confusing terminology in contracts is the result of two problems. First, colloquial language is very subjective and very slippery, and so legal documents have to be written in a specialized dialect of English that has arisen over centuries of effort. It's the same problem with programming languages: we can't have a truly natural language programming language because it's too imprecise. But just as engineers have an easy time reading and understanding source code, so do lawyers have an easy time reading legalese. The second problem is that most lawyers have a very poor mastery of both English /and/ the law, so an already dense dialect is made nearly incomprehensible.

The next thing is that all licenses are based in contract law. There is no room in copyright law for granting permissions beyond those explicitly enumerated (and irrevocable) in copyright law. If you want to grant extra permissions, or revoke certain permissions, then you /must/ use contract law. You have no choice. That's the primary purpose of contract law: to provide a framework under which two parties can clearly enumerate an exchange of permissions or other benefits.

Next, you have to consider the purpose behind an OSS license. One person may have a different purpose from you. To me, the term OSS means "you can read my source code, and you can contribute changes back to me". That's it. It doesn't say anything about whether or not someone can use the source code. It doesn't say anything about whether or not someone can produce derivative works. Sure, GPL talks about those things, but that's because GPL goes farther than the simple concept of OSS. The same goes for other OSS licenses: they will almost always go beyond the simple concept of OSS, building on top of the concept in order to further the purposes that the author has in offering the software as OSS in the first place.

As an example, someone might be making their software OSS for the purpose of crushing Windows. It shouldn't be too surprising to see that their license contains a clause prohibiting the porting of the software to any Microsoft operating system, either natively or under an emulator. Does OSS say anything about that? Nope. Does GPL say anything about that? Nope. But that author wants to crush Windows, so he's not very well going to allow his software to be used under Windows, now is he? He's got a purpose, and his license reflects that purpose.

Then there's the last point. Software licenses /as contracts/ are not an invention of the proprietary software industry. Software licenses /in their entirety/ are an invention of the proprietary software industry. Specifically, an invention of Microsoft. Before Billy went on a rampage about people "stealing" his BASIC interpreter in the early 70s, there were no software licenses at all. Software was freely distributed or it was custom coded under contract for a specific client's internal use. That was software. There was no (serious) retail software at all. Then Billy got upset at those pesky Altair users and went off on a tear. After years of work, the courts started upholding software copyrights, and the entire retail software industry was born.

The only thing that software copyrights do is to allow the author of software to restrict his software's distribution. Once that's in place, the author can then impose a license (read: contract) on the user for the software. Without software copyrights, the licenses would be meaningless, because a user could just say "naw, I'm not gonna agree to the license, so it doesn't bind me, but I'm gonna use the software anyway because you can't prevent me from getting a copy of it."

Re:A Good License

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, guess what?

First sale wins. GPL -- INVALID!

Re:A Good License

[rking]

I disagree.

Firstly, I think that in any legal agreement that's put forwards in good faith one of the most fundamental objectives must be that the parties to it understand it. A contract between Microsoft and IBM can be thoroughly incomprehensible without careful interpretation by a team of lawyers because that's the level of attention that those companies can give it. A contract between IBM and its most junior employees should be comprehensible by those employees with the level of resources they can reasonably be expected to have. Software licences, whether proprietary or free, should be designed to be comprehensible to the people who are being asked to agree to them.

There's nothing wrong with a highly legalistic licence expected to be used amongst companies or individuals that will have lawyers examine them closely and that can be the objective in a free software licence but if you're intending it to be used more widely then you should make sure it makes sense to others. Would you want to be in the position of suing someone who had agreed to your licence in good faith believing they had more rights under it than they did simply because you'd made it incomprehensible? Or do you want to discourage anyone from actually contributing to your project because they don't understand what rights they have?

Secondly, in the context of licences intended to be used internationally I think that attempts to be clever with the legalese are misguided. Sure your obscure term of art wins you points in your home jurisdiction but elsewhere it may be interpreted completely differently - it may even have an established contrary meaning. And no, you can't just assume that foreign courts will accept any clauses you put in that forbid them from interpreting the contracts under their own laws.

Thirdly, you're simply wrong in your assertion "The next thing is that all licenses are based in contract law. There is no room in copyright law for granting permissions beyond those explicitly enumerated (and irrevocable) in copyright law."

The one thing that copyright law does give the copyright holder is the right to give people permission to do the activities that are otherwise prohibited by copyright law. That's the whole point of it. If I own copyright on a work then I can say "you may copy this", no contract there it's purely a permission (a licence) I can choose to give. Equally I can say "you can copy this once", "you can copy this but only once per year", "school teachers may copy this but nobody else" or "anyone anyone whose foot fits this slipper may copy this". None of those are contractual. They are all permissions (licences) that can be granted by a copyright holder.

