Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

OSI Turns Down 4 Licenses; Approves Python Foundation's

Hemos posted more than 12 years ago | from the keeping-the-updates-going dept.

Announcements 154

Russ Nelson writes "The Open Source Initiative turned down four licenses this week. Not to name names, but one license had a restrictive patent grant that only applied to GPL'ed operating systems. Another was more of a rant than a license. Another was derived from the GPL in violation of the GPL's copyright. And the fourth had insufficient review on the license-discuss mailing list (archives). The one license that did pass was the Python Software Foundation License."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

FP (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2637434)

FP Beey0tch!!!!11111!1!1!111

You violated the GPL (-1)

GaylordFucker (465080) | more than 12 years ago | (#2637603)

claiming FP... when it's truly meant to be for the people, by the people... lousy, rotten hippies

wow - this is my third frosty piss this week (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2637436)

n/t

You violated the M$ EULA (-1)

GaylordFucker (465080) | more than 12 years ago | (#2637616)

you used NT in a derogatory comment..

Another rejected liscence... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2637461)

...is my liscence to FIRST POST!

blurst roast (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2637463)

oh god how i hate all of you. i can't post this for 10 more seconds. tra la la tra la la. wooooohooooo. can i go yet?

Hypocrisy (1, Troll)

91degrees (207121) | more than 12 years ago | (#2637464)

The GPL allows people to modify code as long as the release the source. It exists entirely to allow this. Why not apply the same rules to the GPL? Having a reasonably complete licence is useful for designing one's own. If it is a good licence, thenb the fork will survive. If it isn't then it will die out.

It's not like we're going to make RMS starve if we copy it. He doesn't make his living selling copies does he?

Re:Hypocrisy (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2637510)



This site is losing all credibility quickly.

Stories about people in Afganistan who dig up commodores and then download / watch divx movies have killed off every last shred of believability this haven for anti-ms zealots ever had.

It is time to get rid of katz [slashdot.org]

Re:Hypocrisy (-1, Offtopic)

Colin Bayer (313849) | more than 12 years ago | (#2637511)

It's not like we're going to make RMS starve if we copy it. He doesn't make his living selling copies does he?

Maybe, after losing the GNOME board election, he's now the high-tech equivalent of the people who hand out communism/socialism/Christianity/[insert social-issue-of-the-week here] pamphlets on street corners.

Re:Hypocrisy (0, Flamebait)

pope nihil (85414) | more than 12 years ago | (#2637515)

He doesn't make a living selling copies of the GPL, but that doesn't mean he won't exploit copyright law to his own ends. Everyone knows he's a control freak. Everything has to be GaNew or someone should make a competing GaNew project that copies the functionality. Linux isn't really an operating system. It should be GaNew/Linux.

Re:Hypocrisy (4, Insightful)

Trepidity (597) | more than 12 years ago | (#2637517)

No, the entire reason the GPL exists is to promote Free Software; it's the GNU Foundation's opinion that allowing modification of the GPL would not work towards this goal. The main concern is that there would be a plethora of "GPL-derived" but not Open Source or Free Software licenses, thus diluting the usefulness of the license.

The GPL is, in its essence, an ideological manifesto. Disallowing others from modifying your manifesto is not inconsistent with the GNU philosophy - the only thing they desire is that you allow others to modify your code, not your thoughts.

Re:Hypocrisy (0, Flamebait)

kaisyain (15013) | more than 12 years ago | (#2637750)

Disallowing others from modifying your manifesto is not inconsistent with the GNU philosophy

From GNU's Free Documentation License:


The purpose of this License is to make a manual, textbook, or other written document "free" in the sense of freedom: to assure everyone the effective freedom to copy and redistribute it, with or without modifying it, either commercially or noncommercially.


It certainly seems that they don't feel that their license needs to be "free" is the sense of the word they apply to other written documents. Does the FSF offer some explanation for why some written documents should be "free" and others not? Does the same line of argument apply to software?

Re:Hypocrisy (1)

TheAwfulTruth (325623) | more than 12 years ago | (#2637975)

Since the parent was marked as FLAIMBAIT by people that want to squash the awful truth. I'm reposting it:

From GNU's Free Documentation License:

The purpose of this License is to make a manual, textbook, or other written document "free" in the sense of freedom: to assure everyone the effective freedom to copy and redistribute it, with or without modifying it, either commercially or noncommercially.

It certainly seems that they don't feel that their license needs to be "free" is the sense of the word they apply to other written documents. Does the FSF offer some explanation for why some written documents should be "free" and others not? Does the same line of argument apply to software?

Re:Hypocrisy (1)

EllisDees (268037) | more than 12 years ago | (#2638225)

Nobody is stopping someone from making their own 'extensions' to the GPL, they are just not certifying them as 'open source'.

Re:Hypocrisy (not) (2)

ajs (35943) | more than 12 years ago | (#2638203)

You're reading GNU's Free Documentation License (as you note). This license is intended to apply to user manuals, technical references and such. If you stop to think about the goal of Free Software (I'm not going into OS vs FS here), it's to make sure that Stallman can get the source to his printer drivers, modify them and then give them out to others (imagine a world where that printer had come with source under a BSD-like license!)

So, with that goal in mind, how would you construct a license that is both modifiable under the terms of the GFDL (which you quote) and still accomplishes the stated goal? The GPL can be used as a guide in creating your own license. This has certainly been done often enough. But, to modify the license itself would hurt the aim of Free Software.

I'm also not certain what the legal implications are if a license agreement affords me the right to modify it. The GPL has teeth that come directly from copyright law. Under copyright law, you are not allowed to modify or distribute the code except in accordance with fair use doctrin. The GPL acknowledges this fact, and then offers you an "out" in the form of a license (this is in direct contrast to EULAs and other "shrink-wrap licenses", which require you to accept the license before USING the software) which you can take or leave as you see fit.

Now, if you were allowed to modify the license, your software would have to refer to some "license archetype", perhaps backing that usage up using trademark (e.g. you can modify the GPL, but only if you give it your own name). This is sticky, and keep in mind that the GPL was a daring bit of legal hackery that has still yet to be tested in court. To add yet another complication to the core oddity of defending right-to-modify with copyright law would risk the basic goal by making the GPL harder to defend than it already was.

All that asside, I think it's of questionable value to refer to the restrictions on the GPL as hypocritical. The GPL is a software license, not a work of art or engineering. I'm not quite certain why you feel that it would be hypocritical to say that software is an area of human endevor where freedom to modify is important but contracts and licenses are not. You may disagree, and you are most welcome to. But even if I accept that the two should be treated the same (and I do not, obviously), you make a challenge of hypocricy here which I do not believe you have explained.

Re:Hypocrisy (not) (1)

kaisyain (15013) | more than 12 years ago | (#2638443)

Their definition of freedom seemed to apply to all written materials. Saying it only applies to user manuals makes as much sense as saying the GPL only applies to compilers.

I didn't say there was anything hypocritical going on. I said I don't understand what is going on. I would have to understand before I could accuse them of hypocrisy.

Re:Hypocrisy (not) (1)

smcv (529383) | more than 12 years ago | (#2638583)

Basically, with the GPL under copyright, you can say "this software is licensed under the GNU GPL" and it's unambiguous what the terms are.
This isn't necessary for, say, BSD-style licenses (BSD, ZLib, LibPNG) because they're simpler and shorter - it's reasonable to include the entire BSD license in each file of your source, so you don't say "this is BSD-licensed", you say "you may do this, this and this but not this". "BSD license" is just a convenient shorthand for describing things - but from a legal point of view, the license consists of a couple of paragraphs embedded in each source file.

However, it's obviously not reasonable to include the whole GPL in the same way. The GPL is long (20K?) because of copyleft - it's less permissive than the BSD license, so it can't just grant blanket permissions like the BSD license does (although an abbreviated GPL without the preamble/manifesto would be nice, since they're not really part of the license as such).

If the GPL was free (in the FSF sense of the word) or open source, you'd get people redefining what it meant, and much confusion would ensue. ("Our software is licensed under the GPL." "No it isn't, ours is the real GPL!")

Re:Hypocrisy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2637777)

What *is* inconsistent is telling people that you exist to preserve and extend their freedom, while in reality you exist to force the world to change to according to your vision. The only version of freedom supported by the FSF is the freedom to do things their way. Their message may revolve around freedom, but their actions revolve around control.

absolute freedom is not useful (1)

raistlinne (13725) | more than 12 years ago | (#2638147)

if you want absolute freedom, go kill yourself. Then you'll be completely free in the sense of having no restrictions at all.

Once you acknowledge that all who live are bound, discussing freedom becomes a matter of discussing how they should be bound, and to what they should be free.

The FSF takes the position that people should have certain things as freedoms, and other things, such s the ability to deprive people of those freedoms, they should not have as freedoms.

Neither the FSF or RMS ever claimed to want anarchy or complete freedom (i.e. no rules at all). Where on earth did you ever think that they did?

Hell, the abolitionists in the US wanted all people to be free in the sense of not being slaves - they didn't want people to be free in the sense of free to own slaves. Were they hypocrits?

Re:Hypocrisy (2)

famazza (398147) | more than 12 years ago | (#2637543)

Probably to avoid companies to change the license so it doesn't allow FreeSoftware anymore.

But this is a good idea, why don't we try to submit this modification to GPL v3 or even GPL v4?

Fuck (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2637465)

fuck fuck fuckity fuck

Wait a minute! (0, Troll)

ajuda (124386) | more than 12 years ago | (#2637466)

Another was derived from the GPL in violation of the GPL's copyright.

The GPL license is not itself GPLed?!? If much GPLed software includes the GPL copyright, are they in violation? I thought the whole point of the GPL was (to borrow a quote from the borg) "embrace and extend" what was already created.

Re:Wait a minute! (1)

DataPath (1111) | more than 12 years ago | (#2637485)

That's exactly what we need... the GPLL, the GPL License... they license you use for the GPL and any derivative license. That's the most absurd thing I've heard. We have GPL, we have LGPL, and we have GPL for documentation (don't remember what it's called), and now we in all our arrogance have to make a license for licenses. Absolutely absurd.

Re:Wait a minute! (2)

LMCBoy (185365) | more than 12 years ago | (#2637532)

"GPL for documentation (don't remember what it's called)"

Free Documentation License (FDL)

Re:Wait a minute! (2)

poemofatic (322501) | more than 12 years ago | (#2638384)

7. By copying, installing or otherwise using the software, Licensee agrees to be bound by the terms and conditions of this License Agreement.


Yeah, right.

I log into a shell account and am held hostage to the wild fantasies of anyone who wrote some innocuous seeming library or kernel module. It's Python, for chrissakes. How can you not end up using it?

This is getting crazy. A previous poster only wants feminists or fetishists to use his work. Sheesh. When do we go back to being normal people? Private citizens are left alone to tinker and share, businesses pay some royalties. If things get muddled up, we have a few beers and then forget what we were fighting about. Ah, the old country.

Re:Wait a minute! (5, Informative)

Trepidity (597) | more than 12 years ago | (#2637496)

If you'd read the GPL, you would answer your own questions. The GPL is a copyrighted document that grants you explicit permission to redistribute it in unmodified form. Thus the GPLed software that includes the GPL license is obviously not in violation, as they are explicitly granted a right to distribute it. What is not granted is a right to modify the GPL itself. The reasoning for this was that if modification were allowed it would dilute the usefulness of the license, as "GPL-derived" licenses might not even be Free Software or Open Source.

You can however provided added or amended licensing conditions without modifying the actual text of the GPL; for example "this program may be distributed under the terms of the GNU GPL with the added requirement that [blah blah]."

Re:Wait a minute! (2)

istartedi (132515) | more than 12 years ago | (#2637756)

The reasoning for this was that if modification were allowed it would dilute the usefulness of the license, as "GPL-derived" licenses might not even be Free Software or Open Source.

I disagree. The MPL is more or less GPL-derived. It's just that they got their lawyers together and made it look "different enough" so that nobody would accuse them of hacking the GPL, and that has not diluted the "usefulness" of the GPL.

Also, there are several other licenses (e.g., Sleepycat) that are GPL-like, but not expressly derived from the GPL.

The copyright restriction on the GPL can't prevent the proliferation of licenses. It just makes it harder for people who might want to use the GPL as a starting point. Their desire to prevent the "GPL brand" from being diluted is understandable. A more fair solution would be to allow unlimited modification of the GPL, as long as you didn't call your license the GPL.

Re:Wait a minute! (2)

Jason Earl (1894) | more than 12 years ago | (#2637948)

The Free Software Foundation isn't worried about the GPL brand. They simply aren't interested in making a GPL derivative an easy thing to do. The Free Software Foundation wants you to use the GPL (duh!) so they have copyrighted the GPL in order to prevent people from easily making clones. If you want your own GPL-like license then hire your own lawyers and hope that they are as well acquainted with software copyrights as the folks who have worked on the GPL (good luck).

This might seem like a contradiction, but the Free Software Foundation isn't the "Information Must Be Free As In Free Beer Foundation." They are specifically trying to make sure that software comes with source code (and documentation :). They are not trying to make it so that all information is free.

So while you are certainly right that the GPL copyright can't make license proliferation impossible, it certainly does make it more difficult (and more expensive), and that's a net win for the FSF.

Re:Wait a minute! (1)

ClosedSource (238333) | more than 12 years ago | (#2638494)

"If you want your own GPL-like license then hire your own lawyers and hope that they are as well acquainted with software copyrights as the folks who have worked on the GPL (good luck)."

Since the GPL hasn't been tested in court, we don't really know how well the authors understand software copyrights.

Re:Wait a minute! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2637758)

Interesting, but by the same argument I can safely say that modification of software would dilute the usefulness of the software.

Re:Wait a minute! (1)

aozilla (133143) | more than 12 years ago | (#2638541)

The GPL is a copyrighted document that grants you explicit permission to redistribute it in unmodified form.

Regardless of what the FSF wants to tell you, licenses which are GPL derivitives are not protected by copyright. The GPL is a functional document, changing any word or letter in it changes the function of the document. Therefore the protections against derivitives of the document fall under patent law, not copyright law, and the GPL has not been patented.

Re:Wait a minute! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2637522)

This isn't a troll. In fact, a post that says something quite similar in this slashdot post [slashdot.org] was rated insightful are you all on crack??

Re:Wait a minute! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2637533)

I recommend upgrading your encryption to ROT-130. It is much more secure.

