BitTorrent

On Bittorrent's web page, they say their license is a
variation of
Jabber 1.0:
http://www.bitt
orrent.com/license.myt

They also claim it complies with the OSD.
Guess wikipedia is wrong.

-----Original Message-----
From: Lawrence Rosen [mailto:lrosenrosenlaw.com] 
Sent: Friday, April 21, 2006 10:20 AM
To: license-discussopensource.org
Subject: BitTorrent

I read the following in Wikipedia:

 

The original BitTorrent application was written in Python
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Python_programming_lang
uage>  and its
source
code has been released under the BitTorrent Open Source
<http://e
n.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source>  License (a
modified version
of
the Jabber <http://en.wik
ipedia.org/wiki/Jabber>  Open Source License),
as
of version 4.0. 

 

[See http://en.wi
kipedia.org/wiki/Bittorrent.] 

 

I wasn't aware of a version 4.0 of the Jabber Open Source
License; the
only
Jabber license posted at OSI's website is version 1.0. Nor
is a
BitTorrent
Open Source License posted on the OSI website.

 

I found this article through a link on the FSF website, at
which they
refer
to BitTorrent as a "free format" that they use
to post their conferences
on
the web. [See http://gplv3.fsf.org/av.
] 

 

Any further information????

 

/Larry

 

Lawrence Rosen

Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm
(www.rosenlaw.com)

Stanford University, Lecturer in Law

3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482

707-485-1242  *  fax: 707-485-1243

Author of "Open Source Licensing: Software Freedom and


                Intellectual Property Law" (Prentice
Hall 2004)

 

> Guess wikipedia is wrong.

Shock and dismay!  Should it
be fixed by the creators of BitTorrent? By
some anonymous expert changing Wikipedia in some way? Or by
OSI?

Who has the most incentive to make sure that the term
"Open Source" has
consistent meaning in Wikipedia? And that licenses that
claim to be open
source actually are? At least we have OSI and
license-discuss colleagues to
help us out.

I have similar concerns about the definition of "Open
Standards" in
Wikipedia but there isn't an appropriate organization yet
for that topic
that's worrying about setting it right. 

/Larry

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Smith, McCoy [mailto:mccoy.smithintel.com]
> Sent: Friday, April 21, 2006 10:28 AM
> To: lrosenrosenlaw.com; license-discussopensource.org
> Subject: RE: BitTorrent
> 
> On Bittorrent's web page, they say their license is a
variation of
> Jabber 1.0:
> http://www.bitt
orrent.com/license.myt
> 
> They also claim it complies with the OSD.
> Guess wikipedia is wrong.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lawrence Rosen [mailto:lrosenrosenlaw.com]
> Sent: Friday, April 21, 2006 10:20 AM
> To: license-discussopensource.org
> Subject: BitTorrent
> 
> I read the following in Wikipedia:
> 
> 
> 
> The original BitTorrent application was written in
Python
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Python_programming_lang
uage>  and its
> source
> code has been released under the BitTorrent Open Source
> <http://e
n.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source>  License (a
modified version
> of
> the Jabber <http://en.wik
ipedia.org/wiki/Jabber>  Open Source License),
> as
> of version 4.0.
> 
> 
> 
> [See http://en.wi
kipedia.org/wiki/Bittorrent.]
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't aware of a version 4.0 of the Jabber Open
Source License; the
> only
> Jabber license posted at OSI's website is version 1.0.
Nor is a
> BitTorrent
> Open Source License posted on the OSI website.
> 
> 
> 
> I found this article through a link on the FSF website,
at which they
> refer
> to BitTorrent as a "free format" that they
use to post their conferences
> on
> the web. [See http://gplv3.fsf.org/av.
]
> 
> 
> 
> Any further information????
> 
> 
> 
> /Larry
> 
> 
> 
> Lawrence Rosen
> 
> Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm
(www.rosenlaw.com)
> 
> Stanford University, Lecturer in Law
> 
> 3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482
> 
> 707-485-1242  *  fax: 707-485-1243
> 
> Author of "Open Source Licensing: Software
Freedom and
> 
>                 Intellectual Property Law"
(Prentice Hall 2004)
> 
>