Re:A Good License

[Arandir]

First off, licenses aren't written for end users. Yes, they're purportedly intended to inform a user of their privileges, but the true audience of a license is a judge and a pack of lawyers.

It depends on the license. For the MS EULA, you are certainly correct. But software written by developers that expect/invite/encourage participation in the development process should have a license written for developers. Of course lawyers and judges will be one audience for the license, but they will not be the primary audience.

The next thing is that all licenses are based in contract law. There is no room in copyright law for ranting permissions beyond those explicitly enumerated (and irrevocable) in copyright law.

Here's a sample license: "You may freely copy, distribute, modify, translate, or otherwise transmit and transform this software without restriction." Just how does this qualify as a contract? Where is the agreement? Where is the consideration? Are you saying that the above license is not valid?

...to provide a framework under which two parties can clearly enumerate an exchange of permissions or other benefits.

What exchange? In the case of the Linux (as an example) I have given nothing to Linus Torvalds. No money. No pledges of royalties. No promises that I will ever contribute anything back to the project. I'm not grantingd him any permissions or benefits. Heck, Linus and I have never even met, so how can we possibly exchange anything!

Once that's in place, the author can then impose a license (read: contract) on the user for the software.

Contracts are never "imposed." They must be agreed to voluntarily by both parties.

Re:A Good License

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Um, there is no such thing as "over and above those granted by copyright law". Copyright law simply establishes works of art, literature, code etc. as property that has an owner (at least temporarily). It is completely up to the owner to determine terms of use and what permissions should be granted to users, with a few caveats.

Their purpose is not to bind the user to the will of the licensor.

That's exactly what the purpose of all licenses are, including open source licenses.

A good open source license must be based on copyright law, not contract law.

Huh? Copyright law establishes the rights of the copyright holder to define terms of use within certain limits. Contract law is the framework that binds users to the terms of the license.

The first thing a good license should do is grant unconditional permission to use the software.

In that case, there is no such thing as a good license. Everything should be released into the public domain.

We don't want any EULA's here, thank you.

So, you want licenses but you don't want licenses? WTF? Did you perhaps mean that you don't want any shrink wrap licenses?

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.

So the user should have permissions, but those permissions should not be dependent on accepting the license, but the license should inform the user of their permissions. What exactly are you trying to say? I'm thoroughly confused.

A permission may have conditions attached to it.

Didn't you just say: "The first thing a good license should do is grant unconditional permission to use the software" just five sentences up in this same paragraph? So which is it? Should the copyright holder be able to establish terms of use or not?

From there on, I completely lost track of what point you were trying to make. Perhaps you could try again with a little more coherence and fewer contradictions.

Re:A Good License

[sinster]

It depends on the license. For the MS EULA, you are certainly correct. But software written by developers that expect/invite/encourage participation in the development process should have a license written for developers. Of course lawyers and judges will be one audience for the license, but they will not be the primary audience.

Why would you ever write a license that you don't want to be enforceable? If you want it to be enforceable, then it has to be (principally) comprehensible in court. As to determining whether or not a contract is clear, the court will look at the language itself, not defer to the statements of the defendant or plaintiff. The only exception is when both defendant and plaintiff agree on the interpretation of a particular clause, in which case the court will take that interpretation rather than the interpretation that the court might find on its own. But in such a case, I think you'd agree that the license is sufficiently clear.

Here's a sample license: "You may freely copy, distribute, modify, translate, or otherwise transmit and transform this software without restriction." Just how does this qualify as a contract? Where is the agreement? Where is the consideration? Are you saying that the above license is not valid?

Agreements between parties fall exclusively under the jurisdiction of contract law. The parties may, in fact, act under an agreement that is an invalid contract, but it is still under the jurisdiction of contract law.

More directly, let's look at your sample license. Presumably, the person offering the license possesses a copyright in the software. So the holder is granting certain distribution and modification privileges. That's the consideration that he's giving. The license doesn't explicitly enumerate consideration that the recipient is granting back to the holder, but (and this is an important principle in contract law) since the holder is the party that offered the contract, it is presumed that the holder is gaining an automatic intangible concession in return (such as the pride of knowing that other people want to use his software). The important thing is that the person who offers terms is presumed to agree to the terms; if he didn't agree to them, he wouldn't've offered them in the first place.