Yep thats great! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2637471)

OSI Turns Down 4 Licenses; Approves Python Foundation's

should read:
OSI Releases information on licenses, slashdot poster excited, no one else cares.

Open source needs less licences not more..

Re:Yep thats great! (1)

Arandir (19206) | more than 12 years ago | (#2637581)

Open source needs less licences not more..

That's why this is good news. The licenses rejected were among the most bizarre, redundant or useless licenses yet submitted to OSI. Perhaps that's why they made the news.

IRC Clients (2)

Russ Nelson (33911) | more than 12 years ago | (#2638312)

I wonder ... how you would feel if I said that the Open Source world needs less IRC clients, not more. Seems to me that the stength of open source is its diversity. Microsoft's strength is its fascistic control. One EULA to bind them all....
-russ

Re:IRC Clients (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2638587)

i would feel a great sense of agreement. i mean, have you counted those damn things recently?! there's practically more of them than there are text editors out there!

important, please read (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2637475)

Important message below. Take the time to read it, in its
entirety, to understand how slashdot works, and why you need to
moderate.




In an effort to restore slashdot [slashdot.org] to
it's previous level of quality, I've begun a two step process. The first
step is a determined effort to point out, and mod down, all obvious karma
whores and trolls. The second step is to rid this site of Jon Katz. The job
is large, but not impossible.


This poster obviously does not care about the topic, rather he
(or she, perhaps), cares only about inflating karma, and to do so, this
person has posted absolute crap.


What qualifies as crap on slashdot? Well, quite honestly, about
half of the comments ranked above 2.


One way to easily spot a karma whore attempt, is to look for an
obvious, but pathetic, post of linux superiority. A linux karma whore will
often attempt to point out that linux is the best for job x, even
though there may be, and probably are, better alternatives, such as
Microsoft for desktops and FreeBSD for servers. These points will be ignored
by linux karma whores, as pointing this out will not ensure the positive
moderation they desire.


Another method for spotting karma whores is to look for comments
posting, verbatim, something stated in the article, or in the editor's
summary. While this often includes italicizing the quote, this is
frequently a ploy to show that the person read the article, even though it's
more likely the person only skimmed to find a comment worth repeating.
Additional signs of the repetitive karma whore are: commentary on a quote
that says nothing, "mirroring" an article that is not slashdotted, or
pointing to google's cache. Also be careful before moderating up posts which
link to obviously related sites: karma whores occasionally search popular search engines [google.com] to find related
stories in an effort to gain more karma.


The third type of karma whore, one that very often succeeds on
slashdot, is the sympathy whore. A sympathy whore often tries to gain karma
by appealing to the moderator's sense of decency, either with a story about
how they were unfairly fired, perhaps how they were unfairly persecuted, or
occasionally how main stream capitalism is trampling on a sense of global
decency. The latter tends to link common, benine events to horrific events
of the past, making unfair generalizations and calling for action on behalf
of a charity rather than carrying on with one's life. Do not let your heart
be fooled into thinking that they are genuine: the sympathy whores want
nothing more than karma.


Why would someone try to whore karma? Well, the simple answer is
that everyone wants to feel smart, or popular. Many posters on slashdot
describe themselves as nerds or geeks, societal outcasts. Posting to
slashdot is their only true sense of community, and they view karma as a
measure of popularity or status. Others karma whore to try to increase
revenue and traffic to their own websites. Frequent marks of traffic whores
are links in the posts that match the user's homepage, or links to hardware
reviews on small sites, where links to purchase the hardware occupy the
bottom half of the review. Again, do not let these subtle traffic whores
fool you.


Now, turning our attention to Mr. Jon Katz. While he may possess
some talents as a writer, his technical knowledge is seriously lacking.
Furthermore, his credibility as a journalist is next to zero following his
Afghanistan fiasco. [slashdot.org] . He also has nothing to do with open source,
linux, or free software in general: thus, much like kuro5hin [kuro5hin.org] , he no longer fits in OSDN's [osdn.com] mission statement. It is for this
reason that we must finish what we star [slashdot.org]
ted and get rid of Jon [slashdot.org]
Katz .


With these basic guidelines in mind, go out and moderate. Realize
that many of the higher moderated comments are whores, and mod them back
down. In an effort to increase the quality of comments, try to mod down no
more than 3 posts in a given session ; use your remaining points to moderate
some users UP. This ensures that not only are karma whores eliminated
but that valid posts are acknowledged.


Great! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2637477)

Now I can have 6 licenses for my open source project.

THE license (4, Funny)

chachi8 (160827) | more than 12 years ago | (#2637482)

how do you think OSI feels about the definitive license [sourceforge.net] ?

From the end of the PSF license: (4, Funny)

A_Non_Moose (413034) | more than 12 years ago | (#2637486)

besides using all caps in an agreement/contract and triggering the lame lameness filter;

...OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION...


All that legalease will keep most mortals a hare's breadth away from comprehending.

I wonder if "tortious" action is like a gui user dropping back into his/her "shell"?

{SEG} sorry for the bad puns...I can hear most of you going "tcsh-tcsh"...

tortious (3, Informative)

wiredog (43288) | more than 12 years ago | (#2637525)

Tortious refers to torts. Which is the fancy way of saying "lawsuits".

Legal language has lots of latin in it, and the words have very precise meanings.

Re:tortious -WRONG (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2637742)

From: The 'Lectric Law Library's Lexicon [lectlaw.com]

TORT - A negligent or intentional civil wrong not arising out of a contract or statute. These include "intentional torts" such as battery or defamation, and torts for negligence.

A tort is an act that injures someone in some way, and for which the injured person may sue the wrongdoer for damages. Legally, torts are called civil wrongs, as opposed to criminal ones. (Some acts like battery, however, may be both torts and crimes; the wrongdoer may face both civil and criminal penalties.)

Under traditional law, family members were prohibited from suing each other for torts. The justification was that allowing family members to sue each other would lead to a breakdown of the family. Today, however, many states recognize that if family members have committed torts against each other, there often already is a breakdown in family relationships. Thus, they no longer bar members from suing each other. In these states, spouses may sue each other either during the marriage or after they have separated.

Normally, tort lawsuits against a spouse are brought separate and apart from any divorce, annulment or other family law case. Alabama, Georgia, Nevada, New York and Tennessee, however, allow or encourage combining the tort case with the family law case; New Jersey requires it.

The jurisdictions that still prohibit one family member from suing another include Arizona, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Missouri, Ohio, Texas, Utah, Wyoming and Washington, D.C. These places may make an exception when the tort is intentional. See, for example, Bounds v. Candle, 611 S.W.2d 685 (Texas 1980); Townsend v. Townsend, 708 S.W.2d 646 (Missouri 1986) and Green v. Green, 446 N.E.2d 837 (Ohio 1982).

An injury; a wrong; hence the expression "an executor de son tort", of his own wrong.

Torts may be committed with force, as trespasses, which may be an injury to the person, such as assault, battery, imprisonment; to the property in possession; or they may be committed without force. Torts of this nature are to the absolute or relative rights of persons, or to personal property in possession or reversion, or to real property, corporeal or encorporeal, in possession or reversion: these injuries may be either by nonfeasance, malfeasance, or misfeasance.

Re:tortious (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2637810)

It was a joke, son.

Besides, you're not entirely correct. A tort is a specific kind of lawsuit that involves compensation from personal injury.

