FW: [png-mng-implement] zlib/libpng license name

[John Bowler]

From: George Cook [mailto:COOK@...]
>The Wikipedia Open Source License page lists it as "zlib-libpng license".
>What should it list it as?  "zlib/libpng license" or "Zlib license"?
>I will edit the Wikipedia page as needed.

In http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Source_License the bullet point:

* [[zlib/libpng license]]

Should be changed to just say:

* [[zlib license]]

The status of the libpng license seems to be somewhat uncertain at this
point because of the UCITA clause - I've entered a discussion  point on the
talk page.

John Bowler <jbowler@...>


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
png-mng-misc mailing list
png-mng-misc@...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/png-mng-misc

[George Cook-6]

>From: George Cook [mailto:COOK@...]
>>The Wikipedia Open Source License page lists it as "zlib-libpng license".
>>What should it list it as?  "zlib/libpng license" or "Zlib license"?
>>I will edit the Wikipedia page as needed.

>In http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Source_License the bullet point:

>* [[zlib/libpng license]]

>Should be changed to just say:

>* [[zlib license]]

>The status of the libpng license seems to be somewhat uncertain at this
>point because of the UCITA clause - I've entered a discussion  point on the
>talk page.

>John Bowler <jbowler@...>

After posting that (on 6/25), I realized that the license list on that
page is basically just a duplicate of
"http://www.opensource.org/licenses/category".  All the OSI web site
pages have it as "zlib/libpng license", so I changed the wiki page from
"zlib-libpng license" to "zlib/libpng license" several days ago.  At
this point I believe it would be incorrect to change the wiki page to
"zlib license", unless OSI also makes the change.  The "zlib/libpng
license" link does, however, point to the wikipedia "zlib license" page.


George Cook
WVNET

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
png-mng-misc mailing list
png-mng-misc@...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/png-mng-misc

[Glenn Randers-Pehrson]

On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 4:55 PM, George Cook<cook@...> wrote:

>>From: George Cook [mailto:COOK@...]
>>>The Wikipedia Open Source License page lists it as "zlib-libpng license".
>>>What should it list it as?  "zlib/libpng license" or "Zlib license"?
>>>I will edit the Wikipedia page as needed.
>
>>In http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Source_License the bullet point:
>
>>* [[zlib/libpng license]]
>
>>Should be changed to just say:
>
>>* [[zlib license]]
>
>>The status of the libpng license seems to be somewhat uncertain at this
>>point because of the UCITA clause - I've entered a discussion  point on the
>>talk page.
>
>>John Bowler <jbowler@...>
>
> After posting that (on 6/25), I realized that the license list on that
> page is basically just a duplicate of
> "http://www.opensource.org/licenses/category".  All the OSI web site
> pages have it as "zlib/libpng license", so I changed the wiki page from
> "zlib-libpng license" to "zlib/libpng license" several days ago.  At
> this point I believe it would be incorrect to change the wiki page to
> "zlib license", unless OSI also makes the change.  The "zlib/libpng
> license" link does, however, point to the wikipedia "zlib license" page.
>
>
> George Cook
> WVNET
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I prefer "zlib/libpng license" over "zlib license".  The original motivation
was, I believe, that the zlib license and the libpng license were
functionally equivalent in the opinion of OSI.  They are different
now, but that is because of the addition of the language
mandated by UCITA.

"zlib/libpng license" means the zlib license itself and the
original libpng license which was functionally equivalent.

I guess actually it means the template for the zlib license
that OSI publishes, not the actual zlib license with Jean-loup
and Mark's names, nor the actual libpng license with other
names.

"libpng license" means the license that libpng is presently
using and could also mean a template for it, looking
something like this:

%<=============cut===============================
COPYRIGHT NOTICE, DISCLAIMER, and LICENSE:

If you modify <software> you may insert additional notices immediately
following this sentence.

COPYRIGHT:

<software> [version <x.y.z>] is Copyright (c) <date> <copyright holder>

For the purposes of this copyright and license, "[Contributing] Author[s]"
is defined as the following [set of] individual[s]:

    <Name> [of <name of employer>]
    [...]

DISCLAIMERS:

The [library|software] is supplied "AS IS".  The [Contributing] Author[s]
[and their employers] disclaim[s] all warranties, expressed or implied,
including, without limitation, the warranties of merchantability and of
fitness for any purpose.  The Contributing Author[s] [and their employers]
assume[s] no liability for direct, indirect, incidental, special, exemplary,
or consequential damages, which may result from the use of the <software>
even if advised of the possibility of such damage.

