<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:black;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.PlainTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Plain Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text";
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
font-weight:normal;
font-style:normal;
text-decoration:none none;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle23
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
font-weight:normal;
font-style:normal;
text-decoration:none none;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Nigel, thanks for your suggestion. I am still concerned because "consideration" can sometimes be very painful. (Example: "I'll license you my open source software including all of my patents, but you must give me rights to all of your patents.")<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>The issue is who – if anyone – will pay that consideration? The OSD doesn't allow any downstream licensee (of a copy or derivative work) to be obligated to pay anything at all for her own copies, even if she later sells them to third parties. That downstream licensee needn't even share her own software, although she must obey non-discriminatory license conditions such as copyleft and attribution and access to the source code. Those copies are "free" in all monetary, or monetarily-equivalent, ways.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>So, who pays consideration in an open source transaction? No downstream licensee is <u>obligated</u> to share her own software or pay any other consideration. Requiring her to do so would be requiring extra consideration for that open source (free) work. She may have accepted non-discriminatory conditions to copyleft and attribute (etc.) her copies and derivative works. But she won't pay one peppercorn for the right to make those copies and derivative works. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Hence the definition of "open source software" including a prohibition on consideration paid by downstream licensees to distribute; that protects downstream users from having to pay for free software.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Why do I say that "the sharing of open source software among users worldwide is consideration enough"? Who pays it? There is a worldwide community of millions of people who share their open source software ("licensors") who impose and accept license <u>conditions</u> to share their open source software with the world; others share it for free without copyleft and other license <u>conditions</u>. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>But those millions of people never collect <u>consideration</u> for those downstream copies or derivative works. <u>Sharing alone (with non-discriminatory license conditions) is consideration enough</u> to share.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>In all other respects, the payment of money (or equivalent) by a licensee to a licensor for a single copy of an open source work is completely legitimate. (Example: "Buy one copy from the developer for $1M, sell 2 million copies at $1 each.")<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>All that said, I'm more than willing to give permission to this online community to improve this definition in any way. CC0 perhaps?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><b><i><span style='font-size:14.0pt'>“Open source software” means software actually distributed under terms that grant a copyright and patent license from all contributors to the software for every licensee to access and use the complete source code, make copies of the software or derivative works thereof and, without payment of royalties or other consideration, to distribute the unmodified or modified software. <o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>/Larry</span><span style='font-size:8.0pt;color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><b>From:</b> Tzeng, Nigel H. <Nigel.Tzeng@jhuapl.edu> <br><b>Sent:</b> Friday, December 28, 2018 9:37 AM<br><b>To:</b> lrosen@rosenlaw.com; license-discuss@lists.opensource.org<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [License-discuss] Proposed license decision process<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>Larry,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>If there is non-monetary consideration present in open source licenses then then “without payment of royalties or other consideration” would exclude most, if not nearly all, OSI approved licenses using your definition.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>The part of the definition we all would likely agree with would be “without payment of royalties”. How much “other consideration” is too much seems to be subject to debate. “BY” seems safe. “SA” seems safe. SSPL? Not so much.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>Some forms of consideration is okay, even good. Others become overreach. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>Have a Happy New Year!<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>Nigel<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><b><span style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black'>From: </span></b><span style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black'>License-discuss <<a href="mailto:license-discuss-bounces@lists.opensource.org">license-discuss-bounces@lists.opensource.org</a>> on behalf of "<a href="mailto:lrosen@rosenlaw.com">lrosen@rosenlaw.com</a>" <<a href="mailto:lrosen@rosenlaw.com">lrosen@rosenlaw.com</a>><br><b>Reply-To: </b>"<a href="mailto:lrosen@rosenlaw.com">lrosen@rosenlaw.com</a>" <<a href="mailto:lrosen@rosenlaw.com">lrosen@rosenlaw.com</a>>, "<a href="mailto:license-discuss@lists.opensource.org">license-discuss@lists.opensource.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:license-discuss@lists.opensource.org">license-discuss@lists.opensource.org</a>><br><b>Date: </b>Friday, December 28, 2018 at 12:04 PM<br><b>To: </b>"<a href="mailto:license-discuss@lists.opensource.org">license-discuss@lists.opensource.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:license-discuss@lists.opensource.org">license-discuss@lists.opensource.org</a>><br><b>Subject: </b>Re: [License-discuss] Proposed license decision process<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'>Regarding "consideration":<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:1.0in'><b>The sharing of open source software among users worldwide is consideration enough for all of us to enforce our licenses!</b><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'>Bruce Perens is right. Please comment on THAT. Kevin and Florian worry too much about simple concepts about "consideration" in U.S. and U.K. law. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'>/Larry<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='font-size:12.0pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='font-size:12.0pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:1.0in'><b>From:</b> License-discuss <<a href="mailto:license-discuss-bounces@lists.opensource.org">license-discuss-bounces@lists.opensource.org</a>> <b>On Behalf Of </b>Bruce Perens<br><b>Sent:</b> Friday, December 28, 2018 8:38 AM<br><b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:license-discuss@lists.opensource.org">license-discuss@lists.opensource.org</a><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [License-discuss] Proposed license decision process<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:1.0in'> <o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:1.0in'>We went over this in Jacobsen v. Katzer. I testified (and the court agreed) that there _was_ consideration in Open Source licenses, although it was non-monetary.<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:1.0in'> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:1.0in'> Thanks<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:1.0in'> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:1.0in'> Bruce<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:1.0in'> <o:p></o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:1.0in'>On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 4:39 AM Kevin P. Fleming <<a href="mailto:kevin%2Bosi@km6g.us">kevin+osi@km6g.us</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:1.0in'>One of my colleagues (who strongly prefers public domain dedications<br>and permissive licenses) recently indicated to me that in his opinion<br>as a software author, the obligation to distribute source code<br>qualified as 'consideration', since it requires a tangible (to some<br>degree) action on the part of the licensee. I had never thought about<br>it this way, but I can definitely see how someone could arrive at that<br>conclusion, and this seems to align with Florian's concern.<br><br>On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at 9:14 AM Florian Weimer <<a href="mailto:fw@deneb.enyo.de" target="_blank">fw@deneb.enyo.de</a>> wrote:<br>><br>> * Lawrence Rosen:<br>><br>> > But let us nevertheless agree on a pragmatic definition of "open<br>> > source software".<br>><br>> > “Open source software” means software actually distributed under terms<br>> > that grant a copyright and patent license from all contributors to the<br>> > software for every licensee to access and use the complete source<br>> > code, make copies of the software or derivative works thereof and,<br>> > without payment of royalties or other consideration, to distribute the<br>> > unmodified or modified software.<br>><br>> I think “consideration” is a bad word, it's difficult to understand<br>> for those of us who were not brought up in the English legal<br>> tradition.<br>><br>> I'd be worried that “no other consideration” would exclude copyleft<br>> licenses, or more broadly speaking, licenses that use copyright as a<br>> tool to get the licensee to perform any additional action that is not<br>> inherently tied to exploitation of the copyright itself.<br>><br>> _______________________________________________<br>> License-discuss mailing list<br>> <a href="mailto:License-discuss@lists.opensource.org" target="_blank">License-discuss@lists.opensource.org</a><br>> <a href="http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org" target="_blank">http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org</a><br><br>_______________________________________________<br>License-discuss mailing list<br><a href="mailto:License-discuss@lists.opensource.org" target="_blank">License-discuss@lists.opensource.org</a><br><a href="http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org" target="_blank">http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org</a><o:p></o:p></p></blockquote></div></div></body></html>