Re: [IBPP-DISCUSS] IBPP license 1.0
Dear all,
Le 18 mars 06 à 15:20, Damyan Ivanov a écrit :
[META: This is a cross-post to ibpp-discuss and debian-legal. I'd like
to give direct discussion a chance, since I am rather busy and can't
mediate in a timely fashion]
Olivier, below is another comment about the new license.
When answering, pleace keep CCs.
- -------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Please comment on IBPP licensing
Resent-Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 09:47:00 -0600 (CST)
Resent-From: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 15:46:53 +0000
From: MJ Ray <mjr@phonecoop.coop>
To: <debian-legal@lists.debian.org>
CC: <334489@bugs.debian.org>
References: <[🔎] 440DD390.1000307@creditreform.bg>
Damyan Ivanov <divanov@creditreform.bg> asked for comments on:
* 0. Definitions
o 0.1. IBPP
'IBPP' is primarily a set of programming interfaces,
initially written in the C++ language, which makes it easier to
develop
any other programming work which need to communicate and work with
Firebird, a SQL-based database engine and server, and possibly other
similar engines and servers. Further in this document we also name
'IBPP' the source code itself which implements those interfaces
and any
associated files whatever their nature.
o 0.2. TIP
'TIP' is the company T.I.P. Group S.A., a legal entity,
registered in the Kingdom of Belgium under the enterprise
identification
number 0.429.942.927. Contact information: http://www.tipgroup.com.
Most of the two above should be in README and AUTHORS, in my opinion.
There is no such files with IBPP. Much easier to have everything in a
single place.
o 0.3. Authors
'Authors' is the college of private persons or legal
entities, including TIP, who at least once contributed to IBPP.
College? What law is this drafted for?
Okay, very bad translation from a french word, loosing all its
meaning in english.
* 1. Copyrights
The very initial version of IBPP (0.9) was released in the year
2000 by TIP. Through this initial contribution, TIP holds a Copyright
(c) 2000 on that original version of IBPP.
In addition, each and every private person or legal entity,
including TIP, who since contributed or contribute to IBPP hold a
shared
Copyright (c) <year of contribution> with TIP on that portion of code
they contribute, wether the contribution is made by modification or
addition to the source code or associated files.
Spelling error s/wether/whether/ already. First of many.
Thanks. Will be corrected. I suppose the fact that IBPP has NO
english native speaking people around it wasn't en evidence until this.
* 2. Rights
Without damage of the duties exposed at article 3., the Authors
Confusing wording: lawyerbomb?
Indeed, again a sad side-effect of translation. Need to be updated,
really.
hereby grant the following permissions, free of charge, to any
private
person or legal entity (hereafter "You"):
Permission not granted to public legal entities (UK = plcs, royal
charter
corporations IIRC). Breaks DFSG 5 (No Discrimination Against
Persons) or
6 (No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavour).
You read it: to any private (person or legal) entity.
Intent was: to any (private person) or (legal entity).
A 'legal entity' includes a 'public legal entity' as well a 'private
legal entity', isn't it?
Some rewording is clearly require to clarify. There has never been
any wish to exclude anybody, even E.T. ;-)
o 2.1. Right to Use
To use (edit when required, compile and link) the IBPP
source code as part of a larger programming work which effectively
makes
use of some or all of the functionnalities offered by IBPP.
Restriction on use: we might not agree that something is effectively
making use. Lawyerbomb, possibly breaking DFSG 3 (Derived Works).
The final part "which effectively makes use of some or all of the
functionalities offered by IBPP" might be simply dropped. That is not
something really important. Who would find ways to 'use' the code
without actually calling it?
o 2.2. Right to Modify
To develop modifications or additions which enhance or
fix IBPP.
Restriction on modification: we might not agree that something is an
enhancement. Lawyerbomb, possibly breaking DFSG 3 (Derived Works).
It is pulling the cord a bit, but I see the point. Might be reworked.
o 2.3. Right to Publish
To publish the IBPP source code along with your own
source
code which uses it.
No permission to copy alone? Might not be free software at all
(doesn't give freedom 2) but can be made so trivially.
Indeed.
* 3. Duties
o 3.1. Duty to give modifications back to IBPP Authors
Any modification or addition done to IBPP will be
submitted
to the Authors, so that those modifications or additions can be
reviewed, possibly modified or fixed, and eventually merged in a new
version of IBPP, if the modification is found by the Authors to be of
interest to the IBPP users community.
Forced donation upstream of work. I regard this as a payment or
royalty on derived works, breaking DFSG 1 (Free Redistribution).
