Nabble - OpenSource - License-Discuss

change cakephp MIT license to GPL?

2008-10-23T06:49:46Z

hello

I opened this post because I am making an application that I have to release as open source (I'm not forced to use a specific license)

My situation is as follows:

** Cakephp 1.2 RC3 -> MIT
** My code (views, controllers, models etc) -> GPL?
** Some code with LGPL (tcpdf, for example TinyMCE)

then, which is the best way to publish the application in one package?

diferent licenses?

On the one hand I read that MIT, GPL and LGPL are compatible but on the other that if I use GPL code in part forces me to use GPL code in all code ... on the other side as section 3 of the LGPL can convert to LPG but i dont know not changes that I have to do exactly

greetings and thank you very much

PD: forgiveness for my English

Hi guys!

2008-01-17T02:06:27Z

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License

2007-08-20T17:57:57Z

Chris Fagan wrote:
> A design goal of the MS-PL is to allow developers to choose to ensure that the specific rights in Section (2) continue to be available to downstream developers and users through generations of adoption and adaptation.
>
I guess the questions people are asking include:

Does Microsoft see any problems including MS-PL code in applications
licensed under other arbitrary licenses provided that the license offers
a subset of MS-PL rights? I.e. if the software is distributed in
source form can sections of code other than those under the MS-PL code
have any other arbitrary restrictions? Can a work as a whole include
restrictions absent from the MS-PL license. Is this a design goal?

I am phrasing this in a way to leave out the requirement of analyzing
other licenses (such as the GPL v3). This way you can leave it up to
the attourneys whether or not such conflicts exist with specific
licenses :-).

Best WIshes,
Chris Travers

[chris.vcf]

begin:vcard fn:Chris Travers n:Travers;Chris email;internet:chris@... tel;work:509-888-0220 tel;cell:509-630-7794 x-mozilla-html:FALSE version:2.1 end:vcard

"Good of the Community," was For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License

2007-08-20T12:12:20Z

Hi Ian;

Here is my opinion regarding where OSI should draw the line an why.
Others I am sure will have different views.

Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>
> This comes back to an old question on this list: is the OSI simply
> responsible for *mechanically* approving licenses? [emphasis mine]
No. Is there anyone here who thinks otherwise?
> Or is the OSI
> responsible for, as it says on the web site, "maintaining the Open
> Source Definition for the good of the community"?
Yes.
> In my opinion,
> which I acknowledge is not widely held, the good of the community does
> not require approving every applicable license.
>
Agreed as far as you take it. However, I would suggest that we ought to
be careful about invoking the "Good of the Community" lightly and try to
have fair and even-handed standards of acceptance. Being fair and
even-handed is fundamentally good for the community. Does anyone
honestly disagree with this premise?

Suppose someone ran an OSI-approved license such as the BSDL through a
sed program that changed names. Should that be approved? Probably not
(we might want to state that we believe that it is simply a BSDL variant
not different enough to get a separate listing). Same permissions might
mean no separate approval necessary or possible.

However, the following problems occur when we look at approving licneses:

1) If a license has different legal terms than other licenses (because
different lawyers see things differently), are we *ever* in a position
to reject that license simply on a nonproliferation basis? Are we ever
justified in saying "We don't think your attourneys' concerns are
justified?"

My answer here is that we should work with groups sponsoring similar
licenses to help them cooperate on consolidating their licenses for the
future, but should not reject licenses solely on nonproliferation bases
when license terms are arguably different.

2) Is there ever a time when we should consider *who* is submitting a
license as a part of the formal approval process? I don't think so. I
think that being fair and evenhanded is *always* in the best interests
of the community.

Obviously, the less individuals trust the submitter, the more scrutiny
they might place on the license. It is OK to say "I don't trust
Microsoft/FSF/The Foo Corporation/Whoever else. Therefore I am going to
look more closely for a reason we should reject." However that is
different than "I don't like them so they should be forced to justify
why we should get beyond this hurdle."
> That said, I personally would be in favor of approving the Microsoft
> licenses. I think it is overall a benefit to the community to
> acknowledge that code under these licenses is open source.
>
> Of course, it also means that we need to apply extra vigilance to
> ensure that Microsoft does not attempt to use this certification to
> further confuse end-users with their non-open-source licenses.
Agreed as far as you take it. I thought my post about the FSF said the
same things about extra vigilance there too but some people took it as
some sort of inquisition.

Again, distrust of the organization should not be, IMO, sufficient
reason to reject. It is sufficient reason to think about the licenses a
lot more closely and ask if they are *truly* open source licenses or not
by the terms of the OSD. But eroding the OSD based solely on distrust
does not serve the good the the community. "The licensors are trusted
by OSI" sems

> I
> don't think is as big of a risk as it used to be, as it seems to me
> that most people tend to distrust Microsoft these days (for a long
> time hackers distrusted Microsoft, but the general public liked them).
>
I still don't *trust* Microsoft. I think that their response to open
source is disorganized and confused and this makes them dangerous
because you don't really know which faction will win the battles at the
end of the day. At some point they may become trapped by the rhetoric
they use to appease stockholders and forced to initiate patent suits.
Make no mistake, Microsoft because their market position and possibly
even future is threatened is extremely dangerous. Even if they
uniformly had the best of intentions *now* this would not make them less
dangerous. They are dangerous simply because at the moment they are
unpredictable.

Having said this, that is no basis in my mind to reject the license.
Rejecting simply due to such concerns and hence reducing any leverage we
may have in helping Microsoft learn how to work with open source without
losing their revenue (yes it is possible), and establishing that there
is a higher standard for outsiders to participate than for insiders
would not serve the good of the community by any standard, except for
those who see this as the sort of perpetual conflict where expediency
must exist before ethics.

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers

[chris.vcf]

begin:vcard fn:Chris Travers n:Travers;Chris email;internet:chris@... tel;work:509-888-0220 tel;cell:509-630-7794 x-mozilla-html:FALSE version:2.1 end:vcard

Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License

2007-08-20T11:27:48Z

Chris Travers <chris@...> writes:

> Well put. I would add that I think the OSI should turn down any
> licenses from any submitters (FSF, Microsoft, or otherwise) if there
> are unanswered valid concerns about how well it meets the OSD. But I
> think approval discussion should be limited to the scope of the
> license though polite requests may be broader.

This comes back to an old question on this list: is the OSI simply
responsible for mechanically approving licenses? Or is the OSI
responsible for, as it says on the web site, "maintaining the Open
Source Definition for the good of the community"? In my opinion,
which I acknowledge is not widely held, the good of the community does
not require approving every applicable license.

That said, I personally would be in favor of approving the Microsoft
licenses. I think it is overall a benefit to the community to
acknowledge that code under these licenses is open source.

Of course, it also means that we need to apply extra vigilance to
ensure that Microsoft does not attempt to use this certification to
further confuse end-users with their non-open-source licenses. I
don't think is as big of a risk as it used to be, as it seems to me
that most people tend to distrust Microsoft these days (for a long
time hackers distrusted Microsoft, but the general public liked them).

Ian

Re: Concerns relating to the FSF and Future Licenses

2007-08-20T01:38:57Z

Chris Travers <chris@...> writes:
> [quoting Chris DiBona]
> "Again, this is not a discussion about licenses but whether or not it
> is wise for OSI to enable its most vicious competitor."
>
> The implication being that if we see an organization as a vicious
> competitor, we should consider rejecting their licenses on the grounds
> that they may be used against us as an organization whether or not
> they otherwise meet our standards. [...]

and at that point, someone could point out that there have been times
when relations between the FSF and the OSI were such that it might
have appeared to an outside observer that the FSF was a "vicious
competitor" of the OSI...

DES
--
Dag-Erling Smørgrav
Senior Software Developer
Linpro AS - www.linpro.no

Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License

2007-08-20T01:20:55Z

Chris Travers wrote:

> Therefore the BSDL does not permit sublicensing or relicensing of code

I think sub-licensing is normally understood to mean licensing it to a
third party. I think even the BSD licences were intended to be licences
to everyone (public licences in the GPL terms).

> if you provide it to a customer as part of a GPL application.* All it
> allows you to do is comply with the ability to provide all downstream
> users with the same permissions (but not necessarily restrictions) that
> the GPL offers. Since copyright and license notices cannot be removed,

I think part of the confusion is that people are giving names, like
BSDL, or GPL, to sets of conditions on use, whereas what is actually
important is the set of conditions, and whether they are compatible.

--
David Woolley
Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam,
that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.

Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License

2007-08-20T00:23:14Z

Nils Labugt wrote:
>
> I would read "only under this license" as "under this license and not
> under any other license".
>
That is an odd reading of a license that doesn't require, say, the
distribution of source code at all (as noted by the conditional). That
seems to suggest that binary-only distributions with standard EULA's are
acceptable forms of distribution...

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers

[chris.vcf]

begin:vcard fn:Chris Travers n:Travers;Chris email;internet:chris@... tel;work:509-888-0220 tel;cell:509-630-7794 x-mozilla-html:FALSE version:2.1 end:vcard

Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License

2007-08-20T00:19:44Z

Just a quick note. IANAL, TINLA, etc.

