RE: [Printing-architecture] Posted OP Arch Minutes (11 July 2007)

RE: [Printing-architecture] Posted OP Arch Minutes (11 July 2007)

[Petrie, Glen]

I press the wrong button before finishing.

============================


One thing I'd like to make clear from the beginning: I'm NOT lobbying
to change the license for OP work to the GNU GPL, but you already knew
that, right?  I am trying to arrive at a license that is acceptable to
proprietary software vendors as well as *compatible* with the GNU GPL
for the simple reason that the current "restricted MIT" license
prevents use of any OP created software by software under the GNU GPL.

[[gwp]]I don't believe there are any licenses that are compatible with GNU
GPL in relationship to proprietary software.   GNU GPL has as one of its
explicit functions to "trap" developers in releasing their software.  I have
talked with a many company representatives on the subject of using GNU GPL
software and all of them, without exception, state they never use GNU GPL
software in their products.

>  < snip..>

You can't just go around modify things and change the licensing
conditions unless *all* copyright holders agree.  Just make sure that
all work done by OP is copyrighted by OP and OP can veto any license
changes.

[[gwp]] 1.) I am writing new code that is based on software that was
developed under the MIT license from IBM.  So I am currently the only
holder.  2.) I have discussed the license with the holders of the original
content and they agreed with the license modification. 3.) The Steering
Committee of the OP has agreed to this license and any attempt to change
that license will result in my withdrawing my software from Open-Printing.

What you *can* do is built something on top of OP work and put that
out under the GNU GPL.  However, that does not mean that the OP work
is or has to be re-licensed to GNU GPL.  We did this with PCM.  The
PCM daemon and plug-ins are MIT/X.  The CUPS and SANE samples are GPL.

[[gwp]] But you can not change this code and make it GNU GPL.  And
integrating with GNU GPL will not make this code be GNU GPL; that would be a
violation of the license.  The PCM is MIT because the OP steering committee
has mandated non-GNU_GPL licensing for all software.    (As for the CUPS and
SANE sample, technically they should have been MIT license if they were part
of OP official work products unless they were written outside of the OP
activity.)


# Or, at least I was quite sure that was the case this until I re-read
#
#   http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatIsCompatible
#   http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatDoesCompatMean
#
# Time for yet another round of GPL study and digging up some sample
# cases ... :-(

Also, keep in mind that anyone sufficiently determined (and the GNU
project qualifies) could make a clean room implentation of any OP spec
and release that under the GNU GPL.  Unless the license of the spec
works like the GNU GPL and extends its reach to any implementations by
claiming they are material modifications of the spec, that is.

[[gwp]] The specification for the API will also be the modified MIT license.
What that ultimately means for an "extended reach" will have to be
determined.  I don't think the point is about someone "sufficiently
determined" wanting to make a clean room implementation of the OP spec; the
real point here is that companies do not use GNU GPL software and I believe
they would use and following the modified MIT license software.  Personally,
I don't want to create a set of API spec's and software that no one will use
other than a few independent developers.


<snip..>

FWIW, the extra restriction triggers pretty much the same situation as
the "advertising clause" of the Original BSD license did.

  http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#OrigBSD

The only way for GPL'd software to use OP software under a restricted
MIT license would involve adding an exception to the license.  In
effect, the software has to be relicensed to use OP software.

  http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FSWithNFLibs
  http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs

Trying to imagine how this "trap prevention" scheme works for those on
the other side of our "ideological divide", I was left wondering how a
proprietary software vendor would create "any material modification"
without further restricting a user's "rights to use, copy, modify,
merge, publish, distribute, and/or sell copies" of it.

FYI, I interpret that clause to mean that the user gets *all* of those
rights, not just a meaningless subset that only contains "use".  How
would a proprietary software vendor not restrict my rights to copy,
modify, merge, publish, distribute and sell copies?  At least for the
modify and merge one would already need the source.


< snip..>

The GNU GPL is "No Free Lunch", you pay for what you take.  That makes
perfect business sense to me.  It's just that you have to pay in a way
proprietary software vendors are not likely to like.

[[gwp]] GNU GPL is "No Free Lunch"; for sure.  So you are telling me that
FSF and individuals using the GNU GPL license are in business of having
others """"pay"""" for the use of their """""free"""""" GNU GPL software by
having others release their code.  That's an interesting business they are
in.  But it finally makes it very clear to me that GNU GPL software does not
mean free software.  What I want to do is create truly free software that
anyone can use with a """"paying"""" for it. 


Back to the license the OP wants to use, I do think that a quest to
develop "printing architecture, documentation and software that can be
used freely by anyone without the concerns, worries and legal problems
of the license associated with the software" is a noble goal.  It's
just that the "restricted MIT" license puts a lot of people out in the
cold (unless they relicense) trying to achieve it.  In a way, adding
the restriction makes it impossible to satisfy what you quote as the
OP's primary goal as it can't make good on the "used freely by anyone"
part.

[[gwp]] I am interested in the wider adoption and use of OP software, API,
etc..  If other """"free"""" software developers want to be part; then they
may have to re-license in such a way that there software is free and
compatible.

