From luis at tieguy.org  Mon Jan  2 21:37:51 2012
From: luis at tieguy.org (Luis Villa)
Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2012 13:37:51 -0800
Subject: [License-review] OSI,
 legal conditions outside the "four corners" of the license,
 and PD/CC 0 [was Re: Can OSI specify that public domain is open source?]
Message-ID: <CAFPTOkWtgFFC=XjFquDdChuWY5RWc1Q4QnZh=zaf2uW15dP=Xw@mail.gmail.com>

[Happy new year! Bringing this up again in part because Red Hat
recently, and in my opinion correctly, reevaluated their position on
public domain in Fedora:
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/announce/2011-December/003025.html]

Some time ago, there was a thread about certifying some variation on
"public domain" licenses as OSI-approved. The thread died out shortly
after the email these quotes were clipped from. The tl;dr position of
those opposing PD was basically to ignore the actual text of the PD
statements and instead look to things outside the "four corners" of
the license; notably that (1) PD doesn't work in all jurisdictions
and/or (2) many things that are labeled PD are not actually PD.

My tl;dr position, laid out in more detail below, is that OSI should
be in the business of evaluating specific licenses, and not (to the
greatest extent possible) external conditions around those licenses.
As a result, OSI should evaluate and accept at least one PD license
(ideally the CC0 PD dedication, and any other well-drafted dedication
of similar style) as an OSI-approved license.

On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 5:20 PM, Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com> wrote:
> Quoting Chad Perrin (perrin at apotheon.com):
>
>> I'd say, rather, that it should be conditionally recognized as open
>> source -- under circumstances where it applies. ?Otherwise, it looks to
>> me like you're setting a precedent for crypto software distributed under
>> the terms of an open source license should not be considered open source
>> simply because some countries prohibit the use of (strong) crypto.
>
> That boat sailed long ago.
>
> A reasonable functional definition of 'open source software' is

Functional definitions of open source software are related to, but
distinctly different from, a definition of an "open source license."
OSI is not in the business of certifying whether specific software is
open source software; rather, it certifies whether licenses are open
source licenses.

> 'software concerning which any recipient can exercise all the rights
> outlined in the Open Source Definition', OSD being an attempt to
> formally detail the common-sense notion of what it means for a codebase
> to be forkable, independently maintainable with the right to create and
> distribute derivative works, and to use it without impediment for any
> purpose.
>
> If local law prevents you from exercising those rights concerning a
> strong crypto codebase, then by a functional definition that codebase is
> (locally) not open source, irrespective if licensing and irrespective of
> source code availability. ?Same principle applies for enforced patents
> and other legal impediments.
>
> If we'd have been holding this discussion before the RSA patent expired
> just a bit over 11 years ago, I'd have said that mod_ssl was not open
> source in the USA, irrespective of its BSD licence. ?(I'd have footnoted
> that, of course, like any self-respecting pedant.)

I don't think that's a sustainable position for OSI to base its
analysis on. Any non-trivial software has patent issues these days,
but OSI can't be in the business of saying "well, this particular
piece of software has patent issues, so it is not open source." OSI
can only reasonably say "this particular license, taken at face value,
gives the permissions necessary for the license to qualify as an open
source license."

Similarly, except for the most trivial cases, OSI can't say " ...
unless of course, there are moral rights, or reversion rights, or
grants of rights the licensor didn't actually have, or
$JURISDICTION_SPECIFIC_LANDMINE." That's why OSI has always certified
/licenses/, not /software/, because a thorough analysis of any
specific piece of software has to involve a lot more than just the
license- it must involve questions of jurisdiction, questions of
patents, questions of provenance, etc., etc., etc.

I think the objections to stating public domain disclaimers are open
source licenses fall into the same category. Yes, there are issues
with public domain in some jurisdictions, and yes, some specific
pieces of software nominally under PD may in fact be under other
licenses. But I don't see that how that is significantly different
from the problems of any other combination of abstract license and
specific software: there are always pitfalls that can happen there,
and OSI can't and shouldn't be in the business of evaluating those
external factors.

This doesn't mean that OSI should accept all PD-like statements as
open source licenses, any more than OSI should approve the "crayon
licenses" discussed in another recent thread. Instead, it should
accept specific, well-drafted statements of public domain. FSF took
this route by endorsing CC0, a well-drafted PD dedication with a
fallback to a full rights disclaimer. OSI should follow this example.
I'm not aware of any other well-drafted PD dedications[1] designed for
use by the authors of a work, so I would stop there, but if there are
others, OSI should look into them as well.

[Mind you, this is all modulo the caveat that I believe that OSI
should only approve licenses with patent grants. But since that isn't
currently a criteria for OSI, I think CC0 clearly qualifies.]

Luis

[1] I would rule out the CC PD "mark", because, while well-drafted, it
is essentially intended for application by third parties, and as such
isn't a license.


From bruce at perens.com  Mon Jan  2 21:58:54 2012
From: bruce at perens.com (Bruce Perens)
Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2012 13:58:54 -0800
Subject: [License-review] OSI,
 legal conditions outside the "four corners" of the license,
 and PD/CC 0 [was Re: Can OSI specify that public domain is open source?]
In-Reply-To: <CAFPTOkWtgFFC=XjFquDdChuWY5RWc1Q4QnZh=zaf2uW15dP=Xw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAFPTOkWtgFFC=XjFquDdChuWY5RWc1Q4QnZh=zaf2uW15dP=Xw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4F02289E.5070208@perens.com>

On 01/02/2012 01:37 PM, Luis Villa wrote:
> Instead, it should accept specific, well-drafted statements of public domain. FSF took this route by endorsing CC0
Get Sarah or Diane to submit it.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: bruce.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 266 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20120102/922aea5d/attachment.vcf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4447 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20120102/922aea5d/attachment.p7s>

From tg at mirbsd.de  Mon Jan  2 21:58:32 2012
From: tg at mirbsd.de (Thorsten Glaser)
Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2012 21:58:32 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [License-review] OSI,
 legal conditions outside the "four corners" of the license,
 and PD/CC 0 [was Re: Can OSI specify that public domain is open source?]
In-Reply-To: <CAFPTOkWtgFFC=XjFquDdChuWY5RWc1Q4QnZh=zaf2uW15dP=Xw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAFPTOkWtgFFC=XjFquDdChuWY5RWc1Q4QnZh=zaf2uW15dP=Xw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSM.4.64L.1201022156471.29291@herc.mirbsd.org>

Luis Villa dixit:

>OSI should be in the business of evaluating specific licenses

On this, I think we all can agree, based on the history of OSI.

>As a result, OSI should evaluate and accept at least one PD license

There is no PD licence. Either it?s Public Domain and thus needs
no licence, or it?s under Copyright protection and thus needs a
copyright licence to be dealt with.

As PD dedications are (independent on whether they are problematic)
no licences, OSI has absolutely no business related to them.

bye,
//mirabilos
-- 
I believe no one can invent an algorithm. One just happens to hit upon it
when God enlightens him. Or only God invents algorithms, we merely copy them.
If you don't believe in God, just consider God as Nature if you won't deny
existence.		-- Coywolf Qi Hunt


From kfogel at red-bean.com  Mon Jan  2 22:11:13 2012
From: kfogel at red-bean.com (Karl Fogel)
Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2012 17:11:13 -0500
Subject: [License-review] OSI,
	legal conditions outside the "four corners" of the license,
	and PD/CC 0 [was Re: Can OSI specify that public domain is open
	source?]
In-Reply-To: <CAFPTOkWtgFFC=XjFquDdChuWY5RWc1Q4QnZh=zaf2uW15dP=Xw@mail.gmail.com>
	(Luis Villa's message of "Mon, 2 Jan 2012 13:37:51 -0800")
References: <CAFPTOkWtgFFC=XjFquDdChuWY5RWc1Q4QnZh=zaf2uW15dP=Xw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <87obul21ry.fsf@kwarm.red-bean.com>

Luis Villa <luis at tieguy.org> writes:
>My tl;dr position, laid out in more detail below, is that OSI should
>be in the business of evaluating specific licenses, and not (to the
>greatest extent possible) external conditions around those licenses.
>As a result, OSI should evaluate and accept at least one PD license
>(ideally the CC0 PD dedication, and any other well-drafted dedication
>of similar style) as an OSI-approved license.

On the face of it, that sounds like a defensible position.  Though we'd
want to be careful to point people to the complexities of PD.

We should also be careful never to say "PD license", but rather "PD
dedication".  (Yes, yes, we all know know that when people say the
former they just mean the latter, but by always saying the latter we'll
avoid a lot of nit-picky sub-threads :-) ).

Note http://projects.opensource.org/redmine/issues/22 btw.

>Functional definitions of open source software are related to, but
>distinctly different from, a definition of an "open source license."
>OSI is not in the business of certifying whether specific software is
>open source software; rather, it certifies whether licenses are open
>source licenses.

Yes.

>I don't think that's a sustainable position for OSI to base its
>analysis on. Any non-trivial software has patent issues these days,
>but OSI can't be in the business of saying "well, this particular
>piece of software has patent issues, so it is not open source." OSI
>can only reasonably say "this particular license, taken at face value,
>gives the permissions necessary for the license to qualify as an open
>source license."
>
>Similarly, except for the most trivial cases, OSI can't say " ...
>unless of course, there are moral rights, or reversion rights, or
>grants of rights the licensor didn't actually have, or
>$JURISDICTION_SPECIFIC_LANDMINE." That's why OSI has always certified
>/licenses/, not /software/, because a thorough analysis of any
>specific piece of software has to involve a lot more than just the
>license- it must involve questions of jurisdiction, questions of
>patents, questions of provenance, etc., etc., etc.
>
>I think the objections to stating public domain disclaimers are open
>source licenses fall into the same category. Yes, there are issues
>with public domain in some jurisdictions, and yes, some specific
>pieces of software nominally under PD may in fact be under other
>licenses. But I don't see that how that is significantly different
>from the problems of any other combination of abstract license and
>specific software: there are always pitfalls that can happen there,
>and OSI can't and shouldn't be in the business of evaluating those
>external factors.

I think I agree.  Both a license and a PD dedication are meant to be
legally binding statements of intent -- based on them, the recipient of
code relies on the licensor not exercising certain monopoly rights.

But that doesn't mean there aren't *other* powers the licensor (or some
third party) might have.  Those are the "external factors" that cannot,
in the general case, be ruled out.

>This doesn't mean that OSI should accept all PD-like statements as
>open source licenses, any more than OSI should approve the "crayon
>licenses" discussed in another recent thread. Instead, it should
>accept specific, well-drafted statements of public domain. FSF took
>this route by endorsing CC0, a well-drafted PD dedication with a
>fallback to a full rights disclaimer. OSI should follow this example.
>I'm not aware of any other well-drafted PD dedications[1] designed for
>use by the authors of a work, so I would stop there, but if there are
>others, OSI should look into them as well.
>
>[Mind you, this is all modulo the caveat that I believe that OSI
>should only approve licenses with patent grants. But since that isn't
>currently a criteria for OSI, I think CC0 clearly qualifies.]
>
>Luis
>
>[1] I would rule out the CC PD "mark", because, while well-drafted, it
>is essentially intended for application by third parties, and as such
>isn't a license.

Well, the PD dedication isn't a license either, formally speaking.  It's
a promise (made as legally binding as possible) that a certain party not
only is not asserting copyright, but that there is no copyright to be
asserted.

Anyway, I like this idea, and wonder what others think.

-Karl


From kfogel at red-bean.com  Mon Jan  2 22:21:05 2012
From: kfogel at red-bean.com (Karl Fogel)
Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2012 17:21:05 -0500
Subject: [License-review] OSI,
	legal conditions outside the "four corners" of the license,
	and PD/CC 0 [was Re: Can OSI specify that public domain is open
	source?]
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSM.4.64L.1201022156471.29291@herc.mirbsd.org> (Thorsten
	Glaser's message of "Mon, 2 Jan 2012 21:58:32 +0000 (UTC)")
References: <CAFPTOkWtgFFC=XjFquDdChuWY5RWc1Q4QnZh=zaf2uW15dP=Xw@mail.gmail.com>
	<Pine.BSM.4.64L.1201022156471.29291@herc.mirbsd.org>
Message-ID: <87ehvh21bi.fsf@kwarm.red-bean.com>

Thorsten Glaser <tg at mirbsd.de> writes:
>As PD dedications are (independent on whether they are problematic)
>no licences, OSI has absolutely no business related to them.

Well, this seems like not the basis on which we should make this
decision.

The fact that one is called a "license" and the other is called a
"dedication" does not lessen their essential similarity: they are
promises that certain monopoly powers will not be enforced.  Those sorts
of promises are what the OSI evaluates and sometimes approves.

We could decide, for other reasons, not to evaluate any PD dedications.
I just don't think we should decide that on the basis of nominalism.

-Karl


From rick at linuxmafia.com  Mon Jan  2 23:06:34 2012
From: rick at linuxmafia.com (Rick Moen)
Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2012 15:06:34 -0800
Subject: [License-review] OSI,
 legal conditions outside the "four corners" of the license,
 and PD/CC 0 [was Re: Can OSI specify that public domain is open source?]
In-Reply-To: <CAFPTOkWtgFFC=XjFquDdChuWY5RWc1Q4QnZh=zaf2uW15dP=Xw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAFPTOkWtgFFC=XjFquDdChuWY5RWc1Q4QnZh=zaf2uW15dP=Xw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20120102230634.GE22539@linuxmafia.com>

Quoting Luis Villa (luis at tieguy.org):

[my example of the former RSA patent's effect of preventing mod_ssl 
from being open source despite its BSD terms:]

> I don't think that's a sustainable position for OSI to base its
> analysis on.

Your objection would be quite relevant if I had alleged that OSI should
base its licence analysis on external considerations that prevent a
particular piece of software from being open source despite its
licensing, but I simply said no such thing.

I merely gave it as an example of a piece of software being proprietary
despite licensing, and as a response to Chad Perrin's claim that a
crypto software package should not be considered proprietary merely
because some countries prohibit (strong) crypto as a bad 'precedent',
pointing out to Chad that that 'precedent' already has a long history.

Really, I doubt I was actually that unclear.  In fact, I am having a
difficult time seeing that I was unclear at all.


> [Happy new year! Bringing this up again in part because Red Hat
> recently, and in my opinion correctly, reevaluated their position on
> public domain in Fedora:
> http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/announce/2011-December/003025.html]

Sorry, but what's the relevance?

