licensing
Forum: Linux and Free Software
Topic: licensing
started by: spark-o-matic
Posted by spark-o-matic on Nov. 06 2008,01:31
First question, with all the different free/open source licenses out there which one does one choose for releasing original software? It looks to me like pickiing the right license is more important to a programs long term success then it actualy working right! Everything I have released in the past has been under an extremely restrictive license or none at all so I am still quite a n00b in the free software world. Also how can I convert something to a free license without doing a complete rewrite? For instance I wrote a database engine that wastes inexpensive system resorces to conserve the more expensive ones before SQL became popular. Do I have to change the format of the database file and how much? How much of the code do I have to change? Do I have to rework my algorythm or can i just change the license on the next version?
Second, yesterdayusa.com is holding its annual fund raising auction the end of this month and I would like to contribute half a dozen copies of DSL to be auctioned off. Are there any legal restrictions I or the station should be aware of or any specific wording that needs to be used?
from the Yesterday USA homepage:
| Quote | ABOUT THE YESTERDAY USA RADIO NETWORKS
Founded in 1983 as the official international voice of the National Museum Of Communications, Inc., a 501 © (3) non profit-tax exempt organization; the network is the brainchild of radio historian Bill Bragg. YUSA airs only old time radio shows 24 hours a day and utilizes an all volunteer staff of over 50 OTR professionals from across the US and Canada; including country music superstar Ronnie Milsap and Frank Bresee (the voice of “Little Beaver” on old time radio’s Red Ryder Program).
The Station gained national attention by being the first outlet to re-broadcast public domain OTR Programs via satellite! “We were also first on Cable Television and the first OTR Streaming Network on the Internet”, says Bragg. The Station can also be heard on numerous low-power AM & FM Radio Stations, Cellular and Dial-up Telephones, on the new iPods & iTunes systems and in over 2,000 Hospitals and Nursing Homes. Over 62 hours of unique programs are offered during each 2-week period; including daily live broadcasts from Dallas/Ft.Worth and/or Hollywood, CA. Celebrity interviews from the likes of Tony Curtis, Pat Boone and James Arnes; along with rare music from Edison cylinder records round out the format. “Another of our firsts is our live coverage of the Old Time Radio Conventions in Newark, NJ. and on the West Coast”, reminds Bragg; “and there is never a charge to listen or a commercial interruption of any kind!” The Station supports it’s self via listener monetary donations and with the proceeds from it’s annual Auction on the last Sunday in November.
The normal internet audio quality short falls and limitations have become an asset for Yesterday USA; allowing the old programs to sound exactly as they did during the golden days of radio. “Great script writing and the biggest celebrities in show business are missing from today’s standard radio formats, and since thousands of the original shows were carefully preserved years ago, we’re suddenly the guys with all the new toys!”; says Bragg. The YUSA studios not only still have turntables and open-reel tape machines in use, but the wind-up Edison Phonograph with morning glory horn is used to air the circa 1899 cylinder records that are a part of their 90 thousand item audio archive. |
plz forgive what looks like an ad but I think its important to both parts of this discussion. Licensing has become a large issue in the preservation of our National and International radio history. Also that this is definatly not a for profit endevor. All the volunteers, including the founder Bill, not only volunteer their time with the only compesation being being able to enjoy the shows but have out of pocket expences that are not reimbursed. Sound familiar? I found YUSA about 10 years ago on C-Band satalite.
Posted by mikshaw on Nov. 06 2008,13:50
| Quote | | with all the different free/open source licenses out there which one does one choose for releasing original software? |
There have been piles and piles of articles written in an attempt to give a solid answer to this question, but basically it comes down to your ideologies.
Here is one place you can start (it's obviously biased toward GPL, but essentially fair):
< http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html >
| Quote | | how can I convert something to a free license without doing a complete rewrite? |
If you are the author and copyright holder, you don't need to change a thing. You can put the very same software under a new license. What you can't do is release it and then later restrict the license term for the people who already have it (unless, I guess, that right was written in a EULA, but I have the belief that's immoral).
| Quote | | Are there any legal restrictions I or the station should be aware of or any specific wording that needs to be used? |
I know you can sell GPL software for a reasonable price to cover materials and handling costs, but I'm not sure about auctions. You should definitely study the GPL before you do anything related to money.
< http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl.html >
Posted by curaga on Nov. 06 2008,14:00
GPL does not restrict the price, and I believe you only need to pass on John's promise to get the sources to all recipients of the cd.