Not that I have any at the moment, but are there no alternatives?
Some license that is acceptable to both sides?  Maybe we could contact
the FSF or Creative Commons about the issue?  Should we?  They have a
lot of legal expertise in this area.

[[gwp]] I don't see any alternatives, under the current GNU GPL license, of
how to make something acceptable to both sides.

<snip..>

A lot of proprietary software companies will balk at contributing to
GPL'd software, yes.  Other companies that rely less on competitivity
strangling approaches to make a living don't and are happy to let any
outsider contribute.  There is a lot of great software out there that
is actively adopted and adapted to suit their needs by companies,
governments and individuals alike.

[[gwp]] My experience is that companies, governments and individuals use the
software for their own (internal) use and freely use any software available
without worrying about repercussions.  But that is not the case for the
software and api's being developed here.   They are public for use and not
really targeted to sampling internal use.

FYI, a substantial part of CUPS is GPL.  The libraries are LGPL.

[[gwp]]  Yes CUPS is GPL but CUPS has also been strictly controlled in it
development by its owner; a good thing perhaps.   As to LGPL; several patent
lawyers I have talked with argue that LGPL is only superficially better than
GNU GPL and have been advised to avoid using LGPL software. 

<snip..>

If you care about the OpenPrinting stuff getting used, you should
consider whether a restrictive MIT license is in the best interest of
OP stuff getting used, because as it is now it can't be used by a
great deal of existing software.

[[gwp]] I go with original statement that the oal of Open-Printing, I
believe, is coherence for printing; not software or license traps.

<snip..>

With a restricted MIT license they have just as much to worry about
getting sued as with the GNU GPL.  Recalling the GPL violation that
made EPSON AVASYS famous ;-), not once were we threatened with a law
suit.  The FSF are very friendly people.  It's not the GNU GPL license
violation that gets you sued (unless perhaps when you are extremely
uncooperative and keep violating it) but your patent violations.  And
these will get you sued no matter what license you use.

[[gwp]] Then explain to me why every patent lawyer and software development
manager/engineer I have talked with, where proprietary software is involved,
will not use or incorporate GNU GPL software.  

<snip..>

I personally believe Free Software stands to lose.  As a result, the
individual user stands to lose as well.

[[gwp]] As you pointed out above, GNU GPL is "No Free Lunch" and is not
free.  My goal and hope is that the modified MIT license is a "Free Lunch"
and is free and that others will join if they are interesting truly free
software.

Re: [Printing-architecture] Posted OP Arch Minutes (11 July 2007)

[Till Kamppeter]

I think we should also ask the distribution vendors about the correct 
way to license our software. Standards get only standards if they get 
adopted by the distributions. And this only works if our software is 
allowed to get linked with important pieces of standard software in the 
distros, like CUPS for example.

I can also not imagine that big free software projects (with lots of 
copyright holders) change their licenses only to be able to use 
OpenPrinting infrastructure for printing.

The MIT license itself is free enough so that distros adpot the 
software. For the restricted MIT we must ask the experts.

I should probably do a license change on Foomatic to MIT or so to make 
it more accessible to the manufacturers, but Foomatic has no binary 
interfaces, so this is perhaps not so urgent.

    Till


Petrie, Glen wrote:
> I press the wrong button before finishing.
> 
> ============================
> 
> 
> One thing I'd like to make clear from the beginning: I'm NOT lobbying
> to change the license for OP work to the GNU GPL, but you already knew
> that, right?  I am trying to arrive at a license that is acceptable to
> proprietary software vendors as well as *compatible* with the GNU GPL
> for the simple reason that the current "restricted MIT" license
> prevents use of any OP created software by software under the GNU GPL.
> 
> [[gwp]]I don't believe there are any licenses that are compatible with GNU
> GPL in relationship to proprietary software.   GNU GPL has as one of its
> explicit functions to "trap" developers in releasing their software.  I have
> talked with a many company representatives on the subject of using GNU GPL
> software and all of them, without exception, state they never use GNU GPL
> software in their products.
> 
>>  < snip..>
> 
> You can't just go around modify things and change the licensing
> conditions unless *all* copyright holders agree.  Just make sure that
> all work done by OP is copyrighted by OP and OP can veto any license
> changes.
> 
> [[gwp]] 1.) I am writing new code that is based on software that was
> developed under the MIT license from IBM.  So I am currently the only
> holder.  2.) I have discussed the license with the holders of the original
> content and they agreed with the license modification. 3.) The Steering
> Committee of the OP has agreed to this license and any attempt to change
> that license will result in my withdrawing my software from Open-Printing.
> 
> What you *can* do is built something on top of OP work and put that
> out under the GNU GPL.  However, that does not mean that the OP work
> is or has to be re-licensed to GNU GPL.  We did this with PCM.  The
> PCM daemon and plug-ins are MIT/X.  The CUPS and SANE samples are GPL.
> 
> [[gwp]] But you can not change this code and make it GNU GPL.  And
> integrating with GNU GPL will not make this code be GNU GPL; that would be a
> violation of the license.  The PCM is MIT because the OP steering committee
> has mandated non-GNU_GPL licensing for all software.    (As for the CUPS and
> SANE sample, technically they should have been MIT license if they were part
> of OP official work products unless they were written outside of the OP
> activity.)
> 
> 
> # Or, at least I was quite sure that was the case this until I re-read
> #
> #   http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatIsCompatible
> #   http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatDoesCompatMean
> #
> # Time for yet another round of GPL study and digging up some sample
> # cases ... :-(
> 
> Also, keep in mind that anyone sufficiently determined (and the GNU
> project qualifies) could make a clean room implentation of any OP spec
> and release that under the GNU GPL.  Unless the license of the spec
> works like the GNU GPL and extends its reach to any implementations by
> claiming they are material modifications of the spec, that is.
> 
> [[gwp]] The specification for the API will also be the modified MIT license.
> What that ultimately means for an "extended reach" will have to be
> determined.  I don't think the point is about someone "sufficiently
> determined" wanting to make a clean room implementation of the OP spec; the
> real point here is that companies do not use GNU GPL software and I believe
> they would use and following the modified MIT license software.  Personally,
> I don't want to create a set of API spec's and software that no one will use
> other than a few independent developers.
> 
> 
> <snip..>
> 
> FWIW, the extra restriction triggers pretty much the same situation as
> the "advertising clause" of the Original BSD license did.
> 
>   http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#OrigBSD
> 
> The only way for GPL'd software to use OP software under a restricted
> MIT license would involve adding an exception to the license.  In
> effect, the software has to be relicensed to use OP software.
> 
>   http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FSWithNFLibs
>   http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs
> 
> Trying to imagine how this "trap prevention" scheme works for those on
> the other side of our "ideological divide", I was left wondering how a
> proprietary software vendor would create "any material modification"
> without further restricting a user's "rights to use, copy, modify,
> merge, publish, distribute, and/or sell copies" of it.
> 
> FYI, I interpret that clause to mean that the user gets *all* of those
> rights, not just a meaningless subset that only contains "use".  How
> would a proprietary software vendor not restrict my rights to copy,
> modify, merge, publish, distribute and sell copies?  At least for the
> modify and merge one would already need the source.
> 
> 
> < snip..>
> 
> The GNU GPL is "No Free Lunch", you pay for what you take.  That makes
> perfect business sense to me.  It's just that you have to pay in a way
> proprietary software vendors are not likely to like.
> 
> [[gwp]] GNU GPL is "No Free Lunch"; for sure.  So you are telling me that
> FSF and individuals using the GNU GPL license are in business of having
> others """"pay"""" for the use of their """""free"""""" GNU GPL software by
> having others release their code.  That's an interesting business they are
> in.  But it finally makes it very clear to me that GNU GPL software does not
> mean free software.  What I want to do is create truly free software that
> anyone can use with a """"paying"""" for it. 
> 
> 
> Back to the license the OP wants to use, I do think that a quest to
> develop "printing architecture, documentation and software that can be
> used freely by anyone without the concerns, worries and legal problems
> of the license associated with the software" is a noble goal.  It's
> just that the "restricted MIT" license puts a lot of people out in the
> cold (unless they relicense) trying to achieve it.  In a way, adding
> the restriction makes it impossible to satisfy what you quote as the
> OP's primary goal as it can't make good on the "used freely by anyone"
> part.
> 
> [[gwp]] I am interested in the wider adoption and use of OP software, API,
> etc..  If other """"free"""" software developers want to be part; then they
> may have to re-license in such a way that there software is free and
> compatible.
> 
> Not that I have any at the moment, but are there no alternatives?
> Some license that is acceptable to both sides?  Maybe we could contact
> the FSF or Creative Commons about the issue?  Should we?  They have a
> lot of legal expertise in this area.
> 
> [[gwp]] I don't see any alternatives, under the current GNU GPL license, of
> how to make something acceptable to both sides.
> 
> <snip..>
> 
> A lot of proprietary software companies will balk at contributing to
> GPL'd software, yes.  Other companies that rely less on competitivity
> strangling approaches to make a living don't and are happy to let any
> outsider contribute.  There is a lot of great software out there that
> is actively adopted and adapted to suit their needs by companies,
> governments and individuals alike.
> 
> [[gwp]] My experience is that companies, governments and individuals use the
> software for their own (internal) use and freely use any software available
> without worrying about repercussions.  But that is not the case for the
> software and api's being developed here.   They are public for use and not
> really targeted to sampling internal use.
> 
> FYI, a substantial part of CUPS is GPL.  The libraries are LGPL.
> 
> [[gwp]]  Yes CUPS is GPL but CUPS has also been strictly controlled in it
> development by its owner; a good thing perhaps.   As to LGPL; several patent
> lawyers I have talked with argue that LGPL is only superficially better than
> GNU GPL and have been advised to avoid using LGPL software. 
> 
> <snip..>
> 
> If you care about the OpenPrinting stuff getting used, you should
> consider whether a restrictive MIT license is in the best interest of
> OP stuff getting used, because as it is now it can't be used by a
> great deal of existing software.
> 
> [[gwp]] I go with original statement that the oal of Open-Printing, I
> believe, is coherence for printing; not software or license traps.
> 
> <snip..>
> 
> With a restricted MIT license they have just as much to worry about
> getting sued as with the GNU GPL.  Recalling the GPL violation that
> made EPSON AVASYS famous ;-), not once were we threatened with a law
> suit.  The FSF are very friendly people.  It's not the GNU GPL license
> violation that gets you sued (unless perhaps when you are extremely
> uncooperative and keep violating it) but your patent violations.  And
> these will get you sued no matter what license you use.
> 
> [[gwp]] Then explain to me why every patent lawyer and software development
> manager/engineer I have talked with, where proprietary software is involved,
> will not use or incorporate GNU GPL software.  
> 
> <snip..>
> 
> I personally believe Free Software stands to lose.  As a result, the
> individual user stands to lose as well.
> 
> [[gwp]] As you pointed out above, GNU GPL is "No Free Lunch" and is not
> free.  My goal and hope is that the modified MIT license is a "Free Lunch"
> and is free and that others will join if they are interesting truly free
> software.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Printing-architecture mailing list
> Printing-architecture@lists.linux-foundation.org
> https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/printing-architecture
> 

