User: Bruce Perens

Re:Minors & Contract Law

On: Corel Linux Only For 18 and Up

But by using the GPL, I have decided to distribute my software to minors, even though they might not be required to honor the license. And the GPL requires that my license terms not be modified by Corel or anyone else, even for the best of reasons. Sorry, Corel, just can't do it.

Bruce

This is an illegal modification to our licenses

On: Corel Linux Only For 18 and Up

Corel's had enough time to learn that they aren't allowed to add terms to our GPL licenses. Period. Not even for the best of reasons. Sorry, Corel, just can't do it. The reason this is so bad is that someone has to go through that over-18 certification to download the source to my GPL code, when they have already gotten the binary from Corel. Thus it's infringing upon my license.

I've helped them out a few times, but they fail to learn anything. I can't help them any longer.

Bruce

Re:I'm sure they'll fix it - let's not be too hars

On: Corel Linux Only For 18 and Up

Look, we've given them several chances and they've still proven themselves to be 100% clueless. I am not going to help them any longer. I think it's time to start talking lawsuit.

Bruce Perens

Re:Differences between GPL and NCL

On: Novell License Draft 1.0 Submitted for Review

I am actually a bit concerned about the arbitration thing, because of the chance of a rich company being in dispute with a poor developer, and the poor developer having to pay very large legal fees. I'm surprised that with this up on Slashdot and Technocrat for most of a day, nobody's taken the time to think this issue through. Also, note that licenses that insist on a U.S. arbitrator probably wouldn't be upheld by courts outside of the U.S. - I got exactly one comment about that.

I've got to take comments on these issues back to Novell. Please think them through, folks.

Thanks

Bruce

Re:Open Source Schism

On: Novell License Draft 1.0 Submitted for Review

As a developer, I do feel the GPL does benefit me by enforcing the quid-pro-quo in which we exchange code and "developer attention". I recommend it as a first choice to people who are asking about Open Source licensing.

When I contribute code, I do it to increase the problem space covered by free software. Not only am I not interested in helping proprietary software developers, I would object to their incorporating my code without negociating a commercial license. My code is not a gift to them, it's something I share with the free software community.

Regarding Java, if the copyright holder doesn't want to prosecute your use of a non-free run-time, that is the copyright holder's choice. See also the GPL provisions for code that is a standard component of your system, which may apply to the Java run-time.

Thanks

Bruce

Re:Licence problems

On: Novell License Draft 1.0 Submitted for Review

If you are distributing your own work and nothing else, you may always change the license, and you can also distribute with more than one license. What you can't do is tell people who already have an old license that their license is no longer valid, unless you wrote the ability to do that into your terms.

I don't see that this restricts what you can do with your own work at all.

Bruce

Re:Open Source Schism

On: Novell License Draft 1.0 Submitted for Review

I did advise someone at Novell who is directly connected with the license to read slashdot and technocrat today. But weblogs are somewhat noisy, if I put objections together into a coherent document it might get a bit farther.

Thanks

Bruce

Re:Copyright Open Source

On: Novell License Draft 1.0 Submitted for Review

1. I wasn't at that meeting.

2. Not every attorney agrees with yours on that issue.

Thanks

Bruce

Re:Copyright Open Source

On: Novell License Draft 1.0 Submitted for Review

Attorneys have told me that it's more difficult to lose a trademark through not defending it than most laymen think.

Thanks

Bruce

Re:Open Source Schism

On: Novell License Draft 1.0 Submitted for Review

I'm going to ask them to clear up the linking issues. I think it's a big ambiguous regarding whether or not this is a "partnership" license like the GPL (don't say "viral", it's pejorative) or not.

Bruce

Re:Copyright Open Source

On: Novell License Draft 1.0 Submitted for Review

OK, you mean patent it as a business system. Fortunately for all of us, it is too late to patent it now.

Bruce

Re:kill the license discussions dammit!

On: Novell License Draft 1.0 Submitted for Review

Hi Mr. AC,

What makes this newsworthy is that another really big company has decided that they can play by the community's rules. I am just as bothered by you by the proliferation of licenses, but lawyers need time to develop their opinions just as we need time to develop code, and we are working on a convergence to fewer licenses.

