Internet2 licence

[Carsten Wolff-4]

Hi,

I have a project here based on code under the "Internet2" license and I was
wondering, if it is any different from the 3-clause BSD license.

If it's no different, can I leave out the additional explanatory section ("You
are under no obligation[..]in binary and source code form.") in derivative
work and just license the whole derivative under BSD?

Thanks,
Carsten

For Reference:

Copyright (c) 2003, Internet2
All rights reserved.

Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are
met:

* Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
  notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.

* Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
  notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
  documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.

* Neither the name of the Internet2 nor the names of its contributors
  may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this
  software without explicit prior written permission.

You are under no obligation whatsoever to provide any enhancements to
Internet2 or its contributors.  If you choose to provide your
enhancements, or if you choose to otherwise publish or distribute your
enhancements, in source code form without contemporaneously requiring
end users to enter into a separate written license agreement for such
enhancements, then you thereby grant Internet2 and its contributors a
non-exclusive, royalty-free, perpetual license to install, use,
modify, prepare derivative works, incorporate into the software or
other computer software, distribute, and sublicense your enhancements
or derivative works thereof, in binary and source code form.

THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS
"AS IS" AND WITH ALL FAULTS.  ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES,
INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, AND
NON-INFRINGEMENT ARE DISCLAIMED AND THE ENTIRE RISK OF SATISFACTORY
QUALITY, PERFORMANCE, ACCURACY, AND EFFORT IS WITH LICENSEE.  IN NO
EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT OWNER, CONTRIBUTORS, OR THE UNIVERSITY
CORPORATION FOR ADVANCED INTERNET DEVELOPMENT, INC. BE LIABLE FOR ANY
DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL
DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE
GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS
INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER
IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR
OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OR DISTRIBUTION OF THIS
SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Josselin Mouette]

Le mercredi 02 septembre 2009 à 16:03 +0200, Carsten Wolff a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> I have a project here based on code under the "Internet2" license and I was
> wondering, if it is any different from the 3-clause BSD license.
>
> If it's no different, can I leave out the additional explanatory section ("You
> are under no obligation[..]in binary and source code form.") in derivative
> work and just license the whole derivative under BSD?

It is very different since this additional section makes it a copyleft
license, which makes it incompatible with most other copyleft licenses.

> You are under no obligation whatsoever to provide any enhancements to
> Internet2 or its contributors.  If you choose to provide your
> enhancements, or if you choose to otherwise publish or distribute your
> enhancements, in source code form without contemporaneously requiring
> end users to enter into a separate written license agreement for such
> enhancements, then you thereby grant Internet2 and its contributors a
> non-exclusive, royalty-free, perpetual license to install, use,
> modify, prepare derivative works, incorporate into the software or
> other computer software, distribute, and sublicense your enhancements
> or derivative works thereof, in binary and source code form.

The “Internet2 and its contributors” choice of words is poor, but
otherwise it sounds like a reasonable and free copyleft license.

Cheers,
--
 .''`.      Josselin Mouette
: :' :
`. `'   “I recommend you to learn English in hope that you in
  `-     future understand things”  -- Jörg Schilling

[Carsten Wolff-4]

Hi Josselin,

thanks for your answer!

On Thursday 03 September 2009, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> It is very different since this additional section makes it a copyleft
> license, which makes it incompatible with most other copyleft licenses.

I see. It seems I completely misread that section. I see now, why it's not
just explanatory, but actually makes it a copyleft license.

> The “Internet2 and its contributors” choice of words is poor, but
> otherwise it sounds like a reasonable and free copyleft license.

This means, a program under this license is fit for the "main" section of
Debian?

Thanks again,
Carsten


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Francesco Poli (t1000)]

On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 15:51:31 +0200 Carsten Wolff wrote:

[...]
> On Thursday 03 September 2009, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > It is very different since this additional section makes it a copyleft
> > license, which makes it incompatible with most other copyleft licenses.
>
> I see. It seems I completely misread that section. I see now, why it's not
> just explanatory, but actually makes it a copyleft license.

Well, not completely a copyleft license, IMHO.
It says:

|  If you choose to provide your enhancements, or if you choose to
|  otherwise publish or distribute your enhancements,
[in source form and without doing something special],
|  then you thereby grant Internet2 and its contributors a
                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|  non-exclusive, royalty-free, perpetual license to
[do many things, including sub-license].