Re:tortious (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2637917)

Man, can't you read, a tort is not a lawsuit, it is the WRONG itself.

If I shove a dildo up your ass, assuming you don't want me to, then that is an intentional tort.

Re:tortious (1)

Rand Race (110288) | more than 12 years ago | (#2638163)

Legal language has lots of latin in it, and the words have very precise meanings.

But just the latin words. English words like "free" or "all" and even "no" very often mean "limited", "some", and "a few" in legalese.... especialy in constitutional law.

Ummmm...thanks for the update (5, Informative)

BillyGoatThree (324006) | more than 12 years ago | (#2637495)

In other news, I just had lunch. It was eggs with cheese, sausage and banana bread. Now I'm working on modifying the docs for the app I fixed. If you promise to keep me posted on what licenses OSI is rejecting, I'll promise to let you know when I get my hair cut.

Re:Ummmm...thanks for the update (0, Offtopic)

bhsx (458600) | more than 12 years ago | (#2637664)

This is currently tagged "Flamebait," which it may well be; but man did he just crack my ass up! Cheers... moderators, please take it easy. This was done in good humor, me thinks.

Re:Ummmm...thanks for the update (1)

Otter (3800) | more than 12 years ago | (#2637709)

Flamebait?!? This was at least as informative as the story and vastly more entertaining. Between that and the link someone provided to the "Poetic Licence" I've had my laughs for the afternoon. Moderators, at least keep him above zero.

It was eggs with cheese, sausage and banana bread.

I've got to ask, this _is_ ((eggs+cheese)+sausage+banana bread), right? Not (eggs+cheese+sausage+banana bread), which is how I initally read it.

Re:Ummmm...thanks for the update (1)

Arandir (19206) | more than 12 years ago | (#2637732)

I've got to ask, this _is_ ((eggs+cheese)+sausage+banana bread), right? Not (eggs+cheese+sausage+banana bread), which is how I initally read it.

I think it was ((eggs+cheese)+((sausage+banana)+bread)), or in other words, your normal eggs and cheese as a side to a banana sausage sandwich.

Re:Ummmm...thanks for the update (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2637799)

No, I think it was ((eggs+cheese+sausage+banana)bread), which sounds weird, but not any weirder than all those damn OSS licenses.

Just as bad as calling a Kiwi and Aussie ! (1)

alphaque (51831) | more than 12 years ago | (#2637501)

To tie in what was said in the most recent Ask Slashdot [slashdot.org] , this discussion will evolve into a GPL vs AnythingElse tar pit.

Let the games begin !

Re:Just as bad as calling a Kiwi and Aussie ! (2, Funny)

Bob McCown (8411) | more than 12 years ago | (#2637602)

...this discussion will evolve into a GPL vs AnythingElse tar pit.

Seeing as this is about *nix licensing, shouldnt that be a tar.gz pit?

Re:Just as bad as calling a Kiwi and Aussie ! (2)

hawk (1151) | more than 12 years ago | (#2638288)

>Seeing as this is about *nix licensing, shouldnt that be a tar.gz pit?


ony for the GPL crowd. For everyone else, it's tar.bz2 :)


:)
hawk

to sum it all up (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2637503)

The GPL is crap. Period.

Go ahead, mod this down. Its only true.

Re:to sum it all up (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2637523)

bill gates - is that you? I didnt know you hung out on /.

Re:to sum it all up (-1)

GaylordFucker (465080) | more than 12 years ago | (#2637593)

he's right you know.. mod that sucker up.. the GPL is a hypocritical, contradicting license.. it's funny how lousy stinking hippies (i.e. RMS) over exaggerate the GPL saying that, and i quote this from a slovak friend who heard RMS at his stupid Saint IGNUcius conference.. "with GPL... we can edit anything.. and everything".. so what if i totally rewrite the source code... change the authors name to mine.. oh no! i violated the GPL.. and hey look, like every other dirty, stinking hippy.. RMS has just made a fool of himself and contradicted what he said.. but i'm not the one to talk.. i'm just another gaylord troll :'(

links to those rejected? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2637508)

anyone have links to copies of the rejected licenses?

moderators = fascists? (-1)

GaylordFucker (465080) | more than 12 years ago | (#2637633)

how is that offtopic you morons... that was a question ON TOPIC... read the fucking articles you hypocritical, self indulging rubber baby buggy bumpers...

Let's name some names... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2637530)

Rejected licenses:

The Poetic License:
http://www.chrisbrien.co.uk/licensing/poetic.htm l

Every License is Fancy (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2637542)

Everybody's Fancy
© 1967, Fred M. Rogers

Click to listen to the song.

Some are fancy on the outside.
Some are fancy on the inside.
Everybody's fancy.
Everybody's fine.
Your body's fancy and so is mine.

Boys are boys from the beginning.
Girls are girls right from the start.
Everybody's fancy.
Everybody's fine.
Your body's fancy and so is mine.

Girls grow up to be the mommies.
Boys grow up be the daddies.
Everybody's fancy.
Everybody's fine.
Your body's fancy and so is mine.

I think you're a special person
And I like your ins and outsides.
Everbody's fancy.
Everybody's fine.
Your body's fancy and so is mine.

Re:Every License is Fancy (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2637588)

That is the most scary troll I've ever seen!

WhooHoo! (5, Insightful)

Arandir (19206) | more than 12 years ago | (#2637548)

Not to name names, but one license had a restrictive patent grant that only applied to GPL'ed operating systems.

And what a bizarre license that was (not to name names). It was essentially the BSD license word for word, with the aforementioned patent grant. Yet you couldn't legally use the software on a BSD licensed operating system.

Another was more of a rant than a license.

A delicious rant to be sure. I quite enjoyed it, despite its wrongheadedness. It could not be approved of course, since it explicitly denied its own validity.

The one license that did pass was the Python Software Foundation License.

Whoohoo! In this age of a million open source licenses, it's nice to see that a sensible license that fills a gap in open source gets approved while the frivolous crap gets flushed.

Re:WhooHoo! (5, Interesting)

Trepidity (597) | more than 12 years ago | (#2637562)

Whoohoo! In this age of a million open source licenses, it's nice to see that a sensible license that fills a gap in open source gets approved while the frivolous crap gets flushed.

I'm not denying that it fills a gap, but a cursory reading of the license doesn't seem to indicate to me what gap it's filling. Why was it not possible/desirable to license Python under one of the existing Free Software licenses, and instead necessary to come up with another one?

Re:WhooHoo! (3, Interesting)

Lumpish Scholar (17107) | more than 12 years ago | (#2637655)

Why was it not possible/desirable to license Python under one of the existing Free Software licenses, and instead necessary to come up with another one?

Because the Python source code was, at various times, "owned" (copyright was in the name of) Stichting Mathematisch Centrum, the Corporation for National Research Initiatives, BeOpen, Digital Creations, and the Python Software Foundation.

Guido couldn't release it under the GPL, because it wasn't entirely "his" software to license.

(Google cache of the license [google.com] )

Re:WhooHoo! (3, Informative)

Arandir (19206) | more than 12 years ago | (#2637705)

Well, you heard of "weak copyleft?" Well this is "stong unrestricted." You get more permissions than the MIT/BSD license (really), but the license agreement must be retained in all distributions. This is different from the MIT/BSD licenses in that they require the license to be included, but not necessarily applied to, any copies or derivations.

