CDDL 1.1 and GPL 2 with CPE

Hi,

Is there any particular reason why CDDL1.1 and GPL2 _with classpath exception_ are not approved by the OSI ?
(i.e.  http://glassfish.java.net/public/CDDL+GPL_1_1.html )

Thanks!

-mathieu

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTICE: Morgan Stanley is not acting as a municipal advisor and the opinions or views contained herein are
not intended to be, and do not constitute, advice within the meaning of Section 975 of the Dodd-Frank Wall
Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. If you have received this communication in error, please
destroy all electronic and paper copies and notify the sender immediately. Mistransmission is not
intended to waive confidentiality or privilege. Morgan Stanley reserves the right, to the extent
permitted under applicable law, to monitor electronic communications. This message is subject to terms
available at the following link: http://www.morganstanley.com/disclaimers. If you cannot access
these links, please notify us by reply message and we will send the contents to you. By mess
 aging with Morgan Stanley you consent to the foregoing.
_______________________________________________
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss <at> opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Golan v. Holder

_______________________________________________
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss <at> opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

a GPLv3 compatible attribution for MIT/BSD?

Good Morning!

Our company is releasing a medical informatics platform, RexDB,
under the GPLv3 license later this year (after the code has a
developer documentation).  We will be using 7b clause
of the GPLv3 license for a reasonable author attribution.

Even so, parts of our system will be released under a more
permissive license, and I'm wondering if there is a simple,
MIT-style clause that would be compatible with the GPLv3?

Here's my crayon attempt... 

  To the extent that an application using this software
  displays legal notices, copyrights, or attributions it 
  must acknowledge the Example Project (http://example.org)
  in a similar manner.

Would this sort of clause be compatible with GPLv3 and would
it meet the OSI criteria?  Would anyone have specific wording
suggestions?  I'm asking here because I'd rather re-use
something similar, if not, then I'd prefer to be adding a
clause that has "consensus" here.

Thank you kindly.

Clark
_______________________________________________
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss <at> opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

GPL and non-GPL binaries in one distribution

_______________________________________________
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss <at> opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-review] [PROPOSAL] Invite Creative Commons to submit CC0 Dedication.

Moved from license review.

> On 1/4/12 11:04 AM, "Chad Perrin" <perrin <at> apotheon.com> wrote:

> That is not a very easy page to find.  Thanks for pointing it out, but
> it's not the page people looking for something like what CC0 provides are
> likely to find when searching for it, I think.

> After some more effort, I finally did find a path to it through links
> from the main site, but the end result is that it did not stick in my
> mind.  Is there some straightforward means by which you found that, or
> did you find it by assuming it must exist somewhere and searching
> diligently for it through the chains of links you could find on the CC
> site?

No sorry, jumped there directly from Google.  I did look around and
the convoluted way was to actually go through their dedication "wizard"
and then click on the actual CC0 icon.  That links directly to the
natural language summary.

> > >Sure . . . except for little things like "Can I deploy this through
> > >iTunes?"  The summaries suggest that, for instance, CC-BY and CC-BY-SA
> > >can, but the actual legal text includes terms that make that
> > >questionable.
> >
> > It's better than the state for open source software licenses.

> That depends on the license.

There's a lot of folklore as to what some licenses really mean.  Clear
english language statements on what you can and need to do is helpful.

Eh, I like CC and what they've done.  It's not perfect of course.

>> I see CC-BY-SA podcasts in iTunes and there are apps that use CC-BY-SA OSM
>> data.  If there's a problem folks seem unaware.  There are places to
>> insert copyright metadata for iTunes even if it's nothing else but the app
>> description text.

>That's my point: people are unaware of the potential problems, and they
>don't have anything to do with copyright metadata.  Have you considered,
>for instance, that CC-BY and CC-BY-SA contain anti-DRM clauses, and
>iTunes uses DRM?

iTunes doesn't necessarily use DRM.  It is an issue in some cases and not 
clearly delinated in the english text although they have a FAQ entry.

