[License-review] For Approval: W3C Software and Document License
Carlo
carlo at piana.eu
Wed Aug 16 10:14:39 UTC 2017
Dear Larry, all,
indeed, I have acknowledged that the issue is of minimal importance in
the context of this particular license, due to its admittedly narrow
field of application, where thanks to a wise IPR policy the patent's
problem should not be that relevant, and I have not asked to withhold
approval.
However, I still keep the point, valid in general and more relevant as
more "patent agnostic" licenses come around, that the issue whether an
open source license can openly exclude patent rights [0] from the grants
and still be called "open source" must be resolved.
All the best,
Carlo
[0] at least those patents relevant to the contribution made and shared
by the copyright holder under the license in hand.
On 11/08/2017 23:05, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
>
> I agree with Carlo about the relevance of patents to open source
> software. But some solutions already exist. Some licenses are better
> than others. This W3C copyright license is the wrong battlefield to
> argue about patents.
>
>
>
> W3C has resolved the public's patent issues with a wonderful Patent
> Policy that already protects both open source and proprietary software
> that implements W3C standards. In conjunction with this new "W3C
> Software and Document License", that "W3C Patent Policy" is what open
> source wanted and is given.
>
>
>
> That is why the W3C Software and Document License is all we now need.
> OSI should please approve it.
>
>
>
> /Larry
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:*License-review [mailto:license-review-bounces at opensource.org]
> *On Behalf Of *Carlo
> *Sent:* Friday, August 11, 2017 10:18 AM
> *To:* license-review at opensource.org
> *Subject:* Re: [License-review] For Approval: W3C Software and
> Document License
>
>
>
> 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
> <mailto: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 <mailto:License-review at opensource.org>
>
> https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170816/2769f65f/attachment.html>
More information about the License-review
mailing list