[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [Jeff Squyres <jsquyres@lsc.nd.edu>] New LAM/MPI license

Just some quick questions:
> ------- Start of forwarded message -------
> Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 08:28:28 -0500 (EST)
> From: Jeff Squyres <jsquyres@lsc.nd.edu>
> To: Anas Nashif - SuSE <nashif@suse.de>,
>    Black Lab Linux <suggest@blacklablinux.com>,
>    Camm Maguire - Debian <camm@enhanced.com>,
>    Mike Wangsmo - RedHat <wanger@redhat.com>,
>    Tom Rini - LinuxPPC <trini@kernel.crashing.org>,
>    =?X-UNKNOWN?Q?Trond_Eivind_Glomsr=F8d?= <teg@redhat.com>,
>    Yanick Cote <yanick@OpenBSD.ORG>, Todd Fries <todd@fries.net>
> Subject: New LAM/MPI license
> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.31.0102200826420.8599-100000@queeg.squyres.com>
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
> Greetings.
> Just wanted to give you a heads up that we will be changing the license of
> LAM/MPI soon.  The goal is still to have a license such that folks like
> you can still use LAM/MPI any way that you want -- i.e., distribute it,
> change it, charge support for it, etc., etc.
> The reason that we are doing this is because our group will be leaving
> Notre Dame within the next few months and moving to Indiana University.
> This is public knowledge, but we haven't really announced it yet (so
> please don't say anything on the list yet, for example).
> Can you have a look at the license below (it's the "artistic" license) and
> let me know if this will be suitable for you?  From my reading of it, it
> is, but I wanted to check with you as well.  This is one of the possible
> licenses that we're considering; please let me know if you see any
> show-stoppers below.
> ------
> Copyright 1998-2001, .........
> Authors: ........
> The LAM/MPI "Artistic License"
> Preamble
> The intent of this document is to state the conditions under which a
> Package may be copied, such that the Copyright Holder maintains some
> semblance of artistic control over the development of the package,
> while giving the users of the package the right to use and distribute
> the Package in a more-or-less free fashion, plus the right to make
> reasonable modifications.
> Definitions
> "Package" refers to the collection of files distributed by the Copyright
> Holder, and derivatives of that collection of files created through
> textual modification.
> "Standard Version" refers to such a Package if it has not been modified,
> or has been modified in accordance with the wishes of the Copyright Holder
> as specified below.
> "Copyright Holder" is whoever is named in the copyright or copyrights for
> the package.
> "You" is you, if you're thinking about copying or distributing this
> Package.
> "Reasonable copying fee" is whatever you can justify on the basis of media
> cost, duplication charges, time of people involved, and so on. (You will
> not be required to justify it to the Copyright Holder, but only to the
> computing community at large as a market that must bear the fee.)
> "Freely Available" means that no fee is charged for the item itself,
> though there may be fees involved in handling the item. It also means that
> recipients of the item may redistribute it under the same conditions they
> received it.
> 1. You may make and give away verbatim copies of the source form of the
> Standard Version of this Package without restriction, provided that you
> duplicate all of the original copyright notices and associated
> disclaimers.

So can I sell binary versions (I realize LAM/MPI is beowulf /clustering stuff, 
it may be seem meaningless, but you need to be careful)

> 2. You may apply bug fixes, portability fixes and other modifications
> derived from the Public Domain or from the Copyright Holder. A Package
> modified in such a way shall still be considered the Standard Version.

Does upstream realize that Public Domain has a legal definition - as in there 
is NO COPYRIGHT at all?
> 3. You may otherwise modify your copy of this Package in any way,
> provided that you insert a prominent notice in each changed file
> stating how and when you changed that file, and provided that you do
> at least ONE of the following:
>   a. place your modifications in the Public Domain or otherwise make
>     them Freely Available, such as by posting said modifications to Usenet
>     or an equivalent medium, or placing the modifications on a major
>     archive site such as uunet.uu.net, or by allowing the Copyright Holder
>     to include your modifications in the Standard Version of the Package.

I find this vague.  Also, do they really want everyone to give up all 
copyright on their code?

>   b. use the modified Package only within your corporation or organization.
>   c. rename any non-standard types and functions so the names do not
>     conflict with Standard Vibrary, which must also be provided, and
>     provide a separate documentation for each non-standard type of function
>     that clearly documents how it differs from the Standard Version.
>   d. make other distribution arrangements with the Copyright Holder.

But can I redistribute the modified package (You talk about modifying the 
user's copy, but not redistribution of the mods, which I think is what this 
paragraph is really about).
> 4. You may charge a reasonable copying fee for any distribution of this
> Package. You may charge any fee you choose for support of this
> Package. You may not charge a fee for this Package itself. However,
> you may distribute this Package in aggregate with other (possibly
> commercial) programs as part of a larger (possibly commercial)
> software distribution provided that you do not advertise this Package
> as a product of your own.
> 5. The name of the Copyright Holder may not be used to endorse or
> promote products derived from this software without specific prior
> written permission.
> By way of example, but not limitation, Licensor MAKES NO
> The Authors and .... shall not be held liable for any liability nor for
> any direct, indirect or consequential damages with respect to any claim by
> LICENSEE or any third party on account of or arising from this Agreement
> or use of this software.
> Any disputes arising out of this Agreement or LICENSEE'S use of the
> software at any time shall be resolved by the courts of the state of
> Indiana.  LICENSEE hereby consents to the jurisdiction of the Indiana
> courts and waives the right to challenge the jurisdiction thereof in
> any dispute arising out of this Agreement or Licensee's use of the
> software.
> -----

Hm.  What's debian stance on this?  What if Indiana becomes a UCITA state?  
How does this conflict (if at all) with Maryland/Virginia (UCITA states)?

> {+} Jeff Squyres
> {+} squyres@cse.nd.edu
> {+} Perpetual Obsessive Notre Dame Student Craving Utter Madness
> {+} "I came to ND for 4 years and ended up staying for a decade"

I agree with others that the Artistic is "problematic."  Other alternatives to look at are the new BSD and the MIT license, if you don't mind stuff becoming proprietary.  If you do, LGPL may be an alternative.   Personally, I think sticking to an existing license reduces all the "legal" questions, especially for non-lawyer types.


Reply to: