[9fans] license situation and OSI

[9fans] license situation and OSI

[staalmannen]

Dear list

I just ran into a number of discussions on the Internet about the
fight against licence proliferation and then went to OSI to see how
things looked for Plan9.

According to their documentation [1, 2], it sort of looks like this

LPL superseded by LPL 1.02, which in turn is redundant with CPL and
CPL in turn is superseded by EPL [3].

Does this mean that for all intents and purposes, Plan9 can be
considered EPL (even if licence notices say otherwise)?

[1] http://www.opensource.org/licenses/category
[2] http://www.opensource.org/proliferation-report
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Public_License

Legalese can be confusing at times.

Re: [9fans] license situation and OSI

[EBo]

> I just ran into a number of discussions on the Internet about the
> fight against licence proliferation and then went to OSI to see how
> things looked for Plan9.
>
> According to their documentation [1, 2], it sort of looks like this
>
> LPL superseded by LPL 1.02, which in turn is redundant with CPL and
> CPL in turn is superseded by EPL [3].
>
> Does this mean that for all intents and purposes, Plan9 can be
> considered EPL (even if licence notices say otherwise)?
>
> ...

I would definitely be easier to have them all consolidated down into a
couple, but the problem is that any developer/creator can choose the terms
under which their work is distributed and used, and some of the terms are
truly BIZARRE (see the Death and Repudiation license --
http://github.com/indeyets/syck/blob/master/COPYING -- where you have to be
running the software while you are dead. I kid you not.  I just have to
wonder about the legal loophole for zombies...).  In order to truly
consolidate these licensing you would have to get explicit acceptance of
every developer on all the other licenses, and probably have them relicense
the software.  Do you think you can get Lucent to relicense pla9 as EPL?
Is it worth everyones time to make this happen?

  EBo --

Re: [9fans] license situation and OSI

[Anthony Sorace]

> Does this mean that for all intents and purposes, Plan9 can be
> considered EPL (even if licence notices say otherwise)?

The short answer is "no". You don't get to change the license, even if
you or some other body decide the terms are equivelent in some way.
You're given the software under the terms of the current LPL, period.

anthony
>

Re: [9fans] license situation and OSI

[Charles Forsyth]

>You don't get to change the license

``3. REQUIREMENTS
A. Distributor may choose to distribute the Program in any form under
this Agreement or under its own license agreement, provided that:
	...
 c. if distributed under Distributor's own license agreement, such
    license agreement:
	... [conditions placed on an alternative licence, including spelling out the differences]
''

Re: [9fans] license situation and OSI

[Jack Johnson]

On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 4:42 AM, Charles Forsyth <forsyth@terzarima.net> wrote:
>>You don't get to change the license
>
> ``3. REQUIREMENTS
> A. Distributor may choose to distribute the Program in any form under
> this Agreement or under its own license agreement, provided that:
>        ...
>  c. if distributed under Distributor's own license agreement, such
>    license agreement:
>        ... [conditions placed on an alternative licence, including spelling out the differences]
> ''

I've always thought this was an entertaining perspective on licensing.
Really there are just two kinds of licenses: ones that allow
relicensing and ones that don't. Kinda puts MS and EFF in the same
camp.

-Jack

Re: [9fans] license situation and OSI

[Nick LaForge]

>Really there are just two kinds of licenses: ones that allow
>relicensing and ones that don't.

BSD-licensed software can't be re-licensed but it doesn't matter,
since the terms are as liberal as could possibly be, and you can just
license your own copyrighted contributions separately.  And,
attempting to apply your new terms to the original work would be
pointless since the original, liberal license is available to all
already.

The Plan 9 license, like the MIT license, and Apache license, simply
is more convenient by allowing re-licensing.

>Kinda puts MS and EFF in the same camp.

You mean FSF?

Re: [9fans] license situation and OSI

[Jack Johnson]

On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 9:24 AM, Nick LaForge <nicklaforge@gmail.com> wrote:
>>Kinda puts MS and EFF in the same camp.
>
> You mean FSF?