RE: [Printing-architecture] Posted OP Arch Minutes (11 July 2007)

[Petrie, Glen]

One thing I'd like to make clear from the beginning: I'm NOT lobbying
to change the license for OP work to the GNU GPL, but you already knew
that, right?  I am trying to arrive at a license that is acceptable to
proprietary software vendors as well as *compatible* with the GNU GPL
for the simple reason that the current "restricted MIT" license
prevents use of any OP created software by software under the GNU GPL.

[[gwp]]I don't believe there are any licenses that are compatible with GNU
GPL in relationship to proprietary software.   GNU GPL has as one of its
explicit functions to "trap" developers in releasing their software.  I have
talked with a many company representatives on the subject of using GNU GPL
software and all of them, without exception, state they never use GNU GPL
software in their products.

>  1) What kind of further restrictions is it that you are concerned
>     about?
>
> [gwp] The concern is that the work done by Open-Printing will be modified
> and put under a GNU GPL like license.  This will then invoke the software
> trap of GNU GPL and companies will stop using the Open-Printing stuff.
And
> that is the last thing we want.

You can't just go around modify things and change the licensing
conditions unless *all* copyright holders agree.  Just make sure that
all work done by OP is copyrighted by OP and OP can veto any license
changes.

[[gwp]] 1.) I am writing new code that based on software that was developed
under the MIT license from IBM.  So I am currently the only holder.  2.) I
have discussed the license with the others holders and they agreed with the
license modification. 3.) The Steering Committee of the OP has agreed to
this license and any attempt to change that license will result in
withdrawal of my software from Open-Printing.

What you *can* do is built something on top of OP work and put that
out under the GNU GPL.  However, that does not mean that the OP work
is or has to be re-licensed to GNU GPL.  We did this with PCM.  The
PCM daemon and plug-ins are MIT/X.  The CUPS and SANE samples are GPL.

# Or, at least I was quite sure that was the case this until I re-read
#
#   http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatIsCompatible
#   http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatDoesCompatMean
#
# Time for yet another round of GPL study and digging up some sample
# cases ... :-(

Also, keep in mind that anyone sufficiently determined (and the GNU
project qualifies) could make a clean room implentation of any OP spec
and release that under the GNU GPL.  Unless the license of the spec
works like the GNU GPL and extends its reach to any implementations by
claiming they are material modifications of the spec, that is.

>  2) Why single out the GNU GPL?  Is "any means" not good enough?
>     # Yes, I'm an FSF associate member.
>
> [gwp] Yes, "any means" would have been sufficient; however, identifying,
not
> singling out, GNU GPL was to make clear to both individual developers and
> companies that want to use the code that there is no licensing TRAP to
> release the developer's or company's software no matter if their software
is
> proprietary or open-source. 

Understood, but the language of your mail makes me sceptic about the
"identifying" part ;-}

>  3) Is this "restricted MIT" license compatible with the GNU GPL?
>     Like it or not, 50+% of the free software out there is GPL'd.
>     Some even estimate 75+%.  If the "restrictive MIT" license is
>     not GPL compatible, any OP code can not be legally combined
>     with GPL'd code[3].  Is the OP comfortable with that?  How
>     will that impact acceptance of OP standards?
>
> [gwp] The restricted MIT states that the software may be used by anyone.
> But in the sense since the GNU GPL has a TRAP that would re-license any
> integrated or associated software to become GNU GPL; then the answer is
no,
> the licenses are not compatible.  In fact the goal is to prevent
> Open-Printing stuff and the companies / individuals that use Open-printing
> stuff from being TRAPPED by "any means", including GNU GPL, and thus
> limiting the use of the Open-Printing stuff with proprietary software or
> other truly open-source software (not GNU GPL licensed). 

