...making Linux just a little more fun!
Rick Moen [rick at linuxmafia.com]
Wed, 31 Jan 2007 15:21:30 -0800
Several paragraphs down, I angle back to the "badgeware" issue.
----- Forwarded message from Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com> -----
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 14:47:23 -0800 To: license-discuss at opensource.org From: Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com> To: TAG <tag@lists.linuxgazette.net> Subject: Re: Ethical RestrictionQuoting gilemon (gilemon at free.fr):
> Sorry for trying again to push forward a "hypothetical discussions"... > After going through the whole genesis of Open Source, the > "non-military use" restriction sounds too clumsy to be constructively > considered in this mailing list. But it looks like there might be some > room for the notion of ethic. > > As our research project involves human subjects, it has to be reviewed > and monitored by an independent ethics committee. Our project has > restrictions in order to safeguard the rights, safety, and well-being > of all trial subjects. As this is applying to our own software, in > which way will it be inherited by people reusing our sources?
Well, you say your project includes ethical restrictions, which is perfectly reasonable given its nature and aims. The question is: Is someone who fetches the source code to your software and uses it independently of your project required to adhere to the project's restrictions on software usage?
I looked briefly through https://emotion-research.net/ to see if I could determine what strings are currently attached to such source code, but couldn't find the latter.
Really, the fundamental point is that code, to be open source, must have source available and be licensed to be usable for any purpose by all parties present and future -- including people you (generic "you") disapprove of, using it even for purposes you might highly disapprove of: Users such as your enemies, your competitors, your enemies' great-grandchildren.... Usages such as warfare, blowing away cute furry woodland creatures, commercial competition against your company, etc.
When you (speaking generically of "you" as licensor -- and please excuse my using this occasion to make a broader point) are mouldering in the grave, after your company and all its VC funders[1] were obliterated when the Financial District Meteor of 2009 struck the corner of California and Market Streets, your source code must still be fully adaptable for any purpose, even after you yourself are a thin layer of dust covered with an overlay of slowly cooling extrasolar feldspar. Ideally, your licence should be, too -- which is why, for example, the otherwise highly useful IBM Public License got quickly renamed to "Common Public Licence" and all its internal company-specific references were made generic to licensor rather than "IBM" (other than the definition of "Agreement Steward", which is the party allowed to create new versions of the licence, as copyright holder over that document).
Because -- hey! -- one of the core ideas of open source is to make reuse by others feasible: reuse of licences, equally as of code. Open source takes the long view, and says "What happens when _you're not around_, any more? And how do other people use your licence?"
Consider, for example, this revised badgeware patch to Mozilla Public License v. 1.1, posted yesterday to https://weblog.infoworld.com/openresource/archives/2007/01/open_source_lic_1.html :
Redistributions of the Covered Code in binary form or source code form, must ensure that the first time the resulting executable program is launched, a user interface, if any, shall include the attribution information set forth below prominently. If the executable program does not launch a user interface, the Company name and URL shall be included in the notice section of each file of the Covered Code. : (a) MuleSource Inc. (b) The MuleSource Logo Image (https://www.mulesource.com/MSPL/mulesource_license_logo.gif) (c) https://www.mulesource.comIt might (when considered with the rest of MPL v. 1.1) or might not be considered to legitimately qualify as open source[2], but it's not very adaptable to other users not crushed by hypothetical meteors, and would look a bit silly in my hypothetical year 2010 -- for lack of effort thus far to apply "template" treatment to it.
[1] Or in your case, your project -- and I'm certainly not actually wishing meteors on anyone today.
[2] The particular referenced file https://www.mulesource.com/MSPL/mulesource_license_logo.gif is an (arguably) moderately sized 250 x 52 pixel image. Having raised the point in earlier discussion that I think OSD#6 embodies the core notion that open source must be reusable for all purposes without impediment including in particular commerce, I'll offer my further opinion that the "attribution information" mandated above still does materially impair reuse by, e.g., commercial competitors, because of this obsession about mandatory display -- about which more below -- but wouldn't if it were an "About" screen available to the user but not shoved in his/her face. (And sorry, there's no bright line in sight: It's inherently a judgement call. Life sucks and has taxes in it, too.)
What a pity the licence clause wasn't stated in templated form for use by others of the 6.5 billion featherless bipeds on this planet. FWIW, I had suggested, earlier: "Imagine a logo requirement for an original copyright holder logo + company name + URL not to exceed 120 by 120 pixels that must be on an "About" screen for any derivative that has a user interface."
Please note that I said "an About screen" -- not something the program "must ensure [is displayed] the first time the resulting executable program is launched". The latter, given the stated mandate, is of course not attribution but rather plainly advertising. (Generations of BSD coders' needs for attribution have been met by fully credits in the source code, which cannot lawfully be removed by third parties -- so, people, please don't tell us that badgeware clauses are needed for "attribution" purposes, as that's insultingly obvious flummery, and doesn't convince anyone.)