Red Hat, Inc. are in the business of, among other things, deciding what
packages meet their licensing criteria for Fedora based on all of the 
surrounding facts, examining what known evidence might impair or prevent
the intended PD declaration from having the desired legal effect in at
least the most important legal jurisdictions.  OSI, by contrast, have
neither the staffing nor the mandate to examine all of the relevant
legal circumstances for particular software packages, nor actually
anything about particular software packages.

Nobody with half a brain has ever denied that any software is public
domain that is either (1) truly public domain ab initio or by expiration
of copyright runtime or (2) has had its copyright ownership title
disavowed with conclusive and irreversible legal effect, at least in 
jurisdictions deemed of interest.  The problem has always been
determining when legal criteria for case #2 have been met.
Additionally, a PD declaration is _not a licence_.  It is someone's
assertion that either copyright title doesn't exist at all, or that
he/she desires that his/her rights become permanently unenforceable.


> The tl;dr position of those opposing PD was basically to ignore the
> actual text of the PD statements and instead look to things outside
> the "four corners" of the license; notably that (1) PD doesn't work in
> all jurisdictions and/or (2) many things that are labeled PD are not
> actually PD.

I'm sorry, but there is always a relevant legal context to any purported
legal instrument, and it would be height of folly to decide to ignore
that context and focus solely on the licence -- or, in this case,
non-licence -- text.

The surrounding legal context makes PD declarations legally problematic
to the point of being non-deterministic in ways that actual licences are 
not.  E.g., it is not at all clear that an owner can effectively
disclaim rights for (binding) his/her heirs, creditors, successors, and
assigns.  It _is_ clear that there are very important jurisdictions
where such intended jurisdictions simply fail to have the desired
effect.  (Writing off the UK as unimportant seems, oh, I don't know,
perhaps a bit rash, no matter what happened my home town of Hong Kong.)



> Any non-trivial software has patent issues these days,
> but OSI can't be in the business of saying "well, this particular
> piece of software has patent issues, so it is not open source." 

Mu.  OSI does not certify software.  Nobody upthread claimed that it
does.

> OSI can only reasonably say "this particular license, taken at face
> value, gives the permissions necessary for the license to qualify as
> an open source license."

Unfortunately, there are some severe problems for PD declarations that
simply don't exist for licences.  _And_ PD declarations aren't licences,
anyway.  (CC0 is a special case because it includes a licence; see
below.)


> I think the objections to stating public domain disclaimers are open
> source licenses fall into the same category. Yes, there are issues
> with public domain in some jurisdictions....

For values of 'issues' equating to 'has zero of the intended effect'.

> FSF took this route by endorsing CC0....

I'm sorry, but haven't we already gone over this a few times?  CC0 is
_not_ a simple PD declaration, but rather a PD declaration with a safety
fallback to a simple permissive licence for jurisdictions and
circumstances in which for whatever reason the PD declaration clause
doesn't work.  (There are good reasons why that fallback needs to be
there.)

Thus, it is an open cource licence because of the second half.  (It is
also a _licence_ because of the second half.)



> [Mind you, this is all modulo the caveat that I believe that OSI
> should only approve licenses with patent grants. But since that isn't
> currently a criteria for OSI, I think CC0 clearly qualifies.]

So, is Creative Commons proposing CC0 for approval as an OSD-compliant
licence?  I would certainly favour its approval, because it is (1) a
licence that (2) is OSD-compliant and lacks fatal problems.  But I have
not seen Creative Commons submit it.

Are you also suggesting that some other PD declarations be OSI approved?
If so, which are they, and are their authors submitting them?



From kfogel at red-bean.com  Mon Jan  2 23:24:43 2012
From: kfogel at red-bean.com (Karl Fogel)
Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2012 18:24:43 -0500
Subject: [License-review] OSI,
	legal conditions outside the "four corners" of the license,
	and PD/CC 0 [was Re: Can OSI specify that public domain is open
	source?]
In-Reply-To: <20120102230634.GE22539@linuxmafia.com> (Rick Moen's message of
	"Mon, 2 Jan 2012 15:06:34 -0800")
References: <CAFPTOkWtgFFC=XjFquDdChuWY5RWc1Q4QnZh=zaf2uW15dP=Xw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20120102230634.GE22539@linuxmafia.com>
Message-ID: <87y5tpzo04.fsf@kwarm.red-bean.com>

Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com> writes:
>So, is Creative Commons proposing CC0 for approval as an OSD-compliant
>licence?  I would certainly favour its approval, because it is (1) a
>licence that (2) is OSD-compliant and lacks fatal problems.  But I have
>not seen Creative Commons submit it.

Is it required that the author of a license submit it before OSI
evaluates it for approval?

Non-rhetorical question -- I don't know the history on this question,
and would appreciate data from anyone who does.

Thanks for reminding about the license-fallback part of CC0, Rick.

-Karl


From rick at linuxmafia.com  Tue Jan  3 00:12:56 2012
From: rick at linuxmafia.com (Rick Moen)
Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2012 16:12:56 -0800
Subject: [License-review] OSI,
 legal conditions outside the "four corners" of the license,
 and PD/CC 0 [was Re: Can OSI specify that public domain is open source?]
In-Reply-To: <87y5tpzo04.fsf@kwarm.red-bean.com>
References: <CAFPTOkWtgFFC=XjFquDdChuWY5RWc1Q4QnZh=zaf2uW15dP=Xw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20120102230634.GE22539@linuxmafia.com>
	<87y5tpzo04.fsf@kwarm.red-bean.com>
Message-ID: <20120103001255.GF22539@linuxmafia.com>

Quoting Karl Fogel (kfogel at red-bean.com):

> Is it required that the author of a license submit it before OSI
> evaluates it for approval?

I can't remember for sure.  Someone on the Board should speak to that. 
My vague recollection is that the Board has in general made a tactical
decision to not get roped into certification questions just because some
net.random wanted a theoretical question decided and wanted to make work
for others.  So, if I recall correctly, the Board expects either the
author/stakeholder to submit it or for there to be some really
compelling reason to consider it anyway.

> Thanks for reminding about the license-fallback part of CC0, Rick.

No problem.  I can't claim any personal credit, but know that the text
of CC0 reflected a lot of work to make it resistant to problems
otherwise inherent in PD declarations, and followed some discussions I'd 
held with Prof. Lessig and other Creative Commons people about the
issues.  I think FWIW that they did a really good job.


On another note:  I mention the UK as one known problem point for
professed PD declarations.  The best assessment of this I know of was a
discussion on the ukcrypto mailing list in which solicitor David
Swarbrick contributed:


  In article
  <69DB54A9E557D411865000508BA704BA3868A6 at mailhost.presentation .co.uk>,
  Owen Blacker <owen... at pres.co.uk> writes 

  > "Public domain" is not that tricky a concept. The owner or originator
  > of material has only to say "I renounce all ownership rights in this
  > work and invite anyone to use it", then henceforth it cannot be his or
  > anyone else's copyright. The same applies if the author has been dead
  > for a long time, nobody owns the copyright on his work.

  I would disagree. Public domain in UK law is properly used with respect
  to the extent of knowledge of an item - 'Is it in the public domain'
  means 'Is it a secret'

  The nearest to what you say is when material comes out of copyright, at
  which point it is 'non-owned' I know of no mechanism for renouncing
  ownership in th eway you decribe. I can grant an irrevocable licence to
  others to use a work, and I might find it difficult or impossible to go
  back on the licence (achieving a similar result, perhaps), but unless I
  am paid for it, it will be revocable.

  There is in effect no concept in UK law of ownerless property. Property
  is that which has an owner. Whena work comes out of copyright under law,
  it ceases to be property. 

  -- David Swarbrick, Solicitor, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 1RW T:
  +44(0)1484 722531 F: +44(0)1484 716617 m: dav... at swarb.freeuk.com w:
  www.swarb.co.uk The Law Society Regulates us in the conduct of
  investment business 



  Owen Blacker wrote:

  > IANAL, but I would've thought, then, that you're just granting an
  > unconditional licence in perpetuity...

  Yes. And however unconditional you express it to be, if the licensee
  gives no consideration, it can be revoked, and if, for example, I am
  insolvent, owing a million to the tax man, write some software which is
  worth a million, but then 'give it away' by dedicating it to teh public
  there would be little difficulty in law in a trustee in bankruptcy
  revoking the licence. That ignores the practical damage to the value,
  but the law would be fairly simple.

  -- David Swarbrick, Solicitor, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 1RW T:
  +44(0)1484 722531 F: +44(0)1484 716617 m: dav... at swarb.freeuk.com w:
  www.swarb.co.uk The Law Society Regulates us in the conduct of
  investment business 



I've had the mailing list discussion thread linked from my Web page
about 'public domain' works (specifically, those with unexpired
copyright terms) and their challenges, but recently that mailing list's
archive lost all pre-2010 postings.  Fortunately, I've found a
third-party archive at MarkMail (from which I'm quoting the above):

http://markmail.org/message/k4uk2och5dozfx7i#query:+page:1+mid:2iocwjcfhhjcgf7i
http://markmail.org/message/k4uk2och5dozfx7i#query:+page:1+mid:7iysvsnczhic6cls

Many of the other comments in that thread, including some others by
Swarbrick, are quite interesting.



From bruce at perens.com  Tue Jan  3 00:54:28 2012
From: bruce at perens.com (Bruce Perens)
Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2012 16:54:28 -0800
Subject: [License-review] OSI,
 legal conditions outside the "four corners" of the license,
 and PD/CC 0 [was Re: Can OSI specify that public domain is open source?]
In-Reply-To: <20120103001255.GF22539@linuxmafia.com>
References: <CAFPTOkWtgFFC=XjFquDdChuWY5RWc1Q4QnZh=zaf2uW15dP=Xw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20120102230634.GE22539@linuxmafia.com>
	<87y5tpzo04.fsf@kwarm.red-bean.com>
	<20120103001255.GF22539@linuxmafia.com>
Message-ID: <4F0251C4.6080808@perens.com>

See the mailing-list dialogue when I submitted the Google WebM license 
instead of waiting for Google to do so. The decision was to wait for 
Google rather than allow me to force the issue. However, Google did 
respond positively, allowing me to work with their attorney until I felt 
the license was acceptable.

We can't expect everyone to respond at all, and IMO it's within OSI's 
purview to say, clearly, that something is /not /an Open Source license 
and thus inform their community that it's not acceptable. This doesn't 
have to be the same process as reviewing a license for acceptance.

     Thanks

     Bruce
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20120102/9ea697d2/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: bruce.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 266 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20120102/9ea697d2/attachment.vcf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4447 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20120102/9ea697d2/attachment.p7s>

From cowan at mercury.ccil.org  Tue Jan  3 01:01:01 2012
From: cowan at mercury.ccil.org (John Cowan)
Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2012 20:01:01 -0500
Subject: [License-review] OSI,
	legal conditions outside the "four	corners" of the license,
	and PD/CC 0 [was Re: Can OSI specify that	public domain is open
	source?]
In-Reply-To: <20120103001255.GF22539@linuxmafia.com>
References: <CAFPTOkWtgFFC=XjFquDdChuWY5RWc1Q4QnZh=zaf2uW15dP=Xw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20120102230634.GE22539@linuxmafia.com>
	<87y5tpzo04.fsf@kwarm.red-bean.com>
	<20120103001255.GF22539@linuxmafia.com>
Message-ID: <20120103010100.GB26862@mercury.ccil.org>

Rick Moen scripsit:

> > Is it required that the author of a license submit it before OSI
> > evaluates it for approval?
> 
> I can't remember for sure.  Someone on the Board should speak to that. 
> My vague recollection is that the Board has in general made a tactical
> decision to not get roped into certification questions just because some
> net.random wanted a theoretical question decided and wanted to make work
> for others.  So, if I recall correctly, the Board expects either the
> author/stakeholder to submit it or for there to be some really
> compelling reason to consider it anyway.

The approval process at http://opensource.org/approval states clearly that
except in the case of a legacy license it is the license steward who
must propose the license.  When I proposed the MS-PL and MS-CL licenses,
I was asked to withdraw the proposal, on the grounds that if OSI had
changes to suggest, I wouldn't be able to communicate that effectively
back to Microsoft.  I did so.  Eventually, MS itself proposed them and
they were approved with changes.

-- 
John Cowan    http://ccil.org/~cowan    cowan at ccil.org
[T]here is a Darwinian explanation for the refusal to accept Darwin.
Given the very pessimistic conclusions about moral purpose to which his
theory drives us, and given the importance of a sense of moral purpose
in helping us cope with life, a refusal to believe Darwin's theory may
have important survival value. --Ian Johnston


From cowan at mercury.ccil.org  Tue Jan  3 01:03:19 2012
From: cowan at mercury.ccil.org (John Cowan)
Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2012 20:03:19 -0500
Subject: [License-review] OSI,
	legal conditions outside the "four	corners" of the license,
	and PD/CC 0 [was Re: Can OSI specify that	public domain is open
	source?]
In-Reply-To: <4F0251C4.6080808@perens.com>
References: <CAFPTOkWtgFFC=XjFquDdChuWY5RWc1Q4QnZh=zaf2uW15dP=Xw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20120102230634.GE22539@linuxmafia.com>
	<87y5tpzo04.fsf@kwarm.red-bean.com>
	<20120103001255.GF22539@linuxmafia.com>
	<4F0251C4.6080808@perens.com>
Message-ID: <20120103010319.GC26862@mercury.ccil.org>

Bruce Perens scripsit:

> We can't expect everyone to respond at all, and IMO it's within OSI's  
> purview to say, clearly, that something is /not /an Open Source license  
> and thus inform their community that it's not acceptable. This doesn't  
> have to be the same process as reviewing a license for acceptance.

However, OSI has never done so, and I hope never will.  (FSF does, and I
have no problem with that; they are not seen as a neutral organization,
and OSI is.)  

Currently OSI takes only three kinds of actions: it approves licenses,
it approves legacy licenses, and it takes note that a license has been
withdrawn.  Adding a fourth activity seems to me a bad idea.

-- 
John Cowan  cowan at ccil.org  http://ccil.org/~cowan
The penguin geeks is happy / As under the waves they lark
The closed-source geeks ain't happy / They sad cause they in the dark
But geeks in the dark is lucky / They in for a worser treat
One day when the Borg go belly-up / Guess who wind up on the street.


