To cut down on traffic, I merged all my responses to Russ together. If you
don't like it, well, tough. :-)
At 20:29 -0700 2000.09.12, Russ Allbery wrote:
>What if you make your changes available only if someone signs a
>non-disclosure agreement?
That would be pretty silly, since the recipient could turn around and also
provide it to anyone else under the NDA.
>Or make them freely available but say that they
>can't be used in commercial packages?
It doesn't prohibit that, so it must be allowed.
>>> Are you required to let people use your code as part of a commercial
>>> package?
>
>> Not your modifications, no, you aren't.
>
>This makes the term "Freely Available" more of a surprise, since it isn't
>meaning what a lot of peole are going to expect it to mean.
I understand that, but it is still "clear" according to the given definition.
>So you can make your modifications freely available but put a license on
>them that says that no one else can use them without paying you money?
>That still fulfills the letter of the license; the modifications are
>available to anyone for free, and those people can give copies to anyone
>else. They're just not *usable*.
I am not convinced of this at all.
>> 2. The Internet has pretty much rendered this moot for everybody; I
>> simply cannot think of a way in which this matters anymore
>
>The issue isn't copies of Perl itself, since anyone can get that easily
>enough, but packages based on Perl fulfilling point four.
Well, good point. I still think it is moot:
>It *sounds*
>from point five like the intention of this license is that if you make
>some changes to Perl (porting it to a platform, for example) and call it
>winperl (to pick a name at almost random), you still have to abide by the
>restriction to not charge more than a reasonable copying fee plus support.
>But I don't see anything in here that clearly prevents me from selling
>winperl for $200 a pop.
Fine, you make winperl. You distribute the package with your
modifications. It is still the Package, and it is still under the license
of the Copyright Holder, which means I can buy it and then give it away
under the terms of the AL and GPL. It wouldn't serve you very well to do
this. Is it a potential loophole? Perhaps. But I don't see it as a
problem even if it is.
Remember, we are trying to break the AL here, and I don't see this as
significant brokenness. I said from the beginning that the AL could be
cleaned up, but I am interested here in trying to break the existing one.
>>> fee for a copy of the package, but I can't chage them for using it?
>>> Unless that would count as support? (What's support in this context?)
>>> This is very unclear.
>
>> Again, no, of course you cannot charge someone for using it.
>
>Where does the license say that? It really should *explicitly* say
>something about charges for *usage* as opposed to charges for obtaining
>the package.
I understand your concern, but I just don't see this as a real legal
problem. That seems akin to me to saying that you can make the package
freely available, but no one is allowed to even look at the source. You
can just HAVE it, not read it. It just isn't logical to me, and I am
confident the point could be won in court without much difficulty.
>Nothing about copyright law restricts what I can *claim* about a package
>normally. This appears to be an additional restriction I agree to if I
>use Perl. But the restriction appears to only apply if I distribute the
>package as part of a larger work; if I distribute it by itself, I don't
>see anything in the license that says I can't lie about who wrote it.
I don't see that. I see an assertion that the copyright holder owns
copyright over the package, which is the collection of files distributed by
the Copyright Holder, and derivatives of that collection of files created
through textual modification. Sounds like if you redistribute the package,
that package is still owned by the copyright holder.
>>> A ''derivative work'' is a work based upon one or more preexisting
>>> works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization,
>>> fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art
>>> reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a
>>> work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of
>>> editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications
>>> which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a
>>> ''derivative work''.
>
>> I don't think embedding the complete Standard Version of the interpreter
>> could be considered a derivative work.
>
>I don't see how you can read the above paragraph and claim that it's not.
I don't see how you can claim it is.
>It recasts and transforms Perl into a portion of a larger work, which is
>square in the center of what the law considers to be a derivative work.
An embedding of the complete standard version of the interpreter does not
consist of any editorial revisision, annotations, elabortations, or other
modificiations representing an original work of authorship, in my mind.
And so what if it does? The license explicitly says that this use will not
be considered as such. A license can do that, and does, so there is no
problem.
At 20:41 -0700 2000.09.12, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> No, Larry is the Copyright Holder:
>
>> "Copyright Holder" is whoever is named in the copyright or
>> copyrights for the package.
>
>Licenses can't redefine what "copyright holder" means.
Sure they can. It is no different than if it put "Feldercarb" in instead
of "Copyright Holder." It is just a macro.
>Like it or not, Larry hasn't required copyright assignments and therefore
>no longer holds full legal title to all of Perl.
I disagree.