Then, if the recipient of the software actually does exercise one of the privileges granted to him in the license, then he has also agreed to the license (contract). This is another important concept in contract law: implied consent. If one party exercises a privilege granted only under a contract, then that party has consented to that contract. This concept actually doesn't exist in the text of the legislation that forms contract law. This exists in a more important place: legal precedent.

So the example license that you present has offer, has exchange of consideration, and has consent. All three of the keystones that are required for a contract to be valid.

What exchange? In the case of the Linux (as an example) I have given nothing to Linus Torvalds. No money. No pledges of royalties. No promises that I will ever contribute anything back to the project.

I'm glad that you brought up Linux. Linux uses a fragmented intellectual property model, in which the entire body is covered by a single license, but the ownership of the individual pieces are retained by the original authors. So when you use Linux, you are entering into an agreement with each of the separable authors of the kernel.

As one of the authors of the Linux kernel (interval timers, original /proc filesystem, assorted bugfixes, and the PCI WDT support), allow me to explain the consideration that you have granted back to me by using Linux. My principle motivation in being involved in Linux is to weaken Microsoft. By using Linux, you are not using Windows on that same box at the same time. Therefore, you, by using Linux, are acting to weaken Microsoft. So by using Linux, you are volunteering your time and effort in support of one of my goals. That's the consideration that you give me.

I can say for certainty that the same consideration applies to a large number of the people involved in the Linux kernel, but I will neither name names, nor will I attempt to enumerate all the considerations that are gained by all the individual contributors to Linux (primarily because I don't know them all).

I'm not granting him any permissions or benefits. Heck, Linus and I have never even met, so how can we possibly exchange anything!

If physical meeting were a requirement for a binding contract, then the only commerce that would exist would be face-to-face barter. Mail order, internet sales, telephone solicitation, early book sales (even in person), credit cards, checks, ATM cards, and even paper currency all exist only because of nonlocal agreements to contracts.

Contracts are never "imposed." They must be agreed to voluntarily by both parties.

That's only sort of true. As the holder of a copyright, I can offer a contract without allowing negotiation. True, the contract doesn't bind unless the other party agrees, but in that case the other party doesn't get my software, either. So I have effectively imposed my contract on all people who want to use my software.

This is the central argument behind the (many) suits over the years asserting that Microsoft has illegally leveraged its monopoly power to impose contracts.

Re:A Good License

[sinster]

It's not always possible (in fact it rarely is) to write a license that it simultaneously rigorous enough for a court and comprehensible enough for the average person. That's why a lot of modern licenses have commentaries at the beginning that attempt to explain the goals behind the license. The GPL is a good example of this. But the commentary is just that: it has no importance in legal proceedings except in that it speaks to the intentions of the parties.

You have to look at it the same way as a program and its users' guide. We programmers have little problem reading source code (even complex source code) and figuring out what's going on. But joe blow can't do that. Both of us benefit from the users' guide: joe blow so he can make sense of what he's seeing, and us so that we can figure out whether or not a particular behavior is a bug or if it's intentional in some strange way. But as far as the computer is concerned, the users' guide is meaningless. The code is the be all and end all of the system's function.

Secondly, in the context of licences intended to be used internationally I think that attempts to be clever with the legalese are misguided. Sure your obscure term of art wins you points in your home jurisdiction but elsewhere it may be interpreted completely differently - it may even have an established contrary meaning. And no, you can't just assume that foreign courts will accept any clauses you put in that forbid them from interpreting the contracts under their own laws.

That's certainly true. Unfortunately there isn't a whole lot of precedent about the validity of choice of jurisdiction clauses. English common law countries tend to obey them (and US courts seem to always do so). But I can't speak about European common law countries, Confucian law countries, or others.

But this whole issue about things happening internationally is really quite new. Before the computer age, international commercial agreements were nearly always exchange-of-goods, so there really wasn't any kind of licensing issue. There were certainly cases of a foreign manufacturer buying a production model of someone's invention, then copying it and producing it themselves in their own countries. And the few court proceedings in these matters were nearly always ineffective. But with the rate at which things are going, we can expect to start seeing a whole lot more cases discussing international licensing.

Thirdly, you're simply wrong in your assertion "The next thing is that all licenses are based in contract law. There is no room in copyright law for granting permissions beyond those explicitly enumerated (and irrevocable) in copyright law."

The one thing that copyright law does give the copyright holder is the right to give people permission to do the activities that are otherwise prohibited by copyright law.

