David Shofi wrote: I find it quite unbelievable that a clear and unequivocal statement that an original copyrighted work is dedicated to the public would not serve to provide the necessary rights to anyone choosing to use the work in an OSS project, regardless of the OSS license used by that project. Once again the public domain rears its undisciplined head! :-) Dedicate your works to the public domain if you insist, but it is so easy to say: "Licensed to the public under the BSD license." Jean-Marc Lienher said that he didn't want "acknowledgement over which he has no control." Do you think he can control or prevent acknowledgement through a public domain dedication? Most recipients of software will follow their own ethical duty not to plagiarize and will acknowledge even the public domain works they copy. (I attribute certain statements to Shakespeare even though his works are in the public domain.) Modern open source licenses protect authors' reputations through attribution provisions that say directly what licensees must or must not do; public domain dedications leave all that out. Most software authors appreciate provisions like "Don't use my name or trademark to promote your versions of this software." It is the rare author who wants to leave that to chance. Mr. Lienher also said he doesn't like provisions that require that a copy of the license be included with the code. And yet anyone who copies works dedicated to the public domain would be wise to include at least the copyright notice and the public domain notice with those copies to help prove the pedigree of the code. So what is anyone actually saving here? If an author thinks even the BSD license is too strict, try saying this: Copyright 20xx author-name. Licensed to the public under the BSD license. Copyright owner hereby waives the right to enforce the conditions of the BSD license. At least that way the BSD's important warranty disclaimers would continue to apply, and the author would have all the other legal benefits of using a license rather than some public domain dedication for which the copyright law has made no provision. /Larry P.S. Please don't take this as a recommendation to use the BSD license. There are much better and more comprehensive academic-style licenses on OSI's list. This technique of expressly waiving enforcement of license conditions can be used with those licenses too. And it doesn't require OSI's approval of a new license to do so. Lawrence Rosen Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com) 3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482 707-485-1242 * cell: 707-478-8932 * fax: 707-485-1243 Skype: LawrenceRosen Author of "Open Source Licensing: Software Freedom and Intellectual Property Law" (Prentice Hall 2004) _____ From: DShofi@atmi.com [mailto:DShofi@atmi.com] Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 8:02 AM To: Jean-Marc Lienher Cc: license-discuss@opensource.org Subject: Re: Near Public Domain license I find it quite unbelievable that a clear and unequivocal statement that an original copyrighted work is dedicated to the public would not serve to provide the necessary rights to anyone choosing to use the work in an OSS project, regardless of the OSS license used by that project. That being said, like all software, a recipient of the work would want to do some due diligence to understand that the author actually wrote the work from scratch without reliance on another work that may itself be copyrighted by another. In other words, I would think that the public domain is an acceptable manner of putting your work out there for others to copy, modify and distribute. You may want to include a statement about the pedigree of the code to allay concerns as described above. Of course, you should engage with your own attorney if you want to be sure of your rights... :) Good luck! David M. Shofi "Jean-Marc Lienher" <jml@whoow.org> 07/26/2007 09:13 AM To <license-discuss@opensource.org> cc Subject Near Public Domain license Hi, Sorry if this is a FAQ, but I've not found any searchable archive of this list. I need a very permissive license, Public Domain is a option but I've found that it is OSI incompatible. ( http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Licensing_and_Law/public-domain.html ) Is there any such license already available ? Zlib is nice. But the "If you use this software in a product, an acknowledgment in the product documentation would be appreciated but is not required." sentence is too much. I don't want any acknowledgement on which I don't have any control. And the Zlib disclaimer looks very short compared to the MIT/BSD. I don't like the BSD because you must put a copy of the license in the documentation or in a README.txt file. I don't like the MIT because the license must be included in the binaries. I've just seen a message talking about a simplified BSD license, but I can't find it on the archive. (there is nothing after march 2007 http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?ddp:0:0#b ) Does this simplified BSD license fits to my needs ? I wrote my own license, which is a mix between MIT/BSD/ISC licenses with zero condition. Here it is : ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Copyright (c) <year> <copyright holders> Permission to use, copy, modify, sublicense, and/or distribute this work for any purpose with or without fee is hereby granted. THE WORK IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS WORK. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- But it looks like the approval process will cost me a lot of money. I need to find a English speaking lawyer in my country to create the legal analysis... So if there is an other license, which is currently in the approval process, and which is compatible with my needs, I will use it. ************************************************* This email message may contain information that is confidential and/or privileged and is intended only for use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy the original message. Thank you.
David Shofi wrote:
I find it quite unbelievable that a clear and
unequivocal statement that an original copyrighted work is dedicated to the
public would not serve to provide the necessary rights to anyone choosing to
use the work in an OSS project, regardless of the OSS license used by that
project.
