Near Public Domain license

[Jean-Marc Lienher-2]

Hi,

Sorry if this is a FAQ, but I've not found any searchable archive of this
list.

I need a very permissive license, Public Domain is a option but I've found
that it is OSI incompatible.
( http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Licensing_and_Law/public-domain.html )

Is there any such license already available ?

Zlib is nice. But the
    "If you use this software
     in a product, an acknowledgment in the product documentation would be
     appreciated but is not required."
sentence is too much.
I don't want any acknowledgement on which I don't have any control.
And the Zlib disclaimer looks very short compared to the MIT/BSD.

I don't like the BSD because you must put a copy of the license in the
documentation or in a README.txt file.
I don't like the MIT because the license must be included in the binaries.

I've just seen a message talking about a simplified BSD license, but I can't
find it on the archive. (there is nothing after march 2007
http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?ddp:0:0#b )
Does this simplified BSD license fits to my needs ?

I wrote my own license, which is a mix between MIT/BSD/ISC licenses with
zero condition.
Here it is :
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
             Copyright (c) <year> <copyright holders>

  Permission to use, copy, modify, sublicense, and/or distribute this
  work for any purpose with or without fee is hereby granted.

  THE WORK 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 AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, DIRECT,
  INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER RESULTING
  FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT,
  NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION
  WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS WORK.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

But it looks like the approval process will cost me a lot of money.
I need to find a English speaking lawyer in my country to create the legal
analysis...

So if there is an other license, which is currently in the approval process,
and which is compatible with my needs, I will use it.

[DShofi]

I find it quite unbelievable that a clear and unequivocal statement that an original copyrighted work is dedicated to the public would not serve to provide the necessary rights to anyone choosing to use the work in an OSS project, regardless of the OSS license used by that project.  That being said, like all software, a recipient of the work would want to do some due diligence to understand that the author actually wrote the work from scratch without reliance on another work that may itself be copyrighted by another.  In other words, I would think that the public domain is an acceptable manner of putting your work out there for others to copy, modify and distribute.  You may want to include a statement about the pedigree of the code to allay concerns as described above.

Of course, you should engage with your own attorney if you want to be sure of your rights...  :)

Good luck!

David M. Shofi

"Jean-Marc Lienher" <jml@...>

07/26/2007 09:13 AM

To	<license-discuss@...>
cc
Subject	Near Public Domain license

Hi,

Sorry if this is a FAQ, but I've not found any searchable archive of this
list.

I need a very permissive license, Public Domain is a option but I've found
that it is OSI incompatible.
( http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Licensing_and_Law/public-domain.html )

Is there any such license already available ?

Zlib is nice. But the
   "If you use this software
    in a product, an acknowledgment in the product documentation would be
    appreciated but is not required."
sentence is too much.
I don't want any acknowledgement on which I don't have any control.
And the Zlib disclaimer looks very short compared to the MIT/BSD.

I don't like the BSD because you must put a copy of the license in the
documentation or in a README.txt file.
I don't like the MIT because the license must be included in the binaries.

I've just seen a message talking about a simplified BSD license, but I can't
find it on the archive. (there is nothing after march 2007
http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?ddp:0:0#b )
Does this simplified BSD license fits to my needs ?

I wrote my own license, which is a mix between MIT/BSD/ISC licenses with
zero condition.
Here it is :
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
            Copyright (c) <year> <copyright holders>

 Permission to use, copy, modify, sublicense, and/or distribute this
 work for any purpose with or without fee is hereby granted.

 THE WORK 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 AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, DIRECT,
 INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER RESULTING
 FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT,
 NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION
 WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS WORK.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

But it looks like the approval process will cost me a lot of money.
I need to find a English speaking lawyer in my country to create the legal
analysis...

So if there is an other license, which is currently in the approval process,
and which is compatible with my needs, I will use it.




*************************************************
This email message may contain information that is confidential and/or privileged and is intended only for use of the individual or entity named above.  If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this communication in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy the original message.  Thank you.

[Jean-Marc Lienher-2]

> And where would you place such a license, if not in the sources or
> with the binaries?  I am not a lawyer, but I do believe that reason

The license must be in the sources and in a README with the binaries,
otherwise it is not OSI compliant.
But I want to allow derivative works or copies to be closed source.
I create Open Source software, but I don't care if other people don't.
It's like "Public Domain".

> The license approval process itself costs no money at all.  However,
> as you recognize, you may need to spend money on legal advice to
> ensure that the license you submit does the things you want it to do.

No, it's not only a legal advice for me. It is part of the approval process.

The OSI approval process requires :
"Create a legal analysis of the license as it complies with the terms of the
Open Source Definition. Each paragraph of the license should be followed by
an explanation of how the paragraph interacts with each numbered term of the
Open Source Definition. The analysis should come from a licensed
practitioner of the law in your country."
http://opensource.org/approval

It's not 10 minutes work for a lawyer who musts learn about the OSI
definition.
I'm a geek, not a "practitioner of the law" so I can't do it myself.

