Uniform terminology (Re: UnitedLinux and "open source")

[Mahesh T Pai]

David Johnson wrote:

>p.s. RMS once remarked on this list that "the definition of free software, 
>like the definition of open source, need to be interpreted by people who are 
>committed to the goals with which those definitions were written." This is a 
>very wrong attitude to take, and is rather elitist. People are going to use 
>whatever term and interpretation they like best, regardless of the wishes of 
>RMS, the FSF or the OSI board.
>
It is time for the software community to arrive at a consensus on 
terminology used in licenses.  We should cease to behave like characters 
in "Alice in Wonderland" ("each word shall mean exactly what I choose it 
to mean/nothing less, nothing more")

There can be serious problems, especially in courts otherwise. What 
follows are a few reasons, as to why the software community should agree 
on standard terminology used in licensing terms.

A few hundred years back, when international trade was still in its 
infancy, the merchants and traders used to have separate tailor-made 
contracts for each transaction; each with its own (and different terms). 
 This may be compared to the the present day practice where a creator of 
a software package having a separate  licensefor each different package, 
and frequently, different licences for different versions of the same 
package.  (well, almost).

Later on, the merchant community realised that "tailor made" contracts 
have much in common, and a classification is possible.  They agreed on 
some standard terminology, and the benefits are there for all to see. 
For example, modern trade refers to a "CIF" (Cost, Insurance, and 
Frieght), or "FoB" (Free on Board), etc. types of contracts.  The names 
may be short, but, the legal systems all over the world attribute to the 
parties several terms, which, if reduced to writing, may often cover 
several pages.  Standardisation in more complicated  scenarios is 
achieved through organisations like UNCITRAL.

I guess that software licences are right now in the midst of a similar 
process of standardisation.   Already, there is some kind of 
standardisation in software licences.  This certification process, and 
the terms and phraseology used by software developers/vendors like "this 
package is released under the  ......." and terminology like "freeBSD 
type license", "Mozilla type public license", "GPL", "LGPL", etc are 
examples of such standardisation.

Few years from today, there time will come when the courts will fix 
liabilities on basis of names of the software license. This means, if it 
is shown that you knew that you are using software covered by the GPL, 
then, irrespective of whether you discussed or even actually knew of the 
actual detailed terms, the court will fix responsibility on the basis of 
"implied terms" doctrine.  The way terms are implied now, based on names 
of contracts. (like FoB, CIF, etc).  This is possible only if there is a 
industry-wide agreement on terminology.  Therefore, it is time for us to 
set aside such "elitist" mentalities, (if it exists at all) and settle 
on some standard terminology.

With Regards,
Mahesh T Pai.





_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3