Copyright law does not appear to give you the right to restrict what
your users can do with third party code under your own copyright
licenses (provided there is no other contract involved, etc). Therefore
no license seems to allow changing the license of the code released to
the public. The most it can allow you to do is choose licenses for the
work as a whole.

Therefore the BSDL does not permit sublicensing or relicensing of code
if you provide it to a customer as part of a GPL application.* All it
allows you to do is comply with the ability to provide all downstream
users with the same permissions (but not necessarily restrictions) that
the GPL offers. Since copyright and license notices cannot be removed,
and since the original code can still be *only* distributed according to
the terms of the BSDL, there is no operational difference between the
implications of the BSDL under standard copyright law and the portions
of the MS-PL under debate.

* Of course, the BSDL itself neither requires that you give the customer
the source at all nor does it prevent you from using your own changes to
further encumber the work as a whole.

I would therefore say that *all* MS-PL-licensed code contains an
implicit GPL v3 license.

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
>

[chris.vcf]

begin:vcard fn:Chris Travers n:Travers;Chris email;internet:chris@... tel;work:509-888-0220 tel;cell:509-630-7794 x-mozilla-html:FALSE version:2.1 end:vcard

Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License

2007-08-19T17:52:22Z

On Sun, 19 Aug 2007, Chris Travers wrote:

<snipped lengthy description of a licensing chain for OpenSSL>

You seem to be right on top of the key question: does linking/dynamic
linking/using a "plugin"/connecting to an "optional module" invoke the GPL
requirements that all source be available under GPL. When that question is
answered, you have the answer to your question. AFAIK, that isn't entirely
decided currently. FSF says optional doesn't cut it (see their FAQ), and
many times have rejected linking. IIRC someone just posted to this list a
few days ago saying otherwise.

BTW, Wikipedia notes in their OpenSSL page why even the "Major Component"
exception doesn't help distros: GPL (v2 I assume but they don't indicate)
adds "unless that component itself accompanies the executable" as an
exception to being a Major Component. That makes it impossible for
anything included with a distro to make use of the exception, because the
OS itself accompanies the executable. GPL v3 doesn't appear to contain
this exception.

>> So your authentication system is not a "Major Component"...it is not a
>> component of the OS, nor is it a compiler or object code interpreter.
>
> So PAM and NSSWITCH are not a part of the OS? That is news to me.

All you said was that you would use a closed-source authentication system
and treat your bindings to it as "System Libraries" under GPL v3. I don't
recally any mention of PAM or NSSWITCH.

GPL v3 seems clear that "Major Components" come with the OS/compiler and
"System Libraries" are "included in the normal form of packaging a Major
Component". That means anyone who has the OS and compiler should already
have a copy of the System Libraries and Major Components.

> But how do you define the OS? Certainly the device in question might not
> include any GNU tools and hence not even be something RMS would call
> "GNU/Linux" but does that make it less of a system component?

Ask RMS. I think availablility to a typical user/developer on that
platform is going to play a role in defining what is part of the
OS/compiler.

The intent of the section is abundantly clear though. If everyone already
has a copy on their system, you don't need to give them one. Doing
otherwise would make it impossible to create GPL programs to run on closed
platforms.

> In short, is there anything in the MS-PL that precludes use of the code from
> complying with all of the other terms set in the GPL v3? I don't see any.

<snip>

MS-PL says "license this only under MS-PL". It is obvious that you cannot
license that code under GPL v3 (or any other license).

GPL v3 says "license everything under GPL v3". It is obvious that this
precludes using MS-PL code in a GPL v3 program.

The only remaining question of yours then is why is new BSDL compatible
with GPL v3. Note that BSDL doesn't ever say you can ONLY license it under
BSDL...it just says "you must do the following N things". GPL v3 is
capable of ensuring that those N things are done in all derived works, so
licensing under GPL v3 satisfies the requirements of BSDL and is therefore
allowed.

You'll have to talk to a lawyer if you want to debate this point further.
I merely observe this to be the way things work.

This is getting way beyond the scope of the MS-PL license discussion
thread though, so I'm going to stop here.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Donovan Hawkins, PhD "The study of physics will always be
Software Engineer safer than biology, for while the
hawkins@... hazards of physics drop off as 1/r^2,
http://www.cephira.com biological ones grow exponentially."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License

2007-08-19T17:51:39Z

Hi Jon

Jon Rosenberg (PBM) wrote:
[]

> (D) [...] If you distribute any portion of the software in
> compiled or object code form, you may only do so under a license that
> complies with this license.

The first part of this sentence appears to limit its own application to a "portion of the software", while the second part implies that a portion of the software (perhaps all of it?), if it is compiled, is not restricted to being licensed under the MSPL. What is the intention here?

Compliance with a license is something I think of as a person - rather than a license - doing. Could you give some examples of what it means in practice for a license to "compl[y] with this license?"

Thanks

Brendan

Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License

2007-08-19T17:10:33Z

søn, 19.08.2007 kl. 15.43 -0700, skrev Chris Travers:

> Similarly, does the GPL work as a whole clause prevent me from using GPL
> components, creating a work, releasing that work under a dual-license
> model (standard GPL or at the option of the customer a standard EULA but
> with the addition of warranty terms)? If the user always has the choice
> to use the GPL terms, I would argue that the license has not been violated.
>
> In short, is there anything in the MS-PL that precludes use of the code
> from complying with all of the other terms set in the GPL v3? I don't
> see any.
> >

I would read "only under this license" as "under this license and not
under any other license".

Nils Labugt

Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License

2007-08-19T16:43:41Z

First the general points, then how they affect the MS-PL.

IANAL, TINLA, YMMV, etc.

Donoan Hawkins wrote:

>
> Excluding linking for a moment:
>
> If you only convey your derived work in source code form, with an
> optional dependency available via conditional compilation, I would
> agree with you. Your work compiles (without the optional component),
> but has bindings to allow someone to easily enable support for the
> optional component. I don't see a problem there.
>
> If you convey in executable form, then your "optional component" isn't
> optional anymore. You either compiled it in or you didn't, and the
> answer to that question determines whether you have to provide the
> component source under GPL or not.

So consider the following (why this is messy):

Libpq compiles optionally with OpenSSL (old-BSD licensed) and is under a
new-BSD license. It connects over a network socket to PostgreSQL. When
OpenSSL is available, SSL-encrypted network connections to the db server
are possible for any connecting application. Even if libpq is compiled
with OpenSSL support, unencrypted connections can still be used by the
library if they are not requested by the server. Hence the absence of
the library does not prevent most other applications from functioning
under the most common configurations.

FreeRadius is under the GPL. Suppose they ugprade to GPL v3.

Suppose there is an LGPL plugin to FreeRadius which uses libpq to
authenticate users against PostgreSQL.

Now, by your logic, if I am an Linux distributor, I cannot distribute
Libqp compiled with OpenSSL at the same time that I distribute the
FreeRadius plugin for PostgreSQL because the corresponding source would
include OpenSSL and the licenses are not compatible. This is not
hypothetical. Istr Debian refusing to distribute a similar plugin under
the same concern.

My analysis would be however that the Freeradius plugin under GPL v3
might be different because of the fact that the plugin does not fall
under the category of "dynamically linked subprograms that the work is
specifically designed to require." This would, in my mind, let a
distributor off the hook because it draws a line based on a "designed to
require" standard.

My reading of this is "if the program runs without it, you don't have to
provide the source under the terms of this license."
>
> Linking is another matter, and I'll defer to others on that since I
> think some people disagree with the FSF on that point.
>
Linking is not mentioned in the GPL v2 at all last time I checked.

Dynamic linking is specifically mentioned in the GPL v3 as a part of the
corresponding source, but only in cases of "dynamically linked
subprograms that the work is specifically designed to require." I
believe static linking is implied in other portions of the definition of
corresponding source.

>
>> Also "corresponding source" includes a number of loopholes which
>> could be used to exclude arbitrary components. For example, I
>> *could* make a Linux device which used closed source libraries as
>> part of an authentication system, create a GPL'd application for that
>> device which used those same libraries, and exclude them as "system
>> libraries" (because they interface with the authentication system
>> which is arguably a "Major Component"). If you want to use the
>> application on a different Linux device, you have to pay for the
>> required libraries.
>
> GPL v3 says:
>
> "A "Major Component", in this context, means a major essential
> component (kernel, window system, and so on) of the specific operating
> system (if any) on which the executable work runs, or a compiler used
> to produce the work, or an object code interpreter used to run it."
>
> So your authentication system is not a "Major Component"...it is not a
> component of the OS, nor is it a compiler or object code interpreter.

So PAM and NSSWITCH are not a part of the OS? That is news to me.

I would think that the authentication subsystem would be as much a major
component as, say, X.org.
>
> All this exception is saying is that you don't have to give people a
> copy of the source code to gcc and linux just because you use printf()
> and fork(). Or worse, give everyone a GPL-licensed copy of the source
> code to MS Visual C++ and MS Windows because you use CString and
> CreateFile().
>
But how do you define the OS? Certainly the device in question might
not include any GNU tools and hence not even be something RMS would call
"GNU/Linux" but does that make it less of a system component?