[Lawrence Rosen]

Some parts of this message have been removed. Learn more about Nabble's security policy.

David Shofi wrote:

I find it quite unbelievable that a clear and unequivocal statement that an original copyrighted work is dedicated to the public would not serve to provide the necessary rights to anyone choosing to use the work in an OSS project, regardless of the OSS license used by that project.  

 

Once again the public domain rears its undisciplined head! :-) Dedicate your works to the public domain if you insist, but it is so easy to say: "Licensed to the public under the BSD license."

 

Jean-Marc Lienher said that he didn't want "acknowledgement over which he has no control." Do you think he can control or prevent acknowledgement through a public domain dedication? Most recipients of software will follow their own ethical duty not to plagiarize and will acknowledge even the public domain works they copy. (I attribute certain statements to Shakespeare even though his works are in the public domain.) Modern open source licenses protect authors' reputations through attribution provisions that say directly what licensees must or must not do; public domain dedications leave all that out. Most software authors appreciate provisions like "Don't use my name or trademark to promote your versions of this software." It is the rare author who wants to leave that to chance.

 

Mr. Lienher also said he doesn't like provisions that require that a copy of the license be included with the code. And yet anyone who copies works dedicated to the public domain would be wise to include at least the copyright notice and the public domain notice with those copies to help prove the pedigree of the code. So what is anyone actually saving here?

 

If an author thinks even the BSD license is too strict, try saying this:

 

    Copyright 20xx author-name.

    Licensed to the public under the BSD license.

    Copyright owner hereby waives the right to enforce the conditions of the BSD license.

 

At least that way the BSD's important warranty disclaimers would continue to apply, and the author would have all the other legal benefits of using a license rather than some public domain dedication for which the copyright law has made no provision.

 

/Larry

 

P.S. Please don't take this as a recommendation to use the BSD license. There are much better and more comprehensive academic-style licenses on OSI's list. This technique of expressly waiving enforcement of license conditions can be used with those licenses too. And it doesn't require OSI's approval of a new license to do so.

 

Lawrence Rosen

Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com)

3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482

707-485-1242 * cell: 707-478-8932 * fax: [phone]

Skype: LawrenceRosen

Author of "Open Source Licensing: Software Freedom and

                Intellectual Property Law" (Prentice Hall 2004)

 

---

From: DShofi@... [mailto:DShofi@...]
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 8:02 AM
To: Jean-Marc Lienher
Cc: license-discuss@...
Subject: Re: Near Public Domain license

 

I find it quite unbelievable that a clear and unequivocal statement that an original copyrighted work is dedicated to the public would not serve to provide the necessary rights to anyone choosing to use the work in an OSS project, regardless of the OSS license used by that project.  That being said, like all software, a recipient of the work would want to do some due diligence to understand that the author actually wrote the work from scratch without reliance on another work that may itself be copyrighted by another.  In other words, I would think that the public domain is an acceptable manner of putting your work out there for others to copy, modify and distribute.  You may want to include a statement about the pedigree of the code to allay concerns as described above.

Of course, you should engage with your own attorney if you want to be sure of your rights...  :)

Good luck!

David M. Shofi

"Jean-Marc Lienher" <jml@...>

07/26/2007 09:13 AM

To	<license-discuss@...>
cc
Subject	Near Public Domain license

 

Hi,

Sorry if this is a FAQ, but I've not found any searchable archive of this
list.

I need a very permissive license, Public Domain is a option but I've found
that it is OSI incompatible.
( http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Licensing_and_Law/public-domain.html )

Is there any such license already available ?

Zlib is nice. But the
   "If you use this software
    in a product, an acknowledgment in the product documentation would be
    appreciated but is not required."
sentence is too much.
I don't want any acknowledgement on which I don't have any control.
And the Zlib disclaimer looks very short compared to the MIT/BSD.

I don't like the BSD because you must put a copy of the license in the
documentation or in a README.txt file.
I don't like the MIT because the license must be included in the binaries.

I've just seen a message talking about a simplified BSD license, but I can't
find it on the archive. (there is nothing after march 2007
http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?ddp:0:0#b )
Does this simplified BSD license fits to my needs ?

I wrote my own license, which is a mix between MIT/BSD/ISC licenses with
zero condition.
Here it is :
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
            Copyright (c) <year> <copyright holders>

 Permission to use, copy, modify, sublicense, and/or distribute this
 work for any purpose with or without fee is hereby granted.

 THE WORK 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 AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, DIRECT,
 INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER RESULTING
 FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT,
 NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION
 WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS WORK.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

But it looks like the approval process will cost me a lot of money.
I need to find a English speaking lawyer in my country to create the legal
analysis...

So if there is an other license, which is currently in the approval process,
and which is compatible with my needs, I will use it.




*************************************************
This email message may contain information that is confidential and/or privileged and is intended only for use of the individual or entity named above.  If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this communication in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy the original message.  Thank you.