Whoops, yes, FSF.

-Jack

Re: [9fans] license situation and OSI

[Corey]

On Wednesday 26 May 2010 12:57:02 Jack Johnson wrote:
> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 9:24 AM, Nick LaForge <nicklaforge@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>Kinda puts MS and EFF in the same camp.
> >>
> > You mean FSF?
>
> Whoops, yes, FSF.
>

No doubt - MS and FSF are clearly in the same camp. Allies even! Heck,
one might even go so far as to venture the notion that they're practically
bedfellows.

Re: [9fans] license situation and OSI

[Jack Johnson]

On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 12:08 PM, Corey <corey@bitworthy.net> wrote:
> No doubt - MS and FSF are clearly in the same camp. Allies even! Heck,
> one might even go so far as to venture the notion that they're practically
> bedfellows.

I'm just noting that usually licensing is looked at as a continuum of
commercial vs free, and rarely as restrictive vs non-restrictive (or
heck, complex vs simple), and occasionally it's useful to consider the
other dimensions and how the particular perspective of each unique
beast affects the conversation and analysis.

So, for me, it's intriguing that in both the scenario where you want
to retain complete IP control over your code and the scenario where
you hope to ensure complete IP public longevity, the best defense
seems to be restrictive licensing.  But, from the perspective where
you have public code and want to garner mindshare, there are a
multitude of facets that affect that choice, and having a multiplicity
of licensing options may improve the fecundity/fidelity/longevity of
said code in more complex ways than can be readily surmised from the
previous perspective.

-Jack (continuing to contribute nothing to the good of the order)

Re: [9fans] license situation and OSI

[Corey]

On Wednesday 26 May 2010 1:28:54 Jack Johnson wrote:
> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 12:08 PM, Corey <corey@bitworthy.net> wrote:
> > No doubt - MS and FSF are clearly in the same camp. Allies even! Heck,
> > one might even go so far as to venture the notion that they're
> > practically bedfellows.
>
> I'm just noting that usually licensing is looked at as a continuum of
> commercial vs free, and rarely as restrictive vs non-restrictive (or
> heck, complex vs simple), and occasionally it's useful to consider the
> other dimensions and how the particular perspective of each unique
> beast affects the conversation and analysis.
>
> So, for me, it's intriguing that in both the scenario where you want
> to retain complete IP control over your code and the scenario where
> you hope to ensure complete IP public longevity, the best defense
> seems to be restrictive licensing.  But, from the perspective where
> you have public code and want to garner mindshare, there are a
> multitude of facets that affect that choice, and having a multiplicity
> of licensing options may improve the fecundity/fidelity/longevity of
> said code in more complex ways than can be readily surmised from the
> previous perspective.
>

Ok, now we're speaking the same language.   (c8=

Your original comment was framed far too narrowly to take seriously;
I just couldn't resist offering my own little counter-hyperbole! (all in
good humor)

> -Jack (continuing to contribute nothing to the good of the order)

+1

<grin>


Cheers

Re: [9fans] license situation and OSI

[Anthony Sorace]

Ah, right. I meant you don't get to change which license you got the
software under. It wasn't my intent to imply one couldn't relicense
differently. Thanks for clarifying.



On May 26, 2010, at 8:42, Charles Forsyth <forsyth@terzarima.net> wrote:

>> You don't get to change the license
>
> ``3. REQUIREMENTS
> A. Distributor may choose to distribute the Program in any form under
> this Agreement or under its own license agreement, provided that:
>    ...
> c. if distributed under Distributor's own license agreement, such
>    license agreement:
>    ... [conditions placed on an alternative licence, including
> spelling out the differences]
> ''
>

Re: [9fans] license situation and OSI

[Russ Cox]

> LPL superseded by LPL 1.02, which in turn is redundant with CPL

false.  CPL is viral while LPL is not

russ