Re:WhooHoo! (2)

Jerf (17166) | more than 12 years ago | (#2637571)

Would somebody please name names, and maybe get moderated up?

Until that happens, this whole story is as pointless as the whole "It" fiasco, which I note reared it's ugly and decidedly non-pointed head on Wired again today.

Re:WhooHoo! (2)

gmhowell (26755) | more than 12 years ago | (#2637910)

'It' also reared it's ugly arse in South Park this past week.

(Not only that, but the airline industry got skewered as well. Although not as much as John Travolta;)

The Cretan License (2)

fm6 (162816) | more than 12 years ago | (#2638364)

A delicious rant to be sure. I quite enjoyed it, despite its wrongheadedness. It could not be approved of course, since it explicitly denied its own validity.
Is somebody going to post a link, or am I going to have to get nasty?!

Re:The Cretan License (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2638398)

links elsewhere in this topic - look for the Poetic License

Restrictive Patent Grant License (5, Informative)

topeka (57768) | more than 12 years ago | (#2637551)

The restrictive patent grant license mentioned was probably the submission from Intel, which was a version of the BSD license with patent language added: From this e-mail [crynwr.com] :

Intel modified the BSD license in the following ways:

  1. Intel made OPTIONAL the inclusion of a copyright notice (i.e., "Redistributions of source code of the Software may retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer").
  2. Intel added certain definitions derived from the patent license in the Common Public License, and added a license grant under certain Intel patents to distribute Intel software contributions, alone or as incorporated in any operating system licensed under the GPL (version 2.0 or later).

Would they approve this license (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2637564)

IMPORTANT: READ CAREFULLY: This Microsoft End-User License Agreement ("EULA") is a legal agreement between you (either an individual or a single entity) and Microsoft Corporation for the Microsoft software product identified above, which includes computer software and may include associated media, printed materials, and "online" or electronic documentation ("SOFTWARE PRODUCT"). The SOFTWARE PRODUCT also includes any updates and supplements to the original SOFTWARE PRODUCT provided to you by Microsoft. Any software provided along with the SOFTWARE PRODUCT that is associated with a separate end-user license agreement is licensed to you under the terms of that license agreement. By installing, copying, downloading, accessing or otherwise using the SOFTWARE PRODUCT, you agree to be bound by the terms of this EULA. If you do not agree to the terms of this EULA, do not install or use the SOFTWARE PRODUCT; you may, however, return it to your place of purchase for a full refund.
{ This means that you cannot return the Microsoft product if you have already used it. Luckily, all OEMs are required to install Windows in such a way that it gives you (on first bootup) the choice of accepting or not accepting the license. See this court ruling for more information. }

SOFTWARE PRODUCT LICENSE
The SOFTWARE PRODUCT is protected by copyright laws and international copyright treaties, as well as other intellectual property laws and treaties. The SOFTWARE PRODUCT is licensed, not sold.

1. GRANT OF LICENSE.
This EULA grants you the following rights:
Systems Software.
You may install and use one copy of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT on a single computer, including a workstation, terminal or other digital electronic device ("COMPUTER").
Storage/Network Use.
You may also store or install a copy of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT on a storage device, such as a network server, used only to install or run the SOFTWARE PRODUCT on your other COMPUTERS over an internal network; however, you must acquire and dedicate a license for each separate COMPUTER on or from which the SOFTWARE PRODUCT is installed, used, accessed, displayed or run. A license for the SOFTWARE PRODUCT may not be shared or used concurrently on different COMPUTERS. Notwithstanding the foregoing, any number of COMPUTERS may access or otherwise utilize the file and print services and peer web services of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT. In addition, you may use the "Multiple Display" feature of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT to expand your desktop as described in the on-line Help file, without obtaining a license for each display.
License Pak.
If this package is a Microsoft License Pak, you may install and use additional copies of the computer software portion of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT up to the number of copies specified above as "Licensed Copies".
2. DESCRIPTION OF OTHER RIGHTS AND LIMITATIONS.
Academic Edition Software.
If the SOFTWARE PRODUCT is identified as "Academic Edition" or "AE," you must be a "Qualified Educational User" to use the SOFTWARE PRODUCT. If you are not a Qualified Education User, you have no rights under this EULA. To determine if you are a Qualified Educational User, please contact the Microsoft Sales Information Center/One Microsoft Way/Redmond, WA 98052-6399 or the Microsoft subsidiary serving your country.
Not For Resale Software.
If the SOFTWARE PRODUCT is labeled "Not For Resale" or "NFR," then, notwithstanding other sections of this EULA, your use of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT is limited to use for demonstration, test, or evaluation purposes and you may not resell, or otherwise transfer for value, the SOFTWARE PRODUCT.
Limitations on Reverse Engineering, Decompilation, and Disassembly.
You may not reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble the SOFTWARE PRODUCT, except and only to the extent that such activity is expressly permitted by applicable law notwithstanding this limitation.
{ Exactly how legal is this statement in the European Union? In France, at least, there's a LAW that provides the legal right for all of the above actions...}
Separation of Components.
The SOFTWARE PRODUCT is licensed as a single product. Its component parts may not be separated for use on more than one computer.
Rental.
You may not rent, lease or lend the SOFTWARE PRODUCT.
Trademarks.
This EULA does not grant you any rights in connection with any trademarks or service marks of Microsoft.
Application Sharing.
The SOFTWARE PRODUCT may contain Microsoft NetMeeting, a product that enables applications to be shared between two or more computers, even if an application is installed on only one of the computers. You may use this technology with all Microsoft application products for multi-party conferences. For non-Microsoft applications, you should consult the accompanying license agreement or contact the licensor to determine whether application sharing is permitted by the licensor.
Support Services.
Microsoft may provide you with support services related to the SOFTWARE PRODUCT ("Support Services"). Use of Support Services is governed by the Microsoft polices and programs described in the user manual, in "on line" documentation and/or other Microsoft-provided materials. Any supplemental software code provided to you as part of the Support Services shall be considered part of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT and subject to the terms and conditions of this EULA. With respect to technical information you provide to Microsoft as part of the Support Services, Microsoft may use such information for its business purposes, including for product support and development. Microsoft will not utilize such technical information in a form that personally identifies you.
Software Transfer.
The initial user of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT may make a one-time permanent transfer of this EULA and SOFTWARE PRODUCT only directly to an end user. This transfer must include all of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT (including all component parts, the media and printed materials, any upgrades, this EULA, and, if applicable, the Certificate of Authenticity). Such transfer may not be by way of consignment or any other indirect transfer. The transferee of such one-time transfer must agree to comply with the terms of this EULA, including the obligation not to further transfer this EULA and SOFTWARE PRODUCT.
Termination.
Without prejudice to any other rights, Microsoft may terminate this EULA if you fail to comply with the terms and conditions of this EULA. In such event, you must destroy all copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT and all of its component parts.
3. UPGRADES.
If the SOFTWARE PRODUCT is labeled as an upgrade, you must be properly licensed to use a product identified by Microsoft as being eligible for the upgrade in order to use the SOFTWARE PRODUCT. A SOFTWARE PRODUCT labeled as an upgrade replaces and/or supplements the product that formed the basis for your eligibility for the upgrade. You may use the resulting upgraded product only in accordance with the terms of this EULA. If the SOFTWARE PRODUCT is an upgrade of a component of a package of software programs that you licensed as a single product, the SOFTWARE PRODUCT may be used and transferred only as part of that single product package and may not be separated for use on more than one computer.
4. COPYRIGHT.
All title and intellectual property rights in and to the SOFTWARE PRODUCT (including but not limited to any images, photographs, animations, video, audio, music, text, and "applets" incorporated into the SOFTWARE PRODUCT), the accompanying printed materials, and any copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT are owned by Microsoft or its suppliers. All title and intellectual property rights in and to the content which may be accessed through use of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT is the property of the respective content owner and may be protected by applicable copyright or other intellectual property laws and treaties. This EULA grants you no rights to use such content. All rights not expressly granted are reserved by Microsoft.
5. DUAL-MEDIA SOFTWARE.
You may receive the SOFTWARE PRODUCT in more than one medium. Regardless of the type or size of medium you receive, you may use only one medium that is appropriate for your single computer. You may not use or install the other medium on another computer. You may not loan, rent, lease, lend or otherwise transfer the other medium to another user, except as part of the permanent transfer (as provided above) of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT.
6. BACKUP COPY.
After installation of one copy of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT pursuant to this EULA, you may keep the original media on which the SOFTWARE PRODUCT was provided by Microsoft solely for backup or archival purposes. If the original media is required to use the SOFTWARE PRODUCT on the COMPUTER, you may make one copy of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT solely for backup or archival purposes. Except as expressly provided in this EULA, you may not otherwise make copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT or the printed materials accompanying the SOFTWARE PRODUCT.
7. U.S. GOVERNMENT RESTRICTED RIGHTS.
The SOFTWARE PRODUCT and documentation are provided with RESTRICTED RIGHTS. Use, duplication, or disclosure by the Government is subject to restrictions as set forth in subparagraph (c)(1)(ii) of the Rights in Technical Data and Computer Software clause at DFARS 252.227-7013 or subparagraphs (c)(1) and (2) of the Commercial Computer Software--Restricted Rights at 48 CFR 52.227-19, as applicable. Manufacturer is Microsoft Corporation/One Microsoft Way/Redmond, WA 98052-6399.
8. EXPORT RESTRICTIONS.
You agree that you will not export or re-export the SOFTWARE PRODUCT to any country, person, entity or end user subject to U.S. export restrictions. You specifically agree not to export or re-export the SOFTWARE PRODUCT: (i) to any country to which the U.S. has embargoed or restricted the export of goods or services, which currently include, but are not necessarily limited to Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria, or to any national of any such country, wherever located, who intends to transmit or transport the products back to such country; (ii) to any end-user who you know or have reason to know will utilize the SOFTWARE PRODUCT or portion thereof in the design, development or production of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons; or (iii) to any end-user who has been prohibited from participating in U.S. export transactions by any federal agency of the U.S. government.
9. NOTE ON JAVA SUPPORT.
THE SOFTWARE PRODUCT MAY CONTAIN SUPPORT FOR PROGRAMS WRITTEN IN JAVA. JAVA TECHNOLOGY IS NOT FAULT TOLERANT AND IS NOT DESIGNED, MANUFACTURED, OR INTENDED FOR USE OR RESALE AS ON-LINE CONTROL EQUIPMENT IN HAZARDOUS ENVIRONMENTS REQUIRING FAIL-SAFE PERFORMANCE, SUCH AS IN THE OPERATION OF NUCLEAR FACILITIES, AIRCRAFT NAVIGATION OR COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS, AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL, DIRECT LIFE SUPPORT MACHINES, OR WEAPONS SYSTEMS, IN WHICH THE FAILURE OF JAVA TECHNOLOGY COULD LEAD DIRECTLY TO DEATH, PERSONAL INJURY, OR SEVERE PHYSICAL OR ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE.
{ Hmm, pot ... kettle ... black :) }

