Re: Open Source licensing, Take 2

From: Edmund R. Kennedy <ekennedyx_at_yahoo_dot_com>
Date: Tue May 10 2005 - 16:59:41 CDT

Hello:

While all your points on various licenses are
important, one thing you seem to be neglecting is the
body of case law surrounding whichever license you are
examining. A contract or license is only as good as
the last court case it went through.

Thanks, Ed Kennedy

--- Edward Cherlin <cherlin@pacbell.net> wrote:
> On Tuesday 10 May 2005 13:27, Alan Dechert wrote:
> > >> http://www.mass.gov/Aitd/docs/quickrefchart.xls
> > >
> > > Without looking, I know that 45-50 of those are
> meaningless
> > > distractions that some company or project pushed
> for vanity
> > > reasons. There are a small number of open
> source licenses
> > > that might merit our serious attention. Like
> maybe 4-5,
> > > tops.
> >
> > I analyzed this a bit more and have a few more
> comments (btw,
> > I said 54 but it's really 52). Going by the
> columns in the
> > referenced spreadsheet, I think we want the
> following to be
> > "Yes.":
> >
> > COLUMNS = "Yes"
> > b,c,g,h,i,j
>
> My immediate take:
>
> bY Can freely copy and distribute
> cN Can charge royalty for copying or distribution
> dY Can charge a fee for physical transfer of
> software
> eY Must attach a copyright notice
> fY Must keep intact all notices referring to
> license
> gY Must include complete source code or a written
> offer to
> provide complete source code at nominal cost
> hY Can modify the program or parts of the program to
> form a new
> work
> iY Can freely copy and distribute the modified
> version of this
> program
> jN Can charge royalty for distribution of modified
> program
> kY Must prominently note on the modified version
> that it has been
> modified, and note the date of modification
> lY Must include source code of any modifications if
> distributed
> mY Interactive programs must display notices
> regarding warranty,
> copyright information, redistribution information,
> and how to
> view the license
> nN Sections of modified program that can reasonably
> be considered
> separate works are not bound by the terms of this
> license when
> distributed by themselves
> oY Must license any modified work distributed by you
> under the
> terms of this license (the license is viral)
> pN Can impose new license restrictions on
> distributed/modified
> copies
> qY Includes a grant of patent licenses
> rN Must license all modified work that is
> distributed or
> published under the terms of this license at no
> charge to third
> parties
> sY Provided "AS IS"--No express or implied
> warranties of
> functionality
> tY No liability for damage caused by program
> uY Distributors can provide a warranty in exchange
> for a fee
> vY Distributors must include warranty disclaimer
> wY Provision of additional warranties trigger
> indemnification
> provision
> xY Contains provision on attorney's fees
> y? Contains additional restrictions on manner of
> availability of
> source code
>
> GPL has
> b Y
> c N
> g Y
> h Y
> i Y
> j N
> k Y
> o Y
>
>
> > If we agree on those,
>
> You and I disagree on c, j, and o.
>
> > there are only two like that: Mozilla
> > Public License 1.1
>
> which is "viral", so I assume that you don't like it
> after all.
>
> > and the Common Public License.
>
> which does not require release of source code. I
> object.
>
> > However, I
> > think we want k too ("Must prominently note on the
> modified
> > version that it has been modified, and note the
> date of
> > modification"). This may not be hugely important,
> but I think
> > we should have that. No existing license has all
> that. In
> > addition, I think we want o="No" (non-viral).
> >
> > To have all that (and probably more), no existing
> license
> > works for us.
> >
> > Alan D.
>
> GPL is fine by my criteria. I haven't gone through
> the rest in
> any detail.
>
> --
> Edward Cherlin
> Generalist & activist--Linux, languages, literacy
> and more
> "A knot! Oh, do let me help to undo it!"
> --Alice in Wonderland
> http://cherlin.blogspot.com
> _______________________________________________
> OVC discuss mailing lists
> Send requests to subscribe or unsubscribe to
> arthur@openvotingconsortium.org
>

-- 
10777 Bendigo Cove
San Diego, CA 92126-2510
858-578-8842
Work for the common good.
My profile:  <http://geocities.com/ekennedyx/>
I blog now and then at:  <http://ekennedyx.blogspot.com/>
_______________________________________________
OVC discuss mailing lists
Send requests to subscribe or unsubscribe to arthur@openvotingconsortium.org
==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external 
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain    
==================================================================
Received on Tue May 31 23:17:32 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue May 31 2005 - 23:17:52 CDT