Thanks

Bruce

Re:About three classes of Open Source Licence need

On: Novell License Draft 1.0 Submitted for Review

I think we could handle the branding issue without everyone having their own license. The problem is that everybody's law department has a different take on what they need to do, and there is no case history of how these licenses have held up in court.

There is a working group on license convergence that has not yet officialy invited me on board but I think I will get in to their next meeting. Hopefully at that time they will see that I am not an ogre and will invite me to be a regular participant.

Bruce

Re:Three cheers for Bruce Perens

On: Novell License Draft 1.0 Submitted for Review

I just gave Novell some advice. They started out with the right attitude, which is really important. I didn't really have to convince them of anything.

Bruce

Re:The NPL : GPL relicense clause ?

On: Novell License Draft 1.0 Submitted for Review

I'm going to talk with them about the GPL and implications for linking with the Linux kernel. I don't know if I'll get anywhere, but it's worth a try.

Bruce

Re:innovation? ... look harder

On: Novell License Draft 1.0 Submitted for Review

Agree that license proliferation is bad. We are working on coming to some sort of convergence.

Thanks

Bruce

Re:Copyright Open Source

On: Novell License Draft 1.0 Submitted for Review

It is still a trademark of SPI, but does not have a federal registration at this time. That will be sorted out eventually, I think.

Bruce

Well Said

On: Apology to Readers, Corel, et al.

Well Said. It takes strength to admit a mistake.

Bruce

Re:BRUCE PERENS, Rational reply - unlike Eric Raym

On: Novell Embraces Open Source, Sun Still Flirting

You're calling me a cop-out because I know when to walk away from a fight? I call that smart. Sorry if I'm not good entertainment, but I can't fight ESR when the result would be bad for free software.

We have a lot more than 3 Open Source organizations, actually. But you're right that SPI is in the soup as well. It's just that the latest conversation has been between me, FSF, and OSI.

I regret that I'm not going to be much of a coder for a while. I'm president of a VC firm investing in Open Source businesses. I'm hiring some good coders and mentoring them, that'll have to do.

Thanks

Bruce

Re:NetWare clients in Linux

On: Novell Embraces Open Source, Sun Still Flirting

I'd imagine the license is in the top-level directory of the Linux source tree. Yes, it should have something in the file pointing to the GPL, though.

Bruce

Re:Oh boy!

On: Novell Embraces Open Source, Sun Still Flirting

It's nice of you to say that. But there will be a public review period on the license when they go for OSI certification. You don't really have to trust me.

Bruce

Re:NetWare clients in Linux

On: Novell Embraces Open Source, Sun Still Flirting

Thanks, Stienar,

So, if I'm not mistaken, none of the stuff you mentioned is the subject of a lawsuit, or ever was the subject of a lawsuit. The lawsuit was in relation to some clustering software. Right?

Thanks

Bruce Perens

Re:BRUCE PERENS, Rational reply - unlike Eric Raym

On: Novell Embraces Open Source, Sun Still Flirting

I appreciate the compliment, but I'd rather you not stir up any ESR vs. BP stuff. Let me do that, and only when it's necessary. I have not given up on working with ESR and have been having a long discussion with ESR, RMS, and the OSI board regarding the recent China message and OSI - FSF relations. I would much prefer to have us all working for free software than against each other.

Thanks

Bruce

Don't dignify this troll.

On: Novell Embraces Open Source, Sun Still Flirting

Don't dignify this troll. Just ignore it. Real companies pay attention to the law because they have something to lose. This person doesn't. He probably can't code, and can't afford to hire an attorney for 10 minutes, and he sure doesn't understand a thing about how the law works. Let his words pass by, unheard.

Bruce

Re:Why the SCSL is not good...

On: Novell Embraces Open Source, Sun Still Flirting

I've never questioned their right to use the SCSL as long as they do not attempt to confuse people about whether it's Open Source or not, and as long as they don't act to block Open Source software through legal means or FUD. They're doing the FUD thing quite heavily, and I do question that.

I do also question whether or not anyone else should accept SCSL-ware. I think it doesn't give outside developers a fair quid-pro-quo, so I don't think we should contribute our own code to it. I think it doesn't give users everything that Open Source does.

Thanks

Bruce