You're thinking about contract law. Copyright law says "this thing is owned by the copyright holder, and he can prevent anyone he wants from getting access to it" (basically). The only variant that exists in copyright law is the concept of "public domain": a person who would otherwise hold copyright over something can put that thing into the public domain, in which case no one has differential rights to that thing. Contract law says "different parties have different rights, resources, and privileges, and they can negotiate exchanges of those rights, resources, and privileges under these rules." Copyright grants a privilege to one party that is excluded from other parties. Contract law influences how the copyright holder can grant his priveleges to other people.

Re:A Good License

[rking]

You're thinking about contract law. Copyright law says "this thing is owned by the copyright holder, and he can prevent anyone he wants from getting access to it" (basically). The only variant that exists in copyright law is the concept of "public domain": a person who would otherwise hold copyright over something can put that thing into the public domain, in which case no one has differential rights to that thing. Contract law says "different parties have different rights, resources, and privileges, and they can negotiate exchanges of those rights, resources, and privileges under these rules." Copyright grants a privilege to one party that is excluded from other parties. Contract law influences how the copyright holder can grant his priveleges to other people.

Okay, it's some years since I got my law degree and it's in UK law whereas I would guess you're talking from an American perspective but imho you're just plain wrong. Granting someone permission to copy and distribute your copyrighted work does not in any way require a contract just as giving someone a gift doesn't require contract law and telling someone they can enter your house, use your computer, or borrow your car does not require contract law. You can use a contract in any of those situations but if all you're doing is giving permissions then contract simply doesn't come into it.

Re:A Good License

[Arandir]

My principle motivation in being involved in Linux is to weaken Microsoft.

As an aside...

What happens when Microsoft becomes weakened? Will you subsequently abandon Linux development?

Re:A Good License

[Arandir]

Contract law says "different parties have different rights, resources, and privileges, and they can negotiate exchanges of those rights, resources, and privileges under these rules."

Cool. Too bad it doesn't apply to most Open Source licenses. The operative phrase in your quote is "negotiate exchanges". Since that's how I always understood contract law, we must be in agreement on something! But I don't understand where the negotiation or the exchange comes in when I download the Linux kernel and start distributing it. I have negotiated nothing! I have given nothing back to Linus and Friends!

If you look at the typical contract, you will see certain attributes. First, both parties are aware of each other. Second, negotiation of terms is possible even if the negotiation does occur. Third, both parties receive something of benefit. Finally there is an explicit agreement. None of these attributes are present when I download and start legally distributing the Linux kernel. Linus and Friends are not aware of me, or of the fact that I possess a legal copy of the kernel. And it is not possible to negiate terms because a line of communication has not been established (although that communication could be initiated by me). I receive benefit from the kernel, but Linus and Friends receive nothing from me, not even the satisfaction of knowing that I am even using it. Finally, there is no explicit agreement. No signature, no handshake, no verbal "I agree", no clickthrough, no filling out of registration cards, nothing. A transaction of sorts has occured, but there is no contract.

Re:A Good License

[Arandir]

"Their purpose is not to bind the user to the will of the licensor."

That's exactly what the purpose of all licenses are, including open source licenses.

Funny, I didn't see anything in the FSF's four freedoms about binding people to the wills of other. That antithetical to freedom. (it's also antithetical to contract law, which is why unilateral contracts are Evil)

"The first thing a good license should do is grant unconditional permission to use the software."

In that case, there is no such thing as a good license. Everything should be released into the public domain.

Copyright law has already given the user the right to use the program. No ifs, ands or buts. Since so many commercial licenses say "by using this software you agree to...", I felt it necessary, if redundant, to explicitly assure the user that they can use the software no matter what else the license says. After all, I even know of one person who holds the belief that you may not use GPLd software unless you agree with the philosophical preamble in its entirety.

So the user should have permissions, but those permissions should not be dependent on accepting the license, but the license should inform the user of their permissions. What exactly are you trying to say?

Hmmm, you must be a lawyer, as no one else has so much trouble parsing standard English. Let me restate. You give the user a set of permissions. You then let the user know what these permissions are. You do not keep them secret for the user to guess. Let me give an example: "you may distribute this post to anyone." There. I granted a permission to all readers of this post, and also informed that of it.

"A permission may have conditions attached to it."

Didn't you just say: "The first thing a good license should do is grant unconditional permission to use the software" just five sentences up in this same paragraph?

Yes, I did say that. But double check my post anyway. I had more than one criteria. The right to *use* the software unconditionally is the first of my criteria. Other rights, such as distribution, modification, etc., may be conditional.

Re:A Good License

[sinster]

It depends on how weak microsoft gets, and how much time my other projects are demanding.

If microsoft gets so weak that there's no chance of it ever recovering, then I'll consider that goal to be achieved.

