Language question

[Abe Kornelis]

Hello all,

Mark responded off-list to my last mail, since I inadvertently addressed my
reply to him only. Please find his return mail below with my responses
inserted as usual.

BTW: The license proposal - not quite finished yet - can be found at
http://www.bixoft.nl/english/license.htm

> On Wed, 14 May 2003, Abe Kornelis wrote:
>
> > > It's a subtle distinction, but important.  You dont HAVE unconditional
> > > permission to distribute contributions, so you cannot give someone
else
> > > such permission.  You only have permission to do so when you publish
the
> > > open-source version as well.
>
> > **--> Ok, I see what you're meaning. But I do not really agree.
> > Distribution of modifications is allowed by the license, provided that
> > the user allows me to incorporate the modifications in any version
> > of the software.
>
> According to the license as written, the user only has to allow you to
> (incorporate her changes in any version while you also use them in an
> open-source version).  It is a conditional license to you, much like your
> conditional license to them that they may distribute modified versions if
> they grant the license.
>
> If they do not grant the license, they may not distribute their
> modifications (aside: this is mean of you, and possibly non-free, although
> OSI seems to allow it in the netscape public license).
**--> Would it please you better if I dropped section 12.5?
AFAICS it is a superfluous section. Any distro has to be under
the same license, which would give me the same rights, though
it would be less explicit than it currently is. I.e. any Contribution
is to be licensed to the public under the BXAPL, which allows any
distributor to redistribute the software under the BXAPL in addition
to other licenses.
BTW: I don't see why this should be mean. I'd like to better understand
your argument. Would you please explain?

> If you cease to distribute their modifications in the open-source version,
> you no longer have license to distribute them in other products either.
>
> It's not an obligation at all.  It's just a conditional grant of
> permission.
**--> Ok, I surrender. No obligations involved.

> > I do not request authorship, copyrights, or whatever, just a license to
> > reuse & redistribute the modifications. As a condition on this license
> > it is stated that such a return license shall hold only while I
> > redistribute the modifications in an open-source version of the
> > software.
>
> Yup.  This "return license" ceases to apply if you stop publishing the
> open-source version.
**--> Surprise! We agree here :-)

> > It is a condition on the return license. Therefore it is an obligation
> > that I have to any and all contributors - they allow me to reuse their
> > modifications, provided that those modifications remain available in the
> > open-source domain as well.
>
> Nope.  You are free to stop publishing the open-source version at any
> time.  You must then stop publishing closed-source versions that use it
> too.
**--> Ok, you caught a loophole. Even though it was not intended as such,
you are entirely correct in your diagnosis.

> > **--> As stated above, if I reuse a contributor's contribution, I may
> > do so only while I also incorporate those modifications in an
> > open-source version.
>
> Correct.
>
> > If I do not use your contribution at all, fine.
> > But if I use your modifications without distributing them in the
> > open source domain, then I break the condition under which
> > permission was granted to reuse the modifications. Hence I would
> > be breaking my obligations.
>
> Again, it's a conditional grant of permission, not a contract to perform
> some obligation.  If you stop distributing them in open-source, you
> violate their copyright on the modifications if you distribute in
> closed-source.
>
> It's a copyright violation, not a breach of contract.  It's a conditional
> grant of permission, not an obligation.
>
> It may seem to be nitpicking, but it's an important distinction in some
> cases.
**--> I never accused you of nitpicking. And besides, I like it.

> > Now I'm under the impression we may continue to disagree for
> > another few dozen mails whether it is at all possible for me to
> > have any obligations at all to contributors, I would still like to
> > know how the english language denotes the concept of selling
> > obligations. I would be most grateful if anybody would be
> > so nice as to give me a clue.
>
> This was sent only to me, so you're likely not to hear others.  I'll stay
> quiet if you re-send it to the list, though.
**--> Oops, my mistake. Apologies. Will resend my previous mail
to the list.

> My opinion (I am not a laywyer, this is not legal advice, etc.) is that
> since you HAVE only a conditional permission to distribute the
> modifications, you can SELL only this conditional permission.  You cannot
> grant a customer a permission you do not have.
**--> Absolutely correct. Another point of agreement.

> Any obligations you have accepted by contract with someone remain yours.
**--> This need not be the case. If a company is taken over, it happens
including all plusses *and* minusses. So transfer of rights can be
accompanied
by transfer of obligations - though the latter appears not to be possible
under the BXAPL.

Mark, thanks a lot for your all your reactions. I appreciate the time
and effort spent. I have every intention to come up with a final draft
(eventually) that will be acceptable to most. To most, since it would
be over-optimistic to expect that any license ever could please everyone.

Kind regards, and thanks again. Abe.



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