There is no warranty against interference with your enjoyment of the
[library|software] or against infringement.  There is no warranty that our
efforts or the [library|software] will fulfill any of your particular purposes
or needs.  This [library|software] is provided with all faults, and the entire
risk of satisfactory quality, performance, accuracy, and effort is with
the user.

LICENSE:

Permission is hereby granted to use, copy, modify, and distribute this
source code, or portions hereof, for any purpose, without fee, subject
to the following restrictions:

1. The origin of this source code must not be misrepresented.

2. Altered versions must be plainly marked as such and must not
   be misrepresented as being the original source.

3. This Copyright notice, disclaimers, and license may not be removed
   or altered from any source or altered source distribution[, except
   by inserting additional notices where indicated above].

The [Contributing] Author[s] [and their employers] specifically permit[s],
without fee, and encourage[s] the use of this source code [as a component to
supporting the PNG file format] in commercial products.  If you use this
source code in a product, acknowledgment is not required but would be
appreciated.
%<===================cut=====================

A template for the "original libpng license" would be the same except
for omitting the second paragraph of the disclaimers, and omitting the
sentence about inserting additional notices (without that sentence,
no one could distribute a modified version and comply with both
clauses 2 and 3, which are mutually exclusive.  After much thought
back in 1998 I concluded that the provision was implied by clause 2,
and that "inserting" more clauses is not "altering" the license.).

Glenn

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
png-mng-misc mailing list
png-mng-misc@...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/png-mng-misc

[John Bowler]

From: Glenn Randers-Pehrson [mailto:glennrp@...]
>From: George Cook [mailto:COOK@...]
>>At
>> this point I believe it would be incorrect to change the wiki page to
>> "zlib license", unless OSI also makes the change.  The "zlib/libpng
>> license" link does, however, point to the wikipedia "zlib license" page.
>
>"zlib/libpng license" means the zlib license itself and the
>original libpng license which was functionally equivalent.

Right, I agree (with both points.)  OSI has clearly endorsed something and
it is not, I believe, the libpng license with the UCITA clause.  That thing
may as well be called by the name they currently give it - the "zlib/libpng
license".

>I guess actually it means the template for the zlib license
>that OSI publishes, not the actual zlib license with Jean-loup
>and Mark's names, nor the actual libpng license with other
>names.

That makes sense.

>"libpng license" means the license that libpng is presently
>using and could also mean a template for it

That also seems reasonable.

John Bowler <jbowler@...>



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
png-mng-misc mailing list
png-mng-misc@...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/png-mng-misc

[Cosmin Truta]

On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 5:49 PM, Glenn Randers-Pehrson wrote:

> I prefer "zlib/libpng license" over "zlib license".  The original motivation
> was, I believe, that the zlib license and the libpng license were
> functionally equivalent in the opinion of OSI.  They are different
> now, but that is because of the addition of the language
> mandated by UCITA.

I used to call it myself the zlib/libpng license, and I thought that
both zlib and libpng use it -- until I actually took the time to read
both license texts and realize they aren't the same.

The confusion factor should be considered. I don't think the merits of
libpng and its developers have anything to suffer if we call zlib's
license "the zlib license" and we call libpng's license "the libpng
license".

And I gave this example before: there is no such thing as a "BSD/MIT license".

Best regards,
Cosmin

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
png-mng-misc mailing list
png-mng-misc@...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/png-mng-misc

[glennrp-2]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Cosmin Truta" <cosmin@...>

The confusion factor should be considered. I don't think the merits of
libpng and its developers have anything to suffer if we call zlib's
license "the zlib license" and we call libpng's license "the libpng
license".

       There are a number of other authors who have applied the
       OSI-approved license called "zlib/libpng license" to their
       projects.  I think if zlib/libpng license were to suddenly
       disappear, that would cause confusion.

       The zlib people are of course perfectly free to call
       theirs the "zlib license" or the "zlib/libpng license".

       We are not free to call ours the "zlib/libpng" license
       because that's not what we use.  So we have to call
       ours something else, e.g., the "libpng license", or
       we could continue to use an unnamed license.  If
       you look at the first message in this thread you
       will find that I was confused by our using a license
       with no name.

       Glenn

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
png-mng-misc mailing list
png-mng-misc@...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/png-mng-misc