Posted by spark-o-matic on Nov. 08 2008,14:45
curaga,
| Quote | | and I believe you only need to pass on John's promise to get the sources to all recipients of the cd. |
Is that contained on the live cd or somewhere on the net?
mikshaw,
That turns into some heavy reading. Is my 'in a nut shell' take right that most of the licenses are special purpose to make something odd GPL compatable? It comes down to ones ideologies and goals between the GPL and LGPL unless theres a good reason for a different license? Edit: Also where I intend some things to not be dependent on, but work best with, DSL/DSL-N that becomes part of the question.
Thanks
Posted by curaga on Nov. 08 2008,15:54
It's on all the mirrors, here's a link to ibiblio:
< ftp://ftp.ibiblio.org/pub....ces.txt >
Posted by spark-o-matic on Nov. 08 2008,16:15
Great, Thanks curaga!
Posted by roberts on Nov. 08 2008,16:19
But you can't upstream John's promise. If you make GPL binaries available to the public, be it free or for a fee, then you have to provide the source and not just refer them. Several projects were is violation of the GPL when they in fact did not themselves have the source.
Posted by curaga on Nov. 08 2008,16:43
I remembered reading this GPLv2 FAQ entry:| Quote | What does “written offer valid for any third party” mean in GPLv2? Does that mean everyone in the world can get the source to any GPL'ed program no matter what?
If you choose to provide source through a written offer, then anybody who requests the source from you is entitled to receive it.
If you commercially distribute binaries not accompanied with source code, the GPL says you must provide a written offer to distribute the source code later. When users non-commercially redistribute the binaries they received from you, they must pass along a copy of this written offer. This means that people who did not get the binaries directly from you can still receive copies of the source code, along with the written offer.
The reason we require the offer to be valid for any third party is so that people who receive the binaries indirectly in that way can order the source code from you. |
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatDoesWrittenOfferValid
I am not sure if this applies here, I'll leave it to those who are more adept in GPL.
Posted by curaga on Nov. 08 2008,16:51
Well, section 3 of GPLv2 says:| Quote | 3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.) |
This is partly different with that FAQ entry and confuses me even more; but to me it looks you actually could pass on the offer. Yet I'm unsure whether this is uncommercial distribution; you do donate the cds for free, but for the auctioners it's commercial..
Posted by WDef on Nov. 08 2008,18:51
| Quote | | to me it looks you actually could pass on the offer. |
Does look that way. That might explain why I thought I read somewhere that it is sufficient to provide a link to the sources if redistributing GPL'd binaries non-commercially - that might be so if the link in fact constitues an "offer".
But as I recall from an older thread it was argued this was not the case.
It does seem like bollocks for everybody to go around distributing the same unchanged sources for unchanged binaries.
Posted by spark-o-matic on Nov. 08 2008,23:44
This is why I put both questions in the same thread. Two oragnizations founded the same year* could be of mutual benifit without compromising eather ones pricipals. But is starting to become too dificult for a simple computer nurd!
This leads back to my question of licensing. For a program, disto, etc.. to be most successful if must be able to propagate as freely as possable or become so proprietary that it excludes all others. Between this and 'that other tread' and the GPL version 3 I am questioning even giving a copy of DSL to a friend who is not a co-worker (I have given away quite a number of copies without even charging for the cd I burned it to). Perhaps this thread should be submitted to the FSF for clarification.
Until and unless I hear differently I will respect the statement by roberts (Thank You). I doubt that turn-around times in the snail mail system will make this years YUSA auction especialy if I need the sources beforehand. I just thought this would be a nice way to spread the word about DSL and GNU/Linux and support something else I believe in.
I guess this brings me back to the question of which license without spending more time studying licenses then writng software?
spark-o-matic
* < http://www.fsf.org/news/compromise > first sentence and < http://www.yesterdayusa.com > quoted earlier in this thread.
Posted by spark-o-matic on Nov. 09 2008,11:25
ok..a bunch more research.
based on | Quote | What is the difference between an “aggregate” and other kinds of “modified versions”?
An “aggregate” consists of a number of separate programs, distributed together on the same CD-ROM or other media. The GPL permits you to create and distribute an aggregate, even when the licenses of the other software are non-free or GPL-incompatible. The only condition is that you cannot release the aggregate under a license that prohibits users from exercising rights that each program's individual license would grant them. |
and continues with legal definitions including| Quote | | This is a legal question, which ultimately judges will decide. |
from < http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html > the GPL version 3 faq. Is DSL is a GPL'd aggrigate and if so is it GPL V2 or GPL V2 or any later version?
From < http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl.html > GPL Vresion 3
| Quote | 4. Conveying Verbatim Copies.
You may convey verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice; keep intact all notices stating that this License and any non-permissive terms added in accord with section 7 apply to the code; keep intact all notices of the absence of any warranty; and give all recipients a copy of this License along with the Program.