FWIW, the extra restriction triggers pretty much the same situation as
the "advertising clause" of the Original BSD license did.

  http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#OrigBSD

The only way for GPL'd software to use OP software under a restricted
MIT license would involve adding an exception to the license.  In
effect, the software has to be relicensed to use OP software.

  http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FSWithNFLibs
  http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs

Trying to imagine how this "trap prevention" scheme works for those on
the other side of our "ideological divide", I was left wondering how a
proprietary software vendor would create "any material modification"
without further restricting a user's "rights to use, copy, modify,
merge, publish, distribute, and/or sell copies" of it.

FYI, I interpret that clause to mean that the user gets *all* of those
rights, not just a meaningless subset that only contains "use".  How
would a proprietary software vendor not restrict my rights to copy,
modify, merge, publish, distribute and sell copies?  At least for the
modify and merge one would already need the source.

> [gwp] I personally believe that one of the primary goals of the
> Open-Printing activities has been and continues to be the development of
> printing architecture, documentation and software that can be used freely
by
> anyone without the concerns, worries and legal problems of the license
> associated with the software.  GNU GPL is the opposite of that.

The GNU GPL is "No Free Lunch", you pay for what you take.  That makes
perfect business sense to me.  It's just that you have to pay in a way
proprietary software vendors are not likely to like.

Back to the license the OP wants to use, I do think that a quest to
develop "printing architecture, documentation and software that can be
used freely by anyone without the concerns, worries and legal problems
of the license associated with the software" is a noble goal.  It's
just that the "restricted MIT" license puts a lot of people out in the
cold (unless they relicense) trying to achieve it.  In a way, adding
the restriction makes it impossible to satisfy what you quote as the
OP's primary goal as it can't make good on the "used freely by anyone"
part.

Not that I have any at the moment, but are there no alternatives?
Some license that is acceptable to both sides?  Maybe we could contact
the FSF or Creative Commons about the issue?  Should we?  They have a
lot of legal expertise in this area.

> [gwp] If the amount of software that FSF calls "free software" (and I use
> the term very loosely) is 75% or 95%; I don't think it matters.  Companies
> have and will always have proprietary software; that is what gives them a
> competitive advantage.  As long as GNU GPL "free software" has a mandatory
> "give back" TRAP of a company's software; companies will avoid integrating
> or using GNU GPL software directly.  They may take ideas or concepts but
> they will not use GNU GPL software directly with their proprietary
software.
> Some argue that they can even use the ideas and concepts.  This leads to a
> lot of great software from being adopted by companies that could go in
> products and, thus, be used.

A lot of proprietary software companies will balk at contributing to
GPL'd software, yes.  Other companies that rely less on competitivity
strangling approaches to make a living don't and are happy to let any
outsider contribute.  There is a lot of great software out there that
is actively adopted and adapted to suit their needs by companies,
governments and individuals alike.

FYI, a substantial part of CUPS is GPL.  The libraries are LGPL.

> [gwp] The goal of Open-Printing, I believe, is coherence for printing; not
> software or license traps.  I personally would encourage anyone to improve
> or directly use the Open-Printing stuff; but I personally don't care if
the
> stuff they use goes into their proprietary solution or an open-source
> solution; just as long as they use it and coherence for printing improves.
> I firmly believe that companies that would use Open-Printing stuff would
> provide, at least, feedback if they found something wrong or that
something
> needed improvement.   And, in a way, this is better method because the
> original authors of the Open-Printing stuff would re-integrate fixes or
new
> features in a coherent fashion based on their original knowledge.

If you care about the OpenPrinting stuff getting used, you should
consider whether a restrictive MIT license is in the best interest of
OP stuff getting used, because as it is now it can't be used by a
great deal of existing software.

> [gwp] Acceptance.  I believe Open-Printing software, concepts,
architectures
> and/or documentation that is licensed under the restricted MIT license
will
> have a greater acceptance both as a standard and as usable software.   We
> want both companies and individuals to accept and use Open-Printing stuff
> without trying to trap them by a license.   Companies will definitely be
> willing to use both the standard and software because it does not have
> traps.   Companies involved in printing are mid-size to large-size
> companies; they worry about be sued and will avoid situations that can
cause
> difficulties for them which is what GNU GPL does. 

With a restricted MIT license they have just as much to worry about
getting sued as with the GNU GPL.  Recalling the GPL violation that
made EPSON AVASYS famous ;-), not once were we threatened with a law
suit.  The FSF are very friendly people.  It's not the GNU GPL license
violation that gets you sued (unless perhaps when you are extremely
uncooperative and keep violating it) but your patent violations.  And
these will get you sued no matter what license you use.

> [gwp] I personally believe that everyone wins if we use restrictive MIT
> license.

I personally believe Free Software stands to lose.  As a result, the
individual user stands to lose as well.

Hope this helps,
-- 
Olaf Meeuwissen             FLOSS Engineer -- EPSON AVASYS Corporation
FSF Associate Member #1962           sign up at http://member.fsf.org/
GnuPG key: 6BE37D90/AB6B 0D1F 99E7 1BF5 EB97  976A 16C7 F27D 6BE3 7D90
Penguin's lib!       -- I hack, therefore I am --               LPIC-2

Re: [Printing-architecture] Posted OP Arch Minutes (11 July 2007)

[Petrie, Glen]

Olaf,...