There was discussion a while back regarding parallel distribution but I don't
think that went anywhere.  ODbL went that route and that should resolve the
issue for OSM when the ODbL database is released.
_______________________________________________
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss <at> opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Special clauses added to OSI-approved licenses: are they OK, and if not, what can/should we do about it?

Hi!

I am a member of the Tiki Wiki CMS Groupware Community. In Tiki, we
include quite a few libraries: http://dev.tiki.org/External+Libraries

I am also working on "Tiki Suite", a dozen FOSS server and desktop
apps to cover what 80% of the people use 80% of the time for a typical
small or medium organization. -> http://suite.tiki.org/

So I invest a lot of time evaluating FOSS projects and license
compatibility is important. I am also concerned with license
proliferation in general, as a barrier for sharing code.

I occasionally notice projects which add clauses such as this one
http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss/2011-November/000025.html

Here are three more:

a) AskoziaPBX is BSD with an extra clause
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AskoziaPBX
http://www.askozia.com/pbx-license/

b) Roundcube intends to move to GPLv3+  with an exception:
http://lists.roundcube.net/mail-archive/announce/2011-12/0000002.html

c) sipXecs is AGPL and there are some additional clauses, including
"By using the sipXecs solution you agree that SIPfoundry can use your
name and logo to identify you as a user of the sipXecs solution"
http://www.sipfoundry.org/licensing

1- Do these examples above respect the Free Software and/or Open
Source definitions?
(If not, can you specify what is not respecting)

Of course, they are free to use whatever license they want. However,
in some cases, calling it "Open Source" or "Free Software" can be
misleading.

2- If not, what is done / can be done about this?

a) Contacting the project to discuss with them and try to find a solution.

b) Contacting Open Source directories such as Ohloh.net and getting
the project entries removed.
I already started a discussion (please join in!)
https://www.ohloh.net/forums/8/topics/7228

c) Correcting the Wikipedia entries

d) Other?   (Maintain a list of projects which claim to be Open Source
but that their license is not according to experts at OSI)

What do you think?

Best regards,

--

-- 
Marc Laporte

http://MarcLaporte.com
http://Tiki.org/MarcLaporte
http://AvanTech.net
_______________________________________________
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss <at> opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

SPDX abbreviations

On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 12:50 PM, Karl Fogel <kfogel <at> red-bean.com> wrote:
> By the way, note that the OSI is using the SPDX license abbreviations
> for URLs now (though with compatibility redirects of course).  So the
> the above list would now be:
>
>  Adaptive Public License
>    http://www.opensource.org/licenses/APL-1.0
>
>  Frameworx License
>    http://www.opensource.org/licenses/Frameworx-1.0
>
>  OCLC Public Research License 2.0
>    http://www.opensource.org/licenses/OCLC-2.0
>
>  Reciprocal Public License
>    http://www.opensource.org/licenses/RPL-1.5
>
>  Ricoh Source Code Public License
>    http://www.opensource.org/licenses/RSCPL
>
>  Sybase Open Watcom Public License 1.0
>    http://www.opensource.org/licenses/Watcom-1.0

Is there a full/formal list of those abbreviations somewhere? Would be
useful to be able to point at. Thanks!

Luis
_______________________________________________
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss <at> opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

GPL and proprietary WebAPIs

I have a broad question about various interpretations
of the GPL with regard to WebAPIs.  Let me start with
an example scenario.

1. Suppose that Super Visual is a clever GPL
licensed data visualization program (released by
Vendor A).

2. Now suppose that there is a closed-source, but
free to redistribute, data processing library,
called Correlate (by Vendor B), which takes a data
set and a parameters and does a clever and very
proprietary data transformation.

3. Now suppose that I modify Super Visual to
incorporate the functionality of Correlate.  It
works wonderfully and I wish to share my Visual
Correlate with my friend.

