Re: argproc.c license Re: Bad license in perl distribution

On 5/25/07, Mark Pizzolato <markinfocomm.com> wrote:
>
> --- demerphq <demerphqgmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 5/24/07, Craig Berry <craig.a.berrygmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 5/24/07, Brandon Black <blblackgmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On 5/24/07, Craig Berry
<craig.a.berrygmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On 5/23/07, Jonathan Stowe
<jnsgellyfish.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed, 2007-05-23 at 06:49
-0700, mlssuse.de (via RT)
> > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > The perl-5.8.8
distribution contains vms/vms.c, which in
> > turn contains
> > > > > > > a section that is
licensed under the following terms:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >   Copyright (C) 1989-1994
by
> > > > > > >   Mark Pizzolato - INFO
COMM, Danville, California  (510)
> > 837-5600
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >   Permission is hereby 
granted for the reproduction of
> > this software,
> > > > > > >   on condition that this
copyright notice is included in
> > the reproduction,
> > > > > > >   and that such
reproduction is not for purposes of profit
> > or material
> > > > > > >   gain.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >   27-Aug-1994 Modified
for inclusion in perl5
> > > > > > >               by Charles
Bailey  baileynewman.upenn.edu
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This is not compatible to
the GPL or the Artistic License.
> > > > >
> > > > > Forgive my ignorance, but how is it
incompatible, or what
> > exactly are
> > > > > you trying to do that it prevents
you from doing?  To me it
> > sounds
> > > > > highly similar to the Artistic
license.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > The difference is that it's ambiguous on
the subject of source vs
> > > > binary, and it explicitly prevents
people from making any money
> > (or
> > > > "material gain") from the
reproduction, which is again somewhat
> > > > ambiguous.  The strictest interpretation
would be that it can
> > only be
> > > > redistributed in source form, and you
can't charge any money for
> > > > access to the source.  The loosest
interpretation would be that
> > you
> > > > can make binaries, but they need to
include his copyright message
> > (in
> > > > docs or at startup, or ???), and again
you can't charge any money
> > for
> > > > access to the binaries (or package them
with a product sold for
> > money,
> > > > I would assume that infers).
> > > >
> > > > A separate issue the license doesn't
resolve is modifying the
> > source.
> > > > As it stands, it only covers copying the
original source.  Has
> > this
> > > > code ever been modified in the Perl
sources since it was added to
> > > > Perl?
> > > >
> > > > In any case, it's certainly more
restrictive and more ambiguous
> > than
> > > > either the GPL or Artistic licenses, and
it potentially affects
> > anyone
> > > > distributing source copies of Perl, and
even more likely
> > potentially
> > > > affects anyone distributing VMS binaries
of Perl.
> > >
> > > Well, that's a bizarre, fanciful, and
paranoid interpretation that
> > > tortures the actual statement into making all
sorts of claims about
> > > topics that it never mentions. But perhaps
that's exactly what an
> > IP
> > > lawyer trying to make trouble would do these
days.
> > >
> > > As the comment by Charles Bailey makes clear,
the code was brought
> > > into Perl right before the 5.000 release
almost thirteen years ago,
> > > and as far as I know there has never until
now been a whisper of
> > doubt
> > > about whether the copyright notice is
compatible with the Perl
> > > license(s).
> > >
> > > And why wouldn't it be considered compatible?
 All it really
> > specifies
> > > is that the software is free and that credit
be given where credit
> > is
> > > due, both of which are at the core of the
Artistic and GPL
> > licenses.
> > > That sounds like compatible to me.  It is
true it is not as
> > explicit
> > > about a number of things as the Perl
licenses, but I don't see the
> > > basis for assuming it intends the opposite of
what they do just
> > > because it doesn't specify something.
> > >
> >
> > IMO Its directly incompatble with 3.c, 4.c an 8 of
the Artistic.
> > (unfortunately)
>
> Hi there,
>
> Sorry I didn't notice this thread for a few days.  I
read email for
> this address on an account which receives 100's of spam
messages a day
> and therefore doesn't have a high signal to noise
ratio.  These
> messages did pass through the spam filters though.
>
> In any case, I'm happy to fix the original vms
argproc.c license
> language, by removing:
>
>    Permission is hereby granted for the reproduction of
this
>    software, on condition that this copyright notice is
included
>    in the reproduction, and that such reproduction is
not for
>    purposes of profit or material gain.
>
> and replacing it with:
>
>    Permission is hereby granted for the reproduction of
this
>    software, on condition that this copyright notice is
included
>    in the reproduction.  The code, may be modified and
distributed
>    under the same terms as Perl itself.
>
> Please continue to leave the markinfocomm.com email address
in the
> code.

Thanks for the reply, Mark, and you can now ignore the
private message
I sent to your gmail account.  I think your statement
settles all but
one of the issues people have raised.  Could we substitute
"is
included in source distributions of the software" in
place of "is
included in the reproduction"?  Otherwise some lawyer
who doesn't know
squat about what compilers do with code comments could give
someone a
hard time for not having your copyright notice in a binary
distribution of Perl.

