[License-review] For Approval: W3C Software and Document License

[Carlo]

Dear Nigel,

I will stop repeating the same comment (which I myself received firstly,
by the way) when this nonsense of considering "open source" a
copyright-only licensing issue will come to an end, or, more
appropriately, when this larger and graver nonsense of applying patents
to software would not be gone for good.

A legal text must be interpreted in the situation where it applies. If
the scenario changes, its interpretation must change. So be for the OSD,
if the "evolutionary" interpretation is not defeated an insurmountable
wording therein. This is not the case. My reading of the OSD is
perfectly compatible with the text. No need whatsoever to change the
OSD. The OSD says "the *distribution terms* of open source must comply".
Not "the distribution terms under copyright". The distribution terms.
Period.

How come if you have two sets of rights on the software you yourself
make or modify and distribute, you may  sanely say "take it, this is
open open source", and when someone starts using it you say "hey, but
not THAT open, here's a license, here's a bill for royalties, if you
want to continue using it". "But you have a license!" "Ah-ah! A license
on copyright, not a license on patents!"

Where is the "without the need for execution of an additional license"?

Of course, if somebody else come forward with their own patent for
software they have not created, this would be a problem of the legal
system, not of the license. But if the license allows a "gotcha"
situation by the same developer, sorry, that's a problem of the license.

Then you can do as you please, and call "open source" a /legal
/instrument that only people having signed a patent license and pay
royalties for it can /legally/ use, modify, distribute. I will still
retain the right to think and say it's a totally foolish and
self-defeating position. Will I be alone or just with the minority? Too bad!

Brexit showed us that the decision of the majority not necessarily is
the most sane, never mind the most informed one. Good luck!

All the best,

Carlo

 

On 11/08/2017 17:51, Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote:
> Oops.
>
> My comment is that there is no red line for patents in the OSD.
>
> Either get the necessary consensus to change the OSD or stop debating
> this in every single Open Source license submission and holding them up.
>
> The FACT remains that non-OSI approved licenses, namely CC0, are
> considered Open Source by many open source practioners so your opinion
> is not necessarily the majority view and certainly not the universal view.
>
> *From: *Tzeng, Nigel H. <Nigel.Tzeng at jhuapl.edu
> <mailto:Nigel.Tzeng at jhuapl.edu>>
> *Date: *Friday, Aug 11, 2017, 11:45 AM
> *To: *License submissions for OSI review
> <license-review at opensource.org <mailto:license-review at opensource.org>>
> *Subject: *Re: [License-review] For Approval: W3C Software and
> Document License
>
>
>     *From: *Carlo Piana <carlo at piana.eu <mailto:carlo at piana.eu>>
>     *Date: *Thursday, Aug 10, 2017, 6:08 AM
>     *To: *license-review at opensource.org <license-review at opensource.org
>     <mailto:license-review at opensource.org>>
>     *Subject: *Re: [License-review] For Approval: W3C Software and
>     Document License
>
>     On 09/08/2017 21:15, 
>
>     The scope of a FOSS license is to give permission to do things with
>     software. They are *historically* conceived as copyright licenses
>     because *historically* that was what drafters understood it was the
>     regime under which rights had to be conferred on software.
>
>     If different rights insist on software, the owner of those rights who
>     purports to give permission *must* give those permission under all the
>     rights she may have, or the openness test would miserably fail.
>
>     Otherwise it is like opening one lock of a door, with the other
>     remaining closed. The door will not open. So if the license is a key,
>     you cannot just say "this key will conditionally open all the
>     copyright
>     locks on my doors" and claim that the doors will be "open doors". If
>     there are patent locks of yours, the doors will remain shut. [0]
>
>     A license which only gives copyright licenses but refuses to do so for
>     patents is not an open source license in my and many others' opinion.
>     It's a public license, it is valid, it has some scope, but it's
>     not open
>     source.
>
>     I invite OSI to take a stance once for all as to this conceptual
>     ambiguity.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at opensource.org
> https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20170811/83314726/attachment.html>