From perrin at apotheon.com  Tue Jan  3 01:23:31 2012
From: perrin at apotheon.com (Chad Perrin)
Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2012 18:23:31 -0700
Subject: [License-review] OSI,
 legal conditions outside the "four corners" of the license,
 and PD/CC 0 [was Re: Can OSI specify that public domain is open source?]
In-Reply-To: <CAFPTOkWtgFFC=XjFquDdChuWY5RWc1Q4QnZh=zaf2uW15dP=Xw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAFPTOkWtgFFC=XjFquDdChuWY5RWc1Q4QnZh=zaf2uW15dP=Xw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20120103012331.GA3779@hemlock.hydra>

On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 01:37:51PM -0800, Luis Villa wrote:
> 
> My tl;dr position, laid out in more detail below, is that OSI should
> be in the business of evaluating specific licenses, and not (to the
> greatest extent possible) external conditions around those licenses.
> As a result, OSI should evaluate and accept at least one PD license
> (ideally the CC0 PD dedication, and any other well-drafted dedication
> of similar style) as an OSI-approved license.

Apart from calling public domain dedications "licenses", my view is that
this is probably a good step to take.  I think the Unlicense might also
be a worthwhile public domain dedication to consider for certification.

An interesting thing about CC0 and Unlicense, though, is that they are
both a public domain dedication *and* a license (as a fallback in
jurisdictions where the public domain dedication "fails").

-- 
Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]


From rick at linuxmafia.com  Tue Jan  3 01:42:17 2012
From: rick at linuxmafia.com (Rick Moen)
Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2012 17:42:17 -0800
Subject: [License-review] OSI,
 legal conditions outside the "four corners" of the license,
 and PD/CC 0 [was Re: Can OSI specify that public domain is open source?]
In-Reply-To: <20120103012331.GA3779@hemlock.hydra>
References: <CAFPTOkWtgFFC=XjFquDdChuWY5RWc1Q4QnZh=zaf2uW15dP=Xw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20120103012331.GA3779@hemlock.hydra>
Message-ID: <20120103014217.GI22539@linuxmafia.com>

Quoting Chad Perrin (perrin at apotheon.com):

> Apart from calling public domain dedications "licenses", my view is that
> this is probably a good step to take.  I think the Unlicense might also
> be a worthwhile public domain dedication to consider for certification.

I hadn't seen Unlicense before now, but my immediate impression is that
it's not well formed and should be avoided.

Its first sentence professes to put the covered work into the public
domain.  However, then the second sentence professes to grant reserved
rights under copyright law.  However, who is granting those rights, the
erstwhile copyright holder who, one sentence earlier, professed to
destroy his or her own title?

By contrast, CC0 states explicitly that the current copyright holder 
is attempting (I paraphrase) to the extent permitted by local law to
disavow in perpetuity and on behalf of all successors all reserved
rights, and _if that is locally unsuccessful_ grants a permissive
licence under his/her powers as copyright owner.

I realise there are a whole lot of software engineers out there who'd
like to handwave copyright law out of their lives (including you), but
it'd be really nice if they'd occasionally bother to consult suitable
legal help before shooting themselves and others in the foot.



From bruce at perens.com  Tue Jan  3 01:44:40 2012
From: bruce at perens.com (Bruce Perens)
Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2012 17:44:40 -0800
Subject: [License-review] OSI,
 legal conditions outside the "four	corners" of the license,
 and PD/CC 0 [was Re: Can OSI specify that	public domain is open source?]
In-Reply-To: <20120103010319.GC26862@mercury.ccil.org>
References: <CAFPTOkWtgFFC=XjFquDdChuWY5RWc1Q4QnZh=zaf2uW15dP=Xw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20120102230634.GE22539@linuxmafia.com>
	<87y5tpzo04.fsf@kwarm.red-bean.com>
	<20120103001255.GF22539@linuxmafia.com>
	<4F0251C4.6080808@perens.com>
	<20120103010319.GC26862@mercury.ccil.org>
Message-ID: <4F025D88.8070901@perens.com>

On 01/02/2012 05:03 PM, John Cowan wrote:
> Currently OSI takes only three kinds of actions: it approves licenses, 
> it approves legacy licenses, and it takes note that a license has been 
> withdrawn. Adding a fourth activity seems to me a bad idea. 
That's the license review "board", not OSI.

"Board" is in quotes because this historically has been one person who 
makes a recommendation to the executive board.

If you read the /executive/ board meeting minutes, it's clear that OSI 
has taken all sorts of actions other than the task of the license review 
board.

     Thanks

     Bruce

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20120102/3078d152/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: bruce.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 266 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20120102/3078d152/attachment.vcf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4447 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20120102/3078d152/attachment.p7s>

From webmink at gmail.com  Tue Jan  3 02:11:41 2012
From: webmink at gmail.com (Simon Phipps)
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2012 02:11:41 +0000
Subject: [License-review] OSI,
	legal conditions outside the "four corners" of the license,
	and PD/CC 0 [was Re: Can OSI specify that public domain is open
	source?]
In-Reply-To: <4F02289E.5070208@perens.com>
References: <CAFPTOkWtgFFC=XjFquDdChuWY5RWc1Q4QnZh=zaf2uW15dP=Xw@mail.gmail.com>
	<4F02289E.5070208@perens.com>
Message-ID: <3CABA228-4F0C-4067-994B-7D9164CDFD82@gmail.com>


On 2 Jan 2012, at 21:58, Bruce Perens wrote:

> On 01/02/2012 01:37 PM, Luis Villa wrote:
>> Instead, it should accept specific, well-drafted statements of public domain. FSF took this route by endorsing CC0
> Get Sarah or Diane to submit it.

I would welcome that.

S.




From rfontana at redhat.com  Tue Jan  3 03:32:45 2012
From: rfontana at redhat.com (Richard Fontana)
Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2012 22:32:45 -0500
Subject: [License-review] OSI,
 legal conditions outside the "four corners" of the license,
 and PD/CC 0 [was Re: Can OSI specify that public domain is open source?]
In-Reply-To: <CAFPTOkWtgFFC=XjFquDdChuWY5RWc1Q4QnZh=zaf2uW15dP=Xw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAFPTOkWtgFFC=XjFquDdChuWY5RWc1Q4QnZh=zaf2uW15dP=Xw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20120103033245.GA8378@redhat.com>

On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 01:37:51PM -0800, Luis Villa wrote:
> [Happy new year! Bringing this up again in part because Red Hat
> recently, and in my opinion correctly, reevaluated their position on
> public domain in Fedora:
> http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/announce/2011-December/003025.html]

Not that this detail is very important, but the way you phrased that
sounds wrong somehow (I think because "Red Hat" could mean multiple
things or multiple people). What I'd say is that Red Hat has developed
a legal position over time on how to deal with purported public domain
dedications, and historically the Fedora Project chose for principled
reasons to adopt a somewhat more conservative policy than the Red Hat
position would imply. However, Tom Callaway's recent statement
indicates a liberalization of Fedora Project legal policy that happens
to place it more in line with what I'd consider to be the Red Hat
legal position. 

- RF




From kfogel at red-bean.com  Tue Jan  3 14:49:17 2012
From: kfogel at red-bean.com (Karl Fogel)
Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2012 09:49:17 -0500
Subject: [License-review] OSI,
	legal conditions outside the "four corners" of the license,
	and PD/CC 0 [was Re: Can OSI specify that public domain is open
	source?]
In-Reply-To: <4F0251C4.6080808@perens.com> (Bruce Perens's message of "Mon, 02
	Jan 2012 16:54:28 -0800")
References: <CAFPTOkWtgFFC=XjFquDdChuWY5RWc1Q4QnZh=zaf2uW15dP=Xw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20120102230634.GE22539@linuxmafia.com>
	<87y5tpzo04.fsf@kwarm.red-bean.com>
	<20120103001255.GF22539@linuxmafia.com> <4F0251C4.6080808@perens.com>
Message-ID: <8739bwzvrm.fsf@kwarm.red-bean.com>

Bruce Perens <bruce at perens.com> writes:
>We can't expect everyone to respond at all, and IMO it's within OSI's
>purview to say, clearly, that something is not an Open Source license
>and thus inform their community that it's not acceptable. This doesn't
>have to be the same process as reviewing a license for acceptance.

A useful distinction!  Thanks, Bruce (and others who responded with
background on this).

-K
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 835 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20120103/d6ffe544/attachment.sig>

From kfogel at red-bean.com  Tue Jan  3 15:09:18 2012
From: kfogel at red-bean.com (Karl Fogel)
Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2012 10:09:18 -0500
Subject: [License-review] [PROPOSAL] Invite Creative Commons to submit CC0
	Dedication.
In-Reply-To: <3CABA228-4F0C-4067-994B-7D9164CDFD82@gmail.com> (Simon Phipps's
	message of "Tue, 3 Jan 2012 02:11:41 +0000")
References: <CAFPTOkWtgFFC=XjFquDdChuWY5RWc1Q4QnZh=zaf2uW15dP=Xw@mail.gmail.com>
	<4F02289E.5070208@perens.com>
	<3CABA228-4F0C-4067-994B-7D9164CDFD82@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <87y5toyg9t.fsf_-_@kwarm.red-bean.com>

Simon Phipps <webmink at gmail.com> writes:
>On 2 Jan 2012, at 21:58, Bruce Perens wrote:
>> On 01/02/2012 01:37 PM, Luis Villa wrote:
>>> Instead, it should accept specific, well-drafted statements of
>>> public domain. FSF took this route by endorsing CC0
>> Get Sarah or Diane to submit it.
>
>I would welcome that.

I would too.  

However, because it would be a shame to invite them to do that, only to
then discover obvious problems, I'd like to first ask:

Does anyone here on the license review committee think that inviting
Creative Commons to submit the CC0 Dedication for OSI approval is a bad
idea, and if so, why?

Let's try to uncover any obvious objections before approaching CC.  We
don't necessarily need unanimity, or even consensus, but we should at
least take a preliminary look at the specific text before inviting CC to
do anything.  Here's the text:

  http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode
  http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
  
By the way, note that CC doesn't have a direct link path to the legal
text from their front page.  Instead, they guide the rightsholder
through an interactive Q&A, I suppose in order to make sure the holder
understands what they're doing.  That process starts here:

  http://creativecommons.org/choose/zero/

And CC's general introductory page about CC0 is here:

  http://creativecommons.org/about/cc0

-Karl


From tg at mirbsd.de  Tue Jan  3 15:17:52 2012
From: tg at mirbsd.de (Thorsten Glaser)
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2012 15:17:52 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [License-review] [PROPOSAL] Invite Creative Commons to submit
 CC0 Dedication.
In-Reply-To: <87y5toyg9t.fsf_-_@kwarm.red-bean.com>
References: <CAFPTOkWtgFFC=XjFquDdChuWY5RWc1Q4QnZh=zaf2uW15dP=Xw@mail.gmail.com>
	<4F02289E.5070208@perens.com>
	<3CABA228-4F0C-4067-994B-7D9164CDFD82@gmail.com>
	<87y5toyg9t.fsf_-_@kwarm.red-bean.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSM.4.64L.1201031516091.16408@herc.mirbsd.org>

Karl Fogel dixit:

>Does anyone here on the license review committee think that inviting
>Creative Commons to submit the CC0 Dedication for OSI approval is a bad
>idea, and if so, why?

I think submitting the licence fallback of CC0 for review as
an Open Source licence is a very good idea. (This is distinct.)
OSI should probably look at the entire document but not certify
a ?this isn?t copyrighted? statement as a copyright licence.

bye,
//mirabilos
-- 
?It is inappropriate to require that a time represented as
 seconds since the Epoch precisely represent the number of
 seconds between the referenced time and the Epoch.?
	-- IEEE Std 1003.1b-1993 (POSIX) Section B.2.2.2


From kfogel at red-bean.com  Tue Jan  3 15:38:09 2012
From: kfogel at red-bean.com (Karl Fogel)
Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2012 10:38:09 -0500
Subject: [License-review] [PROPOSAL] Invite Creative Commons to submit
	CC0 Dedication.
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSM.4.64L.1201031516091.16408@herc.mirbsd.org> (Thorsten
	Glaser's message of "Tue, 3 Jan 2012 15:17:52 +0000 (UTC)")
References: <CAFPTOkWtgFFC=XjFquDdChuWY5RWc1Q4QnZh=zaf2uW15dP=Xw@mail.gmail.com>
	<4F02289E.5070208@perens.com>
	<3CABA228-4F0C-4067-994B-7D9164CDFD82@gmail.com>
	<87y5toyg9t.fsf_-_@kwarm.red-bean.com>
	<Pine.BSM.4.64L.1201031516091.16408@herc.mirbsd.org>
Message-ID: <87lipoyexq.fsf@kwarm.red-bean.com>

Thorsten Glaser <tg at mirbsd.de> writes:
>>Does anyone here on the license review committee think that inviting
>>Creative Commons to submit the CC0 Dedication for OSI approval is a bad
>>idea, and if so, why?
>
>I think submitting the licence fallback of CC0 for review as
>an Open Source licence is a very good idea. (This is distinct.)
>OSI should probably look at the entire document but not certify
>a ?this isn?t copyrighted? statement as a copyright licence.

That's a useful distinction, thank you.

But let's remember what 99.9% of people are going to understand if we
approve this license: "OSI says CC0 is an open source license".

We can talk all we want about how our position is actually more nuanced,
how we're not evaluating the dedication portion only the license
portion, etc.  But ultimately, the takeaway will be "CC0 is open
source", and to some degree "OSI is saying public domain is open
source".

Of course we will be *extremely* precise in all our public statements on
the matter.  But in the end, we're going to create a new confusion
source.  The question is whether the new confusion will be better than
the old (current) confusion around PD and OSI.  IMHO it might well be,
but we must not pretend to ourselves that confusion will go away.

-Karl


From cowan at mercury.ccil.org  Tue Jan  3 17:44:05 2012
From: cowan at mercury.ccil.org (John Cowan)
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2012 12:44:05 -0500
Subject: [License-review] [PROPOSAL] Invite Creative Commons to
	submit	CC0 Dedication.
In-Reply-To: <87y5toyg9t.fsf_-_@kwarm.red-bean.com>
References: <CAFPTOkWtgFFC=XjFquDdChuWY5RWc1Q4QnZh=zaf2uW15dP=Xw@mail.gmail.com>
	<4F02289E.5070208@perens.com>
	<3CABA228-4F0C-4067-994B-7D9164CDFD82@gmail.com>
	<87y5toyg9t.fsf_-_@kwarm.red-bean.com>
Message-ID: <20120103174405.GD8871@mercury.ccil.org>

Karl Fogel scripsit:

> Does anyone here on the license review committee think that inviting
> Creative Commons to submit the CC0 Dedication for OSI approval is a bad
> idea, and if so, why?
> 
> Let's try to uncover any obvious objections before approaching CC.  We
> don't necessarily need unanimity, or even consensus, but we should at
> least take a preliminary look at the specific text before inviting CC to
> do anything.  Here's the text:

I have reviewed it de novo, and it looks perfectly OSD-compliant to me.
I see no problem with approving it as a whole: the combination of a
copyright disclaimer with a copyright license is a copyright license.
I don't think we need to be nuanced about it: software licensed under
CC0 is open source, period.

