peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (05/06/90)
... anyone care to make suggestions for improvements to, or point out problems
in, the following?
/*
* Copyright <year> <your organization>
*
* Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its
* documentation for any purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided
* that the above copyright notice appear in all copies and that both that
* copyright notice and this permission notice appear in supporting
* documentation.
*
* This program is publicly available, but is NOT in the public domain. The
* difference is that copyrights granting rights for unrestricted use and
* redistribution have been placed on the software to identify its
* authors, and to encourage redistribution of this code. You are allowed
* and encouraged to take this software and build commercial products,
* freeware products, shareware products, and any other kind of product you
* can think up, with the following restriction:
*
* If you redistribute the source to this program, or a derivitive of that
* source, you must include this copyright notice intact. If the system
* this source is distributed with is under a stricter license (such as
* a commercial license, the typical freeware "no commercial use" license,
* or the FSF copyleft) then you must provide the original source under the
* original terms.
*
* <your organization> makes no representations about the suitability of this
* software for any purpose. It is provided "as is" without express or
* implied warranty.
*
* <your name> DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE, INCLUDING
* ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS, IN NO EVENT SHALL
* <your name> BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, 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 SOFTWARE.
*
* Author: <your name>, <your organization>
* <your address>
*/
Notes:
o Do not include the words "All rights reserved" unless you have had a
lawyer verify that you have also explicitly given away all of the
necessary rights shown in the samples.
o Spell out the word "Copyright"; the phrase "(c)" is NOT a legal
alternative to the c-in-circle symbol.
o Put at least a one-line copyright at the top of EVERY source file, if
not the full copyright. Also, the copyright line or full notice MUST
physically appear in each file. Using the preprocessor to #include the
copyright from some other file has no legal meaning (it can be used to
incorporate common strings into the binary, but has no effect on the
status of the source code).
o Things that are copyrighted are, by definition, not in the public
domain.
--
`-_-' 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.brnstnd@stealth.acf.nyu.edu (05/06/90)
In article <=X833-ggpc2@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > ... anyone care to make suggestions for improvements to, or point out problems > in, the following? Obviously I'm biased towards the more comprehensive alternative that I just posted to alt.sources. ``Permission to use... is granted'' incorrectly implies that you have the power to restrict that right. Mention this in a side explanation instead. ``With or without fee'' is also useless; it has no legal effects and is better relegated to explanatory paragraphs. Someone can modify the software without putting in any notices of his changes, and without telling the recipients where to get the original. This is dangerous. Someone can sell the software without asking you first. Sure, this just reflects a different philosophy, but it's wiser to distribute a notice making the choices that most free software distributors will agree with. Someone can sell the software without letting the recipients know before purchase that the original source was free. The GPL shares this problem. My new copyright notice allows no such trickery. You don't require that your disclaimer of warranty be reproduced in redistributed copies. This is dangerous. You don't cleanly separate the concise, precise, incomprehensible legal stuff from the ambiguous but helpful explanations. This is dangerous. You don't mention that at least a one-line warranty disclaimer should be included in each file. ``Stricter license'' and your examples of it are not defined. What if a license is stricter in some respects but looser in others? ``Such as'' should be ``including but not limited to'' in legal text. It's a bad idea to leave off ``all rights reserved.'' Derivative. I wonder about some of the phrases included in (and omitted from) your warranty disclaimer. (The implied warranty of fitness? Gee, Peter, how much can your programs benchpress?) Many of the usual phrases are purely customary, but some of them have specific legal meaning. Ask a lawyer. The recipient doesn't get a question-and-answer file like my WHY file. ---Dan
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (05/07/90)
> Obviously I'm biased towards the more comprehensive alternative that I > just posted to alt.sources. Obviously, but the goals of the "Really Free Software Foundation" (i.e., me) differ from yours. > ``Permission to use... is granted'' incorrectly implies that you have > the power to restrict that right. Mention this in a side explanation > instead. For this and similar points: if the person reading the copyright is sophisticated enough to worry know this, they probably understand the reason for the wording. If not, (and this is the reson for the wording in question) and they're paranoid enough to worry about it, they're not going to be satisfied with stuff outside the primary document. And part of the purpose of this is to encourage people to use the software, instead of flaming about it, so being less than explicit about the user's rights is likely to be counterproductive. > Someone can modify the software without putting in any notices of his > changes, and without telling the recipients where to get the original. > This is dangerous. Good point. > Someone can sell the software without asking you first. Sure, this just > reflects a different philosophy, but it's wiser to distribute a notice > making the choices that most free software distributors will agree with. If the software is *free*, then someone can sell it without asking me. If not, then I wouldn't refer to myself as a free software distributor. This particular point is the core of my objections to the GPL. > Someone can sell the software without letting the recipients know before > purchase that the original source was free. The GPL shares this problem. Good point. > You don't require that your disclaimer of warranty be reproduced in > redistributed copies. This is dangerous. I thought I had. Are you sure? > You don't cleanly separate the concise, precise, incomprehensible legal > stuff from the ambiguous but helpful explanations. This is dangerous. The opposite course, as you have discovered, is also dangerous. > You don't mention that at least a one-line warranty disclaimer should be > included in each file. Good point. > ``Stricter license'' and your examples of it are not defined. What if a > license is stricter in some respects but looser in others? Then they have to make the original source available, like I said. > ``Such as'' should be ``including but not limited to'' in legal text. Thanks. > It's a bad idea to leave off ``all rights reserved.'' Yes. Thanks. > Derivative. True. I'm not a lawyer. The original is widely accepted despite obvious flaws. At least it's an improvement. > I wonder about some of the phrases included in (and omitted from) your > warranty disclaimer. (The implied warranty of fitness? Gee, Peter, how > much can your programs benchpress?) 90 lbs. > Many of the usual phrases are purely > customary, but some of them have specific legal meaning. Ask a lawyer. One of these days. I'm not made of money. > The recipient doesn't get a question-and-answer file like my WHY file. I'm allergic to licenses larger than the associated source. -- `-_-' 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.