Is this permitted by the GPL?

a. Suppose my modifications involve static libraries, 
   the resulting Visual Correlate is a single 
   compiled executable.

b. Suppose Super Visual has a plugin mechanism, and 
   I use this internal API to load Correlate as a
   dynamic link library.  Let's assume I also ensure
   that the program still works but lacks the
   correlate functionality if the dynamic library
   isn't there.  I don't ship correlate.dll, but
   tell my friend about the easter egg.

c. Suppose that Super Visual doesn't have a plugin
   system, but I release a GPL licensed Super Visual
   /w Plugins that does.  Now can I release Visual
   Correlate using this plugin mechanism? 

d. Suppose that I make a SuperVisual+ (GPL licensed) 
   with "generic", if complex way, to invoke separate 
   executables for external processing using standard 
   input, output, and command line arguments.  
   Suppose also I get permission from vendor B to 
   create and freely distribute a closed source 
   Correlate command line executable that takes the 
   specially formatted inputs to return outputs that 
   the SuperVisual+ needs.  I'm all clear now?

e. Suppose that I instead wrap Correlate in a
   WebAPI (let's say I get permission of Vendor B to
   do this).  Then, my modification to SuperVisual
   creates a runtime dependency on the web service;
   it degrades nicely without Correlate functionality
   if you lack a network connection or haven't paid
   to access my web service.  Can I release this
   Visual Correlate under the GPL?

f. Suppose that SuperVisual is a web application,
   and I "wrap" it with a web service running on a
   different server (without modifying one line of
   code), parsing the output stream to add additional
   functionality provided by Correlate.  The final
   result is that my users experience a single
   integrated application that mixes both Correlate
   and Super Visual functionality.

My interpretation of the GPL is that in every case,
I'd be producing a modified version.  Even in the
latter case, my wrapper would be using very specific
(and hence intimate) information about how the
application works and therefore would qualify as a
new program based on the earlier work.

Hence, since my Visual Correlate must comply with the
GPL; and since I don't have the right to also release
Correlate under the GPL, I can't share my work (as
cool as it may be) with my friend -- even if he
already has a copy of the Correlate program.

I say this for a few reasons.  First, in section #1
of the GPL, "Corresponding Source" it says that the
corresponding source must include all source code
needed to run the object code.  Hence, I must also
include Correlate under the GPL.

Secondly, under section #5c, it requires that I
license the "whole of the work, and all its parts,
regardless how they are packaged".  Hence, my
attempts to work around the intent of the license are
foiled... packaging the Correlate function as a
WebAPI doesn't make it any less of the whole work.

Is this a correct assessment?  If not, where has my
logic gone astray?  I've talked to a few attorneys
lately about this situation, and I've gotten wildly
different answers.

While the specific example is completely hypothetical, 
the general situation isn't.  I'd remark that it's 
widely held that wrapping up proprietary functionality 
in a Web API is a valid way to evade the GPL's copyleft.  

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4351119/if-i-use-gnu-gpl-code-with-my-own-server-side-code-do-i-need-to-open-my-server/

Best,

Clark
_______________________________________________
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss <at> opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Greetings, Earthlings! Need quotes for article

Tentative title: Are 69 Open Source Licenses Enough?

My questions:

Do we really need that many open source licenses?
Is there any way to consolidate some of them, which would make life 
simpler for a whole lot of people? Or does each one of these licenses 
serve an essential purpose for someone (or some company)?
License-Discuss list traffic has died down a lot over the last two - 
three year. Why?

You can answer me off-list or we can set up a time to talk between 
Tuesday and Friday.

The article will run at: http://olex.openlogic.com/wazi/

Thanks in advance,

- - Robin

--

-- 
Robin 'Roblimo' Miller
Bradenton Florida USA

_______________________________________________
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss <at> opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

a Free Island Public License?

I'd love your high-level thoughts on a "Free Island" 
license or anything that might be similar in nature.

...

FREE ISLAND PUBLIC LICENSE (v0.2 on 12 DEC 2011)

This software is licensed for any purpose excepting
the right to make publicly available derived works 
which depend exclusively upon non-free components.

So long as this copyright and license are included 
in all substantial copies of this work you may:

1. Publicly copy and use verbatim copies of this
   work including public distribution and performance.

2. Privately deal with this work in any way you wish,
   including internal usage, copying, and modification
   of this work.

You may also make publicly available via distribution 
or public performance any Derived Work only if the
following conditions are met:

1. the preferred source code for the Derived Work must
   be made freely available under this license;

2. the Derived Work must pass the Free Island test.

By "Derived Work" we mean a modified copy or adaptation
of this work or a separate work such as a plug-in,
protocol adapter, or wrapper which is designed to have
intimate interactions with this work's operational
details, or interfaces.

A Derived Work passes the "Free Island" test if it could
be prepared, modified, compiled, tested, installed, and
operated in a manner advertised or expected using only
Commodity Hardware, Free Software, this software, and the
Derived Work itself.  In particular, the Derived Work
fails this test if it depends upon proprietary software,
remote services or hardware to provide features that do
not have a corresponding Free Software implementation.

By Free Software we mean any software which is readily
available to the public without fee and with this
license, any license approved by the Open Source
Initiative or any license considered free by the Free
Software Foundation.

By Commodity Hardware we mean a computing device which
has substitutes in a marketplace and is priced under
fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms (FRAND).

A safe harbor for passing the Free Island test is if the
Derived Work is fully usable as intended when compiled &
installed on a set of networked Debian virtual machines
using software only from its 'free' distribution, the KVM
emulator, and no outside network connectivity.  If the
work is created for the purposes of interfacing with
proprietary hardware or services, then a sufficiently
complete emulation of those components must be made
available as Free Software.

THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY AUTHOR AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS" AND ANY
EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE
IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, AGAINST INFRINGEMENT, TITLE AND
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL
AUTHOR OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL,
SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED
TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR
PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF
LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING
NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS
SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

_______________________________________________
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss <at> opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Updating the License List

Now that I've sent out the MPL, I'll raise again the question of four
MPL-derived licenses that appear to belong in the "licenses that have
been voluntarily retired" list. [Originally raised in Jan. 2010 and
again in Mar. 2011.]

* CUA Office license: as of Jan. 2010, their website[1] said that the
project was dissolved and they had requested that the license be
'withdrawn from the OSI list'. Since Jan. 2010 their website has
apparently been whittled down as part of the recent SF reorg, and this
text can no longer be found.

* Sun Public License v 1.0: Simon says this is officially retired; in
Jan. 2010 he cited this blog post in support of that claim, but it
only references SISSL:
http://blogs.sun.com/webmink/entry/addressing_proliferation_deeds_not_just

* CA TOSL: can no longer find essentially any references to this on
the CA website[2]; appears to have been written to cover the official
source release of Ingres in 2004[3], but Ingres has since moved to
GPL[4]. Not sure this counts as voluntarily retired, per se, but does
seem to have basically vanished off the net (other than the OSI
website.) Russ said in March he'd asked a contact about it; any news?

* Ricoh Public Source License: can't find any references to this on
the ricoh website, and the site and projects it was originally
intended to work with (risource.org) appears to be AWOL, and as best
as I can tell no one distributes any code under this license. Same as
above: maybe not voluntarily retired, but basically vanished from the
net other than OSI. Russ said in March he'd asked a contact about it; any news?

Luis

[1] http://sourceforge.net/projects/cuaoffice/
[2] http://www.google.com/search?q="trusted+open+source+license"+site%3Aca.com
<- first hit there doesn't actually contain the text; second hit is a
slide deck; third deck is historical information.
[3] http://investor.ca.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=315670
[4] http://www.ingres.com/about/licenses/ingres-license.php
_______________________________________________
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss <at> opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss