From: Thorsten G. <tg...@66...> - 2004-07-06 08:55:27
|
Hi! In http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/joe-editor/joe-current/utf8.c?r1=1.16&r2=1.17&diff_format=u I notice the following licence tag copied from a file of yours: + * Mar...@cl... -- 2002-03-11 + * Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software + * for any purpose and without fee is hereby granted. The author + * disclaims all warranties with regard to this software. + * + * Latest version: + * + * http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/ucs/langinfo.c Please do change the "without fee" to a "with or without fee", because the former a) could be interpreted to prohibit commercial redistribution (such as including a joe package on a CD of MirOS) b) is incompatible with the GNU GPL, thus prohibiting to add your code to joe-editor at all c) serves as a bad example. Thanks in advance! //Thorsten -- Currently blocking eMail from the following domains: bigpond.com, biz, gmx.de, gmx.net, hotmail.com, info, jumpy.it, libero.it, name, netscape.net, postino.it, simplesnet.pt, spymac.com, tatanova.com, tiscali.co.uk, tiscali.cz, tiscali.de, tiscali.it, voila.fr, yahoo.co.uk, yahoo.com. |
From: Brian C. <B.C...@po...> - 2004-07-06 09:25:38
|
On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 08:53:55AM +0000, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > + * Mar...@cl... -- 2002-03-11 > + * Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software > + * for any purpose and without fee is hereby granted. The author > + * disclaims all warranties with regard to this software. When I read that, I interpreted it as meaning "can be distributed without any royalty being paid to the author", not "no charge must be levied on the recipient" > Please do change the "without fee" to a "with or > without fee" That makes it even less clear, in my opinion. How about "free of any royalty", or "without compensation to the author". That's unless the author's intention really *was* to restrict redistribution only to channels which do not levy any charge - I see the author is cc'd so he can clarify that point. That's not how I read it, but IANAL. Regards, Brian. |
From: Markus K. <Mar...@cl...> - 2004-07-06 10:20:50
|
Brian Candler wrote on 2004-07-06 09:25 UTC: > On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 08:53:55AM +0000, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > > + * Mar...@cl... -- 2002-03-11 > > + * Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software > > + * for any purpose and without fee is hereby granted. The author > > + * disclaims all warranties with regard to this software. > [http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/ucs/langinfo.c] > When I read that, I interpreted it as meaning "can be distributed without > any royalty being paid to the author", not "no charge must be levied on the > recipient" > > > Please do change the "without fee" to a "with or > > without fee" > > That makes it even less clear, in my opinion. How about "free of any > royalty", or "without compensation to the author". > > That's unless the author's intention really *was* to restrict redistribution > only to channels which do not levy any charge - I see the author is cc'd so > he can clarify that point. That's not how I read it, but IANAL. Executive summary: It is free software, in any sense of the word free that will not cause me to worry about legal issues. I see that my attempt to keep the licence short and pain free was not entirely successfull. Any suggestions for of good ready-to-use licence that I could cut&paste or refer to there? I don't like to waste more than a few lines of code for legalese and I don't want to bloat it with ridiculous disclaimers that are not needed outside the US. From the ones I looked at, I think http://opensource.org/licenses/zlib-license.php or http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/boilerplate-1.1/mpl-tri-license-c are perhaps closest to what I want, though is is still far too long for my taste to be included into a source file. Even better were a standard license designed to be referenced in just a single line of text that merely points to a web page with the more detailed licence text. Markus -- Markus Kuhn, Computer Lab, Univ of Cambridge, GB http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/ | __oo_O..O_oo__ |
From: Thorsten G. <tg...@66...> - 2004-07-06 10:27:38
|
(Again, please someone forward this mail to Markus) Dixitur illum Mar...@cl... scribere... >I see that my attempt to keep the licence short and pain free was not >entirely successfull. Any suggestions for of good ready-to-use licence >that I could cut&paste or refer to there? I don't like to waste more >than a few lines of code for legalese and I don't want to bloat it with >ridiculous disclaimers that are not needed outside the US. From the ones >I looked at, I think https://mirbsd.bsdadvocacy.org:8890/cvs.cgi/src/usr.sbin/rdate/ntpleaps.h -> revision 1.7 had a "standard" licence put on it; I was asked by the OpenBSD developers to do that https://mirbsd.bsdadvocacy.org:8890/cvs.cgi/src/share/misc/licence.template -> is what I personally use; it's EU-centric, but pretty short. On the other hand it doesn't have official OSI approval (though I got some feedback, and a lot of hints from the ifrOSS). http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/src/share/misc/license.template -> an even easier one, "blessed" by the OpenBSD people, modified from an ISC template (thus would qualify for OSI as well, though I don't think mine doesn't). But it makes me feel uneasy, although I can't _prove_ it's a copyleft-like licence. These are your choices; other than that, looking at opensource.org is obviously a good thing. Good luck, thanks for replying! //Thorsten -- Currently blocking eMail from the following domains: bigpond.com, biz, gmx.de, gmx.net, hotmail.com, info, jumpy.it, libero.it, name, netscape.net, postino.it, simplesnet.pt, spymac.com, tatanova.com, tiscali.co.uk, tiscali.cz, tiscali.de, tiscali.it, voila.fr, yahoo.co.uk, yahoo.com. |
From: Brian C. <B.C...@po...> - 2004-07-06 11:21:09
|
On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 11:20:24AM +0100, Markus Kuhn wrote: > Executive summary: It is free software, in any sense of the word free > that will not cause me to worry about legal issues. Would it be simpler just to put your code into "the public domain"? That's a well-defined concept which doesn't need expanding upon, and I can't see that it would conflict with any other licence restrictions in joe. Brian. |
From: Thorsten G. <tg...@66...> - 2004-07-06 19:23:27
|
Dixitur illum B.C...@po... scribere... >Would it be simpler just to put your code into "the public domain"? That's a >well-defined concept which doesn't need expanding upon, and I can't see that >it would conflict with any other licence restrictions in joe. This works only for copyright-only countries, not for droit d'auteur ones. AFAIK (IANAL) the UK is such a (c)-country, which means it would work for him, but on the continent it's different (which is why I've put that much effort into our licence template). Greetings, //Thorsten -- Currently blocking eMail from the following domains: bigpond.com, biz, gmx.de, gmx.net, hotmail.com, info, jumpy.it, libero.it, name, netscape.net, postino.it, simplesnet.pt, spymac.com, tatanova.com, tiscali.co.uk, tiscali.cz, tiscali.de, tiscali.it, voila.fr, yahoo.co.uk, yahoo.com. |
From: David P. <da...@ac...> - 2004-07-06 15:01:00
|
Markus Kuhn writes: > Any suggestions for of good ready-to-use licence > that I could cut&paste or refer to there? "Public domain." -- David Phillips <da...@ac...> http://david.acz.org/ |
From: Thorsten G. <tg...@66...> - 2004-07-06 10:21:50
|
Dixitur illum B.C...@po... scribere... >On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 08:53:55AM +0000, Thorsten Glaser wrote: >> + * Mar...@cl... -- 2002-03-11 >> + * Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software >> + * for any purpose and without fee is hereby granted. The author >> + * disclaims all warranties with regard to this software. > >When I read that, I interpreted it as meaning "can be distributed without >any royalty being paid to the author", not "no charge must be levied on the >recipient" Of course, but if you're a lawyer, how would you interpret it if he were the client? Or the BSA? >> Please do change the "without fee" to a "with or >> without fee" > >That makes it even less clear, in my opinion. How about "free of any >royalty", or "without compensation to the author". That would be _even_ better of course - it's just that the "with or without fee" is a) the minimal change, and b) the commonly used term for BSD-like licences. >That's unless the author's intention really *was* to restrict redistribution I don't think that; I've seen that clause elsewhere, too. >only to channels which do not levy any charge - I see the author is cc'd so >he can clarify that point. That's not how I read it, but IANAL. The author won't get the mail from me, I'm getting a permanent mailer error due to some idiotic filtering from people who think they can block IPv4 dial-up but don't accept IPv6 at the same time. I'd be great if someone would forward the conversion to him. //Thorsten -- Currently blocking eMail from the following domains: bigpond.com, biz, gmx.de, gmx.net, hotmail.com, info, jumpy.it, libero.it, name, netscape.net, postino.it, simplesnet.pt, spymac.com, tatanova.com, tiscali.co.uk, tiscali.cz, tiscali.de, tiscali.it, voila.fr, yahoo.co.uk, yahoo.com. |
From: Mikhael G. <mi...@ho...> - 2004-07-06 10:24:33
|
On 06 Jul 2004 10:25:32 +0100, Brian Candler wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 08:53:55AM +0000, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > > + * Mar...@cl... -- 2002-03-11 > > + * Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software > > + * for any purpose and without fee is hereby granted. The author > > + * disclaims all warranties with regard to this software. > > When I read that, I interpreted it as meaning "can be distributed without > any royalty being paid to the author", not "no charge must be levied on the > recipient" I agree. I definitelly interpreted it as "without any mandatory compensation to the author". If this is the actual meaning, then I would remove the words "and without fee" completely to reduce any misinterpretation. It seems that Debian agrees with such interpretation too: http://www.google.com/search?q="for+any+purpose+and+without+fee" OSI calls it "Historical Permission Notice and Disclaimer". Regards, Mikhael. |
From: Thorsten G. <tg...@66...> - 2004-07-06 10:29:42
|
Dixitur illum mi...@ho... scribere... >I agree. I definitelly interpreted it as "without any mandatory >compensation to the author". Everyone sees it that way, I think - but the OpenBSD people remind developers that it can be interpreted differently, and you know, in court and out on sea you're in god's hand. That's why I asked for clarification. //Thorsten -- Currently blocking eMail from the following domains: bigpond.com, biz, gmx.de, gmx.net, hotmail.com, info, jumpy.it, libero.it, name, netscape.net, postino.it, simplesnet.pt, spymac.com, tatanova.com, tiscali.co.uk, tiscali.cz, tiscali.de, tiscali.it, voila.fr, yahoo.co.uk, yahoo.com. |