MISCELLANEOUS
If you acquired this product in the United States, this EULA is governed by the laws of the State of Washington.
If you acquired this product in Canada, this EULA is governed by the laws of the Province of Ontario, Canada. Each of the parties hereto irrevocably attorns to the jurisdiction of the courts of the Province of Ontario and further agrees to commence any litigation which may arise hereunder in the courts located in the Judicial District of York, Province of Ontario.
If this product was acquired outside the United States, then local law may apply.
Should you have any questions concerning this EULA, or if you desire to contact Microsoft for any reason, please contact Microsoft, or write:

Microsoft Sales Information Center
One Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA 98052-6399.
LIMITED WARRANTY
LIMITED WARRANTY.
Microsoft warrants that (a) the SOFTWARE PRODUCT will perform substantially in accordance with the accompanying written materials for a period of ninety (90) days from the date of receipt, and (b) any Support Services provided by Microsoft shall be substantially as described in applicable written materials provided to you by Microsoft, and Microsoft support engineers will make commercially reasonable efforts to solve any problem. To the extent allowed by applicable law, implied warranties on the SOFTWARE PRODUCT, if any, are limited to ninety (90) days. Some states/jurisdictions do not allow limitations on duration of an implied warranty, so the above limitation may not apply to you.
CUSTOMER REMEDIES.
Microsoft's and its suppliers' entire liability and your exclusive remedy shall be, at Microsoft's option, either (a) return of the price paid, if any, or (b) repair or replacement of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT that does not meet Microsoft's Limited Warranty and that is returned to Microsoft with a copy of your receipt. This Limited Warranty is void if failure of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT has resulted from accident, abuse, or misapplication. Any replacement SOFTWARE PRODUCT will be warranted for the remainder of the original warranty period or thirty (30) days, whichever is longer. Outside the United States, neither these remedies nor any product support services offered by Microsoft are available without proof of purchase from an authorized international source.
{ Now that is a fascist statement! If the product doesn't work properly, Microsoft gets the choice of what action to take and you, the disgruntled customer, are left without any option but to wait and see what MS will do. I don't understand people trust their business to such an agreement... }

NO OTHER WARRANTIES.
TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, MICROSOFT AND ITS SUPPLIERS DISCLAIM ALL OTHER WARRANTIES AND CONDITIONS, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, IMPLIED WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, TITLE AND NON-INFRINGEMENT, WITH REGARD TO THE SOFTWARE PRODUCT, AND THE PROVISION OF OR FAILURE TO PROVIDE SUPPORT SERVICES. THIS LIMITED WARRANTY GIVES YOU SPECIFIC LEGAL RIGHTS. YOU MAY HAVE OTHERS, WHICH VARY FROM STATE/JURISDICTION TO STATE/JURISDICTION.
LIMITATION OF LIABILITY.
TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, IN NO EVENT SHALL MICROSOFT OR ITS SUPPLIERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF BUSINESS PROFITS, BUSINESS INTERRUPTION, LOSS OF BUSINESS INFORMATION, OR ANY OTHER PECUNIARY LOSS) ARISING OUT OF THE USE OF OR INABILITY TO USE THE SOFTWARE PRODUCT OR THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE SUPPORT SERVICES, EVEN IF MICROSOFT HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. IN ANY CASE, MICROSOFT'S ENTIRE LIABILITY UNDER ANY PROVISION OF THIS EULA SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE GREATER OF THE AMOUNT ACTUALLY PAID BY YOU FOR THE SOFTWARE PRODUCT OR U.S.$5.00; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, IF YOU HAVE ENTERED INTO A MICROSOFT SUPPORT SERVICES AGREEMENT, MICROSOFT'S ENTIRE LIABILITY REGARDING SUPPORT SERVICES SHALL BE GOVERNED BY THE TERMS OF THAT AGREEMENT. BECAUSE SOME STATES/JURISDICTIONS DO NOT ALLOW THE EXCLUSION OR LIMITATION OF LIABILITY, THE ABOVE LIMITATION MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU.