[Jesse Hannah]

I'm personally a big fan of the MIT license, it's much simpler and  
less restrictive than the GPL. Something like what Lawrence Rosen  
suggested---include a waiver of the right to enforce the terms of the  
license, maybe also one waiving the copyright and permission notice  
inclusion clause---would probably be the best way to do what you're  
looking for. That's basically what you have already, and it's still  
under an OSI license.
--
jbh

~~~~
Jesse B Hannah
        <jesse.hannah@...>
        <jesse.hannah@...>

Homepage: <http://www.lifeisleet.com>
Weblog: <http://blog.lifeisleet.com>
IRC Handle: <jbhannah@...>

GPG Key: 0xA6DC3EF3
        Available from the keyservers or at
        <http://www.lifeisleet.com/jesse.asc>


On 26 Jul 2007, at 06:11, Jean-Marc Lienher wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Sorry if this is a FAQ, but I've not found any searchable archive  
> of this
> list.
>
> I need a very permissive license, Public Domain is a option but  
> I've found
> that it is OSI incompatible.
> ( http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Licensing_and_Law/public-domain.html )
>
> Is there any such license already available ?
>
> Zlib is nice. But the
>     "If you use this software
>      in a product, an acknowledgment in the product documentation  
> would be
>      appreciated but is not required."
> sentence is too much.
> I don't want any acknowledgement on which I don't have any control.
> And the Zlib disclaimer looks very short compared to the MIT/BSD.
>
> I don't like the BSD because you must put a copy of the license in the
> documentation or in a README.txt file.
> I don't like the MIT because the license must be included in the  
> binaries.
>
> I've just seen a message talking about a simplified BSD license,  
> but I can't
> find it on the archive. (there is nothing after march 2007
> http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?ddp:0:0#b )
> Does this simplified BSD license fits to my needs ?
>
> I wrote my own license, which is a mix between MIT/BSD/ISC licenses  
> with
> zero condition.
> Here it is :
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> -
>              Copyright (c) <year> <copyright holders>
>
>   Permission to use, copy, modify, sublicense, and/or distribute this
>   work for any purpose with or without fee is hereby granted.
>
>   THE WORK 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 AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, DIRECT,
>   INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER  
> RESULTING
>   FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT,
>   NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION
>   WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS WORK.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---
>
> But it looks like the approval process will cost me a lot of money.
> I need to find a English speaking lawyer in my country to create  
> the legal
> analysis...
>
> So if there is an other license, which is currently in the approval  
> process,
> and which is compatible with my needs, I will use it.
>
>

[David Woolley (E.L)]

Jean-Marc Lienher wrote:
> The license must be in the sources and in a README with the binaries,
> otherwise it is not OSI compliant.

The OSD does not cover proprietary binaries created from open source
sources that permit the creation of such binaries.  The binaries will
clearly not be OSD compliant, but that doesn't mean the source isn't.

In practice the recipient of the proprietary binary will still need
sight of some licence document, to confirm that their copy is legitimate.

Use the BSD licence.

--
David Woolley
Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam,
that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.

[David Woolley (E.L)]

Jesse Hannah wrote:
> license, maybe also one waiving the copyright and permission notice
> inclusion clause---would probably be the best way to do what you're

Anyone exercising that waiver would compromise the distributility of the
material they redistributed, because anyone receiving it would have to
assume that, as very little software is out of copyright by reason of
age, that it was copyright by an unknown person and that person had
reserved all rights, and they would find it difficult to establish
otherwise.

--
David Woolley
Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam,
that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.

[Jesse Hannah]

I'm not judging whether or not it's the best idea to license  
something that openly :) It really is for the best that the MIT  
License requires an inclusion of the license and copyright---it still  
requires attribution, so the origin of the code and copyright is  
never in doubt, but it places zero restrictions on use of the code  
and removes all guarantee of warranty. Plus it's so much shorter and  
simpler than the BSD license. My personal suggestion to the OP would  
be to just use the MIT License; it isn't a bad thing that it requires  
the people who use the code to know where it came from, and other  
than that its terms are exactly what you're looking for in a license.
--
jbh

~~~~
Jesse B Hannah
        <jesse.hannah@...>
        <jesse.hannah@...>

Homepage: <http://www.lifeisleet.com>
Weblog: <http://blog.lifeisleet.com>
IRC Handle: <jbhannah@...>

GPG Key: 0xA6DC3EF3
        Available from the keyservers or at
        <http://www.lifeisleet.com/jesse.asc>


On 26 Jul 2007, at 14:16, David Woolley wrote:

> Jesse Hannah wrote:
>> license, maybe also one waiving the copyright and permission  
>> notice inclusion clause---would probably be the best way to do  
>> what you're
>
> Anyone exercising that waiver would compromise the distributility  
> of the material they redistributed, because anyone receiving it  
> would have to assume that, as very little software is out of  
> copyright by reason of age, that it was copyright by an unknown  
> person and that person had reserved all rights, and they would find  
> it difficult to establish otherwise.
>
> --
> David Woolley
> Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
> RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam,
> that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.