Politics-Free Licence ;)

[Nicholas Cole]

I'm a licence newbie, I'm afraid.  Nothing in this email is intended
to start a flame-war!

I am neither a lawyer nor a programmer, but I have some python code I
want to release and was looking for suitable a "share and share alike"
licence for it.  I found it surprisingly hard.

The following licence is intended to have three features lacking (for
my purposes) in the GPL:

[1] It more clearly defines what a 'derived work' is.  Most of the FSF
discussion I could find concerned C code, and was in any case external
to the licence.  I've tried to codify what I take to be the common
position, and make it clear how this would apply to an interpreted
language.  It is this part of the licence I'm most interested in
getting feedback on.  I'm still not entirely happy with the wording.

[2] It specifies a jurisdiction.

[3] It is intended to be shorter than the GPL.  It doesn't contain the
preamble, and sticks to just defining the terms rather than explaining
their rationale.  I've therefore cheekily christened the licence the
"Politics Free Licence".  My major reason for doing this was just to
have a shorter, easier to read text.  Neither the name, nor this
aspect of the licence is intended to take sides in the ongoing flame
war on the Linux kernel mailling list. :)

Any feedback or suggestions would be very welcome.

Best wishes,

Nicholas

-------------------------------------------------

 0. The Licensed work is referred to in the rest of this document as
the Program.

 1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's
source code as you
receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately
publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty;
keep intact all the notices that refer to this licence and to the absence of any
warranty; and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this
licence along
with the Program.

 2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus
forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such
modifications or
work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet
all of these
conditions:

 a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices
stating that you
changed the files and the date of any change.

 b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in
part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to
be licensed as
a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this licence.

 3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
under Section 2)
in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above
provided that you also do one of the following:

 a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding source code, which must be
distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
customarily used
for software interchange; or,

 b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years,
to give any
third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source
distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding
source code, to
be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily
used for software interchange; or,

 c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute
corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for non-commercial
distribution and only if you received the program in object code or
executable form
with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

For the purposes of this licence the source code for a work means the preferred
form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable
work, complete
source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any
associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to
control compilation
and installation of the executable. However, as a special exception, the source
code distributed need not include anything that is normally
distributed (in either
source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel,
and so on) of
the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself
accompanies the executable.

For the purposes of this licence derivative works (works based on the Program)
shall include works that contain part or all of the Program and any
machine-readable code generated by compiling or interpreting the
Program in whole
or part and any other computer program in any form which incorporates
the Program
or parts of it by linking to or importing the Program. Nothing in this licence
shall be interpreted as excluding any work that would otherwise be
considered as a
derivative work by applicable law.

  4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as
expressly provided under this licence. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify,
sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically
terminate your
rights under this licence. However, parties who have received copies, or rights,
from you under this licence will not have their licences terminated so
long as such
parties remain in full compliance.

 5. You are not required to accept this licence, since you have not signed it.
However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute
the Program or
its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do
not accept this
licence. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any
work based on
the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this licence to do so, and all its
terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works
based on it.

 6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the
Program), the
recipient automatically receives a licence from the original licensor to copy,
distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and
conditions. You may not
impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the
rights granted
herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third
parties to this
licence.

 7. If, as a consequence of a court judgement or allegation of patent
infringement
or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are
imposed on
you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict
the conditions
of this licence, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this
licence. If you
cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this
licence and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not
distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent licence would not permit
royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive
copies directly
or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this
licence would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.

8. This Licence shall be governed by the law of England and Wales and
the parties
irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Courts of England and
Wales.

 NO WARRANTY

 9. THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE
LAW. EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER
PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND,
EITHER EXPRESSED
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY
AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND
PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU
ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION.

 10. IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN
WRITING WILL ANY
COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MAY MODIFY AND/OR
REDISTRIBUTE THE PROGRAM
AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR DAMAGES, INCLUDING ANY
GENERAL, SPECIAL,
INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE USE OR
INABILITY TO USE THE
PROGRAM (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOSS OF DATA OR DATA BEING RENDERED
INACCURATE OR LOSSES SUSTAINED BY YOU OR THIRD PARTIES OR A FAILURE OF
THE PROGRAM
TO OPERATE WITH ANY OTHER PROGRAMS), EVEN IF SUCH HOLDER OR OTHER PARTY HAS BEEN
ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.

[Matthew Flaschen]

Nicholas Cole wrote:
> [1] It more clearly defines what a 'derived work' is.  Most of the FSF
> discussion I could find concerned C code, and was in any case external
> to the licence.

The definition of derivative work is a complex question of copyright
law.  The FSF has an interpretation, but only the license is binding.

> [2] It specifies a jurisdiction.

This is generally frowned upon in FOSS licenses.  Why do you want it?

> [3] It is intended to be shorter than the GPL.  It doesn't contain the
> preamble, and sticks to just defining the terms rather than explaining
> their rationale.

If this is what you want, you may want to consider SimPL
(http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:msn:12796:ljlcebgacpjodogfcegi),
which is compatible with GPLv2 and will probably be approved by OSI shortly.

> For the purposes of this licence derivative works (works based on the
> Program) shall include works that contain part or all of the Program and any
> machine-readable code generated by compiling or interpreting the
> Program in whole or part and any other computer program in any form which incorporates
> the Program or parts of it by linking to or importing the Program. Nothing in this
> licence shall be interpreted as excluding any work that would otherwise be
> considered as a derivative work by applicable law.

I appreciate what you are attempting here, but this clause really
doesn't do anything.  If a program isn't a derivative work under
copyright law, your license can't cover it.  If it is, it's covered by
the GPL (or SimPL) already.  Also, "Nothing in this licence shall be
interpreted as excluding any work that would otherwise be considered as
a derivative work by applicable law." makes it clear that you're not
limiting the scope of the license (or its ambiguity) either.

Matt Flaschen

[Nicholas Cole]

On 6/28/07, Matthew Flaschen <matthew.flaschen@...> wrote:
> I appreciate what you are attempting here, but this clause really
> doesn't do anything.  If a program isn't a derivative work under
> copyright law, your license can't cover it.