My definition of "Major Component" would be a component similar to the
kernel or windowing system which provides basic services to a
substantial class of application on the system. THis seems to me to
most closely approximate the wording of the GPL v3 since it doesn't seem
to define this very well.

I see no reason that X.org would be a major component and Oracle, or in
this case, some hypothetical PAM replacement, would not.

>
>> Does the MS-PL place any specific requirements on the code that the
>> GPL does not allow? If so, what are they exactly?
>
>> From MS-PL:
>
> "If you distribute any portion of the software in source code form,
> you may do so only under this license by including a complete copy of
> this license with your distribution."
>
>> From GPL v3 section 5c:
>
> "You must license the entire work, as a whole, under this License to
> anyone who comes into possession of a copy. This License will
> therefore apply, along with any applicable section 7 additional terms,
> to the whole of the work, and all its parts, regardless of how they
> are packaged."

So, are there cases where you cannot do both?

It seems to come back to the same question we have been arguing on
another thread.

Suppose I take BSDL code and include it as whole files into my GPL
application. Do those files as distributed in the application cease to
be under the BSD L? I would argue "no" if I don't own the copyrights to
the BSDL code in the first place (any modifications I make might be
another matter however). Does this prevent the work as a whole from
being licensed by me under the GPL including all components? Not by any
reasonable reading I can give.

Similarly, does the GPL work as a whole clause prevent me from using GPL
components, creating a work, releasing that work under a dual-license
model (standard GPL or at the option of the customer a standard EULA but
with the addition of warranty terms)? If the user always has the choice
to use the GPL terms, I would argue that the license has not been violated.

In short, is there anything in the MS-PL that precludes use of the code
from complying with all of the other terms set in the GPL v3? I don't
see any.

>
>
>>> Your interpretation of the word "by" seems to be equivalent to
>>> "which is accomplished by".
>> No actually I don't. I see it as requiring that MS-PL licensed areas
>> to the extent that they are identifiable must be licensed under the
>> terms of that license. This means including the license and
>> (probably, so as not to run amok with GPL code copyright owners)
>> identifying the portions of the code with reasonable legal notices
>> such as:
>>
>> /* The block of code including the below function is licensed under
>> the MS-PL license. Please see accompanying ms-pl.txt for details,
>> copyright (c) [yyyy] [author_name] */
>
> But is this licensed only under MS-PL, as required by MS-PL, or is it
> also licensed under GPL v3, as required by GPL v3?
>

Unfortunately by your reading, BSDL code would be incompatible to (new

or old) because under copyright law, you can only distribute it under of
the terms granted by the copyright holder anyway(!) but IANAL.

Does New BSDL == GPL? Does copying BSDL code into a GPL v3 app
automatically transfer permissions sufficient to solve this problem
(since you can only distribute *any* copyrighted work under permissions
set forth by the *copyright owner*)?

In that this clause of the MS-PL does nothing outside of summarize what
copyright law in general says (again IANAL), I fail to see how this is a
problem by itself.

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers

[chris.vcf]

begin:vcard fn:Chris Travers n:Travers;Chris email;internet:chris@... tel;work:509-888-0220 tel;cell:509-630-7794 x-mozilla-html:FALSE version:2.1 end:vcard

Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License

2007-08-19T15:41:01Z

On Sun, 19 Aug 2007, Chris Travers wrote:

> "This product contains code by .... " on a Help/About screen seems like a
> reasonable requirement by section 7b standards if required in other licenses.
> "This product is in part based on code by ..." seems seimilarly allowed.
> Where would the line be drawn?

That is a very good question. I'm afraid "reasonable" is generally one of
those things that is left to the courts to decide. Common usage within the
industry is probably going to weigh heavily on their decision though.

It's pretty trivial to have an option on a menu somewhere to display a
long scroll of attributions and legal notices, so I don't think this is a
big issue for most people. You just cut-paste to the end of the big list
and move on. The user only sees the big list if they select it.

> This doesn't seem to preclude the sort of advertising clauses that Internet
> Explorer must display regarding code from Mosaic. Or am I missing something?

GPL v3 allows requirements to retain notices on your source files and on
the interfaces. I don't see anything that allows requiring notices on
advertisements (in, say, a magazine). That sort of requirement is a
"further restriction" as defined in GPL v3 section 7:

"All other non-permissive additional terms are considered "further
restrictions" within the meaning of section 10. If the Program as you
received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is
governed by this License along with a term that is a further restriction,
you may remove that term."

So you can put the advertising term in, but it can just be ignored. If the
term came as a result of your using code under a license that contained an
advertising clause, then it is not possible to convey the combination
under section 5c. If this is your original work, then you created
something no one can make use of. If you used other GPL v3 code, then you
violated GPL v3 with respect to that code.

> Are the BSD licenses incompatible with the GPL v3 simply because they have
> weaker copleft than GPL v3?

I'm being very loose with the word "compatible" I'm afraid, but then so
are most people.

BSDL code (without the advertising clause) can be used in a project which
is released under GPL v3. GPL v3 code cannot be used in a project which is
released under BSDL.

<bad analogy alert>
GPL v3 is like having type AB blood: you can get transfusions from almost
anyone but only other AB blood people can get a transfusion from you. BSDL
is like having type O blood: almost everyone can get a transfusion from
you, but you can't accept transfusions from anyone who doesn't also have
type O blood.
</bad analogy alert>

> My argument that optional dependencies might be excluded is that only
> required dependencies are mentioned in the GPL v3 corresponding source
> definition, and optional dependencies do not appear to fall inside the four
> corners of that definition. Did I miss something in the definition of
> "corresponding source?"

Excluding linking for a moment:

If you only convey your derived work in source code form, with an optional
dependency available via conditional compilation, I would agree with you.
Your work compiles (without the optional component), but has bindings to
allow someone to easily enable support for the optional component. I don't
see a problem there.

If you convey in executable form, then your "optional component" isn't
optional anymore. You either compiled it in or you didn't, and the answer
to that question determines whether you have to provide the component
source under GPL or not.

Linking is another matter, and I'll defer to others on that since I think
some people disagree with the FSF on that point.

> Also "corresponding source" includes a number of loopholes which could be
> used to exclude arbitrary components. For example, I *could* make a Linux
> device which used closed source libraries as part of an authentication
> system, create a GPL'd application for that device which used those same
> libraries, and exclude them as "system libraries" (because they interface
> with the authentication system which is arguably a "Major Component"). If
> you want to use the application on a different Linux device, you have to pay
> for the required libraries.

GPL v3 says:

"A "Major Component", in this context, means a major essential component
(kernel, window system, and so on) of the specific operating system (if
any) on which the executable work runs, or a compiler used to produce the
work, or an object code interpreter used to run it."

So your authentication system is not a "Major Component"...it is not a
component of the OS, nor is it a compiler or object code interpreter.

All this exception is saying is that you don't have to give people a copy
of the source code to gcc and linux just because you use printf() and
fork(). Or worse, give everyone a GPL-licensed copy of the source code to
MS Visual C++ and MS Windows because you use CString and CreateFile().

> Does the MS-PL place any specific requirements on the code that the GPL does
> not allow? If so, what are they exactly?

From MS-PL:

"If you distribute any portion of the software in source code form, you
may do so only under this license by including a complete copy of this
license with your distribution."

From GPL v3 section 5c:

"You must license the entire work, as a whole, under this License to
anyone who comes into possession of a copy. This License will therefore
apply, along with any applicable section 7 additional terms, to the whole
of the work, and all its parts, regardless of how they are packaged."

>> Your interpretation of the word "by" seems to be equivalent to "which is
>> accomplished by".
> No actually I don't. I see it as requiring that MS-PL licensed areas to the
> extent that they are identifiable must be licensed under the terms of that
> license. This means including the license and (probably, so as not to run
> amok with GPL code copyright owners) identifying the portions of the code
> with reasonable legal notices such as:
>
> /* The block of code including the below function is licensed under the MS-PL
> license. Please see accompanying ms-pl.txt for details, copyright (c) [yyyy]
> [author_name] */

But is this licensed only under MS-PL, as required by MS-PL, or is it also
licensed under GPL v3, as required by GPL v3?

> Is the license itself a reasonable legal notice? If so, then it meets 7b
> options and one could force the inclusion of the license.

The problem isn't keeping the legal notice. The problem is simultaneously
having the code licensed only under MS-PL and having it licensed under GPL
v3. That equation is only solvable if MS-PL == GPL, which I think we all
agree is not likley. ^^

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Donovan Hawkins, PhD "The study of physics will always be
Software Engineer safer than biology, for while the
hawkins@... hazards of physics drop off as 1/r^2,
http://www.cephira.com biological ones grow exponentially."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Question about the GPL v3

2007-08-19T14:58:03Z

On Sun, 19 Aug 2007, Chris Travers wrote:

> In short, I don't think that either license precludes offering
> additional permissions to original code even if that is derivative of GPL
> code.