Let's name some more names... (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2637572)

errg, hit the submit button by mistake.

The Poetic License [chrisbrien.co.uk]

states that:
"The software covered by this license makes no claims about copyright, copyleft or even copy centre (where you take it down to the copy centre and copy it). Make as many copies as you want, for whatever purpose, even if it is to sacrifice those copies in a great floppy pyre. You may even claim copyright, ownership of trademark, originality or patent. You may even sue the real originator for a breach of your claimed copyright. However, this license can't guarantee that this will be in any way successful."
(har de har har)

The CMGPL [crynwr.com]
The GPL without a bunch of sections? Which ones, you ask? Mostly the ones that don't count!

The Intel BSD+Patent License [crynwr.com]
Like BSD, but grants a patent license. Patent license is specifically not granted to use under non-GPL OS's, or with modified versions, although copyright license is the same as BSD.

Re:Let's name some more names... (2, Insightful)

Fnkmaster (89084) | more than 12 years ago | (#2637641)

The CMGPL is, well, stupid. They should just use the LGPL if they want to allow linking to proprietary apps. Duh. And axing the preamble? Why bother?

Re:Let's name some more names... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2638321)

And axing the preamble? Why bother?

Some of us like our software and our politics to be two different things, not an indistinguishable black tar that clings to and makes sticky everything it touches. The GPL expressly prohibits removing the sticky black tar of the preamble. For those who don't agree with everything Stallman says, being forced to include his ideological boilerplate with every copy shipped is like forcing the Libertarian Party to attach a free copy of Das Kapital to every campaign poster it puts up.

So what are they? (2)

Mike Schiraldi (18296) | more than 12 years ago | (#2637605)

Sorry, not all of us are familiar with the OSI Licensing scene -- what are the three rejected licenses? It's kinda hard to get into the story when it assumes you already know what it's talking about.

Anyone care to enumerate the other three licenses?

GPL (4, Funny)

uslinux.net (152591) | more than 12 years ago | (#2637657)

Anyone besides me see the humor in the only FSF item which does *not* fall under the GPL is the GPL license itself :-)

Re:GPL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2637817)

No, I find humor in the fact that the rest of the world is laughing their asses off at the dozens of "open source" licenses out there. I don't even see why there are so many licenses anyway. The BSD and GPL licenses served the purpose before any of these others. Use the BSD if you don't care if commercial people take your shit and use it in closed source stuff, use the GPL if you don't. Big deal. Seems pretty clear to me.

Re:GPL (3, Insightful)

uslinux.net (152591) | more than 12 years ago | (#2637905)

I'd like to see one more license added to those two. A good commercial one which allows you to modify the hell out of the source code, but when doesn't allow you to distribute the changes outside your organization. I really think THAT is what is keeping a number of companies from writing open source code (free as in speech, not beer). Of course, that wouldn't be an OSI-approved license, but it would encourage companies to open their code, which is the first step towards building truly Open products.

I personally don't have a problem with companies restricting redistribution of code (eg. forcing others to purchase it), so long as once you've purchased it, you get the source and can modify it (or distribute the patches to others who have purchased it). My *guess*, however, is that many companies are afraid they'll be forced to support software others modify if they give out the code.

Re:GPL (1)

ethereal (13958) | more than 12 years ago | (#2638143)

That already exists - since copyright only applies to distribution anyway, you can take any GPL'd code, hack it up whichever way, and use it internally to your organization. As long as you don't distribute any binaries built from it you are under no oblication to ever provide source code.

I don't see how you think this would help companies open up and write Open Source code, though - source that never leaves the company walls is effectively not open, and those changes will never get rolled back into the community. That doesn't seem like a very productive outcome.

Re:GPL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2638341)

Copyright also applies to modification, not just distribution. But the GPL allows you to make changes to a program without distributing the source code, as long as you don't distribute the binaries outside of your organization.

Re:GPL (1)

aozilla (133143) | more than 12 years ago | (#2638479)

Copyright does not apply to modification, it applies to the creation of derivitive works, which private non-distributed modifications are not.

Re:GPL (1)

phossie (118421) | more than 12 years ago | (#2638430)

this could have some interesting ramifications for contractors / services-type businesses...

Re:GPL (3, Insightful)

ajs (35943) | more than 12 years ago | (#2638222)

No, there are a great many other documents, objects and other "items" which are owned by the FSF and are not covered by the GPL.

The GPL is a tool which was created with one goal: to allow modification and distribution of software. The goal was not (even given the FSF's fondness for recursion) to allow modification of the GPL.

copyright (-1)

GaylordFucker (465080) | more than 12 years ago | (#2637658)

hey i just said copyright... copyright, trademark, closed source, purchase, restrictions, copyright copyright... oh no! i've just committed blasphemy!! copyright.. COPYRIGHT Linux/UNIX geeks... hear me out... if you're smart and you want money... go against the GPL... any human with common sense will know that the GPL is just another tool used by communists to help spread their propoganda... COPYRIGHT your software... down with the GPL and that communist extraordinare RMS and Alan Cox...

George Harrison dead at 58 (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2637668)

not a troll. hit CNN.

KRL... (2)

Gord.ca (236984) | more than 12 years ago | (#2637724)

So the Kallisys Reflexive License was the one turned down due to insufficient discussion... Right?
(It was apparently submitted for application but never approved). Somebody confirm please, me curious :)

Re:KRL... (1)

Arandir (19206) | more than 12 years ago | (#2637911)

There's wasn't much discussion on the KRL. Don't really know why. I read it through several times, couldn't grok it, so never bothered commenting. Remember, license-discuss isn't composed of attorneys, so a license that doesn't parse to laymen English won't get much discussion.

Artistic license (5, Funny)

Spinality (214521) | more than 12 years ago | (#2637782)

The Artistic License [opensource.org] is one I like. I'm always suspicious of an open source license that either a) has a polemical preamble [opensource.org] that tries to coerce your behavior, b) reads like the team of lawyers [opensource.org] who wrote the license are making a lot more money than the developers, or c) presumes [opensource.org] that the only good programmer is one who either programs as a hobby, is an academic, works for a big company that can afford to subsidize the programmer's time, or works for an end-user company that can afford to build complex systems strictly for internal use -- in other words, that there's no moral way to be a software vendor.

Yeah, I know there's plenty of room for argument all around, but my sympathies are with small software vendors who need some way to get enough revenue from 100-5000 licenses to pay salaries. The Artistic License strikes me as compact and commonsensical, and a good model for many situations. And of course it has the coolest name. :-)

Re:Artistic license (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2638261)

That is fine and nice if you want to give your program away for anyone to pick up and sell without releasing code whereas other licenses like the GPL are distributed by people who don't want companies to charge per license on work they themsleves did and not the company. What people mistakenly belive is that everyone who licences under these types of licenses belive that everyone else should do the same. I, and I think most other people feel the same, don't care what license one uses as long as my code is used only in GPL compatable software. In this way I retain the rights to MY software, not anyone elses, and don't just give it away.