Hence, it does _not_ require you to grant *any recipient* the *same*
rights you received.
It says that, when you distribute enhanced source (without doing a
special action), you will automatically grant the *original authors* and
contributors *more* rights than those you received from them.

This is not a classical (strong or weak) copyleft mechanism, AFAICT.
This is something different.

I am not even much persuaded that it meets the DFSG (i.e.: that it is
suitable for Debian "main").
All this reminds me of the old discussions about the QPL:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/08/msg00047.html

>
> > The “Internet2 and its contributors” choice of words is poor, but
> > otherwise it sounds like a reasonable and free copyleft license.
>
> This means, a program under this license is fit for the "main" section of
> Debian?

I personally disagree: as I said above, I am not sure the license meets
the DFSG, and I don't feel it can be described as a "copyleft" license.

I hope my personal opinion is useful as a contribution to the
discussion.


--
 New location for my website! Update your bookmarks!
 http://www.inventati.org/frx
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12  31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4

[Josselin Mouette]

Le samedi 05 septembre 2009 à 18:52 +0200, Francesco Poli a écrit :

> Well, not completely a copyleft license, IMHO.
> It says:
>
> |  If you choose to provide your enhancements, or if you choose to
> |  otherwise publish or distribute your enhancements,
> [in source form and without doing something special],
> |  then you thereby grant Internet2 and its contributors a
>                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> |  non-exclusive, royalty-free, perpetual license to
> [do many things, including sub-license].
>
> Hence, it does _not_ require you to grant *any recipient* the *same*
> rights you received.
> It says that, when you distribute enhanced source (without doing a
> special action), you will automatically grant the *original authors* and
> contributors *more* rights than those you received from them.
>
> This is not a classical (strong or weak) copyleft mechanism, AFAICT.
> This is something different.

Indeed, I have overlooked that. Even if everyone would be granted those
rights, they would be subject to the copyleft while the original authors
are not.

So in short, it allows the original authors to create a proprietary
derivative while it does not allow others to do it. I agree with your
reasoning and the conclusion this clearly violates DFSG #3.

Cheers,
--
 .''`.      Josselin Mouette
: :' :
`. `'   “I recommend you to learn English in hope that you in
  `-     future understand things”  -- Jörg Schilling

[Lionel Elie Mamane-2]

On Mon, Sep 07, 2009 at 11:32:46AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le samedi 05 septembre 2009 à 18:52 +0200, Francesco Poli a écrit :
>> Well, not completely a copyleft license, IMHO.
>> It says:

>> |  If you choose to provide your enhancements, or if you choose to
>> |  otherwise publish or distribute your enhancements,
>> [in source form and without doing something special],
>> |  then you thereby grant Internet2 and its contributors a

> So in short, it allows the original authors to create a proprietary
> derivative while it does not allow others to do it.

No, it does not. Anyone can create a proprietary derivative by either:

 - keeping the source code secret

 - giving people the source code only after they sign a contract

--
Lionel


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Francesco Poli (t1000)]

On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 17:14:53 +0200 Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 07, 2009 at 11:32:46AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > Le samedi 05 septembre 2009 à 18:52 +0200, Francesco Poli a écrit :
> >> Well, not completely a copyleft license, IMHO.
> >> It says:
>
> >> |  If you choose to provide your enhancements, or if you choose to
> >> |  otherwise publish or distribute your enhancements,
> >> [in source form and without doing something special],
> >> |  then you thereby grant Internet2 and its contributors a
>
> > So in short, it allows the original authors to create a proprietary
> > derivative while it does not allow others to do it.
>
> No, it does not. Anyone can create a proprietary derivative by either:
>
>  - keeping the source code secret
>
>  - giving people the source code only after they sign a contract

This is true.

Actually, my argument was a bit different from Josselin's conclusion.
My point is that the license fails to meet DFSG #3, because I cannot
distribute my enhancements to the original authors "under the same terms
as the license of the original software": they automatically get
basically unrestricted rights from me, when I attempt to do so.

I hope this clarifies.


--
 New location for my website! Update your bookmarks!
 http://www.inventati.org/frx
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12  31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4