<snip>

> Does such a file, if derived but distributed separately from another GPL'd
> work allow for original elements (i.e. new user interfaces) to bear
> additional permissions? It seems clear to me that the answer is yes.
>
> If that file is incorporated back into the main work as a whole do those
> permissions go away? I don't think so. Even if they do, you run back into
> the fact that the GPL v3 does not require you to add such notices if they are
> missing.

You can add as many additional permissions as you want to your derivative
work, but they apply only to your derivative work.

Look at copyright law in general. If I create a derivative work from your
copyrighted work, I hold copyright on the derivative work. Even if I have
no permission to use your work, you likewise have no permission to use my
work. My derivative work is in limbo, and is only usable by someone who
has permission from both of us. This issue has come up before with anime
fansubs: fans who take Japanese shows, subtitle them into English, and
give away copies of the combination. The fansubs aren't legal because the
shows are copyrighted, but that doesn't mean the licensor of the show can
steal the subtitles for use on his own DVD release.

So here we have GPL v3 and a similar situation. You have used my GPL v3
software to create your GPL v3 derivative work and would like to add an
additional permission to use your new interface without including
Appropriate Legal Notices. My software has a legal notice on it, and you
want to release your derivative without that legal notice on your new
interface. When and where did I give you the right to apply that
additional permission to my work? The rights I granted are within the four
corners of GPL v3 and it doesn't say anything about forcing me to accept
your permissions.

You have certainly granted that permission with respect to your derived
work, but that permission is meaningless without the same permission from
me. I released my software with an explicit requirement that ALL
interfaces must contain my legal notice, and you cannot release anyone
else from that requirement. Your derivative work could not be used unless
someone adds back my legal notice.

So what effect does your permission have? If someone were to take your
derivative work and remove all my code, they could use your interface in
their own program and not put any of your legal notices on it.

> We are actually considering what to do about the license of the project at
> the moment (currently GPL v2 or later). We may go LGPL v2, stay with the
> current arrangement, GPL v3, or GPL v2 with linking exceptions to GPL v3. I
> don't like what I see in the GPL v3. and the release of the license poses a
> number of possible problems for the project down the road including eroding
> some of the main protections that the GPL v2 has provided.

I don't think the GPL v3 is as weak as you suggest, though I sympathize in
general with the difficulty in finding a good license to release under.
I'm right now conteplating whether to create my own license, add
permissive terms to GPL, or just give up and settle for GPL for my own
open source software.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Donovan Hawkins, PhD "The study of physics will always be
Software Engineer safer than biology, for while the
hawkins@... hazards of physics drop off as 1/r^2,
http://www.cephira.com biological ones grow exponentially."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License

2007-08-19T14:50:12Z

Donovan Hawkins wrote:

>
> 7b allows "requiring preservation of specified reasonable legal
> notices or author attributions in that material or in the Appropriate
> Legal Notices displayed by works containing it."
>
> The phrase "that material" refers to an earlier mention of the
> "material you add to a covered work". So 7b allows attributions and
> notices in the material you add to a covered work and in the notices
> displayed by the covered work.
>
> Advertising that someone else creates for their derived work is not
> the material you added to the covered work, and it is not a notice
> displayed by the covered work. IANAL, but that doesn't seem to cover
> the old BSDL advertising clause.

"This product contains code by .... " on a Help/About screen seems like

a reasonable requirement by section 7b standards if required in other
licenses. "This product is in part based on code by ..." seems
seimilarly allowed. Where would the line be drawn?

This doesn't seem to preclude the sort of advertising clauses that
Internet Explorer must display regarding code from Mosaic. Or am I
missing something? (this is getting off-topic for this thread though).
>
>
>> I have concluded that there are major license compatibility problems
>> if a GPL v3 application *requires* components under these licenses.
>
> GPL v3 doesn't appear to prevent anyone from releasing their code
> under GPL v3 combined with code under an incompatible license. You
> just can't do that with someone else's GPL v3 code, because that is
> not a right that GPL v3 grants you.

>
> Of course, it would rather pointless for you to do it with your own
> code unless you never intend to have anyone create derivative works.
> They would be forced to remove either your code or the code under the
> other license in order to proceed.
Agreed. Sort of like saying "nothing in the GPL prevents you from
releasing your own 100% original work under the GPL to anyone who flies
a manned mission to Pluto first" but this seems unlikely to grant any
reasonable rights....
>
> I'd say you are correct in pointing out that GPL v3 creates "major
> license compatibility problems", since it is intentionally
> incompatible with any license that has weaker copyleft than GPL v3
> (which includes many if not most open source licenses).
Are the BSD licenses incompatible with the GPL v3 simply because they
have weaker copleft than GPL v3?
>
> I believe some have claimed that linking to GPL code is not as
> forbidden as the FSF would like it to be, so optional dependencies can
> perhaps be implemented in that way. I don't see why having something
> optional via, say, conditional compilation in the code would be
> allowed by the GPL though.

My argument that optional dependencies might be excluded is that only
required dependencies are mentioned in the GPL v3 corresponding source
definition, and optional dependencies do not appear to fall inside the
four corners of that definition. Did I miss something in the definition
of "corresponding source?"

Also "corresponding source" includes a number of loopholes which could
be used to exclude arbitrary components. For example, I *could* make a
Linux device which used closed source libraries as part of an
authentication system, create a GPL'd application for that device which
used those same libraries, and exclude them as "system libraries"
(because they interface with the authentication system which is arguably
a "Major Component"). If you want to use the application on a different
Linux device, you have to pay for the required libraries.

>
> I also don't see how GPL v3 could be compatible with MS-PL, in the
> sense of combining code from GPL v3 with code from MS-PL in a single
> program.
>
It probably depends on what GPL v3 section 7b actually means. IANAL,
but I could see how a simple reading of this could allow the
requirements of the MS-PL.

Does the MS-PL place any specific requirements on the code that the GPL
does not allow? If so, what are they exactly?

>
>> It seems clear to me that any component falling under the
>> Corresponding Source definition must be able to be distributed under
>> terms of which the GPL v3 must be either identical or a proper
>> subset. Because the MS-CL provides per-file restrictions, I don't see
>> how this could be met.
>>
>> The MS-PL is harder for me to evaluate. A lot of it depends on what
>> 7b additional terms allow under the GPL v3. The MS-PL could be read
>> as requiring the distribution of the license as a legal notice (seems
>> reasonable to me) and possibly noting which sections of code are
>> MS-PL-licensed. Again, this seems to be in line with the GPL v3 7b
>> options by my reading.
>
> I imagine that maintaining a copy of the MS-PL as a legal notice could
> be done under section 7b of GPL v3. Now the question comes down to
> your reading of the MS-PL where it says:
>
> "If you distribute any portion of the software in source code form,
> you may do so only under this license by including a complete copy of
> this license with your distribution."
>
> Your interpretation of the word "by" seems to be equivalent to "which
> is accomplished by".

No actually I don't. I see it as requiring that MS-PL licensed areas to

the extent that they are identifiable must be licensed under the terms
of that license. This means including the license and (probably, so as
not to run amok with GPL code copyright owners) identifying the portions
of the code with reasonable legal notices such as:

/* The block of code including the below function is licensed under the
MS-PL license. Please see accompanying ms-pl.txt for details, copyright
(c) [yyyy] [author_name] */

> I'll let others address that, but I don't think I agree with your
> reading. If you take the "by" as indicating that said licensing is
> incomplete without including a copy, then there is no way to meet the
> requirements of section 5c of GPL v3.

Is the license itself a reasonable legal notice? If so, then it meets
7b options and one could force the inclusion of the license.

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers

[chris.vcf]

begin:vcard fn:Chris Travers n:Travers;Chris email;internet:chris@... tel;work:509-888-0220 tel;cell:509-630-7794 x-mozilla-html:FALSE version:2.1 end:vcard

Re: Question about the GPL v3

2007-08-19T14:24:27Z

Donovan Hawkins wrote:

> On Sun, 19 Aug 2007, Chris Travers wrote:
>
>> I don't read the GPL v3 as precluding other permissive terms,
>> possibly on a per-file basis. Is there any reason to think that an
>> individual implementing an additional interactive interface by adding
>> new files to a program could not provide permission to omit the legal
>> notices for the interfaces provided in the file? (i.e. "you have
>> permission to implement the interactive interfaces in this file
>> without adding Appropriate Legal notices as otherwise required by the
>> license")
>
> IANAL, but I think you would need to obtain that permission from all
> GPL v3 code used in the project, not just from the code that
> implements the additional interface.

Hmmm... Not sure I agree with that reading. Here is my reasoning based
on decisions made by other projects. IANAL either, of course.

I see no reason to read the GPL v3 any differently than the GPL v2 with
regard to questions of additional permissions of original but derivative
elements. In short, I don't think that either license precludes
offering additional permissions to original code even if that is
derivative of GPL code. The GPL v[23] also very explicitly separates
additional terms based on whether they are permissive or restrictive.

