Re: comparison of public licenses?

On Fri, 21 Jan 2000, Karsten M. Self <kmself[_at_]ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 20, 2000, Nate Puri <natepuri[_at_]office.ompages.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 19, 2000, Terry Carroll <carroll[_at_]tjc.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Does anyone know of any comparison of the features of the major open
> > > source licenses (e.g., the Gnu Public License, the Artistic License,
> > > Netscape's and Apple's public licenses, etc.)?
> >
> > I would look at <http://www.opensource.org/>. All the licenses are
> > present there and Bruce Perens, the webmaster, should have some good
> > HOWTO type documents on the license features. You can email him
> > directly as well and he is a very good source of information. I don't
> > think anyone has written a law review yet on the topic; it's just too
> > new. I could be wrong about that though. I plan to write something
> > after the bar exam, as I have studied this pretty intensively.
> >
> > In a nutshell, GPL says, "if you change it, you have to submit the diff
> > files back to the author."
>
> Not quite.
>
> The GPL requires that, for copies or modifications of licensed works
> distributed in binary format, you must either:
>
> - Accompany it with machine-readable source code, under the terms of
> the GPL.
>
> - Accompany it with a written offer valid for three years to give any
> third party machine-readable source. The price of this source may
> not exceed the cost of physically performing the distribution
> (generally read as media plus shipping).
>
> - Provide information you received for finding sources. This option is
> only allowed for noncommercial distribution and other restrictions.
>
> The GPL does not bind you to submitting your modifications to *any*
> specified party, unless that party is receiving a binary distribution
> based on the original work. You must, however, make your modifications
> available to anyone who asks, if choosing the second of the above
> options. See GNU GPL v.2 (3). Submission of modifications to the
> original developer is a courtesy, not a requirement.
>
> This is distinguished from several recent "source code" licenses
> (neither free software nor open source), including Sun Microsystem's
> "SCSL" or Sun Community Source License, which mandates that any bugfixes
> created by any licensee must be submitted to Sun, whether or not these
> bugfixes themselves or derived code are distributed by the developer.
>
> The key points of the GPL are:
>
> - A work, and all derived works, must be licensed under identical
> terms to the original work. This is the "persistent" or
> "hereditary" nature of the GPL. No addition or subtraction from
> these terms is allowed. This condition is what makes the GPL
> incompatible with many other free software licenses.
>
> - Distribution of copies or modifications of a work requires making
> sources available under one of the three terms above.
>
> - A "work" includes source code, which includes build support.
>
> - Various limitations of liability.
>
> > The BSD license says, "do what you want with it but post the Regents
> > of UC copyright notice." And the other licenses by the commercial
> > entities are iterations of these two licenses with added ownership
> > provisions.
>
> Essentially, yes.
>
> > The Artistic is a variation of the BSD.
>
> No, it's a perversion unto itself. Some describe the Artistic License
> as a non-license, in that it carries no requirements. Larry Wall is
> reported to have written it to be deliberately vague, conveying an
> impression of relicensing requirements without actually imposing them.
> The Artistic License is intended to allow a broad degree of latitude
> in relicensing options.
>
> > GPL = restrictive; BSD = permissive.
>
> There's a term I've heard applied to free software licenses which I
> like. It describes the scope of what falls under the relicensing
> requirements of a license, and is somewhat apropos after last night's
> celestial show: penumbra.
>
> A license which is broadly inclusive of what derived or larger works
> fall under it has a large penumbra. The GNU GPL would be a prime
> example -- its penumbra includes all works which incorporate the
> original (or portions) in either source, object, or runtime instance
> (the link-level boundary).
>
> A license which is narrowly inclusive of what derived or larger works
> fall under has a narrow penumbra. The GNU LGPL and Mozilla Public
> License (MozPL) are examples. The LGPL is a bit fuzzy, but essentially
> includes only works which incorporate the original (or portions) in
> source form. The MozPL applies on a file-by-file basis.
>
> A license which is non-inclusive of derived or large works has no
> penumbra. The (revised 1999) BSD and X licenses are examples, in that
> they require only a copyright notice, but do not otherwise prescribe
> relicensing terms.
>
> > What is uncertain is the manners in which copyright will render one or
> > more provisions of the GPL type licenses moot.
>
> Could you expand on this?
>
> IANAL, this is not legal advice.

Actually, the Free Software Foundation (FSF) does, as a matter of policy and protocol, expect a complete assignment, to FSF, of any mods to their GPL'd software. This is not in the license -- it is instead a prerequisite, from FSF's perspective and accomplished via the Web. This is not a big problem for most contributors of mods back to FSF, because they know FSF is going to put out any "blessed" mods under the GPL (or LGPL, perhaps).

Roger Cloud
<rcloud[_at_]surfnetusa.com> Received on Sat Jan 22 2000 - 22:52:20 GMT