-- Cheers, "I'd hate to have a Peugeot 404. I can just see it now... Rick Moen I'd park it somewhere, then never find it again." rick at linuxmafia.com - Kirrily 'Skud' Robert <skud at infotrope.net>
Rick Moen [rick at linuxmafia.com]
Wed, 31 Jan 2007 19:01:14 -0800
Hmmm!
----- Forwarded message from Matthew Flaschen <matthew.flaschen at gatech.edu> -----
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 21:29:32 -0500 From: Matthew Flaschen <matthew.flaschen@gatech.edu> To: TAG <tag@lists.linuxgazette.net>Cc: license-discuss at opensource.org
Subject: Re: Ethical RestrictionRick Moen wrote:
> Consider, for example, this revised badgeware patch to Mozilla Public > License v. 1.1, posted yesterday to > https://weblog.infoworld.com/openresource/archives/2007/01/open_source_lic_1.html : > > Redistributions of the Covered Code in binary form or source code > form, must ensure that the first time the resulting executable program > is launched, a user interface, if any, shall include the attribution > information set forth below prominently. If the executable program does > not launch a user interface, the Company name and URL shall be included > in the notice section of each file of the Covered Code. : > > (a) MuleSource Inc. > (b) The MuleSource Logo Image > (https://www.mulesource.com/MSPL/mulesource_license_logo.gif) > (c) https://www.mulesource.com > > It might (when considered with the rest of MPL v. 1.1) or might not be > considered to legitimately qualify as open source[2]
Thanks for posting this. Unfortunately, your CUI might need to output:
[[[ This is the ASCII art, as Rick Moen received it. - Kat ]]]
...
.+++++++++.
`+++++++++++++`
:+++++++++++++++:
:+++++++++++++++++:
,+++++++++++++++++++,
+++++++++++++++++++++
'++++++++++++++++';'++' :::: ,::: ::`
+++++: ++++++++++; ,+++ ####` #### ##.
+####;
,+++++. +++++++++++ +++: ####' #### ##.
## .#;
++++++ '++++++++++ ++++ ##### :#### ##. .`
#` :#
;;:::. #####` ##:## .## ;## ##.
#####. #. `. :###: # ;# :# ## `###+ ;###`
###+#' ##.## .## ;## ##.
##'.:## ##;` '#, :#: # ;# :##+:`#' `+# ##` '#
+++++++++++++++++++++++++ ###,## :#+.## .## ;## ##. ,##
+#; ;####: #, :# # ;# :#, ## #.,# +'
++++++++++++;;;;;;;:::::: ### ##`##,.## .## ;## ##.
+######## ,'## ,# #` # ;# :# #: '#::::;#
### '#'## .## .## ;## ##.
######### #::# #. # ;# :# #. ########
+++++; ### .###+ .## .## ### ##. ;#+
:# #;.# # # '# :# #: :.;#
`+++ +++++++++++ +++++` ### ###. .## ##: `### ##. `##.
+#: `#: `#, #; '# #. ## :# +# `# `#` +'
+++` '++++++++++ ,+++++ ### '## .## #####;## ##.
:#####+ :##::'#' :#':+#. +#::#:# :# ##:;#' '#;:+#
,++: ;++++++++++`;++++, ::: `:: `:: ;#'`.:: ::` ;#',
:##;` `'#;` :#'`,; .: ;#+, ,'#;
'+++++++++++++++++++'
+++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++
'+++++++++++++'
.+++++++++++.
`:+++++:`
It still counts on every UI being able to display that exact graphic
(the license text even includes the graphic), which doesn't seem to
comply with OSD 10.
Matthew Flaschen
----- End forwarded message ----- ----- Forwarded message from Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com> -----
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 18:59:00 -0800 To: license-discuss at opensource.org From: Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com> To: TAG <tag@lists.linuxgazette.net> Subject: Re: Ethical RestrictionQuoting Matthew Flaschen (matthew.flaschen at gatech.edu):
[Yesterday's new MuleSource thing:]
> It still counts on every UI being able to display that exact graphic > (the license text even includes the graphic), which doesn't seem to > comply with OSD 10.Indeed, that's a good point -- that the presence of a "user interface" doesn't necessarily imply a graphical user interface. (Come to think of it, I'm not even sure that a GUI would necessarily always be able to display that particular 250 x 52 pixel GIF, either.)
-- "The Web brings people together because no matter what kind of a twisted sexual mutant you happen to be, you've got millions of pals out there. Type in 'Find people that have sex with goats that are on fire' and the computer will say, 'Specify type of goat.'" -- Rich Jeni