SOS license

[Alex Nicolaou]

Brian Behlendorf wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 9 Nov 1999, Alex Nicolaou wrote:
> > Brian Behlendorf wrote:

> No.  You can charge for the patch, you can charge for the act of giving
> the patch to someone, but you can't charge for the patched version.

I tried to clarify this in another message on this thread. I think that
the GPL prohibits you from modifying the source code unless you accept
the GPL, and that it requires you to give the right of redistribution to
every end-user. These two together make distributing a commercial patch
impossible, since every end user is then given the right to distribute
the patch for free.

> The user is always allowed to modify the program for personal use.  Again,
> basic copyright law.  I can rip pages out of a book I bought and glue in
> pages I've written myself, for my own use, without worrying about what
> license those books have.  It's if I go to resell that combined work that
> I run into problems.

As I read the GPL, it attempts to restrict this kind of change (clause
5). That may be at odds with copyright law.

> There are some practical problems with it (are you prepared to handle lots
> of bad patches, and does that have value for you anyways), but the bigger
> issue is philosophical.  I contend that what people do, privately, with
> modifications to software should not be an issue that concerns the
> original author, unless I give the combined work to someone else.  It's a
> matter of privacy at that point.  I may not want to deal with the hassle
> of publishing them and having to answer questions about it.  I also
> contest your use of the word "returned", as if those patches were taken
> from you in the first place.

I agree that "return" is definitely the wrong word. I have replaced it
with "send" and updated the license on the WWW. 

I understand your philosophical issue and am willing to live with it.
Lots of bad patches might arrive under any license; by working on an
open source program I basically accept that risk. I agree that it is
somewhat intrusive to either have to publish the patch or send it to me.

> > The fact is that the free software development community has norms
> > about how things are done, and I wanted to incorporate the norm into
> > the license so that it isn't up for debate.
> 
> When someone "returns" a patch to you, are they obligated to grant all
> rights to it to you?  What if there is a patent issue that neither you nor
> the contributor knew about?  What if there was a patent issue that the
> contributor *was* aware of but didn't tell you about?  There will always
> be debate about licenses, particularly those that go beyond telling you
> want you can do when you want to redistribute.

They are granting me the right to distribute their patch under the SOS,
nothing more or less. I try to say that in clause 6. 


alex

P.S. SOS at http://www.cgl.uwaterloo.ca/~anicolao/sos/