headers
Chris Travers | 1 Feb 10:55

Re: TCPDF license: LGPLv3 + a special clause: is this still considered "Open Source"?

Does the GPL v3 give you the permission to drop legitimate copyright
notices from software or accompanying documentation?  I know as a
software developer I would most certainly NOT drop such attributions
for both legal and other reasons.

I would add further that the requirement for attribution/copyright
notice seems entirely in line with the 7b attribution terms.  I don't
see why you have to see this as a new license.

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
_______________________________________________
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss <at> opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Clark C. Evans | 1 Feb 14:54
Gravatar

Re: TCPDF license: LGPLv3 + a special clause: is this still considered "Open Source"?

On Wed, Feb 1, 2012, at 01:55 AM, Chris Travers wrote:
> Does the GPL v3 give you the permission to drop legitimate
> copyright notices from software or accompanying documentation? 

As you note, the GPLv3 7b provides the right to require 
the preservation of legal notices and author attributions
in the material that an author has copyright for; and any
derivative works of that material.  

> I would add further that the requirement for attribution/copyright
> notice seems entirely in line with the 7b attribution terms.  I don't
> see why you have to see this as a new license.

This requirement was completely different.  It was an
attribution in dynamically generated content, the 
generated PDF, which is not their copyrighted material
but instead the output of their program. 

That said, programs that include boilerplate copyrighted
material in their output (Bison) might require that the
output itself be released under the GPLv3.  However, it 
is traditional for the FSF to provide an exception for 
this case.  Even in this case though, if the output might
be considered a work "based on" the processor itself, it
not be an interactive user interface, so I'm not sure if
7b would apply.

Best,

Clark
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Gervais, Mathieu | 1 Feb 21:23
Favicon

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
Permalink | Reply | 9 comments |
headers
John Cowan | 1 Feb 21:46

Re: CDDL 1.1 and GPL 2 with CPE

Gervais, Mathieu scripsit:

> Is there any particular reason why CDDL1.1 and GPL2 _with classpath
> exception_ are not approved by the OSI ?

As far as I know, the license stewards have never proposed them.

--

-- 
John Cowan  http://ccil.org/~cowan  cowan <at> ccil.org
All "isms" should be "wasms".   --Abbie
_______________________________________________
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss <at> opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Rick Moen | 1 Feb 21:49
Favicon

Re: CDDL 1.1 and GPL 2 with CPE

Quoting Gervais, Mathieu (Mathieu.Gervais <at> morganstanley.com):

> Is there any particular reason why CDDL1.1 and GPL2 _with classpath
> exception_ are not approved by the OSI ?

About the latter, at a guess:

1.  It's not a licence.
2.  And nobody submitted it.

My new-BSD with required eating of a pastrami sandwich licence hasn't 
been approved, either.

Anyway, an open-source licence with an added grant of rights tacked on
(which is what GPLv2 w/classpath exception is) is obviously also open
source.

CDDL 1.1 is OSI Certified.

_______________________________________________
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss <at> opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Rick Moen | 1 Feb 21:50
Favicon

Re: CDDL 1.1 and GPL 2 with CPE

Quoting John Cowan (cowan <at> mercury.ccil.org):

> As far as I know, the license stewards have never proposed them.

I might be misreading, but I thought that the original version of CDDL
was deemed to be version 1.1, because it was based on MPL 1.1.  If not,
then I have no idea what 'CDDL 1.1' is and how it differs from what OSI 
approved.

_______________________________________________
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss <at> opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Richard Fontana | 1 Feb 21:56
Picon
Favicon

Re: CDDL 1.1 and GPL 2 with CPE

On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 03:23:09PM -0500, Gervais, Mathieu wrote:
> 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 )

I am not sure when CDDL 1.1 was introduced but I think it was
relatively recently.

I think the typical OSI modern tradition has been to wait for the
license steward to request OSI approval, a general issue which someone
raised on one of these OSI lists some time ago. (I believe exceptions
around late 2007 included GPLv3 and its siblings for the reason that
the FSF would never submit those licenses itself, along with the
presumed inherent importance of those licenses.)

So, I would assume it is up to Oracle to decide whether to submit CDDL
1.1 for OSI approval. (Is anyone from Oracle on this list?)