-- 
At the end of the Metatarsal Age, the dinosaurs     John Cowan
abruptly vanished. The theory that a single         cowan at ccil.org
catastrophic event may have been responsible        http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
has been strengthened by the recent discovery of
a worldwide layer of whipped cream marking the
Creosote-Tutelary boundary.             --Science Made Stupid


From cowan at mercury.ccil.org  Tue Jan  3 17:50:54 2012
From: cowan at mercury.ccil.org (John Cowan)
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2012 12:50:54 -0500
Subject: [License-review] [PROPOSAL] Invite Creative Commons to
	submit	CC0 Dedication.
In-Reply-To: <20120103174405.GD8871@mercury.ccil.org>
References: <CAFPTOkWtgFFC=XjFquDdChuWY5RWc1Q4QnZh=zaf2uW15dP=Xw@mail.gmail.com>
	<4F02289E.5070208@perens.com>
	<3CABA228-4F0C-4067-994B-7D9164CDFD82@gmail.com>
	<87y5toyg9t.fsf_-_@kwarm.red-bean.com>
	<20120103174405.GD8871@mercury.ccil.org>
Message-ID: <20120103175054.GE8871@mercury.ccil.org>

Scripsi:

> I see no problem with approving it as a whole: the combination of a
> copyright disclaimer with a copyright license is a copyright license.

Just as an intuition pump for this:

If someone submitted a license to us saying "You can license this software
under the terms of the GPLv3 or later.  If you don't like those terms, you
can pay the copyright owners $10,000 and then section 5c does not apply
to you", I think we'd have to concede that was an open-source license.
(OSI might not approve it on other grounds, to be sure.)

-- 
I marvel at the creature: so secret and         John Cowan
so sly as he is, to come sporting in the pool   cowan at ccil.org
before our very window.  Does he think that     http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Men sleep without watch all night?


From kiran.cyberpro at gmail.com  Tue Jan  3 17:52:39 2012
From: kiran.cyberpro at gmail.com (kiran.cyberpro at gmail.com)
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2012 23:22:39 +0530
Subject: [License-review] Small Suggestion
Message-ID: <CAGNbw0vcTiNqXC1GppUrkLtCxXLvbaepDUUptuOw+F=qxB+gOw@mail.gmail.com>

*

Small Suggestion to the License Review team:*

How about putting up an online discussion forum something say...  much like
"linux.com" website ?

I hope most of the FAQs, and discussions can be done and or sorted out in
the online discussion forum itself.
I certainly believe that along with these mailing lists should both address
the needs.

Anyway, wishing you all a *Great Happy New Year ahead !!!*

-- 
------------------------------------
Cheers,  Kiran. Kankipati
Author/Founder - TrafficSqueezer - Linux Kernel OpenSource WAN Optimization
Solution <http://trafficsqueezer.org/>
CEO/MD - Doublefish Solutions <http://doublefish-solutions.com/>
Author/Founder - Aquarium - Linux Web
GUI<http://doublefish-solutions.com/aquarium/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20120103/32a2b5c9/attachment.html>

From kiran.cyberpro at gmail.com  Tue Jan  3 17:56:07 2012
From: kiran.cyberpro at gmail.com (kiran.cyberpro at gmail.com)
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2012 23:26:07 +0530
Subject: [License-review] [PROPOSAL] Invite Creative Commons to submit
	CC0 Dedication.
In-Reply-To: <20120103175054.GE8871@mercury.ccil.org>
References: <CAFPTOkWtgFFC=XjFquDdChuWY5RWc1Q4QnZh=zaf2uW15dP=Xw@mail.gmail.com>
	<4F02289E.5070208@perens.com>
	<3CABA228-4F0C-4067-994B-7D9164CDFD82@gmail.com>
	<87y5toyg9t.fsf_-_@kwarm.red-bean.com>
	<20120103174405.GD8871@mercury.ccil.org>
	<20120103175054.GE8871@mercury.ccil.org>
Message-ID: <CAGNbw0uqpEGAP=68y_HFXaAOSH9cmOfchRdwj=Lot-_QHQyGBA@mail.gmail.com>

*If someone submitted a license to us saying "You can license this software
under the terms of the GPLv3 or later.  If you don't like those terms, you
can pay the copyright owners $10,000 and then section 5c does not apply
to you", I think we'd have to concede that was an open-source license.
(OSI might not approve it on other grounds, to be sure.)
*
>> Thank you very much for this suggestion, even I have some similar
question about a case of exception for select few,
if they make some other business contracts with the respective owners.
Thank you again !

Cheers, +Kiran



On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 11:20 PM, John Cowan <cowan at mercury.ccil.org> wrote:

> Scripsi:
>
> > I see no problem with approving it as a whole: the combination of a
> > copyright disclaimer with a copyright license is a copyright license.
>
> Just as an intuition pump for this:
>
> If someone submitted a license to us saying "You can license this software
> under the terms of the GPLv3 or later.  If you don't like those terms, you
> can pay the copyright owners $10,000 and then section 5c does not apply
> to you", I think we'd have to concede that was an open-source license.
> (OSI might not approve it on other grounds, to be sure.)
>
> --
> I marvel at the creature: so secret and         John Cowan
> so sly as he is, to come sporting in the pool   cowan at ccil.org
> before our very window.  Does he think that     http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
> Men sleep without watch all night?
> _______________________________________________
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at opensource.org
> http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review
>



-- 
------------------------------------
Cheers,  Kiran. Kankipati
Author/Founder - TrafficSqueezer - Linux Kernel OpenSource WAN Optimization
Solution <http://trafficsqueezer.org/>
CEO/MD - Doublefish Solutions <http://doublefish-solutions.com/>
Author/Founder - Aquarium - Linux Web
GUI<http://doublefish-solutions.com/aquarium/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20120103/b64dadcc/attachment.html>

From bruce at perens.com  Tue Jan  3 17:56:17 2012
From: bruce at perens.com (Bruce Perens)
Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2012 09:56:17 -0800
Subject: [License-review] [PROPOSAL] Invite Creative Commons to submit
 CC0 Dedication.
In-Reply-To: <20120103175054.GE8871@mercury.ccil.org>
References: <CAFPTOkWtgFFC=XjFquDdChuWY5RWc1Q4QnZh=zaf2uW15dP=Xw@mail.gmail.com>
	<4F02289E.5070208@perens.com>
	<3CABA228-4F0C-4067-994B-7D9164CDFD82@gmail.com>
	<87y5toyg9t.fsf_-_@kwarm.red-bean.com>
	<20120103174405.GD8871@mercury.ccil.org>
	<20120103175054.GE8871@mercury.ccil.org>
Message-ID: <4F034141.9060204@perens.com>

On 01/03/2012 09:50 AM, John Cowan wrote:
> If someone submitted a license to us saying "You can license this 
> software under the terms of the GPLv3 or later. If you don't like 
> those terms, you can pay the copyright owners $10,000 and then section 
> 5c does not apply to you"
I see what you mean, but this isn't a good example. It's an offer to 
vend a commercial license and a pointer to an external Open Source 
license. It's not actually a license.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: bruce.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 266 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20120103/299ed0d9/attachment.vcf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4447 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20120103/299ed0d9/attachment.p7s>

From cowan at mercury.ccil.org  Tue Jan  3 18:10:05 2012
From: cowan at mercury.ccil.org (John Cowan)
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2012 13:10:05 -0500
Subject: [License-review] [PROPOSAL] Invite Creative Commons to
	submit	CC0 Dedication.
In-Reply-To: <CAGNbw0uqpEGAP=68y_HFXaAOSH9cmOfchRdwj=Lot-_QHQyGBA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAFPTOkWtgFFC=XjFquDdChuWY5RWc1Q4QnZh=zaf2uW15dP=Xw@mail.gmail.com>
	<4F02289E.5070208@perens.com>
	<3CABA228-4F0C-4067-994B-7D9164CDFD82@gmail.com>
	<87y5toyg9t.fsf_-_@kwarm.red-bean.com>
	<20120103174405.GD8871@mercury.ccil.org>
	<20120103175054.GE8871@mercury.ccil.org>
	<CAGNbw0uqpEGAP=68y_HFXaAOSH9cmOfchRdwj=Lot-_QHQyGBA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20120103181005.GF8871@mercury.ccil.org>

kiran.cyberpro at gmail.com scripsit:

> >> Thank you very much for this suggestion, even I have some similar
> question about a case of exception for select few,
> if they make some other business contracts with the respective owners.
> Thank you again !

Such dual-licensing strategies are common; they just aren't usually put into
the open-source license.  The nearest analogy I can think of is the license
of Perl, which is a choice between the Artistic License and the GPL.  The FSF
considers this a free license, even though they don't consider the Artistic
License free (too vague).

-- 
Babies are born as a result of the              John Cowan
mating between men and women, and most          http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
men and women enjoy mating.                     cowan at ccil.org
    --Isaac Asimov in Earth: Our Crowded Spaceship


From cowan at mercury.ccil.org  Tue Jan  3 18:11:01 2012
From: cowan at mercury.ccil.org (John Cowan)
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2012 13:11:01 -0500
Subject: [License-review] [PROPOSAL] Invite Creative Commons to
	submit	CC0 Dedication.
In-Reply-To: <4F034141.9060204@perens.com>
References: <CAFPTOkWtgFFC=XjFquDdChuWY5RWc1Q4QnZh=zaf2uW15dP=Xw@mail.gmail.com>
	<4F02289E.5070208@perens.com>
	<3CABA228-4F0C-4067-994B-7D9164CDFD82@gmail.com>
	<87y5toyg9t.fsf_-_@kwarm.red-bean.com>
	<20120103174405.GD8871@mercury.ccil.org>
	<20120103175054.GE8871@mercury.ccil.org>
	<4F034141.9060204@perens.com>
Message-ID: <20120103181101.GG8871@mercury.ccil.org>

Bruce Perens scripsit:

> I see what you mean, but this isn't a good example. It's an offer to  
> vend a commercial license and a pointer to an external Open Source  
> license. It's not actually a license.

Well, okay.  Make a modified MPL then (modified GPLs aren't allowed) adding
an analogous clause.

-- 
What is the sound of Perl?  Is it not the       John Cowan
sound of a [Ww]all that people have stopped     cowan at ccil.org
banging their head against?  --Larry            http://www.ccil.org/~cowan


From tg at mirbsd.de  Tue Jan  3 18:10:29 2012
From: tg at mirbsd.de (Thorsten Glaser)
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2012 18:10:29 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [License-review] Small Suggestion
In-Reply-To: <CAGNbw0vcTiNqXC1GppUrkLtCxXLvbaepDUUptuOw+F=qxB+gOw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAGNbw0vcTiNqXC1GppUrkLtCxXLvbaepDUUptuOw+F=qxB+gOw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSM.4.64L.1201031803470.16408@herc.mirbsd.org>

kiran.cyberpro at gmail.com dixit:

>How about putting up an online discussion forum something say...  much like

We have online discussion fora. They are called ?mailing lists?.

HTH & HAND,
//mirabilos
-- 
  "Using Lynx is like wearing a really good pair of shades: cuts out
   the glare and harmful UV (ultra-vanity), and you feel so-o-o COOL."
                                         -- Henry Nelson, March 1999


From kenneth at ballenegger.com  Tue Jan  3 18:28:59 2012
From: kenneth at ballenegger.com (Kenneth Ballenegger)
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2012 10:28:59 -0800
Subject: [License-review] Small Suggestion
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSM.4.64L.1201031803470.16408@herc.mirbsd.org>
References: <CAGNbw0vcTiNqXC1GppUrkLtCxXLvbaepDUUptuOw+F=qxB+gOw@mail.gmail.com>
	<Pine.BSM.4.64L.1201031803470.16408@herc.mirbsd.org>
Message-ID: <1B46F833-5AD8-4AAF-A654-FA1C697F6C36@ballenegger.com>

Another suggestion: having an unsubscribe link. I've been trying to unsubscribe from this mailing list for months and I can't figure out how. This should really be in email footers.

I don't want to mark this as spam, but at some point I'm gonna have to.

-Kenneth

---
Kenneth Ballenegger
www.kswizz.com






On Jan 3, 2012, at 10:10 AM, Thorsten Glaser wrote:

> kiran.cyberpro at gmail.com dixit:
> 
>> How about putting up an online discussion forum something say...  much like
> 
> We have online discussion fora. They are called ?mailing lists?.
> 
> HTH & HAND,
> //mirabilos
> -- 
>  "Using Lynx is like wearing a really good pair of shades: cuts out
>   the glare and harmful UV (ultra-vanity), and you feel so-o-o COOL."
>                                         -- Henry Nelson, March 1999
> _______________________________________________
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at opensource.org
> http://projects.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/20120103/ff7a2b3c/attachment.html>

From perrin at apotheon.com  Tue Jan  3 18:31:27 2012
From: perrin at apotheon.com (Chad Perrin)
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2012 11:31:27 -0700
Subject: [License-review] [PROPOSAL] Invite Creative Commons to submit
 CC0 Dedication.
In-Reply-To: <87y5toyg9t.fsf_-_@kwarm.red-bean.com>
References: <CAFPTOkWtgFFC=XjFquDdChuWY5RWc1Q4QnZh=zaf2uW15dP=Xw@mail.gmail.com>
	<4F02289E.5070208@perens.com>
	<3CABA228-4F0C-4067-994B-7D9164CDFD82@gmail.com>
	<87y5toyg9t.fsf_-_@kwarm.red-bean.com>
Message-ID: <20120103183127.GC20156@hemlock.hydra>

On Tue, Jan 03, 2012 at 10:09:18AM -0500, Karl Fogel wrote:
> 
> Does anyone here on the license review committee think that inviting
> Creative Commons to submit the CC0 Dedication for OSI approval is a bad
> idea, and if so, why?
> 
> Let's try to uncover any obvious objections before approaching CC.  We
> don't necessarily need unanimity, or even consensus, but we should at
> least take a preliminary look at the specific text before inviting CC to
> do anything.  Here's the text:
> 
>   http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode
>   http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/

It looks to me perfectly consistent with the OSD, and it has been
certified as compliant with the copyfree standard definition -- which
should essentially be consistent with a subset of licenses that meet the
requirements of the OSD.