The thing is, the FSF say that works that (for example) link to a
library are derivative works, and plenty of people agree with them.
But Google also turns up plenty of people who doubt it.

I agree with what you are saying - if the FSF interpretation is
correct, and iff it extends even to libraries in interpreted
languages, then that section adds nothing.  But since that
interpretation hasn't really been tested, surely there is space in a
software licence to insert some clarification and condiditions? - if
you don't like them, well then you can't use the licence.

I hadn't spotted the SimPL, by the way, thanks for pointing it out.

Best wishes,

Nicholas

[Matthew Flaschen]

Nicholas Cole wrote:
> The thing is, the FSF say that works that (for example) link to a
> library are derivative works, and plenty of people agree with them.
> But Google also turns up plenty of people who doubt it.

Right, and only a court can decide.

> I agree with what you are saying - if the FSF interpretation is
> correct, and iff it extends even to libraries in interpreted
> languages, then that section adds nothing.

There's no way the section can add to the meaning of derivative work.
If a work isn't derivative under copyright law, you can't make it be by
changing your license.

Matt Flaschen

[Nicholas Cole]

On 6/28/07, Matthew Flaschen <matthew.flaschen@...> wrote:

> There's no way the section can add to the meaning of derivative work.
> If a work isn't derivative under copyright law, you can't make it be by
> changing your license.

Well then, can I achieve the same effect by adding a condition for use?

[Smith, McCoy]

Isn't a choice of jurisdiction (and venue) clause necessarily a
political choice?  I.e., how likely is it that programmers in the
Western Hemisphere or in Asia are going to want to use this license, if
in order to enforce it they would need to retain counsel and file suit
in England/Wales?

It seems to me that if you want maximum uptake on an open source
license, you'd leave out jurisdiction and venue clauses.  

-----Original Message-----
From: Nicholas Cole [mailto:nicholas.cole@...]
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2007 11:56 PM
To: license-discuss@...
Subject: Politics-Free Licence ;)

I'm a licence newbie, I'm afraid.  Nothing in this email is intended
to start a flame-war!

I am neither a lawyer nor a programmer, but I have some python code I
want to release and was looking for suitable a "share and share alike"
licence for it.  I found it surprisingly hard.

The following licence is intended to have three features lacking (for
my purposes) in the GPL:

[1] It more clearly defines what a 'derived work' is.  Most of the FSF
discussion I could find concerned C code, and was in any case external
to the licence.  I've tried to codify what I take to be the common
position, and make it clear how this would apply to an interpreted
language.  It is this part of the licence I'm most interested in
getting feedback on.  I'm still not entirely happy with the wording.

[2] It specifies a jurisdiction.

[3] It is intended to be shorter than the GPL.  It doesn't contain the
preamble, and sticks to just defining the terms rather than explaining
their rationale.  I've therefore cheekily christened the licence the
"Politics Free Licence".  My major reason for doing this was just to
have a shorter, easier to read text.  Neither the name, nor this
aspect of the licence is intended to take sides in the ongoing flame
war on the Linux kernel mailling list. :)

Any feedback or suggestions would be very welcome.

Best wishes,

Nicholas

-------------------------------------------------

 0. The Licensed work is referred to in the rest of this document as
the Program.

 1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's
source code as you
receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and
appropriately
publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of
warranty;
keep intact all the notices that refer to this licence and to the
absence of any
warranty; and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this
licence along
with the Program.

 2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of
it, thus
forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such
modifications or
work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet
all of these
conditions:

 a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices
stating that you
changed the files and the date of any change.

 b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
whole or in
part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to
be licensed as
a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this
licence.

 3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
under Section 2)
in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2
above
provided that you also do one of the following:

 a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding source code, which must
be
distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
customarily used
for software interchange; or,

 b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years,
to give any
third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically
performing source
distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding
source code, to
be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
customarily
used for software interchange; or,

 c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to
distribute
corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for
non-commercial
distribution and only if you received the program in object code or
executable form
with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

For the purposes of this licence the source code for a work means the
preferred
form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable
work, complete
source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus
any
associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to
control compilation
and installation of the executable. However, as a special exception, the
source
code distributed need not include anything that is normally
distributed (in either
source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel,
and so on) of
the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component
itself
accompanies the executable.

For the purposes of this licence derivative works (works based on the
Program)
shall include works that contain part or all of the Program and any
machine-readable code generated by compiling or interpreting the
Program in whole
or part and any other computer program in any form which incorporates
the Program
or parts of it by linking to or importing the Program. Nothing in this
licence
shall be interpreted as excluding any work that would otherwise be
considered as a
derivative work by applicable law.

  4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program
except as
expressly provided under this licence. Any attempt otherwise to copy,
modify,
sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically
terminate your
rights under this licence. However, parties who have received copies, or
rights,
from you under this licence will not have their licences terminated so
long as such
parties remain in full compliance.

 5. You are not required to accept this licence, since you have not
signed it.
However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute
the Program or
its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do
not accept this
licence. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any
work based on
the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this licence to do so, and
all its
terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program
or works
based on it.

 6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the
Program), the
recipient automatically receives a licence from the original licensor to
copy,
distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and
conditions. You may not
impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the
rights granted
herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third
parties to this
licence.

 7. If, as a consequence of a court judgement or allegation of patent
infringement
or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are
imposed on
you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict
the conditions
of this licence, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this
licence. If you
cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under
this
licence and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you
may not
distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent licence would
not permit
royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive
copies directly
or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it
and this
licence would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.

8. This Licence shall be governed by the law of England and Wales and
the parties
irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Courts of
England and
Wales.

 NO WARRANTY

 9. THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY
APPLICABLE
LAW. EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS
AND/OR OTHER
PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND,
EITHER EXPRESSED
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY
AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY
AND
PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE
DEFECTIVE, YOU
ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION.

 10. IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN
WRITING WILL ANY
COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MAY MODIFY AND/OR
REDISTRIBUTE THE PROGRAM
AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR DAMAGES, INCLUDING ANY
GENERAL, SPECIAL,
INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE USE OR
INABILITY TO USE THE
PROGRAM (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOSS OF DATA OR DATA BEING
RENDERED
INACCURATE OR LOSSES SUSTAINED BY YOU OR THIRD PARTIES OR A FAILURE OF
THE PROGRAM
TO OPERATE WITH ANY OTHER PROGRAMS), EVEN IF SUCH HOLDER OR OTHER PARTY
HAS BEEN
ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.

[Chris DiBona]

I haven't yet seen why we'd want yet another corner case license.
Every new license osi approves as subscribing to the osd adds to the
confusion and difficulty that new developers and companies face when
using open source and worse yet means yet another largely incompatible
potential pool of code.

I don't see anything in your license that would tell me it could
capture more than an impossibly small fraction of developers and be
worth the time it would take to evaluate it.

I know that sounds hard, and I apologize to the original author, but
this is something I don't think we spend enough time discussing the
damage yet another open source license does overall.

Chris

On 6/28/07, Smith, McCoy <mccoy.smith@...> wrote:

> Isn't a choice of jurisdiction (and venue) clause necessarily a
> political choice?  I.e., how likely is it that programmers in the
> Western Hemisphere or in Asia are going to want to use this license, if
> in order to enforce it they would need to retain counsel and file suit
> in England/Wales?
>
> It seems to me that if you want maximum uptake on an open source
> license, you'd leave out jurisdiction and venue clauses.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nicholas Cole [mailto:nicholas.cole@...]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2007 11:56 PM
> To: license-discuss@...
> Subject: Politics-Free Licence ;)
>
> I'm a licence newbie, I'm afraid.  Nothing in this email is intended
> to start a flame-war!
>
> I am neither a lawyer nor a programmer, but I have some python code I
> want to release and was looking for suitable a "share and share alike"
> licence for it.  I found it surprisingly hard.
>
> The following licence is intended to have three features lacking (for
> my purposes) in the GPL:
>
> [1] It more clearly defines what a 'derived work' is.  Most of the FSF
> discussion I could find concerned C code, and was in any case external
> to the licence.  I've tried to codify what I take to be the common
> position, and make it clear how this would apply to an interpreted
> language.  It is this part of the licence I'm most interested in
> getting feedback on.  I'm still not entirely happy with the wording.
>
> [2] It specifies a jurisdiction.
>
> [3] It is intended to be shorter than the GPL.  It doesn't contain the
> preamble, and sticks to just defining the terms rather than explaining
> their rationale.  I've therefore cheekily christened the licence the
> "Politics Free Licence".  My major reason for doing this was just to
> have a shorter, easier to read text.  Neither the name, nor this
> aspect of the licence is intended to take sides in the ongoing flame
> war on the Linux kernel mailling list. :)
>
> Any feedback or suggestions would be very welcome.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Nicholas
>
> -------------------------------------------------
>
>  0. The Licensed work is referred to in the rest of this document as
> the Program.
>
>  1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's
> source code as you
> receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and
> appropriately
> publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of
> warranty;
> keep intact all the notices that refer to this licence and to the
> absence of any
> warranty; and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this
> licence along
> with the Program.
>
>  2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of
> it, thus
> forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such
> modifications or
> work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet
> all of these
> conditions:
>
>  a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices
> stating that you
> changed the files and the date of any change.
>
>  b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
> whole or in
> part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to
> be licensed as
> a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this
> licence.
>
>  3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
> under Section 2)
> in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2
> above
> provided that you also do one of the following:
>
>  a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding source code, which must
> be
> distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
> customarily used
> for software interchange; or,
>
>  b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years,
> to give any
> third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically
> performing source
> distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding
> source code, to
> be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
> customarily
> used for software interchange; or,
>
>  c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to
> distribute
> corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for
> non-commercial
> distribution and only if you received the program in object code or
> executable form
> with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
>
> For the purposes of this licence the source code for a work means the
> preferred
> form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable
> work, complete
> source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus
> any
> associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to
> control compilation
> and installation of the executable. However, as a special exception, the
> source
> code distributed need not include anything that is normally
> distributed (in either
> source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel,
> and so on) of
> the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component
> itself
> accompanies the executable.
>
> For the purposes of this licence derivative works (works based on the
> Program)
> shall include works that contain part or all of the Program and any
> machine-readable code generated by compiling or interpreting the
> Program in whole
> or part and any other computer program in any form which incorporates
> the Program
> or parts of it by linking to or importing the Program. Nothing in this
> licence
> shall be interpreted as excluding any work that would otherwise be
> considered as a
> derivative work by applicable law.
>
>   4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program
> except as
> expressly provided under this licence. Any attempt otherwise to copy,
> modify,
> sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically
> terminate your
> rights under this licence. However, parties who have received copies, or
> rights,
> from you under this licence will not have their licences terminated so
> long as such
> parties remain in full compliance.
>
>  5. You are not required to accept this licence, since you have not
> signed it.
> However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute
> the Program or
> its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do
> not accept this
> licence. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any
> work based on
> the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this licence to do so, and
> all its
> terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program
> or works
> based on it.
>
>  6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the
> Program), the
> recipient automatically receives a licence from the original licensor to
> copy,
> distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and
> conditions. You may not
> impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the
> rights granted
> herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third
> parties to this
> licence.
>
>  7. If, as a consequence of a court judgement or allegation of patent
> infringement
> or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are
> imposed on
> you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict
> the conditions
> of this licence, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this
> licence. If you
> cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under
> this
> licence and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you
> may not
> distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent licence would
> not permit
> royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive
> copies directly
> or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it
> and this
> licence would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
>
> 8. This Licence shall be governed by the law of England and Wales and
> the parties
> irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Courts of
> England and
> Wales.
>
>  NO WARRANTY
>
>  9. THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY
> APPLICABLE
> LAW. EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS
> AND/OR OTHER
> PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND,
> EITHER EXPRESSED
> OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
> MERCHANTABILITY
> AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY
> AND
> PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE
> DEFECTIVE, YOU
> ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION.
>
>  10. IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN
> WRITING WILL ANY
> COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MAY MODIFY AND/OR
> REDISTRIBUTE THE PROGRAM
> AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR DAMAGES, INCLUDING ANY
> GENERAL, SPECIAL,
> INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE USE OR
> INABILITY TO USE THE
> PROGRAM (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOSS OF DATA OR DATA BEING
> RENDERED
> INACCURATE OR LOSSES SUSTAINED BY YOU OR THIRD PARTIES OR A FAILURE OF
> THE PROGRAM
> TO OPERATE WITH ANY OTHER PROGRAMS), EVEN IF SUCH HOLDER OR OTHER PARTY
> HAS BEEN
> ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.
>