In short you are *only* required to release your code under the GPL and
an appropriate version. You are not required to release your code
*only* under the GPL and appropriate version. Let us look at two
analogous cases under the GPL v2:

1) ndiswrapper. This work, arguably a derivative of the Linux kernel,
allows one to link the Linux kernel to proprietary WIndows NDIS
drivers. Nobody has ever challenged the author's right to add a linking
exception to this code unambiguously allowing the use of Windows NDIS
drivers with the code (though arguably such a linking exception may not
generally be required as questions of derivation or what constitutes the
work as a whole probably would not include them).

2) nVidia closed source Linux drivers. The general argument in favor
of nVidia is that kernel-level core logic was included in such a way
that it was not derivative of the Linux kernel and is therefore not
covered under the GPL. However, the nVidia driver distribution does
also include another set of code, derived from *both* the Linux kernel
and the nVidia proprietary elements which is released under a license
generally acknowledged to be compatible with both licenses provided that
there are not questions as to whether there exists a work as a whole
which encompases both the GPL and nVidia proprietary elements (and even
if there is, nVidia does not seem to be distributing such a hypothetical
work as a whole). The nVidia example suggests that derivative elements
outside the work as a whole may clearly add permissions not found in the
GPL.

So this seems to raise the following questions:

Does such a file, if derived but distributed separately from another
GPL'd work allow for original elements (i.e. new user interfaces) to
bear additional permissions? It seems clear to me that the answer is yes.

If that file is incorporated back into the main work as a whole do those
permissions go away? I don't think so. Even if they do, you run back
into the fact that the GPL v3 does not require you to add such notices
if they are missing.

If someone does give permission to drop the notices for interfaces they
add, this is not distributed separately even at first, and these are
included, is this actionable by another developer? I really don't
know. It is, however, hard for me to see how this would be
differentiable from the case listed above if the contributor in question
retained copyrights to his/her contribution.

THe problem however in the last case seems to me that it makes the
appropriate legal notices clause very weak and seems to say "it is OK to
intentionally exclude yourself from this requirement, but if you do so
accidently...." But the same thing exists with regard to linking
exceptions in GPL v[23] as well. Nothing in the GPL v2 forbids linking
exceptions to works under incompatible licenses for content under one's
own copyright ownership. The question is how different this sort of
thing is.

We are actually considering what to do about the license of the project
at the moment (currently GPL v2 or later). We may go LGPL v2, stay with
the current arrangement, GPL v3, or GPL v2 with linking exceptions to
GPL v3. I don't like what I see in the GPL v3. and the release of the
license poses a number of possible problems for the project down the
road including eroding some of the main protections that the GPL v2 has
provided.

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers

[chris.vcf]

begin:vcard fn:Chris Travers n:Travers;Chris email;internet:chris@... tel;work:509-888-0220 tel;cell:509-630-7794 x-mozilla-html:FALSE version:2.1 end:vcard

Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License

2007-08-19T14:07:00Z

On Sun, 19 Aug 2007, Chris Travers wrote:

> Hmmm.... First GPL v3 section 7b may provide compatibility with BSD-like
> licenses with advertising clauses depending on how obtrusive they are (the
> FSF's comments to this effect seems to indicate that they are concerned about
> proliferation of such advertising notices, not the original notices
> themselves). Thus compatibility with these licenses may be case-by-case.
> IANAL and YMMV....

7b allows "requiring preservation of specified reasonable legal notices or
author attributions in that material or in the Appropriate Legal Notices
displayed by works containing it."

The phrase "that material" refers to an earlier mention of the "material
you add to a covered work". So 7b allows attributions and notices in the
material you add to a covered work and in the notices displayed by the
covered work.

Advertising that someone else creates for their derived work is not the
material you added to the covered work, and it is not a notice displayed
by the covered work. IANAL, but that doesn't seem to cover the old BSDL
advertising clause.

> I have concluded that there are major license
> compatibility problems if a GPL v3 application *requires* components under
> these licenses.

GPL v3 doesn't appear to prevent anyone from releasing their code under
GPL v3 combined with code under an incompatible license. You just can't do
that with someone else's GPL v3 code, because that is not a right that GPL
v3 grants you.

Of course, it would rather pointless for you to do it with your own code
unless you never intend to have anyone create derivative works. They would
be forced to remove either your code or the code under the other license
in order to proceed.

I'd say you are correct in pointing out that GPL v3 creates "major license
compatibility problems", since it is intentionally incompatible with any
license that has weaker copyleft than GPL v3 (which includes many if not
most open source licenses).

> Like many other aspects of the GPL v3, it is hard to say
> whether optional dependencies would be a problem, and it is harder to
> evaluate the MS-PL which may be compatible.

I believe some have claimed that linking to GPL code is not as forbidden
as the FSF would like it to be, so optional dependencies can perhaps be
implemented in that way. I don't see why having something optional via,
say, conditional compilation in the code would be allowed by the GPL
though.

I also don't see how GPL v3 could be compatible with MS-PL, in the sense
of combining code from GPL v3 with code from MS-PL in a single program.

> It seems clear to me that any component falling under the Corresponding
> Source definition must be able to be distributed under terms of which the GPL
> v3 must be either identical or a proper subset. Because the MS-CL provides
> per-file restrictions, I don't see how this could be met.
>
> The MS-PL is harder for me to evaluate. A lot of it depends on what 7b
> additional terms allow under the GPL v3. The MS-PL could be read as requiring
> the distribution of the license as a legal notice (seems reasonable to me)
> and possibly noting which sections of code are MS-PL-licensed. Again, this
> seems to be in line with the GPL v3 7b options by my reading.

I imagine that maintaining a copy of the MS-PL as a legal notice could be
done under section 7b of GPL v3. Now the question comes down to your
reading of the MS-PL where it says:

"If you distribute any portion of the software in source code form, you
may do so only under this license by including a complete copy of this
license with your distribution."

Your interpretation of the word "by" seems to be equivalent to "which is
accomplished by". I'll let others address that, but I don't think I agree
with your reading. If you take the "by" as indicating that said licensing
is incomplete without including a copy, then there is no way to meet the
requirements of section 5c of GPL v3.

> Again, I don't think this is a problem, and as a developer probably wouldn't
> worry about it. But I could see it being a question when people look at
> trying to split hairs to their own substantial benefit.

Well, I wouldn't worry about it either...I would just assume I can't mix
GPL v3 code with MS-PL code in any useful way.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Donovan Hawkins, PhD "The study of physics will always be
Software Engineer safer than biology, for while the
hawkins@... hazards of physics drop off as 1/r^2,
http://www.cephira.com biological ones grow exponentially."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License

2007-08-19T13:12:40Z

Donovan Hawkins wrote:
>
> So the only thing standing between these "permissive" licenses and
> compatiblity with GPL v3 is the flawed advertising clause from BSDL,
> something that is widely regarded as an impractical mistake. Whether
> you call these "non-permissive" or "permissive but flawed" is a minor
> point...I would choose "non-permissive" myself.
>
Hmmm.... First GPL v3 section 7b may provide compatibility with BSD-like
licenses with advertising clauses depending on how obtrusive they are
(the FSF's comments to this effect seems to indicate that they are
concerned about proliferation of such advertising notices, not the
original notices themselves). Thus compatibility with these licenses may
be case-by-case. IANAL and YMMV....

Back to the Microsoft license. After re-reading the GPL v3 (nominate
that license for the most complicated and incomprehensible submission to
OSI for approval to date), I have concluded that there are major license
compatibility problems if a GPL v3 application *requires* components
under these licenses. While I can imagine there might be ways around
these problems, they are not any less onerous than dealing with any
other license compatibility. Like many other aspects of the GPL v3, it
is hard to say whether optional dependencies would be a problem, and it
is harder to evaluate the MS-PL which may be compatible.

The basic issue is that the GPL v3 defines the "Corresponding Source" as:

'The “Corresponding Source” for a work in object code form means all the
source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable work)
run the object code and to modify the work, including scripts to control
those activities. However, it does not include the work's System
Libraries, or general-purpose tools or generally available free programs
which are used unmodified in performing those activities but which are
not part of the work. For example, Corresponding Source includes
interface definition files associated with source files for the work,
and the source code for shared libraries and dynamically linked
subprograms that the work is specifically designed to require, such as
by intimate data communication or control flow between those subprograms
and other parts of the work.

The Corresponding Source need not include anything that users can
regenerate automatically from other parts of the Corresponding Source.

The Corresponding Source for a work in source code form is that same work.'

Section 6 (Conveying non-source forms) states:

'You may convey a covered work in object code form under the terms of
sections 4 and 5, provided that you also convey the machine-readable
Corresponding Source under the terms of this License, in one of these
ways...'

It seems clear to me that any component falling under the Corresponding
Source definition must be able to be distributed under terms of which
the GPL v3 must be either identical or a proper subset. Because the
MS-CL provides per-file restrictions, I don't see how this could be met.

The MS-PL is harder for me to evaluate. A lot of it depends on what 7b
additional terms allow under the GPL v3. The MS-PL could be read as
requiring the distribution of the license as a legal notice (seems
reasonable to me) and possibly noting which sections of code are
MS-PL-licensed. Again, this seems to be in line with the GPL v3 7b
options by my reading.