seanf@sco.COM (Sean Fagan) (05/07/90)
In article <=X833-ggpc2@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >... anyone care to make suggestions for improvements to, or point out problems >in, the following? Just a couple... > * If you redistribute the source to this program, or a derivitive of that > * source, you must include this copyright notice intact. I would like to see a requirement that, if only a binary is shipped, that the source to <this> be included. This causes, say, libraries to be distributed with *your* stuff in source format. Well, an ammendment: not necessarily required, but made available (a la the FSF). > * If the system > * this source is distributed with is under a stricter license (such as > * a commercial license, the typical freeware "no commercial use" license, > * or the FSF copyleft) then you must provide the original source under the > * original terms. I'm not sure how to phrase it, but I would put in something about, if a modified version of <this> is distributed, then either the original source, or the source used to produce the binary version of <this>, falls under the terms described above. This lets people distribute improvements, but for those who choose to keep their changes proprietary, still distributes the original. Also, if only the original is distributed, then the way <this> now behaves differently must be doc'd. This invalidates all of the arguments RMS has come up with (that I've seen) as to why the copyleft is a virus (e.g., 'people can turn all of gcc into a library and then not have to provide source'). -- -----------------+ Sean Eric Fagan | "It's a pity the universe doesn't use [a] segmented seanf@sco.COM | architecture with a protected mode." uunet!sco!seanf | -- Rich Cook, _Wizard's Bane_ (408) 458-1422 | Any opinions expressed are my own, not my employers'.
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (05/07/90)
In article <6071@scolex.sco.COM> seanf@sco.COM (Sean Fagan) writes: > > * If you redistribute the source to this program, or a derivitive of that > > * source, you must include this copyright notice intact. > I would like to see a requirement that, if only a binary is shipped, that > the source to <this> be included. This causes, say, libraries to be > distributed with *your* stuff in source format. let me get this point right... call my package Z. If comeone builds it up as a libZ.a, they must distribute or make available the source to Z? I think that's covered, but it sounds like a good idea. > > * If the system > > * this source is distributed with is under a stricter license (such as > > * a commercial license, the typical freeware "no commercial use" license, > > * or the FSF copyleft) then you must provide the original source under the > > * original terms. > I'm not sure how to phrase it, but I would put in something about, if a > modified version of <this> is distributed, then either the original source, > or the source used to produce the binary version of <this>, falls under the > terms described above. Sounds good. That also solves the problem of "what do stricter terms mean", which has people quibbling at me right now. -- `-_-' 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.
rsalz@bbn.com (Rich Salz) (05/07/90)
Someone writes: Obviously I'm biased towards the more comprehensive alternative that I just posted to alt.sources. Someone else writes: Obviously, but the goals of the "Really Free Software Foundation" (i.e., me) differ from yours. Look, if you want to post something to Usenet, just give the goddamn thing away. Sorry about the swearing, but this is really getting totally ridiculous. Let's get a basic grounding in reality. Can anyone prove that these assertions are wrong? +If you post something, it will be seen by many thousands of people. +It will get stored in archive sites, backup tapes, and so on -- *it will be around forever* -- long after you've given up Usenet, or died in a bomb blast. +If you don't make it easy to understand what to do, then some people will just strip off the copyright, and pass things around without it -- possibly without your name. +No matter how good you are, you will NOT be able to write code that everyone can use without some modifications. If you do not let people make changes so that they can modify a program for use at their site -- be it a single-person consulting house, a large university, or an international corporation, then just why are you posting it to the net? Some people who post are worried about their reputation being besmirched: I know of only one real occasion where this has happened, and that was over five years ago before everyone got to play Junior Barrister. Some people who post on this topic have made several claims about wanting to preserve their their reputation of giving out good, free code. Such people should get a clue -- they have no such reputation. That is a small, select, circle, and they would do well to look at the copyrights used by the people who are in that circle -- Wall, Spencer, Gwyn, Collyer, and Poskanzer for a start. I will now reject any posting that has a time-limited copyright, that does not allow modifications, or that I cannot understand. /rich $alz, moderator -- 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.