>   
> By the way, note that CC doesn't have a direct link path to the legal
> text from their front page.  Instead, they guide the rightsholder
> through an interactive Q&A, I suppose in order to make sure the holder
> understands what they're doing.  That process starts here:
> 
>   http://creativecommons.org/choose/zero/

I find that an awfully misguided approach, and think that the CC guys
(presumably in service to an attempt to help people who aren't lawyers)
end up obscuring a lot of the likely actual legal effects of their
licenses by way of the "user friendly" interface to license selection and
understanding.

-- 
Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]


From perrin at apotheon.com  Tue Jan  3 18:33:55 2012
From: perrin at apotheon.com (Chad Perrin)
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2012 11:33:55 -0700
Subject: [License-review] OSI,
 legal conditions outside the "four corners" of the license,
 and PD/CC 0 [was Re: Can OSI specify that public domain is open source?]
In-Reply-To: <20120103014217.GI22539@linuxmafia.com>
References: <CAFPTOkWtgFFC=XjFquDdChuWY5RWc1Q4QnZh=zaf2uW15dP=Xw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20120103012331.GA3779@hemlock.hydra>
	<20120103014217.GI22539@linuxmafia.com>
Message-ID: <20120103183355.GD20156@hemlock.hydra>

On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 05:42:17PM -0800, Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Chad Perrin (perrin at apotheon.com):
> 
> > Apart from calling public domain dedications "licenses", my view is that
> > this is probably a good step to take.  I think the Unlicense might also
> > be a worthwhile public domain dedication to consider for certification.
> 
> I hadn't seen Unlicense before now, but my immediate impression is that
> it's not well formed and should be avoided.
> 
> Its first sentence professes to put the covered work into the public
> domain.  However, then the second sentence professes to grant reserved
> rights under copyright law.  However, who is granting those rights, the
> erstwhile copyright holder who, one sentence earlier, professed to
> destroy his or her own title?
> 
> By contrast, CC0 states explicitly that the current copyright holder 
> is attempting (I paraphrase) to the extent permitted by local law to
> disavow in perpetuity and on behalf of all successors all reserved
> rights, and _if that is locally unsuccessful_ grants a permissive
> licence under his/her powers as copyright owner.
> 
> I realise there are a whole lot of software engineers out there who'd
> like to handwave copyright law out of their lives (including you), but
> it'd be really nice if they'd occasionally bother to consult suitable
> legal help before shooting themselves and others in the foot.

I find it dismaying that your response to me seems so hostile, given all
I did was suggest that the Unlicense be *considered*.

-- 
Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]


From kiran.cyberpro at gmail.com  Tue Jan  3 18:46:04 2012
From: kiran.cyberpro at gmail.com (kiran.cyberpro at gmail.com)
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2012 00:16:04 +0530
Subject: [License-review] Small Suggestion
In-Reply-To: <1B46F833-5AD8-4AAF-A654-FA1C697F6C36@ballenegger.com>
References: <CAGNbw0vcTiNqXC1GppUrkLtCxXLvbaepDUUptuOw+F=qxB+gOw@mail.gmail.com>
	<Pine.BSM.4.64L.1201031803470.16408@herc.mirbsd.org>
	<1B46F833-5AD8-4AAF-A654-FA1C697F6C36@ballenegger.com>
Message-ID: <CAGNbw0u_ha4y7sYTOruk_-XTkhON8tF1ofpCFYZSE3V-q8bTuA@mail.gmail.com>

I hope perhaps it is a glitch or a bug, and I think the OSI team will
resolve soon if so.

+Kiran

On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 11:58 PM, Kenneth Ballenegger <
kenneth at ballenegger.com> wrote:

> Another suggestion: having an unsubscribe link. I've been trying to
> unsubscribe from this mailing list for months and I can't figure out how.
> This should really be in email footers.
>
> I don't want to mark this as spam, but at some point I'm gonna have to.
>
> -Kenneth
>
> ---
> Kenneth Ballenegger
> www.kswizz.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Jan 3, 2012, at 10:10 AM, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
>
> kiran.cyberpro at gmail.com dixit:
>
> How about putting up an online discussion forum something say...  much like
>
>
> We have online discussion fora. They are called ?mailing lists?.
>
> HTH & HAND,
> //mirabilos
> --
>  "Using Lynx is like wearing a really good pair of shades: cuts out
>   the glare and harmful UV (ultra-vanity), and you feel so-o-o COOL."
>                                         -- Henry Nelson, March 1999
> _______________________________________________
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at opensource.org
> http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at opensource.org
> http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review
>
>


-- 
------------------------------------
Cheers,  Kiran. Kankipati
Author/Founder - TrafficSqueezer - Linux Kernel OpenSource WAN Optimization
Solution <http://trafficsqueezer.org/>
CEO/MD - Doublefish Solutions <http://doublefish-solutions.com/>
Author/Founder - Aquarium - Linux Web
GUI<http://doublefish-solutions.com/aquarium/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20120104/9d51a849/attachment.html>

From tg at mirbsd.de  Tue Jan  3 18:40:50 2012
From: tg at mirbsd.de (Thorsten Glaser)
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2012 18:40:50 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [License-review] Small Suggestion
In-Reply-To: <1B46F833-5AD8-4AAF-A654-FA1C697F6C36@ballenegger.com>
References: <CAGNbw0vcTiNqXC1GppUrkLtCxXLvbaepDUUptuOw+F=qxB+gOw@mail.gmail.com>
	<Pine.BSM.4.64L.1201031803470.16408@herc.mirbsd.org>
	<1B46F833-5AD8-4AAF-A654-FA1C697F6C36@ballenegger.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSM.4.64L.1201031838570.16408@herc.mirbsd.org>

Kenneth Ballenegger dixit:

>Another suggestion: having an unsubscribe link.

There is one. For example, pine displays this at the end of
each message:

    [ Note: This message contains email list management information ]

This is clickable and yields the following screen:

                                               Mail List Commands

Message 230 has information associated with it that explains how to participate in an email list. An email
list is represented by a single email address that users sharing a common interest can send messages to
(known as posting) which are then redistributed to all members of the list (sometimes after review by a
moderator).

List participation commands in this message include:

 *  A method to get information about the list and instructions on how to join.

    Select HERE to seek help.

 *  Methods to remove yourself from the list (Unsubscribe).

     1. Select HERE to UNsubscribe.

     2. Select HERE to UNsubscribe.

 *  Methods to add yourself to the list (Subscribe).

     1. Select HERE to Subscribe.

     2. Select HERE to Subscribe.

 *  A method to send a message to the entire list (Post).

    Select HERE to post a message.

 *  A method to view archive of messages sent to the list.

    Select HERE to view the archive.


Wherein ?HERE? are, again, links. This goes directly back to
parsing the following headers:

List-Id: <license-review.opensource.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/license-review>,
    <mailto:license-review-request at opensource.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review>
List-Post: <mailto:license-review at opensource.org>
List-Help: <mailto:license-review-request at opensource.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review>,
    <mailto:license-review-request at opensource.org?subject=subscribe>

So there is _all_ information you?ll ever need about this list.

bye,
//mirabilos
-- 
> emacs als auch vi zum Kotzen finde (joe rules) und pine f?r den einzig
> bedienbaren textmode-mailclient halte (und ich hab sie alle ausprobiert). ;)
Hallooooo, ich bin der Holger ("Hallo Holger!"), und ich bin ebenfalls
... pine-User, und das auch noch gewohnheitsm??ig ("Oooooooohhh").  [aus dasr]


From bruce at perens.com  Tue Jan  3 18:53:13 2012
From: bruce at perens.com (Bruce Perens)
Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2012 10:53:13 -0800
Subject: [License-review] OSI,
 legal conditions outside the "four corners" of the license,
 and PD/CC 0 [was Re: Can OSI specify that public domain is open source?]
In-Reply-To: <20120103183355.GD20156@hemlock.hydra>
References: <CAFPTOkWtgFFC=XjFquDdChuWY5RWc1Q4QnZh=zaf2uW15dP=Xw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20120103012331.GA3779@hemlock.hydra>
	<20120103014217.GI22539@linuxmafia.com>
	<20120103183355.GD20156@hemlock.hydra>
Message-ID: <4F034E99.9080901@perens.com>

On 01/03/2012 10:33 AM, Chad Perrin wrote:
> I find it dismaying that your response to me seems so hostile, given 
> all I did was suggest that the Unlicense be *considered*.

Please see the discussion of "crayon" licenses at 
http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss/2011-December/000039.html

The point is that such things have done serious harm to developers when 
they've not behaved as expected in court. Thus, na?vely propagating one 
could be considered to be in the category of irresponsible acts that can 
damage others. In general I suggest that such things be discussed as a 
list of goals rather than an actual license prototype constructed by a 
non-legal-professional.

     Thanks

     Bruce
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: bruce.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 266 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20120103/78973ec5/attachment.vcf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4447 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20120103/78973ec5/attachment.p7s>

From rick at linuxmafia.com  Tue Jan  3 19:13:41 2012
From: rick at linuxmafia.com (Rick Moen)
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2012 11:13:41 -0800
Subject: [License-review] [PROPOSAL] Invite Creative Commons to submit
 CC0 Dedication.
In-Reply-To: <20120103183127.GC20156@hemlock.hydra>
References: <CAFPTOkWtgFFC=XjFquDdChuWY5RWc1Q4QnZh=zaf2uW15dP=Xw@mail.gmail.com>
	<4F02289E.5070208@perens.com>
	<3CABA228-4F0C-4067-994B-7D9164CDFD82@gmail.com>
	<87y5toyg9t.fsf_-_@kwarm.red-bean.com>
	<20120103183127.GC20156@hemlock.hydra>
Message-ID: <20120103191340.GL22539@linuxmafia.com>

Quoting Chad Perrin (perrin at apotheon.com):

> I find that an awfully misguided approach, and think that the CC guys
> (presumably in service to an attempt to help people who aren't lawyers)
> end up obscuring a lot of the likely actual legal effects of their
> licenses by way of the "user friendly" interface to license selection and
> understanding.

You're entitled to your opinion, but in my own experience, CC's 'This is
a human-readable summary, and here's a direct link to the literal
licence terms' approach has been a roaring success, enabling multiple
audiences to understand as much as they want to know.  It's not as if
the 'legal code' is difficult to find.  Also providing a 'human-readable
summary' takes away nothing.

It helps that the summaries are written by sharp-eyed and fair-minded,
literate people with legal knowledge, and that the licences themselves
are well drafted.

And I suspect you'll find far fewer people who misunderstand the likely
legal effects of CC licences than those of most others, though that's
just my hunch.

-- 
Rick Moen                  "No.  'Eureka' is Greek for 'This bath is too hot.'"
rick at linuxmafia.com                                     -- The Doctor
McQ!  (4x80) 


From lrosen at rosenlaw.com  Tue Jan  3 19:17:29 2012
From: lrosen at rosenlaw.com (Lawrence Rosen)
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2012 11:17:29 -0800
Subject: [License-review] OSI,
	legal conditions outside the "four corners" of the license,
	and PD/CC 0 [was Re: Can OSI specify that public domain is open
	source?]
In-Reply-To: <4F034E99.9080901@perens.com>
References: <CAFPTOkWtgFFC=XjFquDdChuWY5RWc1Q4QnZh=zaf2uW15dP=Xw@mail.gmail.com>	<20120103012331.GA3779@hemlock.hydra>	<20120103014217.GI22539@linuxmafia.com>	<20120103183355.GD20156@hemlock.hydra>
	<4F034E99.9080901@perens.com>
Message-ID: <043c01ccca4c$561fc670$025f5350$@com>

Bruce Perens wrote:
> Please see the discussion of "crayon" licenses at
> http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss/2011-
> December/000039.html
> 
> The point is that such things have done serious harm to developers when
> they've not behaved as expected in court. Thus, na?vely propagating one
> could be considered to be in the category of irresponsible acts that
> can damage others. In general I suggest that such things be discussed
> as a list of goals rather than an actual license prototype constructed
> by a non-legal-professional.

+1 to what Bruce Perens said. /Larry


> -----Original Message-----
> From: license-review-bounces at opensource.org [mailto:license-review-
> bounces at opensource.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Perens
> Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 10:53 AM
> To: license-review at opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-review] OSI, legal conditions outside the "four
> corners" of the license, and PD/CC 0 [was Re: Can OSI specify that
> public domain is open source?]
> 
> On 01/03/2012 10:33 AM, Chad Perrin wrote:
> > I find it dismaying that your response to me seems so hostile, given
> > all I did was suggest that the Unlicense be *considered*.
> 
> Please see the discussion of "crayon" licenses at
> http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss/2011-
> December/000039.html
> 
> The point is that such things have done serious harm to developers when
> they've not behaved as expected in court. Thus, na?vely propagating one
> could be considered to be in the category of irresponsible acts that
> can damage others. In general I suggest that such things be discussed
> as a list of goals rather than an actual license prototype constructed
> by a non-legal-professional.
> 
>      Thanks
> 
>      Bruce



From kfogel at red-bean.com  Tue Jan  3 20:05:28 2012
From: kfogel at red-bean.com (Karl Fogel)
Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2012 15:05:28 -0500
Subject: [License-review] Small Suggestion
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSM.4.64L.1201031838570.16408@herc.mirbsd.org> (Thorsten
	Glaser's message of "Tue, 3 Jan 2012 18:40:50 +0000 (UTC)")
References: <CAGNbw0vcTiNqXC1GppUrkLtCxXLvbaepDUUptuOw+F=qxB+gOw@mail.gmail.com>
	<Pine.BSM.4.64L.1201031803470.16408@herc.mirbsd.org>
	<1B46F833-5AD8-4AAF-A654-FA1C697F6C36@ballenegger.com>
	<Pine.BSM.4.64L.1201031838570.16408@herc.mirbsd.org>
Message-ID: <87boqkwnzr.fsf@kwarm.red-bean.com>

I'm assuming Kenneth found the unsubscribe button, as he appears to no
longer be in the membership list; thanks for the followups everyone.

CC'ing Kenneth to make sure.

-Karl

Thorsten Glaser <tg at mirbsd.de> writes:
>Kenneth Ballenegger dixit:
>
>>Another suggestion: having an unsubscribe link.
>
>There is one. For example, pine displays this at the end of
>each message:
>
>    [ Note: This message contains email list management information ]
>
>This is clickable and yields the following screen:
>
>                                               Mail List Commands
>
>Message 230 has information associated with it that explains how to participate in an email list. An email
>list is represented by a single email address that users sharing a common interest can send messages to
>(known as posting) which are then redistributed to all members of the list (sometimes after review by a
>moderator).
>
>List participation commands in this message include:
>
> *  A method to get information about the list and instructions on how to join.
>
>    Select HERE to seek help.
>
> *  Methods to remove yourself from the list (Unsubscribe).
>
>     1. Select HERE to UNsubscribe.
>
>     2. Select HERE to UNsubscribe.
>
> *  Methods to add yourself to the list (Subscribe).
>
>     1. Select HERE to Subscribe.
>
>     2. Select HERE to Subscribe.
>
> *  A method to send a message to the entire list (Post).
>
>    Select HERE to post a message.
>
> *  A method to view archive of messages sent to the list.
>
>    Select HERE to view the archive.
>
>
>Wherein ?HERE? are, again, links. This goes directly back to
>parsing the following headers:
>
>List-Id: <license-review.opensource.org>
>List-Unsubscribe: <http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/license-review>,
>    <mailto:license-review-request at opensource.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>List-Archive: <http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review>
>List-Post: <mailto:license-review at opensource.org>
>List-Help: <mailto:license-review-request at opensource.org?subject=help>
>List-Subscribe: <http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review>,
>    <mailto:license-review-request at opensource.org?subject=subscribe>
>
>So there is _all_ information you?ll ever need about this list.
>
>bye,
>//mirabilos


From kfogel at red-bean.com  Tue Jan  3 20:09:34 2012
From: kfogel at red-bean.com (Karl Fogel)
Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2012 15:09:34 -0500
Subject: [License-review] MPL 2.0 released,
	approved as an open source license by OSI.
Message-ID: <877h18wnsx.fsf@kwarm.red-bean.com>

In case anyone didn't see it this morning:

The Mozilla Corporation has announced the Mozilla Public License 2.0:

  http://mpl.mozilla.org/2012/01/03/announcing-mpl-2-0/

Full license text is here:

  http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/2.0/

And the OSI has approved MPL 2.0 as an open source license:

  http://www.opensource.org/licenses/MPL-2.0

Congratulations to Mozilla and to Luis for what I know was a long and
careful process -- and thanks to everyone here for taking the time to
review the new license so thoroughly.

Best,
-Karl


From rick at linuxmafia.com  Tue Jan  3 20:09:47 2012
From: rick at linuxmafia.com (Rick Moen)
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2012 12:09:47 -0800
Subject: [License-review] OSI,
 legal conditions outside the "four corners" of the license,
 and PD/CC 0 [was Re: Can OSI specify that public domain is open source?]
In-Reply-To: <20120103183355.GD20156@hemlock.hydra>
References: <CAFPTOkWtgFFC=XjFquDdChuWY5RWc1Q4QnZh=zaf2uW15dP=Xw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20120103012331.GA3779@hemlock.hydra>
	<20120103014217.GI22539@linuxmafia.com>
	<20120103183355.GD20156@hemlock.hydra>
Message-ID: <20120103200947.GM22539@linuxmafia.com>

Quoting Chad Perrin (perrin at apotheon.com):

> I find it dismaying that your response to me seems so hostile, given all
> I did was suggest that the Unlicense be *considered*.

Apologies if I seemed personally hostile, Chad.  I really didn't mean to
come across that way.

What I should have said is:  There are a lot of software-oriented
people, you among them, who continually seek to approach the absence of
licensing as closely as possible with a lack of caution about legal
consequence, and many of the licences they advocate and discuss are
defective in fairly obvious ways.  It would be nice if there were a bit
more attention to basics, though I know it's the way of the world that
it won't happen.  

The attitude I'm speaking of is typified by what Arto Bendiken, author
of Unlicence, wrote on its one-year anniversary at the beginning of
2011:  'We wanted out of the copyright game, but were unsure how it
could effectively be done in practice.'[1]  Guess what?  There's a
worldwide default-copyright regime, opting out of it is simply
problematic, and attempts to do so risk creating non-deterministic
effects that depend on the jurisdiction and judge.

And that's the pity of it:  Using a very simple standard permissive
licence such as MIT/X11 License or even a peculiar and cramped but
somewhat standard 3-line licence like Fair Licence achieves everything
Bendiken and others want (_and_ actually escape warranty liability)
except for the ideological point about getting 'out of the copyright
game'.

And because of that ideological hobbyhorse, everyone's time gets wasted.



Since we're talking about Unlicense, let's go on a bit:

Paragraph (and sentence) #1 professes to put the covered work into the
public domain.  As mentioned, paragraph 2 professes to be a grant of
rights normally reserved by default to a copyright owner, which makes no
sense given that the preceding sentence professed to eradicate the
work's quality of being ownable.  _However_ (upon reflection), in itself
that would be harmless if redundant and pointless:  One can interpret
paragraph 2 as an elaboration of the consequences of the first
paragraph.

Paragraph 3 is mostly further explanation of the concept of public
domain, and therefore harmless if not useful.  Its middle sentence 
elaborates that the erstwhile author aims to bind heirs and successors,
too (which is a logical inclusion, irrespective of whether it works).

Paragraph 4, though, is the one that would be amusing if it weren't
tragically broken:  It's the warranty disclaimer.  People accepting the
covered work are obliged to accept the condition of no warranty,
otherwise there is no licence.  Except, oh, wait:  Paragraph 1 professed
to put the work in the public domain, so the erstwhile owner has sawed
off and evaporated in paragraph 1 all power to require the condition in
paragraph 4.


And, my larger point is:  This sort of low comedy happens just about
every freakin' time software people attempt to engineer a way to nullify
copyright law by copying and pasting from existing licences,
non-licences, and semi-licences.  Bendiken, for example, says that he
copied and pasted SQLite's copyright waiver and MIT/X11's warranty
disclaimer, and voila!  Unlicense.

Text salad from popular projects:  What could possibly go wrong?  

Bruce calls these crayon licences.  I tend to use the phrase 
'cargo-cult law'.   
(https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Cargo_cult#Metaphorical_uses_of_the_term)


[1] http://ar.to/2011/01/unlicense-1st-year


From luis at tieguy.org  Tue Jan  3 20:28:13 2012
From: luis at tieguy.org (Luis Villa)
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2012 12:28:13 -0800
Subject: [License-review] MPL 2.0 released,
	approved as an open source license by OSI.
In-Reply-To: <877h18wnsx.fsf@kwarm.red-bean.com>
References: <877h18wnsx.fsf@kwarm.red-bean.com>
Message-ID: <CAFPTOkU5MD2TTA_d8FkU7zFuTPuJ+kw-AyPJJy18KspZy3OtXw@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Karl Fogel <kfogel at red-bean.com> wrote:
> In case anyone didn't see it this morning:
>
> The Mozilla Corporation has announced the Mozilla Public License 2.0:

Technically, the Foundation, not the Corporation. (It actually
matters, since the Foundation is the entity empowered to release new
versions.)

> ?http://mpl.mozilla.org/2012/01/03/announcing-mpl-2-0/

I won't repost that entire post here, but suffice to say that it
summarizes the changes in the license, gives many thanks (because many
are owed!) and has helpful pointers to other sources of information,
including FAQs.

> Full license text is here:
>
> ?http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/2.0/
>
> And the OSI has approved MPL 2.0 as an open source license:
>
> ?http://www.opensource.org/licenses/MPL-2.0

Woot :) We're very pleased to have been able to announce a license
with both OSI and FSF approval at launch time.

> Congratulations to Mozilla and to Luis for what I know was a long and
> careful process -- and thanks to everyone here for taking the time to
> review the new license so thoroughly.

Ditto on the thanks- we appreciate the feedback we got from members of
this list and from the OSI community more generally; I know it helped
make the license a better license; and particularly to Karl for being
so responsive and helpful late in the process and even over the
holidays.

Luis


From cowan at mercury.ccil.org  Tue Jan  3 20:46:16 2012
From: cowan at mercury.ccil.org (John Cowan)
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2012 15:46:16 -0500
Subject: [License-review] MPL 2.0 released,
	approved as an open source	license by OSI.
In-Reply-To: <CAFPTOkU5MD2TTA_d8FkU7zFuTPuJ+kw-AyPJJy18KspZy3OtXw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <877h18wnsx.fsf@kwarm.red-bean.com>
	<CAFPTOkU5MD2TTA_d8FkU7zFuTPuJ+kw-AyPJJy18KspZy3OtXw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20120103204616.GA14957@mercury.ccil.org>

Luis Villa scripsit:

> I won't repost that entire post here, but suffice to say that it
> summarizes the changes in the license, gives many thanks (because many
> are owed!) and has helpful pointers to other sources of information,
> including FAQs.

It would have been gracious to thank the members of this list on the Web site,
as you do in your email.  Just sayin'.

-- 
Possession is said to be nine points of the law,                John Cowan
but that's not saying how many points the law might have.       cowan at ccil.org
        --Thomas A. Cowan (law professor and my father)


From kfogel at red-bean.com  Tue Jan  3 20:57:17 2012
From: kfogel at red-bean.com (Karl Fogel)
Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2012 15:57:17 -0500
Subject: [License-review] MPL 2.0 released,
	approved as an open source license by OSI.
In-Reply-To: <CAFPTOkU5MD2TTA_d8FkU7zFuTPuJ+kw-AyPJJy18KspZy3OtXw@mail.gmail.com>
	(Luis Villa's message of "Tue, 3 Jan 2012 12:28:13 -0800")
References: <877h18wnsx.fsf@kwarm.red-bean.com>
	<CAFPTOkU5MD2TTA_d8FkU7zFuTPuJ+kw-AyPJJy18KspZy3OtXw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <87obukv70y.fsf@kwarm.red-bean.com>

Luis Villa <luis at tieguy.org> writes:
>Technically, the Foundation, not the Corporation. (It actually
>matters, since the Foundation is the entity empowered to release new
>versions.)

Oops -- noted for future, thank you!


From luis at tieguy.org  Tue Jan  3 21:13:19 2012
From: luis at tieguy.org (Luis Villa)
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2012 13:13:19 -0800
Subject: [License-review] MPL 2.0 released,
 approved as an open source license by OSI.
In-Reply-To: <20120103204616.GA14957@mercury.ccil.org>
References: <877h18wnsx.fsf@kwarm.red-bean.com>
	<CAFPTOkU5MD2TTA_d8FkU7zFuTPuJ+kw-AyPJJy18KspZy3OtXw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20120103204616.GA14957@mercury.ccil.org>
Message-ID: <CAFPTOkWiv_xRc+HbxP-h2dHqNJ3uLnYB5=gVdbEUt9md60H2zQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 12:46 PM, John Cowan <cowan at mercury.ccil.org> wrote:
> Luis Villa scripsit:
>
>> I won't repost that entire post here, but suffice to say that it
>> summarizes the changes in the license, gives many thanks (because many
>> are owed!) and has helpful pointers to other sources of information,
>> including FAQs.
>
> It would have been gracious to thank the members of this list on the Web site,
> as you do in your email. ?Just sayin'.

As I noted, the process has been two years long, and inevitably some
folks (in this case, this list!) were overlooked. I apologize for the
oversight and will update the post later.

Luis


From perrin at apotheon.com  Wed Jan  4 05:19:10 2012
From: perrin at apotheon.com (Chad Perrin)
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2012 22:19:10 -0700
Subject: [License-review] [PROPOSAL] Invite Creative Commons to submit
 CC0 Dedication.
In-Reply-To: <20120103191340.GL22539@linuxmafia.com>
References: <CAFPTOkWtgFFC=XjFquDdChuWY5RWc1Q4QnZh=zaf2uW15dP=Xw@mail.gmail.com>
	<4F02289E.5070208@perens.com>
	<3CABA228-4F0C-4067-994B-7D9164CDFD82@gmail.com>
	<87y5toyg9t.fsf_-_@kwarm.red-bean.com>
	<20120103183127.GC20156@hemlock.hydra>
	<20120103191340.GL22539@linuxmafia.com>
Message-ID: <20120104051910.GD28963@hemlock.hydra>

On Tue, Jan 03, 2012 at 11:13:41AM -0800, Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Chad Perrin (perrin at apotheon.com):
> 
> > I find that an awfully misguided approach, and think that the CC guys
> > (presumably in service to an attempt to help people who aren't lawyers)
> > end up obscuring a lot of the likely actual legal effects of their
> > licenses by way of the "user friendly" interface to license selection and
> > understanding.
> 
> You're entitled to your opinion, but in my own experience, CC's 'This is
> a human-readable summary, and here's a direct link to the literal
> licence terms' approach has been a roaring success, enabling multiple
> audiences to understand as much as they want to know.  It's not as if
> the 'legal code' is difficult to find.  Also providing a 'human-readable
> summary' takes away nothing.

Have you actually tried finding the CC0 text by following links from the
front page of the Creative Commons site?  Last I checked (not today,
admittedly), what you just described was not how it worked.


> 
> It helps that the summaries are written by sharp-eyed and fair-minded,
> literate people with legal knowledge, and that the licences themselves
> are well drafted.

The summaries, unfortunately, tend to leave out some terms that might
potentially prove significant.


> 
> And I suspect you'll find far fewer people who misunderstand the likely
> legal effects of CC licences than those of most others, though that's
> just my hunch.

I don't know about "most", but certainly some.

-- 
Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]


From perrin at apotheon.com  Wed Jan  4 05:26:59 2012
From: perrin at apotheon.com (Chad Perrin)
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2012 22:26:59 -0700
Subject: [License-review] OSI,
 legal conditions outside the "four corners" of the license,
 and PD/CC 0 [was Re: Can OSI specify that public domain is open source?]
In-Reply-To: <20120103200947.GM22539@linuxmafia.com>
References: <CAFPTOkWtgFFC=XjFquDdChuWY5RWc1Q4QnZh=zaf2uW15dP=Xw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20120103012331.GA3779@hemlock.hydra>
	<20120103014217.GI22539@linuxmafia.com>
	<20120103183355.GD20156@hemlock.hydra>
	<20120103200947.GM22539@linuxmafia.com>
Message-ID: <20120104052659.GE28963@hemlock.hydra>

On Tue, Jan 03, 2012 at 12:09:47PM -0800, Rick Moen wrote:
> 
> 2011:  'We wanted out of the copyright game, but were unsure how it
> could effectively be done in practice.'[1]  Guess what?  There's a
> worldwide default-copyright regime, opting out of it is simply
> problematic, and attempts to do so risk creating non-deterministic
> effects that depend on the jurisdiction and judge.
> 
> And that's the pity of it:  Using a very simple standard permissive
> licence such as MIT/X11 License

I agree that a simple license is generally better than a layered fallback
on top of an attempt to disclaim copyright, but that is not the same as
saying that a layered fallback on top of an attempt to disclaim copyright
is not "open source".


> 
> Since we're talking about Unlicense, let's go on a bit:
> 
> Paragraph (and sentence) #1 professes to put the covered work into the
> public domain.  As mentioned, paragraph 2 professes to be a grant of
> rights normally reserved by default to a copyright owner, which makes no
> sense given that the preceding sentence professed to eradicate the
> work's quality of being ownable.  _However_ (upon reflection), in itself
> that would be harmless if redundant and pointless:  One can interpret
> paragraph 2 as an elaboration of the consequences of the first
> paragraph.

I don't think the point is to try to establish a license after
disclaiming copyright, exactly.  Rather, I think the intent is to offer
license terms should the public domain dedication legally fail for a
given jurisdiction.


> 
> Paragraph 3 is mostly further explanation of the concept of public
> domain, and therefore harmless if not useful.  Its middle sentence 
> elaborates that the erstwhile author aims to bind heirs and successors,
> too (which is a logical inclusion, irrespective of whether it works).
> 
> Paragraph 4, though, is the one that would be amusing if it weren't
> tragically broken:  It's the warranty disclaimer.  People accepting the
> covered work are obliged to accept the condition of no warranty,
> otherwise there is no licence.  Except, oh, wait:  Paragraph 1 professed
> to put the work in the public domain, so the erstwhile owner has sawed
> off and evaporated in paragraph 1 all power to require the condition in
> paragraph 4.

If public domain dedication fails, and license terms apply instead, the
warranty is still valid.  Right?  I think, again, the point was not to
dedicate something to the public domain then try to impose license terms,
but to impose license terms only if the public domain dedication failed.

I have not talked to the author of the Unlicense about this (or at all,
to my recollection), but that appears to be the obvious intent from where
I'm sitting.

-- 
Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]


From rick at linuxmafia.com  Wed Jan  4 08:09:16 2012
From: rick at linuxmafia.com (Rick Moen)
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2012 00:09:16 -0800
Subject: [License-review] [PROPOSAL] Invite Creative Commons to submit
 CC0 Dedication.
In-Reply-To: <20120104051910.GD28963@hemlock.hydra>
References: <CAFPTOkWtgFFC=XjFquDdChuWY5RWc1Q4QnZh=zaf2uW15dP=Xw@mail.gmail.com>
	<4F02289E.5070208@perens.com>
	<3CABA228-4F0C-4067-994B-7D9164CDFD82@gmail.com>
	<87y5toyg9t.fsf_-_@kwarm.red-bean.com>
	<20120103183127.GC20156@hemlock.hydra>
	<20120103191340.GL22539@linuxmafia.com>
	<20120104051910.GD28963@hemlock.hydra>
Message-ID: <20120104080916.GY22539@linuxmafia.com>

Quoting Chad Perrin (perrin at apotheon.com):

> Have you actually tried finding the CC0 text by following links from the
> front page of the Creative Commons site?  Last I checked (not today,
> admittedly), what you just described was not how it worked.

I'm entirely unclear on the relevance of your question.  The point is
that the 'legal code' is trivial to find from the 'human readable
summary', being directly linked from the top of the page.

How difficult it is to navigate from the Creative Commons front page
seems to have nothing whatsoever to do with your antecedent concerns.


> The summaries, unfortunately, tend to leave out some terms that might
> potentially prove significant.

I'm sorry they don't meet your needs.  Feel free to do better.  In my
own experience, they are spot-on for the level of complexity a large
audience seeks.



From rick at linuxmafia.com  Wed Jan  4 08:19:47 2012
From: rick at linuxmafia.com (Rick Moen)
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2012 00:19:47 -0800
Subject: [License-review] OSI,
 legal conditions outside the "four corners" of the license,
 and PD/CC 0 [was Re: Can OSI specify that public domain is open source?]
In-Reply-To: <20120104052659.GE28963@hemlock.hydra>
References: <CAFPTOkWtgFFC=XjFquDdChuWY5RWc1Q4QnZh=zaf2uW15dP=Xw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20120103012331.GA3779@hemlock.hydra>
	<20120103014217.GI22539@linuxmafia.com>
	<20120103183355.GD20156@hemlock.hydra>
	<20120103200947.GM22539@linuxmafia.com>
	<20120104052659.GE28963@hemlock.hydra>
Message-ID: <20120104081947.GZ22539@linuxmafia.com>

Quoting Chad Perrin (perrin at apotheon.com):

> I agree that a simple license is generally better than a layered fallback
> on top of an attempt to disclaim copyright, but that is not the same as
> saying that a layered fallback on top of an attempt to disclaim copyright
> is not "open source".

Who exactly in this picture is so claiming?  I certainly wasn't.

> I don't think the point is to try to establish a license after
> disclaiming copyright, exactly.  Rather, I think the intent is to offer
> license terms should the public domain dedication legally fail for a
> given jurisdiction.

That's not what it says -- which is part of where it fails compared to
(say) CC0.

> If public domain dedication fails, and license terms apply instead, the
> warranty is still valid.  Right?  I think, again, the point was not to
> dedicate something to the public domain then try to impose license terms,
> but to impose license terms only if the public domain dedication failed.

My point was that the licence author seems to have attempted to disclaim
warranty at the same time as professing to put the work into the public
domain, without realising that the latter, if effective, prevents the
former.

You may say that was not his intent.  Me, I think that our having to
guess intent suggests problems by itself.

Anyhow, I really do not wish to spend more time on 'Unlicense' (and on
the whole I'd rather not spend time trying to reason with people trying
to mimic PD through text-salad operations on existing permissive
licences, as in my experience it's a massive time sink with little to
show for it).



From perrin at apotheon.com  Wed Jan  4 16:04:58 2012
From: perrin at apotheon.com (Chad Perrin)
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2012 09:04:58 -0700
Subject: [License-review] [PROPOSAL] Invite Creative Commons to submit
 CC0 Dedication.
In-Reply-To: <20120104080916.GY22539@linuxmafia.com>
References: <CAFPTOkWtgFFC=XjFquDdChuWY5RWc1Q4QnZh=zaf2uW15dP=Xw@mail.gmail.com>
	<4F02289E.5070208@perens.com>
	<3CABA228-4F0C-4067-994B-7D9164CDFD82@gmail.com>
	<87y5toyg9t.fsf_-_@kwarm.red-bean.com>
	<20120103183127.GC20156@hemlock.hydra>
	<20120103191340.GL22539@linuxmafia.com>
	<20120104051910.GD28963@hemlock.hydra>
	<20120104080916.GY22539@linuxmafia.com>
Message-ID: <20120104160458.GC8500@hemlock.hydra>

On Wed, Jan 04, 2012 at 12:09:16AM -0800, Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Chad Perrin (perrin at apotheon.com):
> 
> > Have you actually tried finding the CC0 text by following links from the
> > front page of the Creative Commons site?  Last I checked (not today,
> > admittedly), what you just described was not how it worked.
> 
> I'm entirely unclear on the relevance of your question.  The point is
> that the 'legal code' is trivial to find from the 'human readable
> summary', being directly linked from the top of the page.
> 
> How difficult it is to navigate from the Creative Commons front page
> seems to have nothing whatsoever to do with your antecedent concerns.

I'll be more explicit.

Show me where there's a link to the "legal code":

    https://creativecommons.org/choose/zero/

I'll be even more explicit.  Your description of how to find the legal
code for CC licenses does not apply to CC0.


> >
> > The summaries, unfortunately, tend to leave out some terms that might
> > potentially prove significant.
> 
> I'm sorry they don't meet your needs.  Feel free to do better.  In my
> own experience, they are spot-on for the level of complexity a large
> audience seeks.

Sure . . . except for little things like "Can I deploy this through
iTunes?"  The summaries suggest that, for instance, CC-BY and CC-BY-SA
can, but the actual legal text includes terms that make that
questionable.

-- 
Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]


From rfontana at redhat.com  Wed Jan  4 16:14:37 2012
From: rfontana at redhat.com (Richard Fontana)
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2012 11:14:37 -0500
Subject: [License-review] [PROPOSAL] Invite Creative Commons to submit
 CC0 Dedication.
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSM.4.64L.1201031516091.16408@herc.mirbsd.org>
References: <CAFPTOkWtgFFC=XjFquDdChuWY5RWc1Q4QnZh=zaf2uW15dP=Xw@mail.gmail.com>
	<4F02289E.5070208@perens.com>
	<3CABA228-4F0C-4067-994B-7D9164CDFD82@gmail.com>
	<87y5toyg9t.fsf_-_@kwarm.red-bean.com>
	<Pine.BSM.4.64L.1201031516091.16408@herc.mirbsd.org>
Message-ID: <20120104161437.GA21432@redhat.com>

On Tue, Jan 03, 2012 at 03:17:52PM +0000, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> I think submitting the licence fallback of CC0 for review as
> an Open Source licence is a very good idea. (This is distinct.)
> OSI should probably look at the entire document but not certify
> a ?this isn?t copyrighted? statement as a copyright licence.

CC0 (the "legal code") doesn't say "this isn't copyrighted" (though
the "human readable summary" has a "No Copyright" label); rather it
says "this may be copyrighted" and has language trying to achieve as
broad a waiver of copyright rights as possible.

I don't think it would make sense for OSI to review a portion of an
integral legal document like CC0. Either review for
certification/approval the whole thing or not at all.

- RF



From perrin at apotheon.com  Wed Jan  4 16:17:46 2012
From: perrin at apotheon.com (Chad Perrin)
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2012 09:17:46 -0700
Subject: [License-review] OSI,
 legal conditions outside the "four corners" of the license,
 and PD/CC 0 [was Re: Can OSI specify that public domain is open source?]
In-Reply-To: <20120104081947.GZ22539@linuxmafia.com>
References: <CAFPTOkWtgFFC=XjFquDdChuWY5RWc1Q4QnZh=zaf2uW15dP=Xw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20120103012331.GA3779@hemlock.hydra>
	<20120103014217.GI22539@linuxmafia.com>
	<20120103183355.GD20156@hemlock.hydra>
	<20120103200947.GM22539@linuxmafia.com>
	<20120104052659.GE28963@hemlock.hydra>
	<20120104081947.GZ22539@linuxmafia.com>
Message-ID: <20120104161746.GD8500@hemlock.hydra>

On Wed, Jan 04, 2012 at 12:19:47AM -0800, Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Chad Perrin (perrin at apotheon.com):
> 
> > I agree that a simple license is generally better than a layered fallback
> > on top of an attempt to disclaim copyright, but that is not the same as
> > saying that a layered fallback on top of an attempt to disclaim copyright
> > is not "open source".
> 
> Who exactly in this picture is so claiming?  I certainly wasn't.

You appear to be using the fact that an attempted PD declaration plus a
license fallback is not as good as a simple license as a way to argue
against consideration of something for open source certification.  Is
that not the point of this discussion -- considering whether something
should be certified as open source, or even whether it should be
considered for certification?


> >
> > I don't think the point is to try to establish a license after
> > disclaiming copyright, exactly.  Rather, I think the intent is to offer
> > license terms should the public domain dedication legally fail for a
> > given jurisdiction.
> 
> That's not what it says -- which is part of where it fails compared to
> (say) CC0.

The fact it does not explicitly say that in the license text is a fair
point, and worth considering.  I even suspect that, in this case, the
increased complexity of CC0 is more than outweighed by its greater
apparent legal clarity, as you suggest here.

I simply tried to explain the apparent intent of the clause to which you
objected as being "meaningless", drawing from this text in an explanatory
page:

    The legal significance of this Unlicense clause is that even if it so
    happened that in some backward jurisdiction there were any questions
    about the interpretation of a public domain dedication like the
    Unlicense, the authors have here very explicitly granted permission
    to do just about anything with the software.

Whether that is how it would actually play out in court is a matter for
lawyers, of course, but that this is the intent of that clause is pretty
clear, thanks specifically to this explanation.

Source:

    http://ar.to/2010/01/dissecting-the-unlicense

(linked from the Unlicense main page)


> >
> > If public domain dedication fails, and license terms apply instead, the
> > warranty is still valid.  Right?  I think, again, the point was not to
> > dedicate something to the public domain then try to impose license terms,
> > but to impose license terms only if the public domain dedication failed.
> 
> My point was that the licence author seems to have attempted to disclaim
> warranty at the same time as professing to put the work into the public
> domain, without realising that the latter, if effective, prevents the
> former.

My point is that the former, if effective, obviates the latter -- and
this appears to be by design.  The former is preferred; the latter is a
fallback.  Coupled with the latter is the warranty disclaimer and, to the
extent warranty disclaimers are still relevant in a given jurisdiction (I
will not swear it isn't, in part because I am not a lawyer in all
relevant jurisdictions) even after public domain dedication, the warranty
disclaimer may still apply.


> 
> You may say that was not his intent.  Me, I think that our having to
> guess intent suggests problems by itself.

You may be right about that.

-- 
Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]


From Nigel.Tzeng at jhuapl.edu  Wed Jan  4 16:38:32 2012
From: Nigel.Tzeng at jhuapl.edu (Tzeng, Nigel H.)
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2012 11:38:32 -0500
Subject: [License-review] [PROPOSAL] Invite Creative Commons to submit
 CC0 Dedication.
In-Reply-To: <20120104160458.GC8500@hemlock.hydra>
Message-ID: <CB29E4D6.1320A%Nigel.Tzeng@jhuapl.edu>

On 1/4/12 11:04 AM, "Chad Perrin" <perrin at apotheon.com> wrote:

>I'll be more explicit.
>
>Show me where there's a link to the "legal code":
>
>    https://creativecommons.org/choose/zero/

It's not on that page.

>I'll be even more explicit.  Your description of how to find the legal
>code for CC licenses does not apply to CC0.

No he means from the top of the license page itself:

http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/

"The point is that the 'legal code' is trivial to find from the 'human
readable summary', being directly linked from the top of the page."


Which is correct.  Getting to the actual CC0 1.0 page is a bit convoluted
though.