You may charge any price or no price for each copy that you convey, and you may offer support or warranty protection for a fee.
|
and from < http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html > GPL VERSION 2| Quote | 1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program.
You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee. |
So that applies to Bash, uncompiled PERL etc...
From GLP V3| Quote | 6. Conveying Non-Source Forms.
[...]
b) Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product (including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by a written offer, valid for at least three years and valid for as long as you offer spare parts or customer support for that product model, to give anyone who possesses the object code either (1) a copy of the Corresponding Source for all the software in the product that is covered by this License, on a durable physical medium customarily used for software interchange, for a price no more than your reasonable cost of physically performing this conveying of source, or (2) access to copy the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge.
# c) Convey individual copies of the object code with a copy of the written offer to provide the Corresponding Source. This alternative is allowed only occasionally and noncommercially, and only if you received the object code with such an offer, in accord with subsection 6b. |
from GPL v2| Quote | 3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 (SECTION 2 DOES NOT APPLY BECAUSE THIS IS NOT MODIFIED) above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.) |
YUSA is definatly not a comercialy entity and I don't see where voluntering my time to burn the cd's, donating the cd's, envelopes, postage, etc... could be concidered comercial.
As far as my future intentions to distrubute software that will work best with DSL, DSL-N or 'The project formerly known as dslcore', At $7+ per copy of the sources to comply where I expect there will be a number of 'The project formerly known as dslcore' durring beta and how many releases of DSL have there been in the last year? I would like to be able to provide an agragate of my original software and DSL etc... at the most reasonable price possable especialy durring alpha and beta to encourage participation. I target 'below average' end users for the largest user base.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
47 C.F.R. 301
Docket Number: 0612242667-7051-01
RIN 0660-AA16
Rules to Implement and Administer
a Coupon Program for
Digital-to-Analog Converter Boxes
< http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/frnotices/2007/DTVFinalRule_2e.htm >
says| Quote | | 52. Most commenters on the subject supported the inclusion of both composite video/audio and RF outputs in the converter box. THAT Corporation (THAT Corp.) noted in its comments that “[t]o utilize these (composite video) outputs, consumers must be able to connect three separate cables from these converter box outputs to three corresponding inputs on the TV monitor. . . such a hookup requires a degree of technical competence lacking in many consumers.”[ 96 ]... |
I inserted the underline. This would be a large part of my target audence. Getting copies of sources for every version could become financialy prohibitive for me and time consuming on both parts.
I propose this solution. Evidently there have not been excessive requests under the current offer. GLP Verson 3 expressly permits the soruces to be distributed by bittorrent| Quote | 6. Conveying Non-Source Forms.
[...]
e) Convey the object code using peer-to-peer transmission, provided you inform other peers where the object code and Corresponding Source of the work are being offered to the general public at no charge under subsection 6d. |
and from the FAQ| Quote | How does GPLv3 make BitTorrent distribution easier?
Because GPLv2 was written before peer-to-peer distribution of software was common, it is difficult to meet its requirements when you share code this way. The best way to make sure you are in compliance when distributing GPLv2 object code on BitTorrent would be to include all the corresponding source in the same torrent, which is prohibitively expensive.
GPLv3 addresses this problem in two ways. First, people who download this torrent and send the data to others as part of that process are not required to do anything. That's because section 9 says “Ancillary propagation of a covered work occurring solely as a consequence of using peer-to-peer transmission to receive a copy likewise does not require acceptance [of the license].”
Second, section 6(e) of GPLv3 is designed to give distributors—people who initially seed torrents—a clear and straightforward way to provide the source, by telling recipients where it is available on a public network server. This ensures that everyone who wants to get the source can do so, and it's almost no hassle for the distributor.
|
So this would be the most hassle free and cost efficient to distribute the soruces for future versions and encourage 'hacks' build on DSL.
Wow. It's almost 3:30 am here..way past my bedtime! Im just going to post this then edit later.
spark-o-matic
Posted by curaga on Nov. 09 2008,12:52
DSL is a collection of programs and scripts with different licenses, so yes it's an aggregate, and as a whole not under the GPL. Of the GPL apps included most are v2 or later version, and some are v2 only (kernel).
I agree with you this legal stuff is a mess for non-lawyers..
Posted by roberts on Nov. 09 2008,17:53
spark-o-matic, I would ask that dslcore not be distributed. It was alpha code at best when last available here. Given the situation of an absent owner and the state of affaris as it relates to this forum and overall lack site administration, my new project, formerly known as dslcore, will be hosted elsewhere. A more formal announcement with url will be made soon.
Posted by spark-o-matic on Nov. 10 2008,03:16
Thanks Roberts. I will respect your wishes.
|