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

Jim Wright jwright at commsoft.com
Wed Aug 16 16:49:18 UTC 2017 

Well said Carlo and agreed.  (And add one vote to the "No it cannot" box.)

 Best,
  Jim


> On Aug 16, 2017, at 3:14 AM, Carlo <carlo at piana.eu> wrote:
> 
> 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>
>> Date: Friday, Aug 11, 2017, 11:45 AM
>> To: License submissions for OSI review <license-review at opensource.org>
>> Subject: Re: [License-review] For Approval: W3C Software and Document License
>>  
>>  
>> From: Carlo Piana <carlo at piana.eu>
>> Date: Thursday, Aug 10, 2017, 6:08 AM
>> To: license-review at opensource.org <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
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> License-review mailing list
>> 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/20170816/6b19b385/attachment.html>

More information about the License-review mailing list