>> > The summaries, unfortunately, tend to leave out some terms that might
>> > potentially prove significant.
>> 
>> I'm sorry they don't meet your needs.  Feel free to do better.  In my
>> own experience, they are spot-on for the level of complexity a large
>> audience seeks.
>
>Sure . . . except for little things like "Can I deploy this through
>iTunes?"  The summaries suggest that, for instance, CC-BY and CC-BY-SA
>can, but the actual legal text includes terms that make that
>questionable.

It's better than the state for open source software licenses.

I see CC-BY-SA podcasts in iTunes and there are apps that use CC-BY-SA OSM
data.  If there's a problem folks seem unaware.  There are places to
insert copyright metadata for iTunes even if it's nothing else but the app
description text.



From rick at linuxmafia.com  Wed Jan  4 16:39:48 2012
From: rick at linuxmafia.com (Rick Moen)
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2012 08:39:48 -0800
Subject: [License-review] [PROPOSAL] Invite Creative Commons to submit
 CC0 Dedication.
In-Reply-To: <20120104160458.GC8500@hemlock.hydra>
References: <CAFPTOkWtgFFC=XjFquDdChuWY5RWc1Q4QnZh=zaf2uW15dP=Xw@mail.gmail.com>
	<4F02289E.5070208@perens.com>
	<3CABA228-4F0C-4067-994B-7D9164CDFD82@gmail.com>
	<87y5toyg9t.fsf_-_@kwarm.red-bean.com>
	<20120103183127.GC20156@hemlock.hydra>
	<20120103191340.GL22539@linuxmafia.com>
	<20120104051910.GD28963@hemlock.hydra>
	<20120104080916.GY22539@linuxmafia.com>
	<20120104160458.GC8500@hemlock.hydra>
Message-ID: <20120104163948.GC22539@linuxmafia.com>

Quoting Chad Perrin (perrin at apotheon.com):

> I'll be even more explicit.  Your description of how to find the legal
> code for CC licenses does not apply to CC0.

Here's the 'human readable summary':
http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/

Right at the top of the page is a link to 'Legal Code'.

>     https://creativecommons.org/choose/zero/

That is not CC0.  That is a prefatory set of documentation that I assume
eventually gets readers to CC0.

I found CC0 itself by Web-searching.

If you would like to suggest to Creative Commons that they improve their
Web site, please write to Creative Commons.  I am not Creative Commons. 
Thank you.

> > I'm sorry they don't meet your needs.  Feel free to do better.  In my
> > own experience, they are spot-on for the level of complexity a large
> > audience seeks.
> 
> Sure . . . except for little things like "Can I deploy this through
> iTunes?"

Dude, kindly get a clue:  I'm tired of being bothered by you.  Again.



From rick at linuxmafia.com  Wed Jan  4 16:42:02 2012
From: rick at linuxmafia.com (Rick Moen)
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2012 08:42:02 -0800
Subject: [License-review] OSI,
 legal conditions outside the "four corners" of the license,
 and PD/CC 0 [was Re: Can OSI specify that public domain is open source?]
In-Reply-To: <20120104161746.GD8500@hemlock.hydra>
References: <CAFPTOkWtgFFC=XjFquDdChuWY5RWc1Q4QnZh=zaf2uW15dP=Xw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20120103012331.GA3779@hemlock.hydra>
	<20120103014217.GI22539@linuxmafia.com>
	<20120103183355.GD20156@hemlock.hydra>
	<20120103200947.GM22539@linuxmafia.com>
	<20120104052659.GE28963@hemlock.hydra>
	<20120104081947.GZ22539@linuxmafia.com>
	<20120104161746.GD8500@hemlock.hydra>
Message-ID: <20120104164202.GD22539@linuxmafia.com>

Quoting Chad Perrin (perrin at apotheon.com):

> > Who exactly in this picture is so claiming?  I certainly wasn't.
> 
> You appear to be using the fact that an attempted PD declaration plus a
> license fallback is not as good as a simple license as a way to argue
> against consideration of something for open source certification.

I did not so state.

You are wasting your time and mine.

> The fact it does not explicitly say that in the license text is a fair
> point, and worth considering. [...]

Sorry, Chad, but I'm done.



From josh at postgresql.org  Wed Jan  4 19:32:19 2012
From: josh at postgresql.org (Josh Berkus)
Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2012 11:32:19 -0800
Subject: [License-review] [PROPOSAL] Invite Creative Commons to submit
 CC0 Dedication.
In-Reply-To: <20120104051910.GD28963@hemlock.hydra>
References: <CAFPTOkWtgFFC=XjFquDdChuWY5RWc1Q4QnZh=zaf2uW15dP=Xw@mail.gmail.com>	<4F02289E.5070208@perens.com>	<3CABA228-4F0C-4067-994B-7D9164CDFD82@gmail.com>	<87y5toyg9t.fsf_-_@kwarm.red-bean.com>	<20120103183127.GC20156@hemlock.hydra>	<20120103191340.GL22539@linuxmafia.com>
	<20120104051910.GD28963@hemlock.hydra>
Message-ID: <4F04A943.8060408@postgresql.org>

All,

Shouldn't this be on License-Discuss?

Thanks.

--Josh


From perrin at apotheon.com  Wed Jan  4 20:21:13 2012
From: perrin at apotheon.com (Chad Perrin)
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2012 13:21:13 -0700
Subject: [License-review] [PROPOSAL] Invite Creative Commons to submit
 CC0 Dedication.
In-Reply-To: <CB29E4D6.1320A%Nigel.Tzeng@jhuapl.edu>
References: <20120104160458.GC8500@hemlock.hydra>
	<CB29E4D6.1320A%Nigel.Tzeng@jhuapl.edu>
Message-ID: <20120104202113.GC13408@hemlock.hydra>

On Wed, Jan 04, 2012 at 11:38:32AM -0500, Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote:
> On 1/4/12 11:04 AM, "Chad Perrin" <perrin at apotheon.com> wrote:
> >
> >I'll be more explicit.
> >
> >Show me where there's a link to the "legal code":
> >
> >    https://creativecommons.org/choose/zero/
> 
> It's not on that page.

Clearly.  That was my point.


> >
> >I'll be even more explicit.  Your description of how to find the legal
> >code for CC licenses does not apply to CC0.
> 
> No he means from the top of the license page itself:
> 
> http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/

That is not a very easy page to find.  Thanks for pointing it out, but
it's not the page people looking for something like what CC0 provides are
likely to find when searching for it, I think.

After some more effort, I finally did find a path to it through links
from the main site, but the end result is that it did not stick in my
mind.  Is there some straightforward means by which you found that, or
did you find it by assuming it must exist somewhere and searching
diligently for it through the chains of links you could find on the CC
site?


> 
> "The point is that the 'legal code' is trivial to find from the 'human
> readable summary', being directly linked from the top of the page."
> 
> Which is correct.  Getting to the actual CC0 1.0 page is a bit convoluted
> though.

I suppose it is . . . if you have the power of divination (or a lot of
time to spend searching) necessary to find the summary page in the first
place.  I stand corrected.


> >
> >Sure . . . except for little things like "Can I deploy this through
> >iTunes?"  The summaries suggest that, for instance, CC-BY and CC-BY-SA
> >can, but the actual legal text includes terms that make that
> >questionable.
> 
> It's better than the state for open source software licenses.

That depends on the license.


> 
> I see CC-BY-SA podcasts in iTunes and there are apps that use CC-BY-SA OSM
> data.  If there's a problem folks seem unaware.  There are places to
> insert copyright metadata for iTunes even if it's nothing else but the app
> description text.

That's my point: people are unaware of the potential problems, and they
don't have anything to do with copyright metadata.  Have you considered,
for instance, that CC-BY and CC-BY-SA contain anti-DRM clauses, and
iTunes uses DRM?

-- 
Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]


From perrin at apotheon.com  Wed Jan  4 20:25:14 2012
From: perrin at apotheon.com (Chad Perrin)
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2012 13:25:14 -0700
Subject: [License-review] [PROPOSAL] Invite Creative Commons to submit
 CC0 Dedication.
In-Reply-To: <20120104163948.GC22539@linuxmafia.com>
References: <CAFPTOkWtgFFC=XjFquDdChuWY5RWc1Q4QnZh=zaf2uW15dP=Xw@mail.gmail.com>
	<4F02289E.5070208@perens.com>
	<3CABA228-4F0C-4067-994B-7D9164CDFD82@gmail.com>
	<87y5toyg9t.fsf_-_@kwarm.red-bean.com>
	<20120103183127.GC20156@hemlock.hydra>
	<20120103191340.GL22539@linuxmafia.com>
	<20120104051910.GD28963@hemlock.hydra>
	<20120104080916.GY22539@linuxmafia.com>
	<20120104160458.GC8500@hemlock.hydra>
	<20120104163948.GC22539@linuxmafia.com>
Message-ID: <20120104202514.GD13408@hemlock.hydra>

On Wed, Jan 04, 2012 at 08:39:48AM -0800, Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Chad Perrin (perrin at apotheon.com):
> 
> > I'll be even more explicit.  Your description of how to find the legal
> > code for CC licenses does not apply to CC0.
> 
> Here's the 'human readable summary':
> http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
> 
> Right at the top of the page is a link to 'Legal Code'.

As indicated in my response to Nigel H. Tzeng, I stand corrected.
Something quite difficult to find, and unlikely to be what anyone
discovers first (or second or third) when going to the site to search for
something like CC0, does indeed match the specifics of your statement.
The problem with regard to CC0's presentation and the availability of its
"legal code" is not the problem I at first thought it was, though it is
amply demonstrated by the very fact I made that error, I think.


> 
> Dude, kindly get a clue:  I'm tired of being bothered by you.  Again.

Didn't you address me first, before I ever addressed you, in this
discussion?  I honestly don't recall for sure, but I think you did.
Either way, the answer is the same:

If you don't want to be "bothered" by me, stop prompting me for
responses.

-- 
Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]


From perrin at apotheon.com  Wed Jan  4 20:26:25 2012
From: perrin at apotheon.com (Chad Perrin)
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2012 13:26:25 -0700
Subject: [License-review] [PROPOSAL] Invite Creative Commons to submit
 CC0 Dedication.
In-Reply-To: <4F04A943.8060408@postgresql.org>
References: <CAFPTOkWtgFFC=XjFquDdChuWY5RWc1Q4QnZh=zaf2uW15dP=Xw@mail.gmail.com>
	<4F02289E.5070208@perens.com>
	<3CABA228-4F0C-4067-994B-7D9164CDFD82@gmail.com>
	<87y5toyg9t.fsf_-_@kwarm.red-bean.com>
	<20120103183127.GC20156@hemlock.hydra>
	<20120103191340.GL22539@linuxmafia.com>
	<20120104051910.GD28963@hemlock.hydra>
	<4F04A943.8060408@postgresql.org>
Message-ID: <20120104202625.GE13408@hemlock.hydra>

On Wed, Jan 04, 2012 at 11:32:19AM -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
> All,
> 
> Shouldn't this be on License-Discuss?

Yes, it probably should.  I'm not sure when exactly it devolved to that
point.  I apologize if I made a reply that pushed it past that point.

-- 
Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]


From bruce at perens.com  Wed Jan  4 20:29:47 2012
From: bruce at perens.com (Bruce Perens)
Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2012 12:29:47 -0800
Subject: [License-review] [PROPOSAL] Invite Creative Commons to submit
 CC0 Dedication.
In-Reply-To: <20120104202625.GE13408@hemlock.hydra>
References: <CAFPTOkWtgFFC=XjFquDdChuWY5RWc1Q4QnZh=zaf2uW15dP=Xw@mail.gmail.com>
	<4F02289E.5070208@perens.com>
	<3CABA228-4F0C-4067-994B-7D9164CDFD82@gmail.com>
	<87y5toyg9t.fsf_-_@kwarm.red-bean.com>
	<20120103183127.GC20156@hemlock.hydra>
	<20120103191340.GL22539@linuxmafia.com>
	<20120104051910.GD28963@hemlock.hydra>
	<4F04A943.8060408@postgresql.org>
	<20120104202625.GE13408@hemlock.hydra>
Message-ID: <4F04B6BB.1020102@perens.com>

I pushed the "Begin" button and it displayed the "legal code" in a box 
on the first form. It asked me to check a box that I'd read it. IMO the 
presentation of the legal document is sufficient and this dead horse has 
been beaten for long enough today.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: bruce.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 266 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20120104/941e96f4/attachment.vcf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4447 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20120104/941e96f4/attachment.p7s>

From cce at clarkevans.com  Sat Jan 21 08:09:19 2012
From: cce at clarkevans.com (Clark C. Evans)
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 03:09:19 -0500
Subject: [License-review] For Approval - "Forget Me Not"
Message-ID: <1327133359.1328.140661026157841@webmail.messagingengine.com>

This _miscellaneous_ license is intended to be a short, reusable,
permissive license requiring commensurate attribution for applications
having user interfaces that display attributions or copyright notices.
This is a license derived from the MIT adding an additional clause:


 To the extent that a user interface of a work containing the Software
 displays attributions, copyrights, or legal notices, it must credit
 the Software and its development project commensurately.


An express goal of this license is to be compatible with the GPLv3 as
a permissive additional term under clause 7b.  Another objective is 
to be simple and easy to activate (no supplemental terms, no exhibits).
It should also provide significant freedom as to how the attribution
requirement might be satisfied.  Consistent with GPLv3 5(d) this
license does not require an attributions if an application otherwise
lacks any sort of attributions, copyrights, or legal notices. 

I'm proposing this license since we'll be releasing large works under
GPLv3 with an additional permissive term requiring author attribution.
However, we have several components we'd prefer to release under a
non-copyleft license that preserves a similar attribution requirement.
Although I'm not a legal professional, this license is simple enough
that I'm asking for assistance to remedy any problems this group sees.

I'd like to do this in 3 phases.  I'd like to first get provisional
text ironed out here.  Then ask for Debian-legal to ensure that they
are OK with the license and verify with the FSF that they believe the
license term to be compatible with the GPLv3.  With any changes, I'd
like to then seek a final approval here. 

Kind Regards,

Clark

P.S.  The only prior public discussion of this license that I'm 
aware of was on license-discuss just the last week or so.

---
Copyright (c) <year> <copyright holders>

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining
a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the
"Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including
without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish,
distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to
permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to
the following conditions:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be
included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

To the extent that a user interface of a work containing the Software
displays attributions, copyrights, or legal notices, it must credit
the Software and its development project commensurately.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND,
EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT.
IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY
CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT,
TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE
SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.