On 5/25/07, Mark Pizzolato <markinfocomm.com> wrote:
>
> --- Craig Berry <craig.a.berrygmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 5/25/07, Mark Pizzolato <markinfocomm.com> wrote:

> > > In any case, I'm happy to fix the original
vms argproc.c license
> > > language, by removing:
> > >
> > >    Permission is hereby granted for the
reproduction of this
> > >    software, on condition that this copyright
notice is included
> > >    in the reproduction, and that such
reproduction is not for
> > >    purposes of profit or material gain.
> > >
> > > and replacing it with:
> > >
> > >    Permission is hereby granted for the
reproduction of this
> > >    software, on condition that this copyright
notice is included
> > >    in the reproduction.  The code, may be
modified and distributed
> > >    under the same terms as Perl itself.
> > >
> > > Please continue to leave the markinfocomm.com email address in the
> > > code.
> >
> > Thanks for the reply, Mark, and you can now ignore
the private
> > message
> > I sent to your gmail account.  I think your
statement settles all but
> > one of the issues people have raised.  Could we
substitute "is
> > included in source distributions of the
software" in place of "is
> > included in the reproduction"?  Otherwise
some lawyer who doesn't
> > know
> > squat about what compilers do with code comments
could give someone a
> > hard time for not having your copyright notice in
a binary
> > distribution of Perl.
>
> Yes.  Go ahead and modify "is included in the
reproduction" to "is
> included in source distributions of the
software".

Great, thanks for the speedy reply.  I've now committed the
following change:

http://public.activestate.com/cgi-bin/perlbrowse/p/31279


If those who found a problem with the original language
could please
confirm that this new version satisfies their concerns I'd
appreciate
it.

> Thanks for engaging me.

Thank *you* for contributing your fine code; it's no less
needed and
appreciated today for  having been done a long time ago.

On 5/26/07, Craig Berry <craig.a.berrygmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/25/07, Mark Pizzolato <markinfocomm.com> wrote:
> >
> > --- Craig Berry <craig.a.berrygmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On 5/25/07, Mark Pizzolato <markinfocomm.com> wrote:
>
> > > > In any case, I'm happy to fix the
original vms argproc.c license
> > > > language, by removing:
> > > >
> > > >    Permission is hereby granted for the
reproduction of this
> > > >    software, on condition that this
copyright notice is included
> > > >    in the reproduction, and that such
reproduction is not for
> > > >    purposes of profit or material gain.
> > > >
> > > > and replacing it with:
> > > >
> > > >    Permission is hereby granted for the
reproduction of this
> > > >    software, on condition that this
copyright notice is included
> > > >    in the reproduction.  The code, may
be modified and distributed
> > > >    under the same terms as Perl itself.
> > > >
> > > > Please continue to leave the markinfocomm.com email address in the
> > > > code.
> > >
> > > Thanks for the reply, Mark, and you can now
ignore the private
> > > message
> > > I sent to your gmail account.  I think your
statement settles all but
> > > one of the issues people have raised.  Could
we substitute "is
> > > included in source distributions of the
software" in place of "is
> > > included in the reproduction"? 
Otherwise some lawyer who doesn't
> > > know
> > > squat about what compilers do with code
comments could give someone a
> > > hard time for not having your copyright
notice in a binary
> > > distribution of Perl.
> >
> > Yes.  Go ahead and modify "is included in the
reproduction" to "is
> > included in source distributions of the
software".
>
> Great, thanks for the speedy reply.  I've now committed
the following change:
>
> http://public.activestate.com/cgi-bin/perlbrowse/p/31279

>
> If those who found a problem with the original language
could please
> confirm that this new version satisfies their concerns
I'd appreciate
> it.

Seems to resolve the issues i listed.

And cheers Mark its very kind of you to change things with
such little fuss.

yves

yves
-- 
perl -Mre=debug -e "/just|another|perl|hacker/"

--- Craig Berry <craig.a.berrygmail.com> wrote:

