For Approval: Lucent Public License Version 1.02
ben at reser.org
Fri Feb 13 18:34:40 UTC 2004
On Fri, Feb 13, 2004 at 09:59:40AM -0500, David Presotto wrote:
> I sent the following in the past (see the Sept 2003 archive) and
> never really got a reply. I figured I'ld try again with a slightly
> reformated message.
> Section 1
> The Lucent Public License version 1.0 was approved in 2003.
> Since then we've been using it to distribute Plan 9. As a result we've
> gotten feedback from our users, IBM's council David Shofi (a CPL person),
> and our own lawyers. Their comments have led us to make some changes.
> I am submitting the version 1.02 license for approval. Thanks.
> I've included the diffs to make it a bit easier to see the changes.
> The text version of the whole license is in a mime attachment.
> The original 1.0 license is at http://www.opensource.org/licenses/plan9.php
> The modified 1.02 version is at http://plan9.bell-labs.com/hidden/lpl102-template.html
> We've been distributing with the modified license since July and
> all of the requests for modifications died out in the first month
> so I doubt if there'll be a version 1.03 any time soon.
> Here are the changes:
> (1) The number changes every time we change the license.
> old: Lucent Public License Version 1.0 (OSI-approved)
> new: Lucent Public License Version 1.02
> (2) The biggest change was wording. Too many people were confused by our
> lawyerese in defining a contribution. I really wanted to say that its
> a contribution if you say it is and isn't if you don't. Our lawyers
> didn't like that. It still looks too lawyerly to me but at least its
> We don't believe this affects anything to do with the OSD, just makes it
> clearer what the license says.
> First the definition of 'additions':
> old: additions to the Program; where such changes and/or additions to
> old: the Program originate from and are "Contributed" by that
> old: particular Contributor. A Contribution is "Contributed" by a
> old: Contributor only (i) if it was added to the Program by such
> old: Contributor itself or anyone acting on such Contributor's behalf, and
> old: (ii) the Contributor explicitly consents, in accordance with Section
> old: 3C, to characterization of the changes and/or additions as
> old: Contributions. Contributions do not include additions to the Program
> old: which: (i) are separate modules of software distributed in conjunction
> old: with the Program under their own license agreement, and (ii) are not
> old: derivative works of the Program.
> new: additions to the Program;
> new: where such changes and/or additions to the Program were added to the
> new: Program by such Contributor itself or anyone acting on such Contributor's
> new: behalf, and the Contributor explicitly consents, in accordance with Section
> new: 3C, to characterization of the changes and/or additions as Contributions.
> Then the definition of contributor (clause 3C mentioned above):
> old: C. In addition, each Contributor must identify itself as the
> old: originator of its Contribution, if any, and indicate its consent to
> old: characterization of its additions and/or changes as a Contribution, in
> old: a manner that reasonably allows subsequent Recipients to identify the
> old: originator of the Contribution. Once consent is granted, it may not
> old: thereafter be revoked.
> new: C. In addition, each Contributor must identify itself as the
> new: originator of its Contribution in a manner that reasonably allows
> new: subsequent Recipients to identify the originator of the Contribution.
> new: Also, each Contributor must agree that the additions and/or changes
> new: are intended to be a Contribution. Once a Contribution is contributed,
> new: it may not thereafter be revoked.
This seems fine...
> (3) We also changed the templating of the license. We don't believe this affects
> anything to do with the OSD.
> (a) David Shofi and our lawyers pointed out that the state in which the
> license is interpreted should not be templated. Templating it makes
> the definition of the license variable since laws, interpretations,
> precedents, etc vary from state to state. All the lawyers said they
> liked NY best (don't really know why) so I fixed it as NY just like the
> IPL and CPL do.
> This was my fault. I templated the state when OSI asked that we template
> the license (I'm a hacker, looked like a formal parameter to me) and the
> lawyers didn't notice before we submitted our final version.
> (b) We also fixed who could change the license. This was done because this license is
> based on the IBM Public License (under IBM's copyright) and they want some
> control over changes, so they made a condition of our using theirs that we don't
> give that right away. Once again, my fault. Noone noticed that I added that
> to the template either. This is my attempt to get out of hot water.
> Here are the actual changes:
> old: The following is a license template. To generate your own,
> old: change the values of OWNER, ORGANIZATION, YEAR, and STATE from their original
> old: values as given here, and substitute your own:
> old: <ORGANIZATION> = Lucent Technologies Inc.
> old: <OWNER> = Lucent
> old: <YEAR> = 2003
> old: <STATE> = New York
> new: The following is a license template. To generate your own,
> new: change the values of OWNER, ORGANIZATION, and YEAR from their original
> new: values as given here, and substitute your own:
> new: <ORGANIZATION> = Lucent Technologies Inc.
> new: <OWNER> = Lucent
> new: <YEAR> = 2003
> old: <OWNER> may publish new versions (including revisions) of this
> new: LUCENT may publish new versions (including revisions) of this
> old: version. No one other than <OWNER> has the right to modify this
> new: version. No one other than LUCENT has the right to modify this
> old: This Agreement is governed by the laws of the State of <STATE> and
> new: This Agreement is governed by the laws of the State of New York and
I've never really liked licenses that only permitted one organization to
modify them. I guess it makes sense for licenses where you presume the
only people using them on new software is the originators. I'd much
rather see a clause that said you can change it provided you don't try
to call it the Lucent Public License. We've already got a couple
licenses that are roughly similar so it can't be all that confusing.
Such a clause would allow anyone to base a new license on your license
which is much more consistent with the open source principles.
While I feel this way I don't think this is an impediment to reapproving
the license. Just thought I'd point it out to see if you agreed and
wanted to change it...
> (4) Plan 9 includes encryption which is controlled by US export
> regulations. Since the click through in our distribution web page
> won't necessarily follow the code/license, we added a clause. I
> believe that this is consistent with clause 5 of the OSD which has
> in its rationale:
> ``Some countries, including the United States, have export restrictions
> for certain types of software. An OSD-compliant license may warn
> licensees of applicable restrictions and remind them that they are
> obliged to obey the law; however, it may not incorporate such
> restrictions itself.''
> new: 7. EXPORT CONTROL
> new: Recipient agrees that Recipient alone is responsible for compliance with
> new: the United States export administration regulations (and the export control
> new: laws and regulation of any other countries).
This seems to make everyone responsible for following the export
regulations of the United States, even if they wouldn't be applicable
(e.g. non-US only distribution). Wouldn't the following wording be
Recipient agrees that Recipient alone is responsible for compliance with
applicable export control laws and regulations.
Ben Reser <ben at reser.org>
"Conscience is the inner voice which warns us somebody may be looking."
- H.L. Mencken
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
More information about the License-discuss