If there's something new that I need out of Linux, I'll probably keep working on it (I like my mini beowulf cluster, after all). Otherwise I might dust off that old OS that I was writing and abandoned when I started up with Linux.

Re:A Good License

[sinster]

Every agreement constitutes a (potentially valid) contract, even if that contract is verbal or even if it's implied.

And, yes, I'm talking about US law.

Re:A Good License

[sinster]

I addressed all of your points already in this thread.

"negotiate" doesn't mean that there is a two-way discussion of terms. In its simplest form, and the form that is nearly always the case, there is an offer of terms from one party and an acceptance by the other. That is still "negotiation" in the legal sense.

Next, in nearly all contract situations, the two parties are not aware of each other. It's a one-way affair in which the accepting party is aware of the offering party, but not the reverse. The offering party only becomes aware of the accepting party /after/ acceptance occurs.

As far as receiving something of benefit, I have already addressed what benefit /I/ receive when people use Linux. I don't need to know that it's Mrs. Marge Simpson, of 123 Evergreen Terrace to receive my benefit.

It is certainly /possible/ to negotiate terms on the Linux kernel. But there is no single point of communication, so it would be difficult to do so. You'd have to contact every one of the hundreds (if not thousands) of contributors to the Linux kernel, and convince them all to participate. Or, at least, the contributors who have affected portions of the kernel that you're going to be using.

As for agreement, the Linux authors collectively agree to the terms when they offer them to you. If they didn't agree, they wouldn't have offered those terms, now would they? You agree when you exercise one of the benefits of those terms that you couldn't've gotten in any other way: by redistributing the kernel.

Re:Hypocrisy (not)

[kaisyain]

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.

My Standard Software Disclaimer

[nbvb]

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.

Re:My Standard Software Disclaimer

[dublin]

You forgot "Close cover before striking"...

Re:My Standard Software Disclaimer

[jrockway]

I just say "Do not fold, spindle, or mutilate." :-)

Re:My Standard Software Disclaimer

[eric.t.f.bat]

Here are some I quite like that you don't seem to have included:

May contain traces of nuts.
Falling Rocks Do Not Stop.
No Seatbelt Fine Exceeds $100.

and of course

Offer void where prohibited by law.

: Fruitbat :

becoming your parents

[8bit]

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.

Re:Hypocrisy (not)

[smcv]

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!")

Then what's the point of OSI??

[Myrv]

as "GPL-derived" licenses might not even be Free Software or Open Source.

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.

Re:Hypocrisy (not)

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Monty Python

[Anonymous Coward]

I did not know that they applied? Funny I never thought that they where techinical incline except for terry of course

Exactlly what OS is licensed under the GPL?

[Nailer]

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?

Licensing something for GPLed `OS's is nearly as bad as the FHS saying /opt is defined by including `optional' software. Nobodies defeinition is the same and its asking for a major disagreement.

license this, license that

[tomstdenis]

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.

My favorite "License"

[tadas]

Back in my BBS days, I downloaded some software that came with the following:

This software comes with no warranty. If it breaks, you get to keep both pieces.

That Monty Python License in Full

[Zeinfeld]

You guys all have it wrong. The OSI approved the Monty Python license, not the one for the programing language.

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...

Re:That Monty Python License in Full

[ViVeLaMe]

Excellent :-)
What is the license of this License? can i use it for any software i'd like to release in the wild? :-P

Re:That Monty Python License in Full

[Zeinfeld]

Sure, go for it.

Hemos Turns Down English Lessons: Grammar Suffer's

[Anonymous Coward]

TEH LOLZ @ retarded slashdot

Re:Artistic license versus GPL

[Spinality]

Your point is absolutely right, of course, and my post wasn't an argument that all software belongs under such a license (even though it does have the best name) -- I was being slightly tongue-in-cheek. But I think there's an important place for nonrestrictive licenses. They're desirable for software that should be as widely distributed and used as possible. Consider some widget that is a) highly useful, b) widely applicable, c) well-implemented, d) not worth reimplimenting so long as a good public version exists, and e) not so intrinsically valuable that there's an incentive to build expensive derivative works. Device drivers are good examples. So are certain function libraries and algorithm implementations. Compilers for novel languages often fall in this class. A nonrestrictive license might be the best means for encouraging wide distribution and use. Once you have a huge user community, open-source economics will mitigate against somebody getting rich off your work -- or, if they do, it's because they've added enough value that they arguably would deserve it.

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.

"Poetic"? Not original

[fm6]

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.

Re:"Poetic"? Not original

[flegged]

I knew that. Thats why it's called that!