[License-review] License Committee Report - 2013-03-06

Bruce Perens bruce at perens.com
Fri Mar 8 20:07:22 UTC 2013


GPL3 defines the covered work as either the program or a work based on the program. This avoids the term "use" which has a separate definition in copyright law that means "run". This definition is potentially broader than other licenses that limit the covered work to the original work and derivative works of the original work only. Rulings (including in Oracle v. Google which Luis Villa was deeply involved in and myself less so) are saying that calling or providing an API is not a derivative work of that API because an API is functional rather than expressive (see CAI v. Altai in Wikipedia), and this has long been the finding of Larry Rosen and others. The GPL3 text attempts to avoid this argument by using language that is not limited to derivative works. 

"Hadrien G." <knights_of_ni at gmx.com> wrote:

>Thank you for pointing this flaw out!
>
>The overall goal which I want to achieve is that if someone takes the 
>software, or a nontrivial subset of it, and redistributes it or uses it
>
>as a basis to build a new product, then the source redistribution 
>condition should apply. Is the notion of derivative works appropriate
>to 
>this end? Would it cover more or less use cases?
>
>Thanks in advance,
>Hadrien
>
>Le 08/03/2013 04:08, Bruce Perens a écrit :
>> This only works in the Sleepycat license because Sleepycat is a 
>> library. But we'd have better language for that case today.
>>
>> Bruce Perens <bruce at perens.com> wrote:
>>
>>     That paragraph in the OSD is regarding simple aggregation rather
>>     than components of a single program.
>>
>>     The problem is that "makes use of" is not clear. Is it part of
>the
>>     same program? Is it a derivative work? Does it just make use of
>>     the program in the way a client makes use of a server over a
>>     remote connection?
>>
>>     This is sufficient reason for the license to be sent back for
>>     rewriting.
>>
>>     Thanks
>>
>>     Bruce
>>
>>     Richard Fontana <fontana at sharpeleven.org> wrote:
>>
>>         On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 07:36:03PM +0100, Hadrien G. wrote:
>>
>>             Well, I'd like to add the current MOSL draft to this
>list,
>>             since as far as I can tell no one has objected to the
>>             current wording for a month :
>>
>>
>>         I would like to raise a question about something in it:
>>
>>             * Redistributions in any form must be accompanied by
>>             information on how to obtain complete source code for
>this
>>             software, and any accompanying software that makes use of
>>             it. Source code must either be included in the
>>             distribution, or be available for no more than the cost
>of
>>             its distribution. For an executable file, complete source
>>             code means the source code for all modules it contains,
>>             save for modules or files that are typically provided
>with
>>             the operating system on which the executable file runs.
>>
>>
>>         This is similar to thought subtly different from the
>Sleepycat
>>         License.
>>
>>         I would ask the OSI to consider whether this consistent with
>OSD 9:
>>
>>         The license must not place restrictions on other software
>that is
>>         distributed along with the licensed software. For example,
>the
>>         license must not insist that all other programs distributed
>on the
>>         same medium must be open-source software.
>>
>>         The Sleepycat License may be different because there is a
>history of
>>         it being treated as not only FOSS but GPL-compatible.
>>
>>         - RF
>>        
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>         License-review mailing list
>>         License-review at opensource.org
>>        
>http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

-- 
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20130308/b828e577/attachment.html>


More information about the License-review mailing list