However, there is one further issue with the MS-PL which might or might
not preclude using them together:

The MS-PL ties the definition of derivative work to US law. I am not
sure if there could be cases where this could run you into trouble with
the GPL v3 which ties it to whatever court wants to hear the case but I
wouldn't think this would be a problem, but I do wonder if there might
be jurisdictions where there might be a conflict. For example, are there
places where things might be considered derivative works which might be
fair use by US standards? Would this use be precluded in such
jurisdictions under the MS-PL because it doesn't give you to prepare
such works? Might there be other conflicts?

Again, I don't think this is a problem, and as a developer probably
wouldn't worry about it. But I could see it being a question when people
look at trying to split hairs to their own substantial benefit.

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers

[chris.vcf]

begin:vcard fn:Chris Travers n:Travers;Chris email;internet:chris@... tel;work:509-888-0220 tel;cell:509-630-7794 x-mozilla-html:FALSE version:2.1 end:vcard

Re: Question about the GPL v3

2007-08-19T12:24:05Z

On Sun, 19 Aug 2007, Chris Travers wrote:

> I don't read the GPL v3 as precluding other permissive terms, possibly on a
> per-file basis. Is there any reason to think that an individual implementing
> an additional interactive interface by adding new files to a program could
> not provide permission to omit the legal notices for the interfaces provided
> in the file? (i.e. "you have permission to implement the interactive
> interfaces in this file without adding Appropriate Legal notices as otherwise
> required by the license")

IANAL, but I think you would need to obtain that permission from all GPL
v3 code used in the project, not just from the code that implements the
additional interface. If you used my code in your program, then my use of
unmodified GPL v3 requires that you include Appropriate Legal Notices on
any interface that invokes my code. You would probably even have to use
them on all interfaces of a program that contains my code, regardless of
whether that interface can invoke my code.

Otherwise you could simply replace all the interfaces of my program, add
your permissive terms to those interfaces, and you would have a version of
my program with no notices. Interfaces are often trivial in comparison to
the program itself, so this would be a very easy way to circumvent GPL v3
if it were allowed.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Donovan Hawkins, PhD "The study of physics will always be
Software Engineer safer than biology, for while the
hawkins@... hazards of physics drop off as 1/r^2,
http://www.cephira.com biological ones grow exponentially."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Question about the GPL v3

2007-08-19T11:39:54Z

I guess I may have possibly found a way out of this issue. Figured I
would run it by everyone else.

I don't read the GPL v3 as precluding other permissive terms, possibly
on a per-file basis. Is there any reason to think that an individual
implementing an additional interactive interface by adding new files to
a program could not provide permission to omit the legal notices for the
interfaces provided in the file? (i.e. "you have permission to
implement the interactive interfaces in this file without adding
Appropriate Legal notices as otherwise required by the license")

Best WIshes,
Chris Travers

[chris.vcf]

begin:vcard fn:Chris Travers n:Travers;Chris email;internet:chris@... tel;work:509-888-0220 tel;cell:509-630-7794 x-mozilla-html:FALSE version:2.1 end:vcard

Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License

2007-08-19T11:30:03Z

On Sun, 19 Aug 2007, John Cowan wrote:

> Donovan Hawkins scripsit:
>
>> You both made your choice not to associate with each other and that's
>> fine, I never said MS-PL couldn't do that. I said it's not permissive
>> and should not be called permissive.
>
> Well, consider this counterevidence, from the FSF licenses page at
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html :

<snipped descriptions for brevity>

> Apache License, Version 1.1
> Apache License, Version 1.0
> Original BSD license
> Old OpenLDAP License, Version 2.3
> XFree86 1.1 License
> Zope Public License version 1
>
> Note the presence of the Yang Worship Word you are talking about in each
> and every one of these entries. I'd say your complaint is rather too
> little, too late.

Looking through all those licenses, all but two (discussed below) are
incompatible due to a flawed advertising clause like that of original
BSDL. For the other two:

OpenLDAP 2.3 appears to be compatible with GPL v3. Section 4 of OpenLDAP
is specifically allowed by section 7d of GPL, and section 5 of OpenLDAP is
specifically allowed by section 7c of GPL.

XFree86 1.1 appears to be compatible with GPL v3. Section 7b of GPL
specifically allows "requiring preservation of specified reasonable legal
notices or author attributions in that material or in the Appropriate
Legal Notices displayed by works containing it." I don't see anything in
XFree86 1.1 that is obviously unreasonable in that regard.

So the only thing standing between these "permissive" licenses and
compatiblity with GPL v3 is the flawed advertising clause from BSDL,
something that is widely regarded as an impractical mistake. Whether you
call these "non-permissive" or "permissive but flawed" is a minor
point...I would choose "non-permissive" myself.

>> Incidentally, why is public domain not an option? I joined this list
>> recently and haven't heard your discussions in the past on that subject.
>
> Rick's reasons are mine.

Ah ok, I see the problem. (thank you to those who posted on that subject
here)

>> If restrictions like those in MS-PL still count as a permissive license,
>> could we at least reserve a term for the licenses that BSDL that don't
>> tell me, the developer, how I'm supposed to license my derivative code?
>
> MS-PL doesn't do that either. It simply requires that you not impose
> a license that tries to waive the patent peace clause. If the GPLed
> code in question is your own, you can always add an additional clause
> to the GPL either waiving the conflict or imposing the patent peace as
> a further restriction.

Yes, that would be "telling me how I'm supposed to license my derivative
work". I can't license my entire derivative work under BSDL or GPL v3 or
another MS license or any other license. Your suggested workarounds don't
change this fact.

> Or you can use the GPLv3.

Why do you believe that MS-PL is compatible with GPL v3? Section 5c says
of modified versions of GPL works:

"You must license the entire work, as a whole, under this License to
anyone who comes into possession of a copy. This License will therefore
apply, along with any applicable section 7 additional terms, to the whole
of the work, and all its parts, regardless of how they are packaged."

At best I could release my changes under GPL v3 together with other code
under MS-PL, but no further derived works could be created under either
license because 5c cannot be met. If you mean I can waive this requirement
with an additional permissive term, and that all derivative works can do
the same for the code they add, well...that's not GPL v3 that I used
anymore. I've simply created a new license (GPL v3 + that term), and this
new license is not compatible with GPL v3.

This also requires that my changes be separable from the MS-PL code so
that different licenses can be applied to each. This is the more serious
problem which applies to any license you use for the derivative work.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Donovan Hawkins, PhD "The study of physics will always be
Software Engineer safer than biology, for while the
hawkins@... hazards of physics drop off as 1/r^2,
http://www.cephira.com biological ones grow exponentially."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License

2007-08-19T10:08:19Z

Brian Behlendorf scripsit:

> Seems as though while MS-PL is not copyleft, MS-CL is, and thus that
> "smallest difference" better be pretty big to offset the potential cost of
> two universes of immiscible code, MS-CL-licensed and GPL-licensed.

I think (as I thought two years ago) that this is a case where the
anti-proliferation rules should be set aside. We are dealing with an
organization that has the potential of being a major player in free and
open source software (and if they don't like the GPL, there are plenty
of other FLOSS-producing organizations that don't like it either).
If they can only bring themselves to release such software under their
own particular licenses, so much the worse; but not more the worse than
if they never released any FLOSS software at all.

That would be the John Cowan I know, yes: always assuming the
best of people and always having the best of intentions. But he
still doesn't always think all of the consequences through :)
--Tsela (Christophe Grandsire) on Groklaw, December 2005

--
John Cowan http://ccil.org/~cowan cowan@...
In might the Feanorians / that swore the unforgotten oath
brought war into Arvernien / with burning and with broken troth.
and Elwing from her fastness dim / then cast her in the waters wide,
but like a mew was swiftly borne, / uplifted o'er the roaring tide.
--the Earendillinwe

Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License

2007-08-19T08:14:40Z

Donovan Hawkins scripsit:

> That is the mechanism, but since the GPL came first I think it is safe to
> say that the MS-PL is intentionally incompatible.

"The devil himself knoweth not the mind of man." --Justice Brian, 1477

That is, people are responsible for their words and deeds, but not for
their thoughts.

> You both made your choice not to associate with each other and that's
> fine, I never said MS-PL couldn't do that. I said it's not permissive
> and should not be called permissive.

Well, consider this counterevidence, from the FSF licenses page at
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html :

Apache License, Version 1.1

This is a permissive non-copyleft free software license with a few
requirements that render it incompatible with the GNU GPL.

Apache License, Version 1.0

This is a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license
with practical problems like those of the original BSD license,
including incompatibility with the GNU GPL.

Original BSD license

This is a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license with a
serious flaw: the "obnoxious BSD advertising clause". The flaw is not
fatal; that is, it does not render the software non-free. But it does
cause practical problems, including incompatibility with the GNU GPL.

Old OpenLDAP License, Version 2.3

This is a permissive non-copyleft free software license with a few
requirements (in sections 4 and 5) that render it incompatible with
the GNU GPL.

XFree86 1.1 License

This is a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license,
incompatible with the GNU GPL because of its requirements that
apply to all documentation in the distribution that contain
acknowledgements.

Zope Public License version 1

This is a simple, fairly permissive non-copyleft free software
license with practical problems like those of the original BSD
license, including incompatibility with the GNU GPL.

Note the presence of the Yang Worship Word you are talking about in each
and every one of these entries. I'd say your complaint is rather too
little, too late.

> I would be willing to wager that few people have ever found themselves
> unable to use a piece of (3-clause) BSDL software because of a restriction
> in the license that they were unable to comply with. The same is not true
> for the GPL nor will it be true for the MS-PL. That is the line I am
> saying represents the difference between permissive and non-permissive.

When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,
"it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less."

> Incidentally, why is public domain not an option? I joined this list
> recently and haven't heard your discussions in the past on that subject.

Rick's reasons are mine.

> If restrictions like those in MS-PL still count as a permissive license,
> could we at least reserve a term for the licenses that BSDL that don't
> tell me, the developer, how I'm supposed to license my derivative code?

MS-PL doesn't do that either. It simply requires that you not impose
a license that tries to waive the patent peace clause. If the GPLed
code in question is your own, you can always add an additional clause
to the GPL either waiving the conflict or imposing the patent peace as
a further restriction. Or you can use the GPLv3.

> What word means more free than "free" [...]?

Just another word for nothin' left to lose (or give away).

A cocky novice once said to Stallman: "I can guess why the editor
is called Emacs, but why is the justifier called Bolio?" Stallman
replied forcefully, "Names are but names. 'Emack & Bolio's' is the
name of a popular ice cream shop in Boston-town. Neither of these
men had anything to do with the software."

His question answered, yet unanswered, the novice turned to go,
but Stallman called to him, "Neither Emack nor Bolio had anything
to do with the ice cream shop, either."

--
John Cowan <cowan@...> http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Today an interactive brochure website, tomorrow a global content
management system that leverages collective synergy to drive "outside of
the box" thinking and formulate key objectives into a win-win game plan
with a quality-driven approach that focuses on empowering key players
to drive-up their core competencies and increase expectations with an
all-around initiative to drive up the bottom-line. --Alex Papadimoulis

Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License

2007-08-19T06:11:09Z

On 8/19/07, Chris Travers <chris@...> wrote:
>
> I don't think the question of whether Microsoft incorporated these terms
> because they are incompatible with the GPL v2 (which requires that you
> *guarantee* patent licenses downstream possibly through an action
> separate from the license, and there is no procedure for revoking them
> if patent suits are filed) is the issue.

I agree, I don't think it's the issue either. However I do think some
similar questions are valid.

Consider someone who is proposing a new open source license. For their
proposal to make sense, they should consider other common open source
licenses. They should do this for at least two reasons: (1) to see if their
proposal adds anything new and is not too similar to an existing license,
and (2) to consider whether they intend for their proposed license to be
compatible with other common licenses.

They should do the 2nd not just for the reason that compatibility is,
other things being equal, a desirable goal, but also so that they can be
clear about what their license intends. For example, a proponent might
intend their license to be GPL-compatible, but it is not; or they might
intend it to be incompatible, but it is.

Finding out what the proponent intends of their license is a necessary
step in checking that the license actually does what people think it does.

(Note in the above I do not want to give the impression that I think
a license is necessarily undesirable because it is incompatible with
another license; a license can be incompatible with others and still be
worthwhile)

So, what licenses should a proponent consider when proposing a new one?
I would suggest at the very least the GPLv2 and the MIT license. Ideally
they should consider all the ones labelled "Licenses that are popular and
widely used or with strong communities" on
<http://www.opensource.org/licenses/category>.

So in the spirit of the above, I would like to ask Jon Rosenberg:

Is the MS-PL intended to be compatible with the MIT license?
Is the MS-PL intended to be compatible with the GPLv2?
Is the MS-PL intended to be compatible with the GPLv3?

> Whether Microsoft intended these to be incompatible with the GPL v2 and
> compatible with the Apache License 2.0 would not be an issue except in
> some peoples minds.

The GPLv2 is by far the most common open source license in use today (it's
used by 65% of all projects on Freshmeat). If a proponent of a license hasn't
asked themself the question "should my license be compatible with the GPL?"
and come to a firm answer, then I would suggest they need to think more about
the issue and come back when they have done so.

--
Philip Hunt, cabalamat@...

Browsers

2007-08-19T03:41:00Z

Hi all,
as compared to you all am only a starter as far as opensource softwares go and so i need some help from u guys. I am developing an application for PDA and require a light-weight browser for it. I have got an option of using Firefox but can nebody suggest me a lighter browser. Any kind of help will be appreciated.

Thanks in advance
Regards
meteor

Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License

2007-08-19T03:24:06Z

Donovan Hawkins wrote:

> Incidentally, why is public domain not an option? I joined this list
> recently and haven't heard your discussions in the past on that subject.

IANAL, but my understanding is:

1) In most countries the only way of getting into the public domain is
by waiting until the copyright expires (death plus 70 years, typically,
for an author who is a natural person); I think there is some
controversy as to whether anyone except the US Federal government can
force something into the public domain, even in the USA;

2) Abandoning copyright doesn't mean that you abandon legal
responsibility; having a licence means that you can attempt to get the
recipient to waive the right to sue you in return for receiving the
permissions given in the licence.

Incidentally the BSD attribution requirements probably come under "moral
rights", which I don't believe one can even assign in the EU.

--
David Woolley
Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam,
that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.

Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License

2007-08-19T02:05:20Z

Quoting Donovan Hawkins (hawkins@...):

> Incidentally, why is public domain not an option? I joined this list
> recently and haven't heard your discussions in the past on that subject.

Some writings on that subject:
"Public Domain" on http://linuxmafia.com/kb/Licensing_and_Law/

--
Cheers, find / -user your -name base -print | xargs chown us:us
Rick Moen
rick@...

Re: Combining GPL and non-GPL code

2007-08-19T01:57:43Z

Quoting Chris Travers (chris@...):

[Exim:]

> I don't now. I think it would depend on the nature of the changes.

I believe that's exactly what I just said, genius.

> Are the changes derivative of the Exim code? [...]

Feel free to judge for yourself. I merely pointed out that it's a
relevant question of fact, and always would be in such situations,
as a correction to John Cowan's assertion that the two codebases
remained separate. You've added nothing.

Re: Combining GPL and non-GPL code

2007-08-19T00:50:44Z

Rick Moen wrote:

> Quoting John Cowan (cowan@...):
>
>
>> Quite so. But the copyright on a derivative work (as opposed to a mere
>> collective work) belongs to the deriver, provided the derivation was
>> lawfully made, which means obeying any licensing requirements attached
>> to the original. So this is not "relicensing" or "sublicensing", it's
>> applying the license permissions to make a derivative work.
>>
>
> Sure, I'll go along with that. The work entailed in creating the
> derivative (the set of incremental changes), to the extent it gives rise
> to copyright title, is required to be available under GPL terms in order
> to qualify for creation and distribution of that derivative, rights
> otherwise reserved.
>

Agreed this far.
> If anyone wants access to the BSD-licensed code in your hypothetical
> under its owner's terms, that access does remain available -- anywhere
> such separate code can be found.
>

There is an exception that is worth noting. IANAL though.

If the GPL work author *is also* the author of the code or has had
copyright asigned to him/her, it may be possible to release the code in
terms other than the BSD terms. But then the issue here is not
derivation or work as a whole but outright ownership of the relevant
copyrights. So while path *may* matter, it only matters where a person
has the legal right to further restrict distribution of the relevant
source. The BSD license does not automatically grant this.
> Note: It might be argued that the changes required to Exim to hack in
> OpenSSL calls raise derivative work questions, as opposed to merely
> creating a collection.
I don't now. I think it would depend on the nature of the changes. Are
the changes derivative of the Exim code? Or are they separate? If they
are derivative, then who owns the copyrights to the sections of code in
Exim and the changes in OpenSSL? If they are both owned by the same
person, I wouldn't see a problem. This is likely to depend on an
analysis of the actual nature of the changes and the interaction of the
related sections of code.

Now you see the problem with this sort of discussion.
> When my friend Marc Merlin wrote the bridge code
> patches in around 2000, arguably they used significant copyrightable
> elements of OpenSSL, as GNU TLS wasn't yet available. (At that time,
> Phil Hazel had Exim under pure GPLv2: Marc released the patched Exim
> tarball, I pointed out the licensing problem, Marc swore a blue streak,
> and an e-mail to Phil resulted in him amiably issuing the needed licence
> exception.)
Cool. Glad it worked out. :-)

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers

[chris.vcf]

begin:vcard fn:Chris Travers n:Travers;Chris email;internet:chris@... tel;work:509-888-0220 tel;cell:509-630-7794 x-mozilla-html:FALSE version:2.1 end:vcard

Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License

2007-08-19T00:40:28Z

>
> How does approving these licenses benefit the Open Source community as a
> whole, especially given that these licenses seem deliberately crafted to
> dig a moat separating the authors and code of the projects in question
> from any other open source license or code cooties, rather than building
> a bridge?
>
Although I am not Bill nor do I work for Microsoft (nor are they even an
active customer of mine at the moment), I figure I would mention that I
have contributed some works under the MS-PL. While these works are
technical documentation instead of software, and so may be outside the
bounds of this discussion, I do have some experience with this license
(even if I still choose GPL v2 for *most* work today).

