matt@group-w.uchicago.edu (Matt Crawford) (05/02/90)
By now many of you will have noticed some absurd restrictions placed in the copyright notices on sources submitted by Dan Bernstein to comp.sources.unix. The conditions include o No rights to the recipient except those explicitly granted. o The right to make and distribute exact copies, but not any derivative forms, as long as no fee is charged. o Those rights, what few there are, are revocable upon "written, oral, or other" notice, and are "automatically" revoked on a certain date in the future. Putting aside any discussion of whether compiling a program is creating a derivative work (and whether telepathic messages constitute "other" notification!), these restrictions are utterly absurd to the point that I think the resources of USENET are wasted in transmitting this stuff. Anyone using this code is running a big risk, since the author obviously has legalisms on his mind. I urge all comp.sources.unix readers who share my opinions to write to Dan Bernstein <brnstnd@acf10.nyu.edu> and express their disapproval. I urge Rich $alz to accept no more submissions with terms similar to those Dan Bernstein uses. I urge all comp.sources.unix archivists to delete Dan's recent submissions from their archives. Indeed, your corporate lawyers would probably *demand* that you delete them if they saw them. (UUNET is probably already in violation of Dan's nutty terms!) I had an email exchange with this same Dan Berstein about a month ago in which he claimed that he believed in promoting free software. He said that the FSF's General Public License was the wrong way to pursue that goal, and that I should wait until I saw *his* marvelous license! Now I've seen it, and it makes me want to scrub my disk drive with soap and water where his bytes have temporarily fouled it. (Anyone who wants to criticize me for hyperbole should read Bernstein's license first!) ________________________________________________________ Matt Crawford matt@oddjob.uchicago.edu
rsalz@bbn.com (Rich Salz) (05/03/90)
I agree with Matt. /rich $alz, the moderator in question -- Please send comp.sources.unix-related mail to rsalz@uunet.uu.net. Use a domain-based address or give alternate paths, or you may lose out.
DOUG@ysub.ysu.edu (Doug Sewell) (05/03/90)
In article <973@gargoyle.uchicago.edu>, matt@group-w.uchicago.edu (Matt Crawford) says: > >By now many of you will have noticed some absurd restrictions placed in >the copyright notices on sources submitted by Dan Bernstein to >comp.sources.unix. The conditions include > > o No rights to the recipient except those explicitly granted. > This may seem a little harsh (legalese) but I see no problem with this. Maybe I'm wrong. > > o The right to make and distribute exact copies, but not any > derivative forms, as long as no fee is charged. > I have heard numerous reports - most notable 'GONE EXEC', a program often found in Bitnet-land on VM systems - where unauthorised changes have been made to distributed code. GONE's author spent much time on debugging - or just tracking down - bugs that didn't exist in the code he distributed. I suspect that this is what he had in mind by 'derivative forms'. As far as the 'no fee charged', such statements are common in shareware and freeware distribution. Usually allowance is made for processing fees (tapes, diskettes, online service connect charges, etc) which are charged for processing all software distributed via a particular source. Dan Bernstein has chosen to not explicitly allow for this, so you may have to contact him about permission to collect such fees. > > o Those rights, what few there are, are revocable upon > "written, oral, or other" notice, and are "automatically" > revoked on a certain date in the future. > This sounds like 'attorney-ese'. It gives him the right eventually sell this code commercially. It does indicate that if he does so, then copies of this software already in existence must be licensed. Actions like this are also not common, but Buttonware took similar action in withdrawing some of their shareware products from public distribution. Another vendor sold a product to different distributor, who withdrew the source code, put CPUID and expiration date checks, and raised the price substantially. I don't recall whether the existing customers were "grandfathered" in, or under what terms. Personally, I think you're being a little harsh, although I understand your concerns. As we don't have a need for this type of software, I won't be installing it anyway. Doug Sewell, Tech Support, Computer Center, Youngstown State University, Youngstown, OH 44555 E-mail: DOUG@YSUB.BITNET, DOUG@YSUB.YSU.EDU >> Constructive criticism welcome; flames ignored.
brnstnd@stealth.acf.nyu.edu (05/03/90)
In article <90122.182053DOUG@ysub.ysu.edu> DOUG@ysub.ysu.edu (Doug Sewell) writes: > In article <973@gargoyle.uchicago.edu>, matt@group-w.uchicago.edu (Matt > Crawford) says: > >By now many of you will have noticed some absurd restrictions placed in > >the copyright notices on sources submitted by Dan Bernstein to > >comp.sources.unix. The conditions include > > o No rights to the recipient except those explicitly granted. > This may seem a little harsh (legalese) but I see no problem with this. It's both rather harsh and legally unenforceable. That's why I don't do any such thing. The GPL, in section 4, does. Either Matt's lying or he's severely mistaken. As he pulled this statement out of thin air I think it's reasonable to conclude the former. I hope nobody makes decisions about software on such grounds. > > o Those rights, what few there are, are revocable upon > > "written, oral, or other" notice, and are "automatically" > > revoked on a certain date in the future. > This sounds like 'attorney-ese'. It gives him the right eventually > sell this code commercially. I don't plan to: I have a reputation to uphold. Even if I (like the FSF) gave away all my rights permanently, I'd be able to get them back after a certain period of time, as specified by 17 USC 203(a). I'd be lying to the people who use my code if I didn't specify any limit. I mean the expiration date as a commitment to support. Anyway, once you have a legal copy, I can't take it away from you, nor would I want to. > It does indicate that if he does so, then > copies of this software already in existence must be licensed. No, it doesn't. That's a legal misconception promulgated by the GPL and similar unenforceable licenses. Once you have legally obtained some software, it's yours. Nobody can take your ownership rights away with after-the-fact licenses. This is true for my software, true for Emacs, and true for every other program ever distributed. ---Dan
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (05/03/90)
Sounds like Dan needs to add a bit of explanation to his copyright notice. If it *just* needs clarification he should have no objection to that. -- `-_-' Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net> 'U` Have you hugged your wolf today? <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com> @FIN Commercial solicitation *is* accepted by email to this address.
emv@math.lsa.umich.edu (Edward Vielmetti) (05/04/90)
dan has done several other ridiculous things, should this new one surprise you? --Ed
gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) (05/09/90)
I find the GNU license, or full public domainness, more to my taste than
Dan Bernstein's. Dan seems to want to restrict some of the things I
find most critical to free software's usefulness.
The ability to distribute modified versions means that if the author
gets busy, or goes catatonic on the net, or just stops being interested
in the program, then the program's users can carry on maintaining it.
It decouples further development possibilities -- ANYBODY who gets a
neat idea can implement it that weekend and post it, or pass it on.
While I also know that having a good "central clearinghouse" for changes
and new versions is quite useful, I would view that as desirable, not
required. If the clearinghouse falls down, the software is still useful,
and that's when you really need the right to distribute modified copies.
And an ambitious person who is willing to become the new clearinghouse
*clearly* needs that right.
Dan claims it's "dangerous" for just anybody to be able to modify the
code and pass it on. I guess it was dangerous for him to write the
code in the first place, too. Do we really want to trust free code
written by some guy across the net to do secure authentication? [I
think the answer is yes -- I trust code I can read a lot more than
binaries I can't, e.g. what you get from your Unix vendor. And a bunch
of good people on the net can also read it, and warn us about
troubles. Indeed, the whole Unix system was and is written by "guys
across the net". I don't see how patches are any less trustworthy than
the original package, though.] The way to avoid a proliferation of
different versions is to put out regular, definitive releases that
include all the popular features, and give them wide distribution.
Survival of the fittest...
Dan's copyright also restricts unmodified copying to people who don't
charge a fee. As one of the people who worked on the 1987 Sun User
Group tape, phrases like that cost us a lot of headaches. Anytime
someone said something like that, we had to send them a contract to
sign, since it wasn't clear to us whether our nonprofit user group was
"charging a fee" or "making money" or "commercial use" or whatever
their notice said. And it quickly became clear that while it was
*easy* to collect software from the authors, it was *painful* to get
them to sign a form, possibly get their employer to sign the form, and
postal-mail it to us. Especially when they thought their license terms
were already perfectly clear. Details like that held up the tape for
six months or more.
Instead of making it clear whether a given party can use the software,
"no fee" restrictions make it fuzzy. Matt's point about uunet is 100%
right-on here too; uunet won't send me netnews unless I pay them; are
they charging a fee for netnews? Then how can they send me Dan's
software? Then how can it be posted to comp.sources.unix? I'd rather
shut down Dan-style postings than shut down uunet.
On the time limitation/revocation issue, if Dan has found a new wrinkle
in the copyright law (perhaps post-Berne-Convention, which the U.S.
only adopted this year?) then let's haul it out and look at it. Since
you seem to have a copy of the law, Dan, can you post that paragraph with
whatever context is needed?
--
John Gilmore {sun,pacbell,uunet,pyramid}!hoptoad!gnu gnu@toad.com
Boycott the census! In 1942, the Census Bureau told the Army which block
every Japanese-American lived on, so they could be hustled to internment camps.
Maximum penalty for refusing to answer: $100, no jail.brnstnd@stealth.acf.nyu.edu (05/10/90)
After my signature is a new 'n' improved copyright. No more legalisms! In article <11348@hoptoad.uucp> gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) writes: > I find the GNU license, or full public domainness, more to my taste than > Dan Bernstein's. Dan seems to want to restrict some of the things I > find most critical to free software's usefulness. [ If people are allowed to distribute modified versions: ] [ 1. they can carry on maintaining it if the author doesn't; ] [ 2. they can post or pass on further development possibilities; ] [ 3. a central clearinghouse is desirable but not required; ] [ 4. someone else can take over being the central clearinghouse ] I agree fully that outside support and changes provide many advantages. But you get all the same results out of just distributing patches. There's no legal or ethical basis for controlling patches. I restrict distribution of modified versions because I want each recipient to know firsthand what patches he's applied, so that when I get a bug report or request for help, I won't go chasing ghosts. (It's not enough to say that I'll only look at what I can duplicate. Some bugs are sporadic, and most have a tendency to appear only on machines the author doesn't use.) When patches are distributed separately, this problem disappears. Certainly I do want to act as that ``central clearinghouse,'' but if someone wants to distribute unofficial patches, he has that right. > Dan claims it's "dangerous" for just anybody to be able to modify the > code and pass it on. The danger I see is in confusion about whose software you're running. If you pass on your modifications as unapplied patches, the danger is gone. > Dan's copyright also restricts unmodified copying to people who don't > charge a fee. For copying; in its new incarnation, my copyright limitation notice does allow charging a fee for distribution. I understand the angst this sort of thing causes you, but I really do want to know who's making money off my programs. (I still find it rather offensive when someone charges $150 for a tape costing about $10 and computer work costing well under $1, without warning the recipients beforehand that the code is ``free.'') If you're on the legal boundary between free distribution and profit, then you're probably on the ethical boundary too, and I want to know about it. Sorry, but for me ``free'' means the recipients don't have to pay. [ uunet charges for news connections ] [ so isn't it violating my ``no charge for copying'' copyright? ] [Begin flame.] I find this oft-repeated claim rather idiotic. My programs' copyrights have been *limited*. They're far less restrictive than the Berne-implied copyrights on practically all other news articles. Obviously if uunet were violating my rights in distributing my c.s.unix submissions, it would be violating the rights of thousands of other posters every day. [End flame.] Once again the law reflects what is intuitively obvious to most people: non-censoring forwarders can ignore copyrights. (This is in copyright law, I don't remember where offhand.) If a television station sends a copyrighted commercial to a hotel, and the hotel forwards the signal on certain channels to everybody's room, is the hotel violating the copyright? Of course not. If Joe Shmoe posts an article and fails to declare it public domain, it's copyrighted by the Berne Convention. If uunet forwards that article (with thousands more like it) to you, is it violating the copyright? Of course not. > On the time limitation/revocation issue, 17 USC 203(a). ---Dan And finally, the new copyright notice: FOO version VER, DATE. Copyright YEAR, Daniel J. Bernstein. All rights reserved. I want this program to be distributed freely in original form. Once you've received a legal copy of this program, you can use it. Forever. Nobody can take that right away from you. You can also make changes and backup copies for your use (or, if you're an organization, for the use of everyone in the organization). You can distribute patches (though not patched versions). You'd have all these rights even if I didn't tell you about them. Unless you're planning to distribute further copies, you can stop reading this notice. [ This notice would be displayed with something like FOO -C. At this point, ] [ unless the reader requested otherwise, it'd skip to the last paragraph, ] [ with a note saying how to see the middle part. ] Copyright law gives an author the exclusive right to copy and distribute his works. So that you don't have to worry about these legalities, I grant you the right to make and distribute exact and complete copies of this program. On the other hand, I don't want this program sold without my permission. Unless I give you permission, you may not charge for copies. You may charge for distribution---but only if you first warn the recipient that the code is free, and tell him where you got it from. I don't want this program distributed without my name on it. I also don't want lots of different versions running around, so unless I give you permission you can't send out a modified version. It's perfectly all right to send other people a description of how to make your changes (i.e., a patch), because then each recipient knows firsthand what patches he's installed, and I won't go chasing ghosts. (An author has no right to control patches in any case.) If you run an archive site: When you receive a patch supposedly from me, do you apply it to the original package and repackage it? I encourage you to change your policy, if for no other reason than to give recipients a fallback in case of buggy patches. If you're really set on this, how about including the patches as separate, unapplied PATCHnn files inside the package? That's fine by me. If you have questions about this program or about this notice, or if you would like additional rights beyond those granted above, or if you would like a formal statement of the rights I'm giving you, or if you have a patch that you don't mind sharing, please contact me at brnstnd@acf10.nyu.edu on the Internet.