Once again the public domain rears its
undisciplined head! :-) Dedicate your works to the public domain if you insist,
but it is so easy to say: "Licensed to the public under the BSD
license."
Jean-Marc Lienher said that he didn't want
"acknowledgement over which he has no control." Do you think he can control
or prevent acknowledgement through a public domain dedication? Most recipients
of software will follow their own ethical duty not to plagiarize and will
acknowledge even the public domain works they copy. (I attribute certain
statements to Shakespeare even though his works are in the public domain.)
Modern open source licenses protect authors' reputations through attribution
provisions that say directly what licensees must or must not do; public domain
dedications leave all that out. Most software authors appreciate provisions
like "Don't use my name or trademark to promote your versions of this software."
It is the rare author who wants to leave that to chance.
Mr. Lienher also said he doesn't like
provisions that require that a copy of the license be included with the code.
And yet anyone who copies works dedicated to the public domain would be wise to
include at least the copyright notice and the public domain notice with those
copies to help prove the pedigree of the code. So what is anyone actually
saving here?
If an author thinks even the BSD license
is too strict, try saying this:
Copyright 20xx
author-name.
Licensed to the public
under the BSD license.
Copyright owner hereby
waives the right to enforce the conditions of the BSD license.
At least that way the BSD's important warranty
disclaimers would continue to apply, and the author would have all the other legal
benefits of using a license rather than some public domain dedication for which
the copyright law has made no provision.
/Larry
P.S. Please don't take this as a
recommendation to use the BSD license. There are much better and more
comprehensive academic-style licenses on OSI's list. This technique of
expressly waiving enforcement of license conditions can be used with those
licenses too. And it doesn't require OSI's approval of a new license to do so.
Lawrence Rosen
Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology
law firm (www.rosenlaw.com)
3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482
707-485-1242 * cell: 707-478-8932 *
fax: 707-485-1243
Skype: LawrenceRosen
Author of "Open Source Licensing:
Software Freedom and
Intellectual Property Law" (Prentice Hall 2004)
From: DShofi@atmi.com
[mailto:DShofi@atmi.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 8:02
AM
To: Jean-Marc Lienher
Cc: license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: Re: Near Public Domain
license
I find it quite unbelievable that a clear and
unequivocal statement that an original copyrighted work is dedicated to the
public would not serve to provide the necessary rights to anyone choosing to
use the work in an OSS project, regardless of the OSS license used by that
project. That being said, like all software, a recipient of the work
would want to do some due diligence to understand that the author actually
wrote the work from scratch without reliance on another work that may itself be
copyrighted by another. In other words, I would think that the public
domain is an acceptable manner of putting your work out there for others to
copy, modify and distribute. You may want to include a statement about
the pedigree of the code to allay concerns as described above.
Of
course, you should engage with your own attorney if you want to be sure of your
rights... :)
Good
luck!
David M. Shofi
"Jean-Marc Lienher"
<jml@whoow.org> 07/26/2007 09:13 AM |
|
Hi,
Sorry if this is a FAQ, but I've not found any
searchable archive of this
list.
I need a very permissive license, Public Domain is
a option but I've found
that it is OSI incompatible.
(
http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Licensing and Law/public-domain.html )
Is there any such license already available ?
Zlib is nice. But the
"If you use this software
in a product, an acknowledgment in
the product documentation would be
appreciated but is not
required."
sentence is too much.
I don't want any acknowledgement on which I don't
have any control.
And the Zlib disclaimer looks very short compared
to the MIT/BSD.
I don't like the BSD because you must put a copy
of the license in the
documentation or in a README.txt file.
I don't like the MIT because the license must be
included in the binaries.
I've just seen a message talking about a
simplified BSD license, but I can't
find it on the archive. (there is nothing after
march 2007
http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?ddp:0:0#b
)
Does this simplified BSD license fits to my needs
?
I wrote my own license, which is a mix between
MIT/BSD/ISC licenses with
zero condition.
Here it is :
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) <year> <copyright holders>
Permission to use, copy, modify, sublicense,
and/or distribute this
work for any purpose with or without fee is
hereby granted.
THE WORK IS PROVIDED "AS IS",
WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE
WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT.
IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR
ANY SPECIAL, DIRECT,
INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY
DAMAGES WHATSOEVER RESULTING
FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER
IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT,
NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING
OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION
WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS WORK.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
But it looks like the approval process will cost
me a lot of money.
I need to find a English speaking lawyer in my
country to create the legal
analysis...
So if there is an other license, which is
currently in the approval process,
and which is compatible with my needs, I will use
it.
*************************************************
This email message may contain information that is confidential and/or
privileged and is intended only for use of the individual or entity named
above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or
the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you
are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this
communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
communication in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy the
original message. Thank you.