 1) What kind of further restrictions is it that you are concerned
    about?

[gwp] The concern is that the work done by Open-Printing will be modified
and put under a GNU GPL like license.  This will then invoke the software
trap of GNU GPL and companies will stop using the Open-Printing stuff.  And
that is the last thing we want.

 2) Why single out the GNU GPL?  Is "any means" not good enough?
    # Yes, I'm an FSF associate member.

[gwp] Yes, "any means" would have been sufficient; however, identifying, not
singling out, GNU GPL was to make clear to both individual developers and
companies that want to use the code that there is no licensing TRAP to
release the developer's or company's software no matter if their software is
proprietary or open-source. 

 3) Is this "restricted MIT" license compatible with the GNU GPL?
    Like it or not, 50+% of the free software out there is GPL'd.
    Some even estimate 75+%.  If the "restrictive MIT" license is
    not GPL compatible, any OP code can not be legally combined
    with GPL'd code[3].  Is the OP comfortable with that?  How
    will that impact acceptance of OP standards?

[gwp] The restricted MIT states that the software may be used by anyone.
But in the sense since the GNU GPL has a TRAP that would re-license any
integrated or associated software to become GNU GPL; then the answer is no,
the licenses are not compatible.  In fact the goal is to prevent
Open-Printing stuff and the companies / individuals that use Open-printing
stuff from being TRAPPED by "any means", including GNU GPL, and thus
limiting the use of the Open-Printing stuff with proprietary software or
other truly open-source software (not GNU GPL licensed). 

[gwp] I personally believe that one of the primary goals of the
Open-Printing activities has been and continues to be the development of
printing architecture, documentation and software that can be used freely by
anyone without the concerns, worries and legal problems of the license
associated with the software.  GNU GPL is the opposite of that.

[gwp] If the amount of software that FSF calls "free software" (and I use
the term very loosely) is 75% or 95%; I don't think it matters.  Companies
have and will always have proprietary software; that is what gives them a
competitive advantage.  As long as GNU GPL "free software" has a mandatory
"give back" TRAP of a company's software; companies will avoid integrating
or using GNU GPL software directly.  They may take ideas or concepts but
they will not use GNU GPL software directly with their proprietary software.
Some argue that they can even use the ideas and concepts.  This leads to a
lot of great software from being adopted by companies that could go in
products and, thus, be used.

[gwp] The goal of Open-Printing, I believe, is coherence for printing; not
software or license traps.  I personally would encourage anyone to improve
or directly use the Open-Printing stuff; but I personally don't care if the
stuff they use goes into their proprietary solution or an open-source
solution; just as long as they use it and coherence for printing improves.
I firmly believe that companies that would use Open-Printing stuff would
provide, at least, feedback if they found something wrong or that something
needed improvement.   And, in a way, this is better method because the
original authors of the Open-Printing stuff would re-integrate fixes or new
features in a coherent fashion based on their original knowledge.

[gwp] Acceptance.  I believe Open-Printing software, concepts, architectures
and/or documentation that is licensed under the restricted MIT license will
have a greater acceptance both as a standard and as usable software.   We
want both companies and individuals to accept and use Open-Printing stuff
without trying to trap them by a license.   Companies will definitely be
willing to use both the standard and software because it does not have
traps.   Companies involved in printing are mid-size to large-size
companies; they worry about be sued and will avoid situations that can cause
difficulties for them which is what GNU GPL does. 

[gwp] I personally believe that everyone wins if we use restrictive MIT
license.





Ok, so that was really 1) + 2) + 3) = 6 questions ;-)

[1]
http://lists.freestandards.org/pipermail/printing-architecture/2007/001772.h
tml
[2] http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php
[3] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html
-- 
Olaf Meeuwissen             FLOSS Engineer -- EPSON AVASYS Corporation
FSF Associate Member #1962           sign up at http://member.fsf.org/
GnuPG key: 6BE37D90/AB6B 0D1F 99E7 1BF5 EB97  976A 16C7 F27D 6BE3 7D90
Penguin's lib!       -- I hack, therefore I am --               LPIC-2

_______________________________________________
Printing-architecture mailing list
Printing-architecture@lists.freestandards.org
http://lists.freestandards.org/mailman/listinfo/printing-architecture

Re: [Printing-architecture] Posted OP Arch Minutes (11 July 2007)

[Olaf Meeuwissen]

"Petrie, Glen" <glen.petrie@eitc.epson.com> writes:

> Olaf,...

Glen, thanks for your detailed reply and apologies for my belated
reply.  I now understand your (and the rest of the architecture
group's) concerns a lot better.
# Not that I necessarily agree, but that's another matter.

One thing I'd like to make clear from the beginning: I'm NOT lobbying
to change the license for OP work to the GNU GPL, but you already knew
that, right?  I am trying to arrive at a license that is acceptable to
proprietary software vendors as well as *compatible* with the GNU GPL
for the simple reason that the current "restricted MIT" license
prevents use of any OP created software by software under the GNU GPL.

>  1) What kind of further restrictions is it that you are concerned
>     about?
>
> [gwp] The concern is that the work done by Open-Printing will be modified
> and put under a GNU GPL like license.  This will then invoke the software
> trap of GNU GPL and companies will stop using the Open-Printing stuff.  And
> that is the last thing we want.

You can't just go around modify things and change the licensing
conditions unless *all* copyright holders agree.  Just make sure that
all work done by OP is copyrighted by OP and OP can veto any license
changes.

What you *can* do is built something on top of OP work and put that
out under the GNU GPL.  However, that does not mean that the OP work
is or has to be re-licensed to GNU GPL.  We did this with PCM.  The
PCM daemon and plug-ins are MIT/X.  The CUPS and SANE samples are GPL.

# Or, at least I was quite sure that was the case this until I re-read
#
#   http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatIsCompatible
#   http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatDoesCompatMean
#
# Time for yet another round of GPL study and digging up some sample
# cases ... :-(

Also, keep in mind that anyone sufficiently determined (and the GNU
project qualifies) could make a clean room implentation of any OP spec
and release that under the GNU GPL.  Unless the license of the spec
works like the GNU GPL and extends its reach to any implementations by
claiming they are material modifications of the spec, that is.

>  2) Why single out the GNU GPL?  Is "any means" not good enough?
>     # Yes, I'm an FSF associate member.
>
> [gwp] Yes, "any means" would have been sufficient; however, identifying, not
> singling out, GNU GPL was to make clear to both individual developers and
> companies that want to use the code that there is no licensing TRAP to
> release the developer's or company's software no matter if their software is
> proprietary or open-source. 

Understood, but the language of your mail makes me sceptic about the
"identifying" part ;-}

>  3) Is this "restricted MIT" license compatible with the GNU GPL?
>     Like it or not, 50+% of the free software out there is GPL'd.
>     Some even estimate 75+%.  If the "restrictive MIT" license is
>     not GPL compatible, any OP code can not be legally combined
>     with GPL'd code[3].  Is the OP comfortable with that?  How
>     will that impact acceptance of OP standards?
>
> [gwp] The restricted MIT states that the software may be used by anyone.
> But in the sense since the GNU GPL has a TRAP that would re-license any
> integrated or associated software to become GNU GPL; then the answer is no,
> the licenses are not compatible.  In fact the goal is to prevent
> Open-Printing stuff and the companies / individuals that use Open-printing
> stuff from being TRAPPED by "any means", including GNU GPL, and thus
> limiting the use of the Open-Printing stuff with proprietary software or
> other truly open-source software (not GNU GPL licensed). 

FWIW, the extra restriction triggers pretty much the same situation as
the "advertising clause" of the Original BSD license did.

  http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#OrigBSD

The only way for GPL'd software to use OP software under a restricted
MIT license would involve adding an exception to the license.  In
effect, the software has to be relicensed to use OP software.

  http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FSWithNFLibs
  http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs

Trying to imagine how this "trap prevention" scheme works for those on
the other side of our "ideological divide", I was left wondering how a
proprietary software vendor would create "any material modification"
without further restricting a user's "rights to use, copy, modify,
merge, publish, distribute, and/or sell copies" of it.

FYI, I interpret that clause to mean that the user gets *all* of those
rights, not just a meaningless subset that only contains "use".  How
would a proprietary software vendor not restrict my rights to copy,
modify, merge, publish, distribute and sell copies?  At least for the
modify and merge one would already need the source.

> [gwp] I personally believe that one of the primary goals of the
> Open-Printing activities has been and continues to be the development of
> printing architecture, documentation and software that can be used freely by
> anyone without the concerns, worries and legal problems of the license
> associated with the software.  GNU GPL is the opposite of that.

The GNU GPL is "No Free Lunch", you pay for what you take.  That makes
perfect business sense to me.  It's just that you have to pay in a way
proprietary software vendors are not likely to like.

Back to the license the OP wants to use, I do think that a quest to
develop "printing architecture, documentation and software that can be
used freely by anyone without the concerns, worries and legal problems
of the license associated with the software" is a noble goal.  It's
just that the "restricted MIT" license puts a lot of people out in the
cold (unless they relicense) trying to achieve it.  In a way, adding
the restriction makes it impossible to satisfy what you quote as the
OP's primary goal as it can't make good on the "used freely by anyone"
part.

Not that I have any at the moment, but are there no alternatives?
Some license that is acceptable to both sides?  Maybe we could contact
the FSF or Creative Commons about the issue?  Should we?  They have a
lot of legal expertise in this area.

> [gwp] If the amount of software that FSF calls "free software" (and I use
> the term very loosely) is 75% or 95%; I don't think it matters.  Companies
> have and will always have proprietary software; that is what gives them a
> competitive advantage.  As long as GNU GPL "free software" has a mandatory
> "give back" TRAP of a company's software; companies will avoid integrating
> or using GNU GPL software directly.  They may take ideas or concepts but
> they will not use GNU GPL software directly with their proprietary software.
> Some argue that they can even use the ideas and concepts.  This leads to a
> lot of great software from being adopted by companies that could go in
> products and, thus, be used.

A lot of proprietary software companies will balk at contributing to
GPL'd software, yes.  Other companies that rely less on competitivity
strangling approaches to make a living don't and are happy to let any
outsider contribute.  There is a lot of great software out there that
is actively adopted and adapted to suit their needs by companies,
governments and individuals alike.

FYI, a substantial part of CUPS is GPL.  The libraries are LGPL.

> [gwp] The goal of Open-Printing, I believe, is coherence for printing; not
> software or license traps.  I personally would encourage anyone to improve
> or directly use the Open-Printing stuff; but I personally don't care if the
> stuff they use goes into their proprietary solution or an open-source
> solution; just as long as they use it and coherence for printing improves.
> I firmly believe that companies that would use Open-Printing stuff would
> provide, at least, feedback if they found something wrong or that something
> needed improvement.   And, in a way, this is better method because the
> original authors of the Open-Printing stuff would re-integrate fixes or new
> features in a coherent fashion based on their original knowledge.

If you care about the OpenPrinting stuff getting used, you should
consider whether a restrictive MIT license is in the best interest of
OP stuff getting used, because as it is now it can't be used by a
great deal of existing software.

> [gwp] Acceptance.  I believe Open-Printing software, concepts, architectures
> and/or documentation that is licensed under the restricted MIT license will
> have a greater acceptance both as a standard and as usable software.   We
> want both companies and individuals to accept and use Open-Printing stuff
> without trying to trap them by a license.   Companies will definitely be
> willing to use both the standard and software because it does not have
> traps.   Companies involved in printing are mid-size to large-size
> companies; they worry about be sued and will avoid situations that can cause
> difficulties for them which is what GNU GPL does. 

With a restricted MIT license they have just as much to worry about
getting sued as with the GNU GPL.  Recalling the GPL violation that
made EPSON AVASYS famous ;-), not once were we threatened with a law
suit.  The FSF are very friendly people.  It's not the GNU GPL license
violation that gets you sued (unless perhaps when you are extremely
uncooperative and keep violating it) but your patent violations.  And
these will get you sued no matter what license you use.

> [gwp] I personally believe that everyone wins if we use restrictive MIT
> license.

I personally believe Free Software stands to lose.  As a result, the
individual user stands to lose as well.

Hope this helps,
-- 
Olaf Meeuwissen             FLOSS Engineer -- EPSON AVASYS Corporation
FSF Associate Member #1962           sign up at http://member.fsf.org/
GnuPG key: 6BE37D90/AB6B 0D1F 99E7 1BF5 EB97  976A 16C7 F27D 6BE3 7D90
Penguin's lib!       -- I hack, therefore I am --               LPIC-2

[Printing-architecture] Posted OP Arch Minutes (11 July 2007)

[Ira McDonald]

Minutes from yesterday's OP Architecture teleconference at:

ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/fsg/architecture/OP-Arch-Minutes-20070711.htm
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/fsg/architecture/OP-Arch-Minutes-20070711.pdf

Cheers,
- Ira

-- 
Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
Blue Roof Music / High North Inc
PO Box 221  Grand Marais, MI  49839
phone: +1-906-494-2434
email: blueroofmusic@gmail.com

Re: [Printing-architecture] Posted OP Arch Minutes (11 July 2007)

[Olaf Meeuwissen]

"Ira McDonald" <blueroofmusic@gmail.com> writes:

> Minutes from yesterday's OP Architecture teleconference at:
>
> ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/fsg/architecture/OP-Arch-Minutes-20070711.htm

Reading the minutes, I was a bit puzzled as to the reasons behind the
below:

    - Discussion
      - License - strong objections to GPL from Glen Petrie/others

    - Resolution
      - All OP code/specs should use restricted MIT - no GPL pollution

I assume that "restricted MIT" refers to the license Glen posted[1] to
the list earlier.  Compared to the MIT license[2], this "restricted"
version drops "sublicense," from the rights and adds the following
condition:

  The rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, and/or
  sell copies of this Software or any material modification there of
  shall not be further restricted by any means, including, but not
  limited to, the GNU General Public License.

I have three questions:

 1) What kind of further restrictions is it that you are concerned
    about?

 2) Why single out the GNU GPL?  Is "any means" not good enough?
    # Yes, I'm an FSF associate member.

 3) Is this "restricted MIT" license compatible with the GNU GPL?
    Like it or not, 50+% of the free software out there is GPL'd.
    Some even estimate 75+%.  If the "restrictive MIT" license is
    not GPL compatible, any OP code can not be legally combined
    with GPL'd code[3].  Is the OP comfortable with that?  How
    will that impact acceptance of OP standards?

Ok, so that was really 1) + 2) + 3) = 6 questions ;-)

[1] http://lists.freestandards.org/pipermail/printing-architecture/2007/001772.html
[2] http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php
[3] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html
-- 
Olaf Meeuwissen             FLOSS Engineer -- EPSON AVASYS Corporation
FSF Associate Member #1962           sign up at http://member.fsf.org/
GnuPG key: 6BE37D90/AB6B 0D1F 99E7 1BF5 EB97  976A 16C7 F27D 6BE3 7D90
Penguin's lib!       -- I hack, therefore I am --               LPIC-2