To my knowledge these patent defense clauses were started by IBM in the
IBM Public License Version 1, and were actually initially extremely
controversial. The argument was that if you *use* the software, I can
incorporate your patents into the software and if you sue me, you lose
your rights to *use* the software because other patent licenses are
revoked. Some lawyers suggested that this amounted to a license to
steal. IANAL myself however.

I don't think the question of whether Microsoft incorporated these terms
because they are incompatible with the GPL v2 (which requires that you
*guarantee* patent licenses downstream possibly through an action
separate from the license, and there is no procedure for revoking them
if patent suits are filed) is the issue. I think the discussion should
be limited to the 4 corners of the license as much as possible aside
possibly from concerns over proliferation of licenses and even there I
think we are better to ask people to reconsider than to reject licenses
otherwise. The sole exception might be if two licenses were merely
copies of eachother with names changed. Otherwise, I don't think that
we are qualified to evaluate whatever specific legal concerns may have
lead to different licenses, and whether these are legitimate or not.

Whether Microsoft intended these to be incompatible with the GPL v2 and
compatible with the Apache License 2.0 would not be an issue except in
some peoples minds. The fact is, I don't read anything in these
licenses which preclude being included in GPL v3 "corresponding source"
or work as a whole. Certainly copying and pasting of code would be
problematic, and there are other cases where one might run into
problems, but incompatibility is not complete with either license and is
far less with the GPL v3.
> This is a serious question, even if the OSD-compliance of the licenses
> does not hinge on it.
>
I think that upholding a consistent standard ultimately benefits OSI. I
think that we need to do so. Thus far, I haven't heard any argument
*against* approval which doesn't come down to questioning Microsoft's
intentions. As I have outlined elsewhere, including this is a dangerous
mistake for any future license submissions because it opens up the
possibility of questioning anyone else's intentions too, seriously
undermines our ability to have a credible presence in the community, and
otherwise undermines our work.

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers

[chris.vcf]

begin:vcard fn:Chris Travers n:Travers;Chris email;internet:chris@... tel;work:509-888-0220 tel;cell:509-630-7794 x-mozilla-html:FALSE version:2.1 end:vcard

Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License

2007-08-19T00:12:40Z

On Sat, 18 Aug 2007, John Cowan wrote:

> Which is to say that the GPL excludes the MS-PL, not vice versa.
> In particular, 2B is inconsistent with the GPLv2; I don't know whether
> it's incompatible with the GPLv3 or not -- I suspect not. Anyhow, if
> you keep me out of your club, you can't also claim that I'm an elitist
> because I can't be found there.

That is the mechanism, but since the GPL came first I think it is safe to
say that the MS-PL is intentionally incompatible. The fact that the GPL
makes incompatibility easy to achieve is not the issue. In this case the
club has a rule against wearing hats and you put one on solely to get
yourself kicked out. You both made your choice not to associate with each
other and that's fine, I never said MS-PL couldn't do that. I said it's
not permissive and should not be called permissive.

> Even the 3-clause
> BSD license imposes *some* restrictions on (re)users; in particular,
> they can't change the attributions. If you want "people to do what
> THEY want", you need to dedicate your code to the public domain, and
> then you have to deal with me and Larry Rosen, who don't believe that
> you can actually do so.

The "restrictions" on the new BSDL are of great importance to lawyers but
of minimal significance to ordinary developers and users. I would argue
that they are nothing more than common-sense courtesy not to cause harm to
the person who freely gave you their software, but sadly not everyone has
common sense or courtesy so we have to be explicit.

I would be willing to wager that few people have ever found themselves
unable to use a piece of (3-clause) BSDL software because of a restriction
in the license that they were unable to comply with. The same is not true
for the GPL nor will it be true for the MS-PL. That is the line I am
saying represents the difference between permissive and non-permissive.

Incidentally, why is public domain not an option? I joined this list
recently and haven't heard your discussions in the past on that subject.

> The theory of GPL freedom is that it preserves the freedom of users, not
> necessarily the freedom of developers; developers get a lot of freedom to
> do what they want with the code, but by no means absolute freedom.

There's a vast difference between GPL freedom and "absolute freedom"...one
that BSDL manages to fit in quite nicely I might add. I'm not attacking
the GPL and I don't necessarily disagree with copyleft, but I'd have
preferred to see "free" reserved for the most free of the open-source
licenses (permissive licenses like BSDL) rather than one of the more
restrictive open-source licenses.

If restrictions like those in MS-PL still count as a permissive license,
could we at least reserve a term for the licenses that BSDL that don't
tell me, the developer, how I'm supposed to license my derivative code?
The good terms are getting used up fast, and it would be a shame if the
category of license that gives the most rights to the community gets
shafted because groups like Microsoft and the FSF want to label their
licenses with terms like "permissive" and "free" in order to sound better.

What word means more free than "free" and more permissive than
"permissive"?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Donovan Hawkins, PhD "The study of physics will always be
Software Engineer safer than biology, for while the
hawkins@... hazards of physics drop off as 1/r^2,
http://www.cephira.com biological ones grow exponentially."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License

2007-08-18T22:10:34Z

Michael R. Bernstein scripsit:

> Hmm. So this sentence:
>
> (D) If you distribute any portion of the software in source code
> form, you may do so only under this license by including a
> complete copy of this license with your distribution.
>
> Really should be:
>
> (D) If you distribute any portion of the software in source code
> form, you must distribute under this license by including a
> complete copy of this license with your distribution.
>
> Or some similar less ambiguous construction.

I don't see any ambiguity: "do so" means "distribute", and "may ... only"
means "must".

> See, I read 3D as an exception or condition to 2A, effectively altering
> the meaning of 2A to 'any derivative works except in source form'.

That would be plausible if 3D mentioned derivative works, but it doesn't.
It speaks of the original software (or parts of it) only.

--
John Cowan cowan@... http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Does anybody want any flotsam? / I've gotsam.
Does anybody want any jetsam? / I can getsam.
--Ogden Nash, No Doctors Today, Thank You

Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License

2007-08-18T21:36:02Z

On Sat, 18 Aug 2007, Rick Moen wrote:
> OSI's role is merely to certify the licences that meet OSD criteria, and
> promote the concept of open source in general.

The OSI board's anti-proliferation efforts appear to take them one step
beyond certification though. It would seem to be that otherwise compliant
licenses could be rejected if they simply duplicate the terms or purpose
of an existing license. I don't know yet if there has been an explicit
rejection of a license up for certification, so I don't know if we've yet
established how different a new license needs to be. I would guess that a
license that copied the Apache license and replaced all instances of
Apache with some other abstract word would be rejected, no matter what the
compatibility matrix looked like. How about a license that had exactly
the same requirements as Apache, but restated them in a completely
different way? From there, what's the *smallest* difference in licensing
terms that would be worth adding yet another license?

Seems as though while MS-PL is not copyleft, MS-CL is, and thus that
"smallest difference" better be pretty big to offset the potential cost of
two universes of immiscible code, MS-CL-licensed and GPL-licensed.

Brian

Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License

2007-08-18T21:18:27Z

On Sat, 2007-08-18 at 21:45 -0400, John Cowan wrote:

> Michael R. Bernstein scripsit:
>
> > I think you're missing the point that both of these licenses are
> > incompatible with *any* other license, no matter how permissive. A file
> > under MS-PL can't even incorporate BSD-licensed code. That takes
> > *special* effort.
>
> I believe you have misread MS-PL 3D. It says that "this software", which
> means "the accompanying software", the original code you got along with
> the license, must be distributed under the MS-PL and accompanied with it.

Hmm. So this sentence:

(D) If you distribute any portion of the software in source code
form, you may do so only under this license by including a
complete copy of this license with your distribution.

Really should be:

(D) If you distribute any portion of the software in source code
form, you must distribute under this license by including a
complete copy of this license with your distribution.

Or some similar less ambiguous construction.

> It does *not* say that any derivative work (the creation of which is
> explicitly permitted by 2A) must be licensed under the MS-PL. Indeed,
> as long as you follow the conditions and limitations in 3A-3E, you
> can apparently license your derivative work under any license.

See, I read 3D as an exception or condition to 2A, effectively altering
the meaning of 2A to 'any derivative works except in source form'.

> Of course, your changes to the work must rise to the level of being
> a derivative work as opposed to a mere transcription or trivial change.
>
> > As far as I can tell, the MS-PL and MS-CL licenses aren't even
> > compatible with each other, in either direction.
>
> I believe this to be the product of the same misreading. The MS-CL does
> create a closed commons, but the MS-PL does not.

John, thank you for your analysis. I'd like some kind of statement from
the folks at Microsoft that your interpretation is in line with their
intent, and that 'only under this license' does not mean to exclude
distribution of derivative works in source form under other licenses.

I'd be even happier if the licenses were modified to make this
unambiguous.

- Michael R. Bernstein
michaelbernstein.com

signature.asc (196 bytes) Download Attachment