--
Open Source Programs Manager, Google Inc.
Google's Open Source program can be found at http://code.google.com
Personal Weblog: http://dibona.com

[Andrew C. Oliver-2]

way cooler:

You (Licensee) agree that in the case of any dispute arising that either
the courts of Darfur, Uganda, Iraq or Durham, North Carolina have
jurisdiction at the option of the licensor.  You agree to make all
filings in person and in advance that the licensor may attend via video
conference or other medium per their preference.

-Andy :-)

Smith, McCoy wrote:

> Isn't a choice of jurisdiction (and venue) clause necessarily a
> political choice?  I.e., how likely is it that programmers in the
> Western Hemisphere or in Asia are going to want to use this license, if
> in order to enforce it they would need to retain counsel and file suit
> in England/Wales?
>
> It seems to me that if you want maximum uptake on an open source
> license, you'd leave out jurisdiction and venue clauses.  
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nicholas Cole [mailto:nicholas.cole@...]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2007 11:56 PM
> To: license-discuss@...
> Subject: Politics-Free Licence ;)
>
> I'm a licence newbie, I'm afraid.  Nothing in this email is intended
> to start a flame-war!
>
> I am neither a lawyer nor a programmer, but I have some python code I
> want to release and was looking for suitable a "share and share alike"
> licence for it.  I found it surprisingly hard.
>
> The following licence is intended to have three features lacking (for
> my purposes) in the GPL:
>
> [1] It more clearly defines what a 'derived work' is.  Most of the FSF
> discussion I could find concerned C code, and was in any case external
> to the licence.  I've tried to codify what I take to be the common
> position, and make it clear how this would apply to an interpreted
> language.  It is this part of the licence I'm most interested in
> getting feedback on.  I'm still not entirely happy with the wording.
>
> [2] It specifies a jurisdiction.
>
> [3] It is intended to be shorter than the GPL.  It doesn't contain the
> preamble, and sticks to just defining the terms rather than explaining
> their rationale.  I've therefore cheekily christened the licence the
> "Politics Free Licence".  My major reason for doing this was just to
> have a shorter, easier to read text.  Neither the name, nor this
> aspect of the licence is intended to take sides in the ongoing flame
> war on the Linux kernel mailling list. :)
>
> Any feedback or suggestions would be very welcome.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Nicholas
>
> -------------------------------------------------
>
>  0. The Licensed work is referred to in the rest of this document as
> the Program.
>
>  1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's
> source code as you
> receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and
> appropriately
> publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of
> warranty;
> keep intact all the notices that refer to this licence and to the
> absence of any
> warranty; and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this
> licence along
> with the Program.
>
>  2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of
> it, thus
> forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such
> modifications or
> work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet
> all of these
> conditions:
>
>  a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices
> stating that you
> changed the files and the date of any change.
>
>  b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
> whole or in
> part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to
> be licensed as
> a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this
> licence.
>
>  3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
> under Section 2)
> in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2
> above
> provided that you also do one of the following:
>
>  a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding source code, which must
> be
> distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
> customarily used
> for software interchange; or,
>
>  b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years,
> to give any
> third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically
> performing source
> distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding
> source code, to
> be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
> customarily
> used for software interchange; or,
>
>  c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to
> distribute
> corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for
> non-commercial
> distribution and only if you received the program in object code or
> executable form
> with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
>
> For the purposes of this licence the source code for a work means the
> preferred
> form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable
> work, complete
> source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus
> any
> associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to
> control compilation
> and installation of the executable. However, as a special exception, the
> source
> code distributed need not include anything that is normally
> distributed (in either
> source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel,
> and so on) of
> the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component
> itself
> accompanies the executable.
>
> For the purposes of this licence derivative works (works based on the
> Program)
> shall include works that contain part or all of the Program and any
> machine-readable code generated by compiling or interpreting the
> Program in whole
> or part and any other computer program in any form which incorporates
> the Program
> or parts of it by linking to or importing the Program. Nothing in this
> licence
> shall be interpreted as excluding any work that would otherwise be
> considered as a
> derivative work by applicable law.
>
>   4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program
> except as
> expressly provided under this licence. Any attempt otherwise to copy,
> modify,
> sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically
> terminate your
> rights under this licence. However, parties who have received copies, or
> rights,
> from you under this licence will not have their licences terminated so
> long as such
> parties remain in full compliance.
>
>  5. You are not required to accept this licence, since you have not
> signed it.
> However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute
> the Program or
> its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do
> not accept this
> licence. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any
> work based on
> the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this licence to do so, and
> all its
> terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program
> or works
> based on it.
>
>  6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the
> Program), the
> recipient automatically receives a licence from the original licensor to
> copy,
> distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and
> conditions. You may not
> impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the
> rights granted
> herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third
> parties to this
> licence.
>
>  7. If, as a consequence of a court judgement or allegation of patent
> infringement
> or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are
> imposed on
> you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict
> the conditions
> of this licence, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this
> licence. If you
> cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under
> this
> licence and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you
> may not
> distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent licence would
> not permit
> royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive
> copies directly
> or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it
> and this
> licence would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
>
> 8. This Licence shall be governed by the law of England and Wales and
> the parties
> irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Courts of
> England and
> Wales.
>
>  NO WARRANTY
>
>  9. THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY
> APPLICABLE
> LAW. EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS
> AND/OR OTHER
> PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND,
> EITHER EXPRESSED
> OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
> MERCHANTABILITY
> AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY
> AND
> PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE
> DEFECTIVE, YOU
> ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION.
>
>  10. IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN
> WRITING WILL ANY
> COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MAY MODIFY AND/OR
> REDISTRIBUTE THE PROGRAM
> AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR DAMAGES, INCLUDING ANY
> GENERAL, SPECIAL,
> INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE USE OR
> INABILITY TO USE THE
> PROGRAM (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOSS OF DATA OR DATA BEING
> RENDERED
> INACCURATE OR LOSSES SUSTAINED BY YOU OR THIRD PARTIES OR A FAILURE OF
> THE PROGRAM
> TO OPERATE WITH ANY OTHER PROGRAMS), EVEN IF SUCH HOLDER OR OTHER PARTY
> HAS BEEN
> ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.