>It's quite possible that a major contributor to Perl could come along
>later, disagree with something Larry gave someone permission to do, and
>insist that they stop or remove their contributions to Perl from the code
>that they're using.
That's true. But if a contributor actually gives code to p5p / Larry for
inclusion in perl, that contributor has given implicit agreement to the
stated terms. Later on, the contributor might rescind that agreement, I
suppose.
At 20:45 -0700 2000.09.12, Russ Allbery wrote:
>If you're arguing an implicit agreement, that means you have to convince a
>court that you can read minds and know what the contributor was thinking
>when they submitted their modifications. Not the position you want to be
>in.
Oh, come on. Someone submits code to perl without seeing in the Artistic
License that Larry has full authority to make distribution and modification
arrangements? I'd hate to be in the position of trying to argue that Larry
didn't have any rights to make such arrangements. I'd have to argue that I
was too lazy or stupid to even make a quick read through the AL, and argue
that it wasn't my responsibility to do so.
At 22:47 -0700 2000.09.12, Russ Allbery wrote:
>I think it's pretty obvious from the wording of both of those licenses
>that they were written by lawyers given initial instructions on what the
>licenses should say.
I don't think that is obvious at all.
>Neither of those licenses are trying to do anything nearly as complex as
>the AL is.
I don't think what the AL needs to do is all that complex.
At 23:00 -0700 2000.09.12, Russ Allbery wrote:
>Chris Nandor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> There is no need for a lawyer to compose the actual language. We are
>> probably better off if a writer does. Lawyers are not well-versed, in
>> general, in writing clearly.
>
>Comments like the above worry me a lot.
And comments that are worried about such comments worry me a lot.
>It's a perception of lawyers, of
>the law, and of the nature of licenses that concerns me deeply in someone
>who works on free software; I think it's a weakness in some sections of
>the free software community that people don't take this sufficiently
>seriously and will end up being exploited by commercial software companies
>against their will.
How do you figure? I have already noted, several times, that a lawyer
should give his input, and that the final license should be agreed on as
complete by the writers of the license and the lawyers. If you trust the
lawyers enough to write it, why would you not trust them enough to sign off
on it?
>It also bothers me to see inaccurate stereotypes put forward as if they're
>self-evident facts.
Well, I think it was clearly my opinion, but I understand your concern. So
to restate: in my opinion, lawyers are generally not very good writers.
>The entire point and *purpose* of a lawyer specializing in contract law is
>to write clearly. They're not writing clearly for the average reader,
>necessarily;
But that's my whole point. We need this to be for the average reader.
This license will be read most often by your average Joe Programmer. If it
was to be for only lawyers, I wouldn't care. Sorry for the
misunderstanding, if this is what the problem is. That is why I want a
writer to write, and a lawyer to sign off: that way it can be clear for
average readers, and acceptable to judges and lawyers (well, acceptable to
some lawyers and judges, anyway: you'll never please all of them; OTOH, it
will never be clear to all readers :-).
>that requires a whole different type of phrasing.
No, it doesn't. It normally consists of a different type of phrasing, but
it does not require a different type of phrasing.
>The reason why documents written by lawyers sound the way they do is
>because lawyers avoid words that are ambiguous and use words that have
>been clearly, explicitly, and unambiguously defined in the law, in legal
>precedent, or in common law. *This is important.* This is a large
>portion of the strength on which the license rests; definitions are very
>significant and very important to get right.
Sure. And that can be done in plain English. It is harder, of course.
But a very good writer can pull it off, with the help of a good lawyer.
>I've seen a tendency in the free software and broader hacker community to
>assume that because we like a particular clear English expression of
>ideas, the rest of the world not only will as well but will come to the
>same obvious meanings as we do and that all that nonsense of legal
>verbiage was just five hundred years of a really bad idea and we can just
>throw it all out now because lawyers don't know how to write. (Please
>note: I'm not attributing this full attitude to Chris, just saying that
>his above comment, perhaps off-the-cuff, reminded me of the places that
>I've seen this attitude.)
I understand. I've read more than enough laws and contracts to understand
this. But I also have enough understanding to know that while you need to
have certain levels of precision, you don't need to follow a template.
It seems to me you missed my (many times now) stated point that the lawyer
would be involved in the process. If a lawyer would sign off on it, then
none of the above concerns would matter, because the lawyer would have
already looked at and taken care of these concerns, working with the
writer, if both are good at what they do.
--
Chris Nandor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://pudge.net/
Open Source Development Network [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://osdn.com/
