Novell License Draft 1.0 Submitted for Review 90
Bruce Perens writes "Novell has submitted its Open Source license for review. You can find it, and a few details about license-review, here. "
What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the will to find out, which is the exact opposite. -- Bertrand Russell, "Skeptical Essays", 1928
Re:innovation? ... look harder (Score:3)
Thanks
Bruce
Re:The NPL : GPL relicense clause ? (Score:2)
Bruce
Re:Three cheers for Bruce Perens (Score:2)
Bruce
Re:Copyright Open Source (Score:3)
Thanks
Bruce
Re:Copyright Open Source (Score:2)
2. Not every attorney agrees with yours on that issue.
Thanks
Bruce
Re:Novell VS. Free Software (Score:1)
They've since sold Unix and UnixWare to SCO and turned the UNIX trademark over to The Open Group (?). So they don't currently have any vested interest in Unix other than the fact that Linux/BSD is competition for NetWare.
--
Re:Open Source Schism (Score:2)
Thanks
Bruce
but they don't do that either (Score:2)
This usually happens because the GPL was a poor choice for the project, and that the developers didn't fully understand the consequences of the viral nature of the license. That is, it usually happens in projects that can't possibly be GPL'd.
The solution is not editing the text, but another file that explains what the text means in light of what really happened. Alternatively, a LICENSE file could state that the terms in the file in the directory GPL apply save as follows. Either way, the copyright isn't violated.
hawk, esq.
Re:Licence problems (Score:2)
I don't see that this restricts what you can do with your own work at all.
Bruce
Re:Open Source Schism (Score:2)
When I contribute code, I do it to increase the problem space covered by free software. Not only am I not interested in helping proprietary software developers, I would object to their incorporating my code without negociating a commercial license. My code is not a gift to them, it's something I share with the free software community.
Regarding Java, if the copyright holder doesn't want to prosecute your use of a non-free run-time, that is the copyright holder's choice. See also the GPL provisions for code that is a standard component of your system, which may apply to the Java run-time.
Thanks
Bruce
Re:Differences between GPL and NCL (Score:3)
I've got to take comments on these issues back to Novell. Please think them through, folks.
Thanks
Bruce
Re:About three classes of Open Source Licence need (Score:2)
There is a working group on license convergence that has not yet officialy invited me on board but I think I will get in to their next meeting. Hopefully at that time they will see that I am not an ogre and will invite me to be a regular participant.
Bruce
Re:kill the license discussions dammit! (Score:1)
What makes this newsworthy is that another really big company has decided that they can play by the community's rules. I am just as bothered by you by the proliferation of licenses, but lawyers need time to develop their opinions just as we need time to develop code, and we are working on a convergence to fewer licenses.
Thanks
Bruce
Re:Copyright Open Source (Score:2)
Bruce
Re:Open Source Schism (Score:2)
Bruce
Democratizing Technology through Open Source (Score:1)
trusting Novell... (Score:3)
Wasn't there an outstanding copyright-court-case with some people from the open-source-community?
Why should we (the open source community) trust Novell ? Why should we trust Novell while court case 9704-339 (4th Judicial District Court) is still outstanding ?
For those of you who don't know, this court case
alleges (using the evidence of contractors who
worked for Novell as well as internal Novell
documents), that much of Novell's BorderManager
product (a closed source product) was based on the Squid proxy server (a GPL product).
Why should we trust a company who thinks the following of us :
"..... Once again we must balance the costs in-house development of "comparable code" against the costs and risks of simply taking their code and using it... this last group of copyright holders could be particularly troublesome for Novell to deal with.... "
If Novell now also favours the open-source-method, this could mean a view things:
1.) It's "we too" (marketing!)
2.) They really fear, that Micros~1 and their
Active-Directory could make Novell obsolete. So
they use coopetition-tactics to hurt them
(so they are Linux-friendly as long as it's favorable for them)
We'll see. Currently Novell might be ally, but who know's what they'll do in the near future? The license is a bit loose on prohibiting mayor changes to the license. They could (IMHO! I'm no lawyer) in the next version of the licence change it to their very own rules...