When will they approve the MGPL? (5, Funny)

brer_rabbit (195413) | more than 12 years ago | (#2637800)

I don't know why more people don't use the MindGuard Public License [zapatopi.net] (as used with MindGuard). An excerpt:
A "work based on the Program" hereinafter means either the Program itself or a work containing a portion or the totality of the Program either with or without modifications, translations, transliterations, or transformations. (Hereinafter, the term "modification" shall include, without limitations, the last four terms of the previous sentence excluding the term "or" unless "or" is used to refer to a boolean function applied to modify the Program or any part of it.) Each licensee is addressed as "you", as in the statement "You are a licensee". (The statement "You are not a licensee" will hereinafter have no logical meaning.)

Just what we need, another type of "free" software (2, Funny)

sup4hleet (444456) | more than 12 years ago | (#2637809)

As if free-as-in-speach and free-as-in-beer weren't enough, now we can add free-as-in-Python to the list. :)

I wonder if I should submit my license (2, Funny)

WillSeattle (239206) | more than 12 years ago | (#2637811)

Seriously. I wrote a lot of public domain code a while back, that I found in many systems later on.

And then for some of my political software work, I used the Freeware for Feminists license - basically free, so long as the user was sympathetic with a feminist cause, and not granted for anti-feminist usage. Kind of viral, but I did make a splash screen and gave out source code with the compiled code.

-

hmm (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2637854)

what about all the dozens of licenses they have
IGNORED in the past 2 years?

if you have big $, OSI will grant approval. if not, you will be ignored.

Licences and contracts are copyrightable? (1)

BlueCoder (223005) | more than 12 years ago | (#2637953)

This is just as bad as copyrighted laws and regulations.

Re:Licences and contracts are copyrightable? (1)

J'raxis (248192) | more than 12 years ago | (#2638393)

Why is copyrighting a license in and of itself bad? The license is a work of written text, so it can be copyrighted just like any other text.

A Good License (3, Interesting)

Arandir (19206) | more than 12 years ago | (#2638380)

After seeing half a million OSS licenses, I have concluded that the vast majority of them just don't get it. I'm not talking about the four "freedoms" of the FSF, but rather the freedom of the user not to be insulted by the licensing. Lawyers may love confusing, convoluted and non-parsable legalese, but the users do not.

(The following is my opinion, so please read it as such. When I refer to a "good" open source license, I am making a qualitative assessment, and not trying to set up criteria for any approval process but my own.)

The purpose of open source licenses are to grant the user a broad set of permissions and rights over and above those granted by copyright law. Their purpose is not to bind the user to the will of the licensor. A good open source license must be based on copyright law, not contract law.

The first thing a good license should do is grant unconditional permission to use the software. This should be so basic it to not be worth mentioning, but you would be surprised as some of the licensed submitted. Additionally, the use of the software should not be trigger for anything else. We don't want any EULA's here, thank you. The second thing a good license should do is clearly inform the user of their permissions. These permissions must not be predicated upon acceptance of any agreement. A permission may have conditions attached to it. If there is anything you wish the user NOT to do, make it a condition. Next the license should have a warranty disclaimer, to assure the user that they will not be sued if they contribute stuff to the project. You may (and should if you're a commercial project) include a real warranty as a separate legal document.

Notice that I haven't included anything about what you require the user to do. No blanket obligations. That's on purpose. Open Source and Free Software are NOT about making people do things. It is okay to make an obligation be a condition to a permission. It is not okay to make an obligation be a condition to the entire license. Remember, this is about what the user can and cannot do.

Software licenses as contracts was an invention of the proprietary software industry. There was a time not that long ago when copyright law as very vague as to the status of software. So the industry decided to use contract law instead, and created licenses that had such bizarre phrases in them as "by reading this sentence you agree to the following obligations...". That's bullshit and Open Source and Free Software should have nothing to do with such rubbish.

Re:A Good License (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2638515)

It is not okay to make an obligation be a condition to the entire license.

This is what the GPL does. If you create a derivitive, and make copies of that derivitive, you are not permitted to distribute those copies unless you also distribute the source, even though first sale would allow you to distribute those copies without distributing the source.

My Standard Software Disclaimer (4, Funny)

nbvb (32836) | more than 12 years ago | (#2638490)

This opinion is meant for educational purposes only. Any resemblance
to real persons, living or dead is purley coincidental. Void where
prohibited. Some assembly required. List each check separately by
bank number. Batteries not included. Contents may settle during
shipment. Use only as directed. No other warranty expressed or
implied. Do not use while operating a motor vehicle or heavy
equipment. Postage will be paid by addressee. Subject to CAB
approval. This is not an offer to sell securities. Apply only to
affected area. May be too intense for some viewers. Do not stamp.
Use other side for additional listings. For recreational use only.
Do not disturb. All models over 18 years of age. If condition
persists, consult your physician. No user-serviceable parts inside.
Freshest if eaten before date on carton. Subject to change without
notice. Times approximate. Simulated picture. No postage necessary
if mailed in the United States. Breaking seal constitutes acceptance
of agreement. For off-road use only. As seen on TV. One size fits
all. Many suitcases look alike. Contains a substaintial amount of
non-tobacco ingredients. Colors may, in time, fade. We have sent
the forms which seem to be right for you. Slippery when wet. For
in any mailbox. Edited for television. Keep cool; process promptly.
Post office will not deliver without postage. List was current at
time of printing. Return to sender, no forwarding order on file,
unable to forward. Not responsible for direct, indirect, incidental
or consequential damages resulting from any defect, error or failure
to perform. At participating locations only. Not the Beatles.
Penalty for private use. See label for sequence. Substantial
penalty for early withdrawal. Do not write below this line. Falling
rock. Lost ticket pays maximum rate. Your cancelled check is your
recipt. Add toner. Place stamp here. Avoid contact with skin.
Sanitized for your protection. Be sure each item is properly
endorsed. Sign here without admitting guilt. Slightly higher west
of the Mississippi. Employees and their families are not eligible.
Beware of dog. Contestants have been briefed on some questions
before the show. Limited time offer, call now to insure prompt
delivery. You must be present to win. No passes accepted for this
engagement. No purchase necessary. Processed at location stamped in
code at top of carton. Shading within a garment may occur. Use only
in well-ventilated area. Keep away from fire or flame. Replace with
same type. Approved for veterans. Booths for two or more. Check
here if tax deductible. Some equipment shown is optional. Price
does not include taxes. No Canadian coins. Not recommended for
children. Prerecorded for this time zone. Reproduction strictly
prohibited. No solicitors. No alcohol, dogs, or horses. No
anchovies unless otherwise specified. Restaurant package, not for
resale. List at least two alternate dates. First pull up, then pull
down. Call toll free before digging. Driver does not carry cash.
Some of the trademarks mentioned in this product appear for
identification purposes only. Record additional transactions on back
of previous stub.

This supersedes all previous notices.

becoming your parents (1)

8bit (127134) | more than 12 years ago | (#2638548)

sucks major butt, but you don't know that because when you make the conversion you don't know it...you think you're still cool

Why do we have an organisation telling us what licenses we can and cannot use? I used a disapproved of, but still open source IMHO license...what then? Will the OSI call up the FBI to bust down my door?

Fuck the establishment, we don't need anymore conformity factories.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?