Choosing an open source license (NewsForge)

Posted Jul 26, 2004 22:38 UTC (Mon) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330)
Parent article: Choosing an open source license (NewsForge)

I don't think that Lawrence Rosen, despite his legal expertise, really gets it. He complains that the GPL's "works based on the program" standard is vague, and advocates instead that copyright law be used to define a derivative work. Accordingly, he wrote a license, the CPL, requiring all derivative works to be licensed under the CPL. The result is a vastly more viral license than the GPL! The GPL has a "mere aggregation" exception, the CPL does not.

Why is this a problem?

A CD-ROM is a derivative work of every program and data file on the disk. It therefore appears illegal to bundle a CPL work on a CD-ROM along with any file that has a license that conflicts with the CPL, which includes the GPL together with many other licenses.
In addition, the indemnification language in the license means that any rational commercial distributor should not touch CPL-licensed software with a ten-meter pole. If you're, say, Cheapbytes, you commercially distribute CD-ROMs containing thousands of programs for, say, $5 each. Why should such a distributor be forced to indemnify the software developers? The effect is that, while the original author offers no warranty, the commercial redistributor must offer a warranty against many possible types of mistakes, no matter what a trifling amount of money they charge.

Fortunately, I haven't seen any significant work distributed under this badly flawed license.

The GPL has withstood the test of time, and has been recently upheld as valid by a German court. It's a solid foundation, and Mr. Rosen has not succeeded in improving on it.

Choosing an open source license (NewsForge)

Posted Jul 26, 2004 23:54 UTC (Mon) by hummassa (subscriber, #307) [Link]

"A CD-ROM is a derivative work of every program and data file on the disk." NO it's NOT.
Search for the definition under USC 17 of derivative works. Brazilian copyright (author's
rights, really) law also classifies separately derivative works and "collection works".
Collection works are NOT derivative works -- the only copyright of the "collector" is the
one over the organization, disposition and selection of contents. Think the OpenBSD CD
license: the software is free software, BSD-licensed, but the layout of the CD is
proprietary... this has legal basis.

Choosing an open source license (NewsForge)

Posted Jul 27, 2004 2:06 UTC (Tue) by kornak (guest, #17589) [Link] (1 responses)

What is this nonsense about "Viral Licensing"? That is a Microsoft description
of the GPL. The GPL is non Viral. This term implies all kinds of negative
connotations. Please refrain from using Microsoft marketing terms. The GPL
is far less Viral than a proprietary lisence where your work can be stolen
and claimed as a derivative work. Nonsense.

Choosing an open source license (NewsForge)

Posted Jul 27, 2004 16:26 UTC (Tue) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link]

The point is that while the GPL is commonly accused of being "viral", Rosen's alternative actually is.

Choosing an open source license (NewsForge)

Posted Jul 27, 2004 7:54 UTC (Tue) by MathFox (guest, #6104) [Link] (2 responses)

I just read the article and it looks like the writer of the article doesn't understand the basic legal issues involved in licensing. Don't blame Larry for this shoddy interview.

Choosing an open source license (NewsForge)

Posted Jul 27, 2004 10:24 UTC (Tue) by kornak (guest, #17589) [Link]

I'm just tired of seeing that term repeated over and over again. It's one
of those cases where if people hear it enough they might start believing it.
The term has already become a part of the common vernacular. I refuse to use
it as it serves no purpose to repeat Micro-speak. I will not use MS jargon
to describe the GPL since it has an insidious, subliminally negative impact
on the language.

Choosing an open source license (NewsForge)

Posted Jul 27, 2004 16:27 UTC (Tue) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link]

No, I do blame Larry, because I have read articles by him where he advocates his theories, and I have read the license texts that he wrote. His advice is a disservice to the open source/free software community.