Re:Open Source Schism (Score:1)
don't you think the Novell folks are actually reading these already? I know the NetWare specialist very well (I am a MCNE myself) and they are all Linux enthusiasts, too, and some of them read Slashdot. I don't know for Novell employees, but I guess some might be lurking right now.
And maybe some of those who worked on the NCL are interested in the feedback on Slashdot. It's quite interesting how Novell showed respect for the OSS community. Maybe it's only for the money, but it's nice to know a company believes it is possible to make money with OSS!
License problems (Score:2)
Bruce,
I think the problems with the license can pretty much be summarized into the following three points (two of which you mention above):
If you look at this from Novell's point of view, this is a perfect spot to be in. They get all the good karma that comes with being a supporter of true "open source," but have put it under a license where none but the most mercenarial coders (i.e. those who will contribute to anything regardless of license) will even touch the code. On top of that, nobody from either of the other license camps can touch the code--the NCL will "infect" BSD programs, and NCL's "you can't relicense" clause prevents GPL programs from incorporating the code.
In short, it's good as far as being "open source," but it seems to have been purposely designed not to play well with existing OSS licenses. Interoperability among licences should be a higher priority for the OSS community in general, and this is a great example.
Nathan StrongRe:The Downsides Of Yet Another License (Score:1)
There is a slight problem with that. The GPL is copyrighted. The copyright does not say that the document itself falls under it's own copyright, so the GPL has not been GPLd. Hence you are not allowed to change or make modifications to the GPL (and hence not allowed to redistribute such changes either) for your own use.
Which is probably a good idea.
Imagine if someone forked a version of the GPL in such a way as it no longer forced the software it applied to to be free. Although the original GPL would have to still apply to the license itself, the license could be marketed as 'a GPL derivative' or 'an extension of the GPL'. If this were the case, the percieved 'power' of the GPL would be significantly weakened IMHO.
(IANAL)
K.
Re:Differences between GPL and NCL (Score:1)
And it states that the costs incured in any legal battle will be payed by the "losing" side.
I guess people in the US won't be used to this, but its normal practice in many other places - it helps stop frivolous (sp?) lawsuits by people who know they'd lose but want to make a quick buck by getting an out-of-court settlement.
Note that you get 60 days following receipt of written notice to correct any incompliance, which means you can't get rolled on "just like that".
In the case where you're sure you're right, some large company throwing its weight around would have to foot the entire bill and you'd be protected against being rolled on at all.
-- Steve
Re:Licence problems (Score:1)
//rdj
Re:License problems (Score:1)
Re:This would not be a problem... (Score:2)
Open Directory: Open Source Java [dmoz.org]
Re:Wow (Score:1)
Re:About three classes of Open Source Licence need (Score:1)
Now that shared libraries and distributed objects are commonplace, we need a GPL-like license with just enough restrictions on use (the GPL was devised with none, which is now the problem) to prevent our work from subsidizing proprietary software vendors.
Copyright Open Source (Score:1)
innovation? (Score:2)
Re:Copyright Open Source (Score:1)
Wow (Score:1)
Seriously, it looks pretty good to me. Of course, IANAL. But I have read my fair share of software licenses (a boring hobby, I know). Only one thing bugs me. It doesn't specify whether code re-use (borrowing code) is allowed or disallowed.
Re:Copyright Open Source (Score:1)
License (Score:1)
Re:Copyright Open Source (Score:1)
Differences between GPL and NCL (Score:4)
As far as I can see there are very few differences between the GPL and NCL. There are no "hidden" details that would give Novell any rights to your work. Like the GPL dirivitive works get put under the NCL.
Unlike the GPL the NCL doesn't specificly mention what would happen in the event of a patent dispute or other restrictions such as export laws.
