BSD-like licenses and the OSI approval process

Chris Travers wrote:
> The large ones are that the AFL requires source code
distribution in
> some cases,

No it doesn't.  Only if the licensor chooses to put their
code under AFL
is source distributed.

> and furthermore requires that where these cases are
met,
> that mere users of the software outside of one's own
organization must
> be provided with the source as well.

It never requires derivative works be licensed under AFL, or
that source
is provided.  You're confusing it with OSL.

Matt Flaschen

On 10/12/07, Lawrence Rosen <lrosenrosenlaw.com> wrote:
[...]
> 3. I'd then distribute all that software from that
website under the AFL 3.0
> license. (If FSF can distribute BSD-licensed software
under the GPL, and
> Microsoft can distribute it under proprietary licenses,
I can certainly

I know that for some people it is close to impossible to
grok that
BSD-licensed software remains
copyright-licensed-under-BSD-license
irrespective of EULA type contracts governing the use of
Microsoft
software, but at least I would expect that you check it with
Microsoft
Legal regarding your confusion. What did they say to you?

regards,
alexander.

--
"PJ points out that lawyers seem to have difficulty
understanding the
GPL. My main concern with GPLv3 is that - unlike v2 -
non-lawyers can't
understand it either."
                         -- Anonymous Groklaw Visitor

On 10/12/07, Chris Travers <chris.traversgmail.com> wrote:
[...]
> I would just note that while this does not, as you
point out, change
> the underlying license (in fact, the collection may not
be
> sufficiently creative to be worthy of any copyright in
itself!), it

I thought that the suggestion was to use some form of
automated
harvesting. AFAIK, net robots don't enjoy the privilege of
copyright
ownership. So Rosen's copyright license would apply to
nothing (not
even to a compilation). Checking...

http://www
.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.html

"When the collecting of the preexisting material that
makes up the
compilation is a purely mechanical task with no element of
editorial
selection, or when only a few minor deletions constitute an
abridgment, copyright protection for the compilation or
abridgment as
a new version is not available. "

regards,
alexander.

--
"PJ points out that lawyers seem to have difficulty
understanding the
GPL. My main concern with GPLv3 is that - unlike v2 -
non-lawyers can't
understand it either."
                        -- Anonymous Groklaw Visitor

Alexander Terekhov keeps finding silly reasons to object:
> "When the collecting of the preexisting material
that makes up the
> compilation is a purely mechanical task with no element
of editorial
> selection, or when only a few minor deletions
constitute an
> abridgment, copyright protection for the compilation or
abridgment as
> a new version is not available. "

The creative aspects of my AFL 3.0-licensed collection of
harvested
BSD-licensed works include my review of each of those
BSD-licensed
components to ensure that:

 (1) the source code is indeed available to the public, as
AFL 3.0
     requires even though the BSD licenses ignore this
point; 

 (2) the BSD license text appears in the source code as the
BSD 
     licenses require; 

 (3) the copyright notices are complete so as to accurately

     identify provenance; 

 (4) the original BSD-like licenses are OSD compatible--in
my 
     opinion and even without wasting time to obtain OSI's 
     blessing on those hundreds of old licenses; 

 (5) I'm comfortable offering my promise, as AFL 3.0
requires,
     that the software in my collection is "sublicensed
to You 
     under the terms of this License with the permission of
the
     contributor(s)...", knowing that the BSD-like
licenses give
     me that permission; 

 (6) I have compared the code to other programs to ensure
that 
     there aren't duplicate versions of the same programs
that
     waste everyone's time; and 

 (7) I have undertaken other [proprietary!] techniques to
make
     sure my compilation is effective, reliable and useful
for
     the software commons. 

Then I would copyright my website text itself and my
software that drives it
and that creates the database. I might or might not license
this stuff under
OSL 3.0 and make a business of it.

If I was really sneaky, I'd patent this entire method for
reducing all
software under BSD-like licenses into a single database of
AFL 3.0-licensed
software for easy use. And I'd ensure that my patent claims
were broad
enough to make my patent apply even if the collective
license was something
other than AFL 3.0, for those of you who don't like that
license. But damn,
here I've disclosed the method publicly. It is too late to
apply for a
patent, at least outside the US. So anyone who thinks there
is value in
reducing all those old BSD-like licenses to a single modern
academic
license, feel free to do it.  [Be
warned: In the US, I believe I still
have one year to file this business method patent. But by
this disclosure, I
can at least ensure that YOU won't try to patent it!]