I know others disagree, but I don't understand their reasoning.
Forced donation, indeed. But not a payment or a royalty. Matter of
reasoning. The authors would simply appreciate to see their 'baby'
benefit from some of the enhancements other people might develop: for
the benefit of the community of users. It's one thing to release some
code in the wild without any consideration to what will happen in the
future, it is another to be responsible and to look for opportunities
to centralize the evolutions / modifications so that the code can
mature.
o 3.2. Duty to play by the rules when publishing the IBPP
source code
When You publish the IBPP source code with your own
source
code which uses it, You must also publish this license.txt file
and You
must not remove any of the licensing and copyright texts located near
the beginning of the IBPP source code files.
No-op in many (all?) copyright laws.
Please explain.
Why does for instance the MIT license says:
"The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be
included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software."?
No-op?
o 3.3. Duty to free IBPP Authors from any responsability
When You use IBPP in your programming works, You
implicitely
agree to free the Authors from any and all responsability. You fully
endorse IBPP and assume all consequences of using it in your
programming
works. This goes to the extent that, should the IBPP code be found to
infringe on the copyright or patent of any third-party entity, you
assume the entire responsability regarding your own programming works
which use IBPP. You always a least have the final solution not to use
IBPP anymore in your programming works.
Not sure about the accuracy of this claim of "the final solution".
I agree, it would be better to drop the last phrase and leave people
thought out their solution.
* 4. New versions of this License
TIP is the only entity who can publish new versions of this
license and attach such new license versions to any future version of
IBPP. Though if doing so, TIP cannot remove any right previously
granted
Confusing first sentence: does future version include derived works?
No. But "derived works" is confusing.
by this version 1.0 of the license, nor can TIP add duties
restricting
those previous rights further. New rights and / or duties might
though
be added if the nature of IBPP (article 0.1) evolve in the future
or if
components of a different nature are added to IBPP. A new license
version might also be required if some words of this version
needed to
be corrected or changed to make things even more clear and precise.
* 5. Disclaimer of Warranty
IBPP IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND,
EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY,
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT
SHALL
THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR
OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE,
ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR
OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
Should not be capitalised, in my opinion. Could it be merged with 3.3?
Why not.
In conclusion, I think any software under this licence alone is
not free software, not having freedom 2 and breaking DFSGs 1,
3, 5 and/or 6. If the Authors are willing to drop the payment
clause 3.1, it may be worth switching to a more widely-used
licence with broadly similar effect, such as a BSD-style or
MIT/Expat one (if non-copyleft and clause 4 is harmless).
CC'd to Bug#334489, flamerobin's WNPP bug, which you say may be
under a similar licence.
Any software is not IBPP source code.
It should be made very clear, that this license is not meant to be
generic and applicable to anything else than the lines of code which
are known under the name IBPP. That is not even a 'program': no main
function or body. Just a bunch of C++ classes in a bunch of source
and headers files meant to be embedded in other programs. Really, a
library. But not even a library intended to be packaged and
distributed in binary format. Just some C++ lines meant to be re-used
in other programming.
I'd appreciate that the FlameRobin not be confused with this
discussion. FlameRobin is a program, which uses the source of IBPP
for a part of the functionalities it exposes to the users. According
to the IBPP license, FlameRobin authors can use IBPP code, can build
FlameRobin and distribute it in any way they like, including
attaching their own license (we don't care which one) to their whole
work.
The MIT License (in case there would be multiple versions, I'm
referring to this one: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-
license.html) is indeed very close to the wishes of the IBPP authors.
Except for one thing: the idea of at least wishing people or
suggesting to people to give back their modifications to IBPP is a
nice useful concept which is missing from the MIT license and many
other open-source free software licenses. Remember, it's free as in
free-speech, not free beer, even if there is no real price or money
in the equation. The idea is: it's free, do whatever you need to do
with it, but if you develop enhancements, make the original
community, from who you got it free, benefit from these enhancement.
That's a mean to achieve better open-source free software on the next
iteration.
Okay, maybe that should stay a wish and not a requirement.
To synthesize, for now, this licensing discussion blocks IBPP from
being distributed along with Debian systems, not because IBPP wants
to block that (to the contrary) but because we have different views
on a small number of details and rules that Debian chose to play by.
Is there anything in the licensing and rules of Debian which would
block someone, anyone, public, legal, private or anything, to browse
the web, find the source code of IBPP and use it in their own
programs, developed, and run on a Debian system?
Hope that helps,
- --
MJR/slef
--
Olivier Mascia
Reply to: