[okl4-developer] License query

[Martin Christian]

Hello Rob!
Here we are in a situation I was thinking about before. Assuming I would
be publishing a patch for OKL4. How is the licence situation? Am I a
dual-licence holder, too? Would OK-Labs need to ask me if they want to
use this patch with the commercial licence? I remember one discussion on
the LML about someone asking whether Linus T. could sell im a commercial
licence for some old Linux version. Someone - if not Linux himself -
said, that because of the many contributors, he could not take such as
decision, because he would have to ask all thousands of contributors.
Now, back to OKL4: If I'm contributing a patch - which is not separable
from the OKL4 code - what about my rights?

Basically, I don't like dual-licenced software - it just makes
developers become a lawyers. One code, one licence!

Best,

Martin.

Am Dienstag, den 23.09.2008, 14:42 -0500 schrieb Rob McCammon:
> Hi David,
> Thanks for the thorough email explanation of your question. I appreciate the
> concern that would exist if the license were such that one party (A) could
> be in violation of the license as a result of the independent action of
> another party (B). Fortunately that is not the case.
> 
> As you probably already know OKL4 is dual-licensed. The OKL4 open source
> license is perfect for almost all personal, academic, and open source
> development users. Commercial users of OKL4 who will distribute OKL4 along
> with other software which is not open source are served by the commercial
> license.
> 
> The key to understanding the answer to your question may center on the use
> of the phrase "accompanying software" in 1.c.ii. The terms of the open
> source license apply to software that is redistributed with OKL4. Let me use
> an example to explain.
> 
> Party A creates an open source software component for use with OKL4 and
> makes it available to others to use in a design
> 
> Party B creates a commercial/proprietary software component for use with
> OKL4 and makes it available to others to use in a design
> 
> Party A can use and redistribute OKL4 under the open source license.
> 
> Party B can use OKL4 under the open source license as long as they do not
> need to redistribute OKL4. If they need to redistribute OKL4 then they need
> to use OKL4 under the available commercial license.
> 
> Party C wants to build a device that includes the component from Party A and
> the component from Party B as well as OKL4. If Party C cannot get agreement
> from Party B to satisfy the terms of the open source license in the context
> of Party C's usage then Party C needs to use and redistribute OKL4 under the
> terms of the commercial license.
> 
> The open source license does not create any situations where one party's
> ability to satisfy the terms of the license in their use of OKL4 is
> controlled by another downstream party after the fact.
> 
> I hope that answers your question. Please let me know if you still have
> questions or concerns
> 
> Rob McCammon
> Open Kernel Labs
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: developer-bounces at okl4.org [mailto:developer-bounces at okl4.org] On
> Behalf Of David Given
> Sent: Monday, September 22, 2008 05:48
> To: developer at okl4.org
> Subject: [okl4-developer] License query
> 
> I have a query about the open source license.
> 
> Section 1 (c) says:
> 
> (c) Redistributions in any form must be accompanied by information on
>  * how to obtain complete source code for:
>  * (i) the Software; and
>  * (ii) all accompanying software that uses (or is intended to
>  * use) the Software whether directly or indirectly.  Such source
>  * code must:
> [...]
>  * (iv) be licensed by each relevant holder of copyright under
>  * either the Licence Terms (with an appropriate copyright notice)
>  * or the terms of a licence which is approved by the Open Source
>  * Initative.  For an executable file, "complete source code"
>  * means the source code for all modules it contains and includes
>  * associated build and other files reasonably required to produce
>  * the executable.
> 
> I'm curious about that 'or indirectly'. Because it seems to me that that
> would apply to the following situation:
> 
> - party A has a distribution of OK Linux.
> - party B has a proprietary binary for Linux. Being binary compatible
> with ordinary Linux, it will run on top of OK Linux.
> 
> Party A would then be unable to distribute their software, because they
> are unable to provide sources for party B's software. They need to do
> this because party B's software is intended to run on top of Linux,
> which means that it can indirectly use OKL4, which means the above
> license clause kicks in. Note that party A need have no knowledge of
> party B's software; it's mere existence causes them to infringe.
> 
> This is clearly unreasonable, and I'm being pedantic, but it does appear
> to be a valid interpretation of the license --- can I have
> clarification, please?
> 
> -- 
> David Given
> dg at cowlark.com

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
Url : http://lists.okl4.org/pipermail/developer/attachments/20080923/89c584c1/attachment.pgp