Copyright works!

/Larry

Copyright (C) 2007 Lawrence Rosen.
This email (with the exception of the quotation from
Alexander Terekhov) is
licensed under the Open Software License (OSL 3.0).

On 10/12/07, Matthew Flaschen <matthew.flaschengatech.edu> wrote:
> Chris Travers wrote:
> > The large ones are that the AFL requires source
code distribution in
> > some cases,
>
> No it doesn't.  Only if the licensor chooses to put
their code under AFL
> is source distributed.


Do you have a different way or reading this (from the AFL
3.0):
"Licensor agrees to provide a machine-readable copy of
the Source Code
of the Original Work along with each copy of the Original
Work that
Licensor distributes. Licensor reserves the right to satisfy
this
obligation by placing a machine-readable copy of the Source
Code in an
information repository reasonably calculated to permit
inexpensive and
convenient access by You for as long as Licensor continues
to
distribute the Original Work."

It looks like the obligation to distribute the source *goes
away* at
modification but is there by default.
>
> > and furthermore requires that where these cases
are met,
> > that mere users of the software outside of one's
own organization must
> > be provided with the source as well.
>
> It never requires derivative works be licensed under
AFL, or that source
> is provided.  You're confusing it with OSL.
>
Reread the section on external deployment and the source
grant
together.  If you deploy the unmodified work so that users
outside
your organization may access it, you have to provide them
the source.
Once you modify it, this requirement goes away.

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers

On 10/12/07, Lawrence Rosen <lrosenrosenlaw.com> wrote:
> Alexander Terekhov keeps finding silly reasons to
object:
> > "When the collecting of the preexisting
material that makes up the
> > compilation is a purely mechanical task with no
element of editorial
> > selection, or when only a few minor deletions
constitute an
> > abridgment, copyright protection for the
compilation or abridgment as
> > a new version is not available. "
>
> The creative aspects of my AFL 3.0-licensed collection
of harvested
> BSD-licensed works include my review of each of those
BSD-licensed
> components to ensure that:

[... Rosen's hard review work ...]

Well, I suppose that your case regarding assertion of
copyright on a
compilation of BSD-licensed components might fly in court if
your
collection would fit on a 360 KB diskette or (at most) on a
late 20th
century Iomega Zip drive.

But as long as you want to harvest and review the entirety
of
BSD-licensed components available on the net, all I can say
is this:

Go ahead Larry, work hard on reviewing it all day and night,
I'll most
likely die before seeing you in court asserting copyright on
such
collection.

regards,
alexander.

--
"PJ points out that lawyers seem to have difficulty
understanding the
GPL. My main concern with GPLv3 is that - unlike v2 -
non-lawyers can't
understand it either."
                       -- Anonymous Groklaw Visitor

Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> Go ahead Larry, work hard on reviewing it all day and
night, I'll most
> likely die before seeing you in court asserting
copyright on such
> collection.

What is there about the collection that I would need to
assert? I'm using
AFL 3.0 because I intend to give my collection away to the
public, while
only protecting myself from fools and villains who want to
sue me for doing
good deeds.

Isn't that the real motivation for all BSD-like open source
licenses?

Don't worry, I'll get you to click on "I ACCEPT"
when you first download or
sign up for an account on my website so that my rights under
AFL 3.0 are
protected without you having to die first.  

/Larry


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alexander Terekhov [mailto:alexander.terekhovgmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 11:49 AM
> To: lrosenrosenlaw.com
> Cc: License Discuss
> Subject: Re: BSD-like licenses and the OSI approval
process
> 
> On 10/12/07, Lawrence Rosen <lrosenrosenlaw.com> wrote:
> > Alexander Terekhov keeps finding silly reasons to
object:
> > > "When the collecting of the preexisting
material that makes up the
> > > compilation is a purely mechanical task with
no element of editorial
> > > selection, or when only a few minor deletions
constitute an
> > > abridgment, copyright protection for the
compilation or abridgment as
> > > a new version is not available. "
> >
> > The creative aspects of my AFL 3.0-licensed
collection of harvested
> > BSD-licensed works include my review of each of
those BSD-licensed
> > components to ensure that:
> 
> [... Rosen's hard review work ...]
> 
> Well, I suppose that your case regarding assertion of
copyright on a
> compilation of BSD-licensed components might fly in
court if your
> collection would fit on a 360 KB diskette or (at most)
on a late 20th
> century Iomega Zip drive.
> 
> But as long as you want to harvest and review the
entirety of
> BSD-licensed components available on the net, all I can
say is this:
> 
> Go ahead Larry, work hard on reviewing it all day and
night, I'll most
> likely die before seeing you in court asserting
copyright on such
> collection.
> 
> regards,
> alexander.
> 
> --
> "PJ points out that lawyers seem to have
difficulty understanding the
> GPL. My main concern with GPLv3 is that - unlike v2 -
non-lawyers can't
> understand it either."
>                        -- Anonymous Groklaw Visitor