The NCL has one last interesting feature. By agreeing to it you also agree to how any breaches of the agreement will be handled. In paragraph 5 the NCL specificly states how any breaches shall be handled. And it states that the costs incured in any legal battle will be payed by the "losing" side. Interesting...
The NPL : an unnecessary licence? (Score:2)
About three classes of Open Source Licence needed (Score:4)
a) a BSD type license
b) a GPL type licence
c) a "commercial" license which allows the originator some rights over how his code is used to prevent forking and 'embrace & extend' by rivals. i.e. a sort of you can see the source, propose modifications and fixes, but we retain control over distribution license.
Why do people keep coming up with their own variations on a theme ?
Re:innovation? ... look harder (Score:2)
thanks Bruce.
Re:innovation? ... look harder (Score:1)
Yet another parallel-universe-licence (Score:1)
Considering that the proposed NCL shows the same transitive property on derived work as the GPL, this would create another disjoint set of OSS incompatible with anything else. In the case of Novel, this is esp. problematic, since - considering their business - they probably won't use the NCL for mere end-user applications, but for low-level stuff with will require massive kernel-interaction.
If this trend to incompatible OSS licences continues, the resulting balkanisation will negate the greatest advantage of OSS, the possibility to freely share code.
The Downsides Of Yet Another License (Score:3)
What if it's not merely a problem to have new licenses pop up that are more complex, more restrictive, more Gotcha-Source(where users presume rights that some small clause shoved into five words restrict) than the standard, rather simple to generally understand but well defined and heavily thought out GPL, LGPL, and BSD licenses?
What if it's a significant worry to have licenses that aren't complex enough?
After all, we talk alot about the benefits of Open Source turning the copyright system inside out upon itself, protecting situations where others restrict further usage of code beyond what the original authors ever intended. I like the Novell License for its simplicity and its lack of Gotchas for the user, but I have to wonder if there's not some small aspect of a ticking time bomb for Novell built into it?
There's a reason for every single clause in the GPL. The arguments are publically available and quite searchable. (Is there an annotated GPL out there, incidentally?) Novell's license isn't nearly as extensive, which could create a situation where *cough* a certain devious company sets up a front startup to Embrace and Extend Novell's code in a manner so as to make them anexample to the industry.
The GPL closes loopholes. It almost feels like the only reasons for this Novell license to exist are to leave them open.
There's a dark side to that. As far as I know, copyright law is set up such that one has no rights to the content beyond that which is explicitly granted. It is not inconcievable that Novell could be forced(or has individuals counting on being able to) to go to court to try to reclose a loophole that never should have been there in the first place, making a whole bunch of noise about the inadequacy of Open Source in the process.
It's a Media War, and all that.
Now, I doubt this is what Novell is up to. They've been doing some pretty cool stuff for Linux. (Windows 9x is another matter.) But they're going down a dangerous road.
I offer an alternative: Give us differential licenses! People like to refer to licenses using phrases like "GPL but you can't fork" or "BSD but you need to advertise in Playboy" or whatnot. If there's a pressing freedom or restriction that needs to be embedded in the license, ship the GPL with a patch. There will be some noise made, and your license should not include GPL in the name, but at leaast it would be simple to derive what specific changes you desired.
It's just not clear from the Novell license why, say, they didn't just go with BSD. And that's a problem.
Yours Truly,
Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com
License `compatibilizing' (Score:1)
What we really need is for OSI (or the FSF, or SPI - someone we trust) to make a list of open-source licenses, with their standing in `restrictiveness'. Then any open source project can include the clause:
"This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the , or (at your option) and license of equal or greater restrictiveness, as deemed by the Open Source Initiative (see http://www.opensource.org/)."
--------
"I already have all the latest software."
Novell VS. Free Software (Score:1)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Novell part of the lawsuit against the BSD folks a decade ago? I think Novell had some vested interest in AT&T Unix.
If so, that doesn't show very well for Novell's track record.
Why does everyone use the term Open Source now? May Free Software live on.