Some ASF discussion of CDDL 1.1 vs CDDL 1.0 here:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-121

The Classpath Exception may be another matter. I don't see the value
of OSI approval of GPLv2+Classpath Exception (ignoring the question
whether there's really a canonical version of it) since OSI has in
modern times generally not bothered to approve GPL+permissive
exception permutations, to my recollection.

As for approving CDDL1.1+GPLv2 with Classpath Exception as though it
were a single license, I think that would be unprecedented. Sun never
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 5 comments |
headers
Clark C. Evans | 1 Feb 23:02
Gravatar

Re: a GPLv3 compatible attribution for MIT/BSD?

As an update to this thread, I've revived my interest in 
trying to keep GPLv3 compatibility with this approach;
a reasonable, attribution terms for a MIT derived license
or the GPLv3 itself (under 7b).

However, I've expanded the scope of this beyond simply 
crafting a license that requires attribution.  For this
sort of project to work, it requires community engagement
from the ground up -- even for works that don't have this
sort of requirement.  Hence, I've started an open source
project for effective attribution for OSS projects.  If 
you are interested, I'd love to have collaborators.

  http://tip-o-the-hat.org

In some ways, the license is dead last.  The order of 
priorities are:

1. Create a set of open source components that can be used
for the visual display of OSS attributions in a manner that
satisfies both the GPLv3 requirements as well as being 
broadly useful enough for projects to incorporate.

2. Create a registry of OSS works and dependencies with
pretty logos, license terms, and others.  This would be 
automated using various distribution manifests as possible.

3. Encourage adoption by open source projects even if such
an approach isn't mandated by any license -- it's just the
right thing to do.  I'm sure others will agree once it is
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 9 comments |
headers
Karl Fogel | 1 Feb 23:25
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: CDDL 1.1 and GPL 2 with CPE

Richard Fontana <rfontana <at> redhat.com> writes:
>I think the typical OSI modern tradition has been to wait for the
>license steward to request OSI approval, a general issue which someone
>raised on one of these OSI lists some time ago. (I believe exceptions
>around late 2007 included GPLv3 and its siblings for the reason that
>the FSF would never submit those licenses itself, along with the
>presumed inherent importance of those licenses.)

That's my understanding too.

>So, I would assume it is up to Oracle to decide whether to submit CDDL
>1.1 for OSI approval. (Is anyone from Oracle on this list?)

...or does anyone here want to contact them about it?

>The Classpath Exception may be another matter. I don't see the value
>of OSI approval of GPLv2+Classpath Exception (ignoring the question
>whether there's really a canonical version of it) since OSI has in
>modern times generally not bothered to approve GPL+permissive
>exception permutations, to my recollection.
>
>As for approving CDDL1.1+GPLv2 with Classpath Exception as though it
>were a single license, I think that would be unprecedented. Sun never
>asked for approval of CDDL 1.0 and GPLv2 + Classpath Exception as a
>single license package, SFAIK. 

Yes; to do this would to head down a combinatoric path of no return.

An hypothesis:
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Rick Moen | 1 Feb 23:53
Favicon

Re: a GPLv3 compatible attribution for MIT/BSD?

Quoting Clark C. Evans (cce <at> clarkevans.com):

> As an update to this thread, I've revived my interest in 
> trying to keep GPLv3 compatibility with this approach;
> a reasonable, attribution terms for a MIT derived license
> or the GPLv3 itself (under 7b).
> 
> However, I've expanded the scope of this beyond simply 
> crafting a license that requires attribution.  For this
> sort of project to work, it requires community engagement
> from the ground up -- even for works that don't have this
> sort of requirement.  Hence, I've started an open source
> project for effective attribution for OSS projects.  If 
> you are interested, I'd love to have collaborators.
> 
>   http://tip-o-the-hat.org

Clark was kind enough to send me offlist mail asking if I 
were willing to 'engage' with his initiative.  So:

Hmm, I personally consider most licence requirements for 'visual display
of OSS attributions' to be at minimum a bit obnoxious, if you're
referring to things even approximately like CPAL 1.0 (Common Public
Attribution License), its various badgeware predecessors -- as I believe
you are.

SugarCRM's subsequent torturing of GPLv3 into a particularly bad
badgeware licence through stitching their earlier badgeware requirement
into GPLv3 via a hook in GPLv7 section 3 -- covering SugarCRM Community
Edition 5.0 -- was IMO outright deceptive, particularly the way they
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 4 comments |

Gmane