--
Buni Meldware Communication Suite
http://buni.org
Multi-platform and extensible Email,
Calendaring (including freebusy),
Rich Webmail, Web-calendaring, ease
of installation/administration.

[Simon Phipps-3]

I have to agree with Chris here. I appreciate the good intentions,  
but unfortunately I'm not sure the results help us a wider community  
of open source communities.

I also agree with McCoy. Given the freedom to do so, I would omit  
"choice of venue" from licenses, even though it might make corporate  
litigation a bit harder. When it comes to "choice of law" I regard  
that as a "namespace" declaration helping interpretation of the  
language of the license and am sympathetic towards including it, but  
I've seen the misunderstandings it causes in some communities.

Neither are strictly OSD-related but I believe we've agreed we are  
beyond the point where we need to be stricter about the actual canon  
of licenses.

S.


On Jun 28, 2007, at 16:35, Chris DiBona wrote:

> I haven't yet seen why we'd want yet another corner case license.
> Every new license osi approves as subscribing to the osd adds to the
> confusion and difficulty that new developers and companies face when
> using open source and worse yet means yet another largely incompatible
> potential pool of code.
>
> I don't see anything in your license that would tell me it could
> capture more than an impossibly small fraction of developers and be
> worth the time it would take to evaluate it.
>
> I know that sounds hard, and I apologize to the original author, but
> this is something I don't think we spend enough time discussing the
> damage yet another open source license does overall.
>
> Chris
>
> On 6/28/07, Smith, McCoy <mccoy.smith@...> wrote:
>> Isn't a choice of jurisdiction (and venue) clause necessarily a
>> political choice?  I.e., how likely is it that programmers in the
>> Western Hemisphere or in Asia are going to want to use this  
>> license, if
>> in order to enforce it they would need to retain counsel and file  
>> suit
>> in England/Wales?
>>
>> It seems to me that if you want maximum uptake on an open source
>> license, you'd leave out jurisdiction and venue clauses.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Nicholas Cole [mailto:nicholas.cole@...]
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2007 11:56 PM
>> To: license-discuss@...
>> Subject: Politics-Free Licence ;)
>>
>> I'm a licence newbie, I'm afraid.  Nothing in this email is intended
>> to start a flame-war!
>>
>> I am neither a lawyer nor a programmer, but I have some python code I
>> want to release and was looking for suitable a "share and share  
>> alike"
>> licence for it.  I found it surprisingly hard.
>>
>> The following licence is intended to have three features lacking (for
>> my purposes) in the GPL:
>>
>> [1] It more clearly defines what a 'derived work' is.  Most of the  
>> FSF
>> discussion I could find concerned C code, and was in any case  
>> external
>> to the licence.  I've tried to codify what I take to be the common
>> position, and make it clear how this would apply to an interpreted
>> language.  It is this part of the licence I'm most interested in
>> getting feedback on.  I'm still not entirely happy with the wording.
>>
>> [2] It specifies a jurisdiction.
>>
>> [3] It is intended to be shorter than the GPL.  It doesn't contain  
>> the
>> preamble, and sticks to just defining the terms rather than  
>> explaining
>> their rationale.  I've therefore cheekily christened the licence the
>> "Politics Free Licence".  My major reason for doing this was just to
>> have a shorter, easier to read text.  Neither the name, nor this
>> aspect of the licence is intended to take sides in the ongoing flame
>> war on the Linux kernel mailling list. :)
>>
>> Any feedback or suggestions would be very welcome.
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Nicholas
>>
>> -------------------------------------------------
>>
>>  0. The Licensed work is referred to in the rest of this document as
>> the Program.
>>
>>  1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's
>> source code as you
>> receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and
>> appropriately
>> publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and  
>> disclaimer of
>> warranty;
>> keep intact all the notices that refer to this licence and to the
>> absence of any
>> warranty; and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this
>> licence along
>> with the Program.
>>
>>  2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any  
>> portion of
>> it, thus
>> forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such
>> modifications or
>> work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet
>> all of these
>> conditions:
>>
>>  a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices
>> stating that you
>> changed the files and the date of any change.
>>
>>  b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
>> whole or in
>> part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to
>> be licensed as
>> a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this
>> licence.
>>
>>  3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
>> under Section 2)
>> in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2
>> above
>> provided that you also do one of the following:
>>
>>  a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding source code,  
>> which must
>> be
>> distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
>> customarily used
>> for software interchange; or,
>>
>>  b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three  
>> years,
>> to give any
>> third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically
>> performing source
>> distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding
>> source code, to
>> be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
>> customarily
>> used for software interchange; or,
>>
>>  c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to
>> distribute
>> corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for
>> non-commercial
>> distribution and only if you received the program in object code or
>> executable form
>> with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
>>
>> For the purposes of this licence the source code for a work means the
>> preferred
>> form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable
>> work, complete
>> source code means all the source code for all modules it contains,  
>> plus
>> any
>> associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to
>> control compilation
>> and installation of the executable. However, as a special  
>> exception, the
>> source
>> code distributed need not include anything that is normally
>> distributed (in either
>> source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel,
>> and so on) of
>> the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that  
>> component
>> itself
>> accompanies the executable.
>>
>> For the purposes of this licence derivative works (works based on the
>> Program)
>> shall include works that contain part or all of the Program and any
>> machine-readable code generated by compiling or interpreting the
>> Program in whole
>> or part and any other computer program in any form which incorporates
>> the Program
>> or parts of it by linking to or importing the Program. Nothing in  
>> this
>> licence
>> shall be interpreted as excluding any work that would otherwise be
>> considered as a
>> derivative work by applicable law.
>>
>>   4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program
>> except as
>> expressly provided under this licence. Any attempt otherwise to copy,
>> modify,
>> sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically
>> terminate your
>> rights under this licence. However, parties who have received  
>> copies, or
>> rights,
>> from you under this licence will not have their licences  
>> terminated so
>> long as such
>> parties remain in full compliance.
>>
>>  5. You are not required to accept this licence, since you have not
>> signed it.
>> However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute
>> the Program or
>> its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do
>> not accept this
>> licence. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any
>> work based on
>> the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this licence to do  
>> so, and
>> all its
>> terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the  
>> Program
>> or works
>> based on it.
>>
>>  6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the
>> Program), the
>> recipient automatically receives a licence from the original  
>> licensor to
>> copy,
>> distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and
>> conditions. You may not
>> impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the
>> rights granted
>> herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third
>> parties to this
>> licence.
>>
>>  7. If, as a consequence of a court judgement or allegation of patent
>> infringement
>> or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions  
>> are
>> imposed on
>> you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict
>> the conditions
>> of this licence, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this
>> licence. If you
>> cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations  
>> under
>> this
>> licence and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence  
>> you
>> may not
>> distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent licence would
>> not permit
>> royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive
>> copies directly
>> or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy  
>> both it
>> and this
>> licence would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the  
>> Program.
>>
>> 8. This Licence shall be governed by the law of England and Wales and
>> the parties
>> irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Courts of
>> England and
>> Wales.
>>
>>  NO WARRANTY
>>
>>  9. THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY
>> APPLICABLE
>> LAW. EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS
>> AND/OR OTHER
>> PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND,
>> EITHER EXPRESSED
>> OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
>> MERCHANTABILITY
>> AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE  
>> QUALITY
>> AND
>> PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE
>> DEFECTIVE, YOU
>> ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION.
>>
>>  10. IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN
>> WRITING WILL ANY
>> COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MAY MODIFY AND/OR
>> REDISTRIBUTE THE PROGRAM
>> AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR DAMAGES, INCLUDING ANY
>> GENERAL, SPECIAL,
>> INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE USE OR
>> INABILITY TO USE THE
>> PROGRAM (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOSS OF DATA OR DATA BEING
>> RENDERED
>> INACCURATE OR LOSSES SUSTAINED BY YOU OR THIRD PARTIES OR A  
>> FAILURE OF
>> THE PROGRAM
>> TO OPERATE WITH ANY OTHER PROGRAMS), EVEN IF SUCH HOLDER OR OTHER  
>> PARTY
>> HAS BEEN
>> ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.
>>
>
>
> --
> Open Source Programs Manager, Google Inc.
> Google's Open Source program can be found at http://code.google.com
> Personal Weblog: http://dibona.com

[Nicholas Cole]

My mistake - I shouldn't have introduced the jurisdiction point into
this discussion.  I'd borrowed the idea Creative Commons licences, and
I am aware of the (good) arguments against.  It's not really the point
I'm interested in.

But I don't agree that the major point I'm talking about is a "corner
case".  The FSF asserts that the GPL affect libraries (especially C
libraries) in a particular way.  Not everyone agrees.  I would like to
be able to licence a python library that can be used to create open
source software but not proprietory software.  There is some doubt at
least as to whether the GPL actually achieves this aim, and that is
why I would like a licence that makes the point clearer.

Best wishes,

N.

[Chuck Swiger]

On Jun 28, 2007, at 11:03 AM, Nicholas Cole wrote:
> My mistake - I shouldn't have introduced the jurisdiction point into
> this discussion.  I'd borrowed the idea Creative Commons licences, and
> I am aware of the (good) arguments against.  It's not really the point
> I'm interested in.

OK.  If you'd like to find a compromise, perhaps terms like the  
following would suit your preferences but avoid hard-coding a  
specific jurisdiction into the license:

  * 3. Users of this Software agree that any legal matters pertaining  
to the
  *    Software or this License acknowledge the right of the author
(s) to select
  *    a local "court of appropriate jurisdiction" and have any such  
matters
  *    adjudicated under the laws of the author's country, state, or  
province.

> But I don't agree that the major point I'm talking about is a "corner
> case".  The FSF asserts that the GPL affect libraries (especially C
> libraries) in a particular way.  Not everyone agrees.

Lots of people have opinions; the ones which matter with respect to  
law come from a judge.  In the US, the seminal case for analyzing  
software copyright infringement was Computer Associates vs Altai, in  
which the circuit judge decided that:

"...in many instances it is virtually impossible to write a program  
to perform particular functions in a specific computing environment  
without employing standard techniques." 3 Nimmer s 13.03[F][3], at  
13-65. This is a result of the fact that a programmer's freedom of  
design choice is often circumscribed by extrinsic considerations such  
as (1) the mechanical specifications of the computer on which a  
particular program is intended to run; (2) compatibility requirements  
of other programs with which a program is designed to operate in  
conjunction; (3) computer manufacturers' design standards; (4)  
demands of the industry being serviced; and (5) widely accepted  
programming practices within the computer industry. Id. at 13-66-71.

Publicly published APIs generally cannot qualify or be used as  
grounds for software copyright infringement.

One cannot legitimately claim that a C program which (e.g.) calls  
printf() is a derivative work of GNU libc specifically, or  
Microsoft's Visual C++ libraries, or the original BSD-licensed libc  
written by Kernigahn and Richie, because the same program can be  
compiled against any of these standard C libraries without changes to  
the source code.

> I would like to be able to licence a python library that can be  
> used to create open
> source software but not proprietory software.  There is some doubt at
> least as to whether the GPL actually achieves this aim, and that is
> why I would like a licence that makes the point clearer.

See OSD #6.  Your license can require that people writing proprietary  
software must redistribute their source code if they redistribute  
your software or a derivative thereof, but you cannot prevent them  
from using your software with proprietary code if they do not  
redistribute the combination.

Not only are restrictions on use not permitted for open-source  
software, they typically are not allowed by law, regardless of what  
license terms you wish to assert (but this varies from country to  
country).

Regards,
--
-Chuck

[Nicholas Cole]

Dear Chuck,

Thanks for a very helpful response.

Best wishes,

Nicholas

[Simon Phipps-3]

On Jun 28, 2007, at 19:29, Chuck Swiger wrote:

>> My mistake - I shouldn't have introduced the jurisdiction point into
>> this discussion.  I'd borrowed the idea Creative Commons licences,  
>> and
>> I am aware of the (good) arguments against.  It's not really the  
>> point
>> I'm interested in.
>
> OK.  If you'd like to find a compromise, perhaps terms like the  
> following would suit your preferences but avoid hard-coding a  
> specific jurisdiction into the license:
>
>  * 3. Users of this Software agree that any legal matters  
> pertaining to the
>  *    Software or this License acknowledge the right of the author
> (s) to select
>  *    a local "court of appropriate jurisdiction" and have any such  
> matters
>  *    adjudicated under the laws of the author's country, state, or  
> province.

I'm not sure if this doesn't make it worse, Chuck. If we don't know  
what system of law is assumed in the interpretation of the license,  
or if it varies from use to use, I believe the community uncertainty  
it produces is worse, not better.

S.

[Chuck Swiger]

On Jun 28, 2007, at 3:11 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:

>> OK.  If you'd like to find a compromise, perhaps terms like the  
>> following would suit your preferences but avoid hard-coding a  
>> specific jurisdiction into the license:
>>
>>  * 3. Users of this Software agree that any legal matters  
>> pertaining to the
>>  *    Software or this License acknowledge the right of the author
>> (s) to select
>>  *    a local "court of appropriate jurisdiction" and have any  
>> such matters
>>  *    adjudicated under the laws of the author's country, state,  
>> or province.
>
> I'm not sure if this doesn't make it worse, Chuck. If we don't know  
> what system of law is assumed in the interpretation of the license,  
> or if it varies from use to use, I believe the community  
> uncertainty it produces is worse, not better.

Worse for whom?

There's a reason why the GPL makes a great deal of effort to spell  
out terms that might be assumed in one system of law but might not in  
other, because they (meaning the FSF and others) want the license to  
have the same interpretation worldwide.  This goal may not be  
perfectly achievable because some jurisdictions prevent the  
disclaimer of warranty, et cetera, but nobody who writes Free  
Software or OpenSource software *wants* to be sued or deal with  
related legal crap in a completely foreign jurisdiction to them.

If someone wants to sue me over software which I've made public for  
everyone to share, modify, and use, the least they can do is show up  
and do so in the courtroom in my neighborhood, rather than halfway  
around the world.  I don't see how this hurts authors or users of  
software, it only affects people who intend legal action against the  
authors or redistributors of the software in that they need to put  
somewhat more effort into their attempt....

Regards,
--
-Chuck

[Simon Phipps-3]

On Jun 28, 2007, at 23:46, Chuck Swiger wrote:

>
> Worse for whom?
>
> There's a reason why the GPL makes a great deal of effort to spell  
> out terms that might be assumed in one system of law but might not  
> in other, because they (meaning the FSF and others) want the  
> license to have the same interpretation worldwide.  This goal may  
> not be perfectly achievable because some jurisdictions prevent the  
> disclaimer of warranty, et cetera, but nobody who writes Free  
> Software or OpenSource software *wants* to be sued or deal with  
> related legal crap in a completely foreign jurisdiction to them.

Right.  This we agree about, I think. I'm saying that, in cases where  
the license has not been honed by many global legal minds to have  
layered and nuanced meaning (as the GPLv3 has been, for example), it  
is smart to tell the reader what system of law you had in mind when  
you were writing. That way, all readers can see what the license  
means and not have to gain local knowledge of the case law and  
semantics on a use-by-use basis.

Thus, I assert that /either/ there should be a fixed statement of the  
system of law assumed by the license, or none at all. Encouraging the  
language of the license to be variably interpreted unsettles lots of  
people (I met some of them at DebConf last weekend for example).

Of course, as others on this thread have pointed out, what actually  
happens when one finally reaches court may be unaffected by all this!

> If someone wants to sue me over software which I've made public for  
> everyone to share, modify, and use, the least they can do is show  
> up and do so in the courtroom in my neighborhood, rather than  
> halfway around the world.

This is choice of venue, and is a different topic. I disagree with  
your interpretation of what a choice of a legal venue in license  
means (I think the SocialText folks have got it right in their most  
recent submission, FWIW), but I do feel that more people will be more  
happy with a license that makes no attempt to choose a venue.

S.

[Matthew Flaschen]

Nicholas Cole wrote:
> On 6/28/07, Matthew Flaschen <matthew.flaschen@...> wrote:
>
>> There's no way the section can add to the meaning of derivative work.
>> If a work isn't derivative under copyright law, you can't make it be by
>> changing your license.
>
> Well then, can I achieve the same effect by adding a condition for use?

The only way you can /maybe/ overstep copyright law is by making it a
contract instead of a license.  A license can only license rights you
have (and implicitly prohibit the exercise of exclusive rights you have
but don't license).  A contract can do a lot more (but not everything),
as long as both parties agree.

IANAL, but I don't recommend this.  It is very troublesome to have
everyone explicitly agree to a contract, so licenses are better.

Matt Flaschen

[Chuck Swiger]

On Jun 28, 2007, at 6:38 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:

>> Worse for whom?
>>
>> There's a reason why the GPL makes a great deal of effort to spell  
>> out terms that might be assumed in one system of law but might not  
>> in other, because they (meaning the FSF and others) want the  
>> license to have the same interpretation worldwide.  This goal may  
>> not be perfectly achievable because some jurisdictions prevent the  
>> disclaimer of warranty, et cetera, but nobody who writes Free  
>> Software or OpenSource software *wants* to be sued or deal with  
>> related legal crap in a completely foreign jurisdiction to them.
>
> Right.  This we agree about, I think. I'm saying that, in cases  
> where the license has not been honed by many global legal minds to  
> have layered and nuanced meaning (as the GPLv3 has been, for  
> example), it is smart to tell the reader what system of law you had  
> in mind when you were writing. That way, all readers can see what  
> the license means and not have to gain local knowledge of the case  
> law and semantics on a use-by-use basis.

There are times when attempting to be more precise has a positive  
result such as improved understandability or clarity, but,  
regrettably, this is not always the case.

Sometimes attempts to provide more context and detailed semantics  
result in something that is too complex to be readily understood and/
or is susceptible to manipulation where those who know the precise  
jargon and boundary cases can take unfair advantage of normal folk  
who interpret words in a straightforward fashion using their normal,  
commonly-understood meaning.

> Thus, I assert that /either/ there should be a fixed statement of  
> the system of law assumed by the license, or none at all.  
> Encouraging the language of the license to be variably interpreted  
> unsettles lots of people (I met some of them at DebConf last  
> weekend for example).

I believe I can understand this concern, but the real difficulty of  
interpretation and the reason why people want to know "the system of  
law assumed by the license" is a direct consequence of there not  
being a single, unified, consistent, understandable, fair, and  
universal legal framework which applies everywhere.

The fact that variable interpretations exist is not something I've  
chosen or would prefer to happen.

> Of course, as others on this thread have pointed out, what actually  
> happens when one finally reaches court may be unaffected by all this!

Certainly.  Even people who list a choice of venue, jurisdiction,  
governing law, and so forth might find themselves involved in  
litigation elsewhere regardless of what their license states.

>> If someone wants to sue me over software which I've made public  
>> for everyone to share, modify, and use, the least they can do is  
>> show up and do so in the courtroom in my neighborhood, rather than  
>> halfway around the world.
>
> This is choice of venue, and is a different topic. I disagree with  
> your interpretation of what a choice of a legal venue in license  
> means (I think the SocialText folks have got it right in their most  
> recent submission, FWIW), but I do feel that more people will be  
> more happy with a license that makes no attempt to choose a venue.

Really?  Do you honestly feel that the following from the CPAL "got  
it right" in a license which is nominally going to be used world-wide:

> 10. U.S. GOVERNMENT END USERS.
>
> The Covered Code is a "commercial item," as that term is defined in  
> 48 C.F.R. 2.101 (Oct. 1995), consisting of "commercial computer  
> software" and "commercial computer software documentation," as such  
> terms are used in 48 C.F.R. 12.212 (Sept. 1995). Consistent with 48  
> C.F.R. 12.212 and 48 C.F.R. 227.7202-1 through 227.7202-4 (June  
> 1995), all U.S. Government End Users acquire Covered Code with only  
> those rights set forth herein.
>
> 11. MISCELLANEOUS.
>
> This License represents the complete agreement concerning subject  
> matter hereof. If any provision of this License is held to be  
> unenforceable, such provision shall be reformed only to the extent  
> necessary to make it enforceable. This License shall be governed by  
> California law provisions (except to the extent applicable law, if  
> any, provides otherwise), excluding its conflict-of-law provisions.  
> With respect to disputes in which at least one party is a citizen  
> of, or an entity chartered or registered to do business in the  
> United States of America, any litigation relating to this License  
> shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts of the  
> Northern District of California, with venue lying in Santa Clara  
> County, California, with the losing party responsible for costs,  
> including without limitation, court costs and reasonable attorneys'  
> fees and expenses. The application of the United Nations Convention  
> on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods is expressly  
> excluded. Any law or regulation which provides that the language of  
> a contract shall be construed against the drafter shall not apply  
> to this License.

...?

If neither the author nor the litigant in a hypothetical dispute is a  
"citizen ... or registered to do business" in the USA, all of the  
verbiage above becomes not relevant or even ill-defined.  How is this  
any better than my take on it, which is that the author gets to  
select the venue and governing law?

Please note that I'm neither a lawyer nor a patent-troll, and I've  
never attempted to forum-shop (ie, having my patent dispute or other  
suit be filed in the Eastern District of Texas, for example)-- my  
primary concern is to avoid having someone *else* try to forum-shop  
to gain advantage.  And yes, that means when I release software to  
the world under open source terms, I really expect other people who  
choose to use that software to honor the notion that there is no  
warranty, regardless of whether their local jurisdiction claims that  
warranties cannot be disclaimed.

Frankly, I was happier when a license like the following was good  
enough:

> "THE BEER-WARE LICENSE" (Revision 42):
> <phk@...> wrote this file.  As long as you retain this  
> notice you
> can do whatever you want with this stuff. If we meet some day, and  
> you think
> this stuff is worth it, you can buy me a beer in return.   Poul-
> Henning Kamp

...and it's thirty times smaller than the CPAL, and more than 160  
times smaller than the GPLv3.

--
-Chuck

[Tony Bowden-5]

Chuck Swiger wrote:
> Really?  Do you honestly feel that the following from the CPAL "got it
> right" in a license which is nominally going to be used world-wide:
>> 10. U.S. GOVERNMENT END USERS.
...
>> 11. MISCELLANEOUS.

Just in case the point is missed: this isn't from CPAL, per se: this is
verbatim from the MPL, which is already used world-wide...

Tony