* Lee Iverson <leei@ai.sri.com> [000721 20:00]:
> [...]
> Both the MPL and GPL require source code to continue to be made
> available and that source code of modifications made to be available
> to end users. The major difference is that the GPL does not allow
> inclusion of the code in other systems which are not entirely released
> under an open source license. In other words, the GPL requires that
> any system that derives from GPLed software must allow an end-user
> free access to its entire source code (i.e. it must essentially be
> GPLed itself). The MPL merely requires that the MPL-licensed package
> itself and not necessarily other derived code be redistributed with
> source code including any modifications that the distributor has made.
This assumes they are considered as the same "work", right? I just
finished reading the licenses and I saw reference in the GPL that
seperate, distinguishable works do not need to be covered by the GPL and
can be distributed together.
Also, by open source do you mean DFSG compliant or OSI Certified? I
guess it really doesn't matter much once a license is chosen. For those
interested, you can see the difference between them by comparing
http://www.debian.org/social_contract and
http://www.opensource.org/press_releases/certified-open-source.html
respectively. Hmm, The Artistic License was listed on the DFSG page.
> [...]
> Now, for my analysis:
>
> 1) No licensing scheme will prevent someone from trying to patent
> ideas that we are trying to develop. The only real defense against
> that is public disclosure of *all* of the ideas, implementation
> strategies, aggregations of functionality etc. that we are
> pursuing. In patent terms, we want to produce a complete record
> that would be usable within a prior art database.
Are there specific patents we are concerned about either now or in the
future?
> 2) The most important way in which the OHS can win is via ubiquity.
> What we really want is for our technologies to become as widespread
> as possible. I would argue that this cannot happen as long as it
> is not possible to use our work in commercial software, and by this
> I mean Microsoft Word, AppleWorks, Rational Rose etc. This, I
> would say, leaves the GPL out since it basically dictates a
> business model for software distribution.
Lee, I tend to agree we need a license that corporations "aren't afraid
of." Maybe this is a gross misinterpretation, but I think those
software packages would be considered seperate works, so the GPL
wouldn't apply and may still be acceptable.
I am not sure I understand this point fully as you described it. You
got me curious, so here's another reference license that's included with
BIND8:
## Copyright (c) 1993-1999 by Internet Software Consortium.
##
## Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software for any
## purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above
## copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies.
##
## THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND INTERNET SOFTWARE CONSORTIUM DISCLAIMS
## ALL WARRANTIES WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES
## OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS. IN NO EVENT SHALL INTERNET SOFTWARE
## CONSORTIUM BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL
## DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR
## PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS
## ACTION, ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS
## SOFTWARE.
Internet Software Consortium
950 Charter Street
Redwood City, CA 94063
Tel: 1-888-868-1001 (toll free in U.S.)
Tel: 1-650-779-7091
Fax: 1-650-779-7055
Email: info@isc.org
> 3) The concern over hijacking is *not* addressed by the BSD/Apache
> licenses, and Brian Behlendorf has essentially argued that the
> protection is more of a community and practicality issue than
> anything. While I buy that up to a point (it is kind of stupid to
> adopt an open source component and then proprietarize it and thus
> lose many of the benefits its being open source), I believe that
> argument doesn't reflect the potential for abuse by companies which
> can out-scale the open source community by virtue of their sheer
> size and market penetration (here I'm talking Microsoft and Oracle
> here as examples).
The nice thing about open source is that it isn't one company against one
company. Microsoft hasn't taken over Bind even though they have
proprietary extensions. If you don't like a way software is used and
you have the source code, then you have a recourse: create something
better. I know it's not that easy, but if one of the larger companies
takes a product in one direction, all competitors have a very low or
non-existant barrirer to entry, right?
Given some of these licenses, the only way to "proprietarize" anything
is further development, right? So, what specifically are we concerned
about having hijacked? A fundamental concept in security is appropriate
measures. There is probably a more accurate way of saying this, but do
you need an armored car to drive to the bank every time? If we are
concerned about this, let's address it, but do we have to worry about
this?
> All that said, I particularly like the combination of the MPL and GPL
> strategy. By licensing under both and allowing the potential adopter
> of you technology the option of choosing which one to live by, you can
> have the strengths of both without the downside of either. Commercial
> developers have the opportunity to adopt without the free license to
> corrupt (as per the MPL) while truly altruistic developers can
> aggregate with their own GPLed components and hope for the viruslike
> consequences down the line.
I don't understand completely how to license under both. Is this with
the use of Exibit A from the MPL?
> Moreover, the possibilty for this aggregation is explicitly recognized
> by the Mozilla family (see http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/boilerplate-1.1/)
> and probably makes it easier for us to inject ourselves into that
> community as well.
You mean join that community, right? ;-)
This is a really good analysis, thanks Lee.
-- -- Grant Bowman grant@suse.com -- SuSE +1-510-628-3380 x5027 -- 580 Second Street, Suite 210 fax +1-510-628-3381 -- Oakland, CA 94607 http://www.suse.com------------------------------------------------------------------------ Find long lost high school friends: http://click.egroups.com/1/7080/5/_/444287/_/964418094/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Community email addresses: Post message: unrev-II@onelist.com Subscribe: unrev-II-subscribe@onelist.com Unsubscribe: unrev-II-unsubscribe@onelist.com List owner: unrev-II-owner@onelist.com
Shortcut URL to this page: http://www.onelist.com/community/unrev-II
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jul 23 2000 - 23:03:39 PDT