jef@well.sf.ca.us (Jef Poskanzer) (05/08/90)
In the referenced message, rsalz@bbn.com (Rich Salz) wrote: }and they would do well to look at the copyrights used by the people who are }in that circle -- Wall, Spencer, Gwyn, Collyer, and Poskanzer for a start. (Major league blushing going on here.) Also, don't forget Scheifler et al. The copyright incantation I currently use is derived from the one used in the X.V11R3 distribution. Furthermore, the X people will not accept any software with a more restrictive copyright. --- Jef Jef Poskanzer jef@well.sf.ca.us {ucbvax, apple, hplabs}!well!jef "If you give me six lines written by the most honest man, I will find something in them to hang him." -- Cardinal de Richelieu
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (05/08/90)
In article <2498@litchi.bbn.com> rsalz@bbn.com (Rich Salz) writes: > Someone else... That's me... > Look, if you want to post something to Usenet, just give the goddamn thing > away. That's what I do. I generally don't put a copyright on anything, or I copy the omnipresent "do what you want so long as you don't sue us" Berkeley/MIT copyright. But for people who want to do more, I'm trying to develop an alternative... otherwise they'll come up with something weird or restrictive. > I will now reject any posting that has a time-limited copyright, that does > not allow modifications, or that I cannot understand. What about the GPL? -- `-_-' 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.
echidna@eric.ecr.mu.oz (Eric H. Echidna) (05/08/90)
In article <2498@litchi.bbn.com>, rsalz@bbn.com (Rich Salz) writes: > [..] > > Look, if you want to post something to Usenet, just give the goddamn thing > away. Sorry about the swearing, but this is really getting totally ridiculous. > [..] Without wishing to join in the "Gee my Copyright is so good" war, but wishing to register a vote for sanity as expressed by Rich Salz, here is what we consider to be a good copy-free notice for people wishing to distribute truly free software. (Taken from our VOGLE/VORT distributions) -- [brief description of product here] As we will be continuing development on <whatever> we will gratefully accept any bug fixes or enhancements such as new drivers, etc... [some inane comments in here] so if you find it useful for anything in particular we wouldn't mind hearing from you as well. This software is public domain and may be used for any purpose commercial or otherwise. It is offered without any guarantee as to its suitability for any purpose or as to the sanity of its writers. We do ask that the source is passed on to anyone that requests a copy. Although <whatever> is public domain we will drink any quantity of Beer you send to us. -- It has all you need. It's truly free software. We don't care if a comercial company uses it. We've asked for feedback. We've asked that it be passed on. And if you like it you can send us beer. Experience to date: we have got feedback (despite not insisting on it - thanks guys). Some people have evidently received it without getting it from us and without having to pay for it (it seems not everybody is a money grabbing bastard after all). AND what's more somebody actually sent us some beer! (Thanks - we hope this is a trend that will continue!) What else could you want? As an aside, we think it is foolish to worry about our reputations as we *know* that in six months we will think that everything we write today is crap. Eric (keep that beer flowing) H. Echidna
cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) (05/08/90)
echidna@eric.ecr.mu.oz (Eric H. Echidna) writes: }In article <2498@litchi.bbn.com>, rsalz@bbn.com (Rich Salz) writes: }> [..] }> }> Look, if you want to post something to Usenet, just give the goddamn thing }> away. Sorry about the swearing, but this is really getting totally ridiculous. }> [..] }Without wishing to join in the "Gee my Copyright is so good" war, but }wishing to register a vote for sanity as expressed by Rich Salz, here }is what we consider to be a good copy-free notice for people wishing to }distribute truly free software. }(Taken from our VOGLE/VORT distributions) ... }This software is public domain and may be used for any purpose commercial or }otherwise. It is offered without any guarantee as to its suitability for any }purpose ... }What else could you want? One minor thing in the above. Talking about just vanilla copyrights, for the moment, just as the Berne convention implicitly reserves copyrights to authors, and so in large copyright notices are redundant and/or unnecessary, BUT are still worthwhile anyway since the make any potential lawsuit potentially less expensive and with a higher prob of prevailing, here too a nod to the uniform commercial code is probably in order. I *DONT* remember the precise wording [I could dig it out of the Federal Codes upstairs in the BBN Library if necessary], but there is a "legally correct" way to word that disclaimer that makes it *unequivocally* outside the realm of UCC recourses. I seem to recall words like "merchantability" or some such as being part of the by-the-book wording. If you're going to go to the bother of trying to limit your liability, you might as well use the right words. [in fact it will usually be shorter (although not as clear to a layman, but it ain't gonna be a layman that drags you into court... , just as if what you want is vanilla copyright, just saying "Copyright 1990 ..." is a LOT shorter than a long rights-statement spelling it out [and making reference to 'fair use', etc, etc], just saying the right UCC-approved disclaimer will render moot the need for all of the other "we promise nothing" verbiage. /Bernie\