> On 5/25/07, Mark Pizzolato <markinfocomm.com> wrote:
> >
> > --- demerphq <demerphqgmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On 5/24/07, Craig Berry <craig.a.berrygmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On 5/24/07, Brandon Black
<blblackgmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On 5/24/07, Craig Berry
<craig.a.berrygmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On 5/23/07, Jonathan Stowe
<jnsgellyfish.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Wed, 2007-05-23 at
06:49 -0700, mlssuse.de (via RT)
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The perl-5.8.8
distribution contains vms/vms.c, which
> in
> > > turn contains
> > > > > > > > a section that is
licensed under the following terms:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >   Copyright (C)
1989-1994 by
> > > > > > > >   Mark Pizzolato -
INFO COMM, Danville, California 
> (510)
> > > 837-5600
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >   Permission is
hereby  granted for the reproduction of
> > > this software,
> > > > > > > >   on condition that
this copyright notice is included
> in
> > > the reproduction,
> > > > > > > >   and that such
reproduction is not for purposes of
> profit
> > > or material
> > > > > > > >   gain.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >   27-Aug-1994
Modified for inclusion in perl5
> > > > > > > >               by
Charles Bailey 
> baileynewman.upenn.edu
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This is not
compatible to the GPL or the Artistic
> License.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Forgive my ignorance, but how
is it incompatible, or what
> > > exactly are
> > > > > > you trying to do that it
prevents you from doing?  To me it
> > > sounds
> > > > > > highly similar to the Artistic
license.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The difference is that it's
ambiguous on the subject of
> source vs
> > > > > binary, and it explicitly prevents
people from making any
> money
> > > (or
> > > > > "material gain") from the
reproduction, which is again
> somewhat
> > > > > ambiguous.  The strictest
interpretation would be that it can
> > > only be
> > > > > redistributed in source form, and
you can't charge any money
> for
> > > > > access to the source.  The loosest
interpretation would be
> that
> > > you
> > > > > can make binaries, but they need to
include his copyright
> message
> > > (in
> > > > > docs or at startup, or ???), and
again you can't charge any
> money
> > > for
> > > > > access to the binaries (or package
them with a product sold
> for
> > > money,
> > > > > I would assume that infers).
> > > > >
> > > > > A separate issue the license
doesn't resolve is modifying the
> > > source.
> > > > > As it stands, it only covers
copying the original source. 
> Has
> > > this
> > > > > code ever been modified in the Perl
sources since it was
> added to
> > > > > Perl?
> > > > >
> > > > > In any case, it's certainly more
restrictive and more
> ambiguous
> > > than
> > > > > either the GPL or Artistic
licenses, and it potentially
> affects
> > > anyone
> > > > > distributing source copies of Perl,
and even more likely
> > > potentially
> > > > > affects anyone distributing VMS
binaries of Perl.
> > > >
> > > > Well, that's a bizarre, fanciful, and
paranoid interpretation
> that
> > > > tortures the actual statement into
making all sorts of claims
> about
> > > > topics that it never mentions. But
perhaps that's exactly what
> an
> > > IP
> > > > lawyer trying to make trouble would do
these days.
> > > >
> > > > As the comment by Charles Bailey makes
clear, the code was
> brought
> > > > into Perl right before the 5.000 release
almost thirteen years
> ago,
> > > > and as far as I know there has never
until now been a whisper
> of
> > > doubt
> > > > about whether the copyright notice is
compatible with the Perl
> > > > license(s).
> > > >
> > > > And why wouldn't it be considered
compatible?  All it really
> > > specifies
> > > > is that the software is free and that
credit be given where
> credit
> > > is
> > > > due, both of which are at the core of
the Artistic and GPL
> > > licenses.
> > > > That sounds like compatible to me.  It
is true it is not as
> > > explicit
> > > > about a number of things as the Perl
licenses, but I don't see
> the
> > > > basis for assuming it intends the
opposite of what they do just
> > > > because it doesn't specify something.
> > > >
> > >
> > > IMO Its directly incompatble with 3.c, 4.c an
8 of the Artistic.
> > > (unfortunately)
> >
> > Hi there,
> >
> > Sorry I didn't notice this thread for a few days. 
I read email for
> > this address on an account which receives 100's of
spam messages a
> day
> > and therefore doesn't have a high signal to noise
ratio.  These
> > messages did pass through the spam filters
though.
> >
> > In any case, I'm happy to fix the original vms
argproc.c license
> > language, by removing:
> >
> >    Permission is hereby granted for the
reproduction of this
> >    software, on condition that this copyright
notice is included
> >    in the reproduction, and that such reproduction
is not for
> >    purposes of profit or material gain.
> >
> > and replacing it with:
> >
> >    Permission is hereby granted for the
reproduction of this
> >    software, on condition that this copyright
notice is included
> >    in the reproduction.  The code, may be modified
and distributed
> >    under the same terms as Perl itself.
> >
> > Please continue to leave the markinfocomm.com email address in the
> > code.
> 
> Thanks for the reply, Mark, and you can now ignore the
private
> message
> I sent to your gmail account.  I think your statement
settles all but
> one of the issues people have raised.  Could we
substitute "is
> included in source distributions of the software"
in place of "is
> included in the reproduction"?  Otherwise some
lawyer who doesn't
> know
> squat about what compilers do with code comments could
give someone a
> hard time for not having your copyright notice in a
binary
> distribution of Perl.

Yes.  Go ahead and modify "is included in the
reproduction" to "is
included in source distributions of the software".

Thanks for engaging me.

- Mark Pizzolato

On Fri, May 25, 2007 at 05:33:01PM -0500, Craig Berry
wrote:
> If those who found a problem with the original language
could please
> confirm that this new version satisfies their concerns
I'd appreciate
> it.

The new language resolves all of our concerns.

Thanks for looking into this,
  Michael.

-- 
Michael Schroeder                                   mlssuse.de
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF Markus Rex, HRB 16746 AG
Nuernberg
main(_){while(_=~getchar())putchar(~_-1/(~(_|32)/13*2-11)*13
);}