Lawrence Rosen scripsit:

> What is there about the collection that I would need to
assert? I'm using
> AFL 3.0 because I intend to give my collection away to
the public, while
> only protecting myself from fools and villains who want
to sue me for doing
> good deeds.

I'm not sure what's going on here.  Are you going to place
the collection under
the AFL3?  If so, is there really anything copyrightable
about the collection?
Or are you going to place the individual items in the
collection under the AFL3?
If so, how do you do that without first making derivative
works of them?

The last is the essential question we've been dealing with
here: can you
take a work under a permissive license and issue a copy of
it under some
other license?  Not a derivative, not a collection, but a
plain copy.
I think not.

-- 
John Cowan        http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
          cowanccil.org
Please leave your values                Check your
assumptions.  In fact,
   at the front desk.                      check your
assumptions at the door.
     --sign in Paris hotel                   --Cordelia
Vorkosigan

John Cowan wrote:
> The last is the essential question we've been dealing
with here: can you
> take a work under a permissive license and issue a copy
of it under some
> other license?  Not a derivative, not a collection, but
a plain copy.
> I think not.

That sort of a silly abstract question. For one thing, I
could trivially
avoid the whole issue in the world of permissive software
licenses by making
a non-trivial expressive change (such as affixing my
beautiful logo to your
BSD-licensed work) to create a derivative work. Furthermore,
the fact that I
enable someone to drill down to and copy a specific page in
my collective
work doesn't make the collection itself any the less a
copyrightable
collective work. That person's copy of the individual page
was copied from
my work that he received under the terms of my collective
work license, AFL
3.0 (to which he assented!). Finally, in my case I'm not
intending to assert
any copyright interest specifically in the page he copied by
drilling down,
because it remains under the BSD license--as well as, under
the authority of
the BSD license--under AFL 3.0.

My copyright interest, as you suggest, does not extend to
your BSD-licensed
work. But I read your BSD license as giving me permission to
distribute your
work under any license I choose, including AFL 3.0, as long
as I copy the
text of your BSD license in the source code. 

Where's the beef in your entirely hypothetical question?
Legal questions, no
matter how "essential" to ponder, don't exist in a
vacuum. Would you take
such a question to court? What's the legal dispute? Have I
done something to
your BSD-licensed work, or claimed any rights to it that I
don't deserve,
that would justify your complaining to a copyright court
about my AFL 3.0
collective work and my OSL 3.0 website?

/Larry


> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Cowan [mailto:cowanccil.org]
> Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 1:09 PM
> To: Lawrence Rosen
> Cc: 'License Discuss'
> Subject: Re: BSD-like licenses and the OSI approval
process
> 
> Lawrence Rosen scripsit:
> 
> > What is there about the collection that I would
need to assert? I'm
> using
> > AFL 3.0 because I intend to give my collection
away to the public, while
> > only protecting myself from fools and villains who
want to sue me for
> doing
> > good deeds.
> 
> I'm not sure what's going on here.  Are you going to
place the collection
> under
> the AFL3?  If so, is there really anything
copyrightable about the
> collection?
> Or are you going to place the individual items in the
collection under the
> AFL3?
> If so, how do you do that without first making
derivative works of them?
> 
> The last is the essential question we've been dealing
with here: can you
> take a work under a permissive license and issue a copy
of it under some
> other license?  Not a derivative, not a collection, but
a plain copy.
> I think not.
> 
> --
> John Cowan        http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
          cowanccil.org
> Please leave your values                Check your
assumptions.  In fact,
>    at the front desk.                      check your
assumptions at the
> door.
>      --sign in Paris hotel                   --Cordelia
Vorkosigan