WorldServe Consulting http://www.worldserve.net
Re:This would not be a problem... (Score:1)
Re:Open Source Schism (Score:1)
Re:Interesting (Score:1)
Re:trusting Novell... (Score:1)
Re:About three classes of Open Source Licence need (Score:1)
So the third point must necessarily imply a license like the SCSL.
Does anybody really care? (Score:1)
Some confusion re: deriv. works (Score:1)
2. [...]you may distribute the Distributions in binary code form only under the NCL or a license agreement containing a prominent notice informing recipients how to obtain the Distributions in source code form under the NCL;
3. If the Distributions contain derivative works created by you, you must place a Notice in the source code of the derivative works stating that your derivative works are being made available under the NCL;
Unquote.
What this seems to me to say is that (2.) non-NCL licensing (a work containing?) an unaltered Novell binary is allowed so long as notice of said binary having originally been NCLed is kept (which keeps it from being GPLed, BSDed, &c.), but that (3.) derivative works would be NCLed "virally." Which is odd.
I assume that my reading doesn't reflect Novell's intent, and I'm neither a lawyer nor a potential developer of Novell-derivative works, so I might be wrong and it doesn't matter if I am; but, some clarification here might be helpful/needed before the NCL goes official.
(And apologies to
Re:Wow (Score:1)
Re:Open Source Schism (Score:1)
Lawyer: but QGPL licenses are a dime-a-dozen (Score:2)
Reality is that there are plenty of GPL-derived, or Quasi-GPL (QGPL) licenses already out there.
*Every* time someone purports to release something under the GPL but codes to a non-GPL library (KDE & QT, lyx & xforms, etc.), the result is not GPL, simply by the way the law works.
These products *do not* violate their own license; this is legally impossible. Instead, the actions taken by the authors amend to purported license. With LyX, we made the qualifications explicit a couple of releases ago; KDE may be too far into flamewar for this to be possible.
Re:Lawyer: but QGPL licenses are a dime-a-dozen (Score:1)
No, the point I was trying to make is that you're violating the GPL copyright by modifying the GPL.
GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
Version 2, June 1991
Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307, USA
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
Re:Copyright Open Source (Score:2)
----
Re:About three classes of Open Source Licence need (Score:2)
Three cheers for Bruce Perens (Score:2)
Thanks
--
Re:The NPL : GPL relicense clause ? (Score:1)
Re:Open Source Schism (Score:1)
IMHO (Score:3)
GPL, LGPL, Linux (Score:1)
Now that I think about it, I think it would make sense if the glibc were modified to allow plug-ins to change the behavior of various library calls. For example, on a vanilla glibc you call getpwnam() and it checks in
Re:Interesting trend... (Score:2)
I personally think that novell is widening it's horizons since they realize that not every network is a totally MS network. Cheers to Novell. One of the last few companies that have a foothold in a MS world.
Re:Wow (Score:1)
Really though, Novell has a lot of cool products, and I hope they are being sincere about this. I've read over the license, and I see no immediate problems. This looks like a lot more effort than Sun put into their pseudo "open source" SCSL, which was basically a ploy by their marketing people so that they could actually (ab)use the term "open source."
Re:Copyright Open Source (Score:1)
-russ
Re:Copyright Open Source (Score:1)
-russ
Re:Copyright Open Source (Score:2)
You can read ESR's announcement [slashdot.org] on the trademark issue.
Re:About three classes of Open Source Licence need (Score:1)
Re:Copyright Open Source (Score:1)
Re:Copyright Open Source (Score:1)
Re:About three classes of Open Source Licence need (Score:2)
If Novell decides to release said code under the GPL, it looks to the casual observer that we have another piece of software coming from the GNU project. By releasing it under their own lisence, any derivative of the work will still have the Novell name attacted to it.
It might seem like a pain to all of us who have to carefully read through the lawyer speak, but I think it is a small price to pay for having a new source of Open Source projects. Novell gets some name recognition and we get access to the code.
Seems like a win win situation to me...
- Cees
Re:Copyright Open Source (Score:3)
Bruce