Language question

[Mark Rafn]

On Thu, 8 May 2003, Abe Kornelis wrote:

> as usual I inserted my comments in between. Please see below.
> btw: an updated version of the license text has just been
> uploaded to: http://www.bixoft.nl/english/license.htm

There are many other problems with this license (among others, it attempts 
to restrict use if the license is not accepted), but I'll leave others to 
comment on that.  I doubt this would be approved by OSI, so the rest of 
this e-mail is somewhat academic.

> > > That is, any obligations incurred would remain valid. E.g. the
> > > obligation not to withdraw contributions from the open-source community.
> >
> > Why do you see this as an obligation?  You have no obligation to continue
> > publishing your contributions to anyone.

> > On Wed, 7 May 2003, Abe Kornelis wrote:
> **** Well, for one thing, I accept contributions provided that I may use
> them in any version (open-source or other) of the software. In return I
> accept the obligation to make these contributions available under the
> original license as well. If I fail to do the latter I am breaking my
> promise and not fulfilling my obligations.

I presume you're talking about section 12.5 (all your modifications are
belong to us).  I don't think this is open-source compatible (there's no 
way for someone to fork a version that doesn't give you special rights).

Even so, it's not a matter of obligations.  You have no obligation to make 
these contributions available.  You cannot distribute them if you don't do 
so, but that's a conditional right, not an obligation.

> Contributors would *rightly* be angered if their contributions would be
> used for closed-source enhancements, leaving the issue of open-source
> distribution to others.

In fact, your wording means you cannot use them for closed-source 
enhancements if you don't distribute the open-source version.  You don't 
have the right to use-without-opensource-distribution.

This still isn't an obligation you have.  It's a right you have only if 
you do something else.

> **** Even when, as described above, the obligation relates directly to
> the rights involved. Software with contributions, received under
> obligation of publishing under the original open-source license, should
> be capable of being sold separately from the obligations to the original
> author. I would think this is an issue, or am I chasing a white whale?

It's an issue if you try to sell or give away a right you don't have.  
This is different from enforcing an obligation.  You don't have the right 
to distribute proprietary versions of a contributor's work if you're not 
distributing them in open-source too.  Since you don't have that right, 
your heirs or copyright assignees don't have it either.

> **** That looks like one very good idea. Thus each contribution would be
> owned solely by its original author. I see - definitely - a drawback:
> when a closed-source version is being made then all authors have to give
> their fiat.

Yup, or it shouldn't include their work.

> After a few years it is likely that some of the authors will no longer
> be traceable.

Making their work available ONLY in the open source version.

> Some of them may not care much how their contributions is
> used as long as it remains available under the original license, yet
> others may have all kinds of objections - probably incompatible with
> each other as a bonus.

These authors should make clear in their licenses what their desires are.  

> I think I prefer to settle all such matters
> beforehand, rather than after a few years, when it may be impossible to
> disentangle contributions from one or two contributors who would not
> have their stuff appear in a closed version.

This is normal.  Require that submissions to you include a copyright 
assignment for the submission.  

People who make modified versions, but do not submit them to you 
(impossible with the current wording, but allowed in open-source licenses) 
are not giving you permission to sell their work.
--
Mark Rafn    dagon at dagon.net    <http://www.dagon.net/>  
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3