[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]
Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] OSS License

To: personal_submersibles@psubs.org
Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] OSS License
From: Ian Roxborough <irox@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 10:37:19 -0800
In-reply-to: <20030129175243.7828.qmail@linuxmail.org>
References: <20030129175243.7828.qmail@linuxmail.org>
On Thu, 30 Jan 2003 01:52:43 +0800
"Warrend Greenway" <dub@linuxmail.org> wrote:

> Well, I don't see how we can prevent the commercial use of good
> ideas that we post publicly.

That's similar to saying we can't prevent people using GPL'd code
in proprietry products.  We can prevent the commercial use of
our ideas because they are our IP.  This is how we can do things
like decide to license our ideas under the GPL, we can just as
easily license our ideas under a license forbidding commercial use. 

Previously I've pointed out that if we imposs commercial restrictions
then it's not really open source and we can not use the GPL to
license our ideas.  Carsten has said he will not contribute unless
this is a non-commercial use project (correct me if I'm wrong), I
believe this was to due to worries about liability law (which differ
from country to country).

Does the GPL's "no warrantee" section satisfy these concerns for everybody?

Personally, I like the GPL just as it is.  But we've got to take
everybodies concerns and terms into account before we decide what
our license is going to be.

Ian.

P.S.: the last two companies I've worked for have made money and paid
my wage selling GPL'd software and support for GPL'd software 
(Cygnus Solutions and Red Hat).  I would perfer to see a commercially
compatible license, but if we can't do it I don't see it as a big deal.


> We can limit how they are used, which is what the GPL does. In 
> other words, if a commercial entity uses part of our design then
> they have to make public any additions they make to the original
> design. This allows a give and take relationship. Are there any
> concerns with this? You can read the GPL at gnu.org.
> 
> Warren.
> 
> > 
> > Personally, I like the GPL, but I'd like to point out that it
> > has never been tested in a court of law.  It also doesn't not address
> > the concerns of some people, that the OSS should not be used for
> > commerical purposes, I'm interpreting the non-commerical part to be
> > the plans and design docs to the OSS and any submarine built from
> > the plans.
> > 
> > I would prefer to just use the GPL, but we must address other peoples
> > concerns as well.
> > 
> > Ian.
> > 
> > On Thu, 30 Jan 2003 00:13:27 +0800
> > "Warrend Greenway" <dub@linuxmail.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > That is how I interpreted it, as well. The preamble would be
> > > where you would state your warranty position. The nature of the
> > > GPL doesn't allow a warranty anyhow. I am looking into the legal
> > > entity part now. Thanks for the input.
> > > 
> > > Warren.
> > > 
> > > > Well, this would solve plenty of problems... like finding an attourney
> > > > willing to do pro bono work.  The GPL is well researched and tested. 
> > > > The only item I could see would be to go through the application
> > > > procedure and get it covered before anything is etched in silicon.  We
> > > > will probably need to be set up as a legal entity of some kind... PSUBS
> > > > would probably qualify... or else issue the license to a single
> > > > individual.  Now, somebody might well take the design and go into
> > > > production... though I suspect that this would not be as much of a
> > > > problem as it could be.  The GPL actually encourages this.  
> > > > 
> > > > What the GPL will protect us from is an individual or legal entity
> > > > taking our OSS and copyrighting the design and then trying to charge us
> > > > for using our own design.  That would suck.  The other item is one of
> > > > warranty... there is none.  As I understand it, if somebody builds this
> > > > from our specs, they do so at their own risk.  If they tangle with
> > > > heteroteuthis Harvei (not sure I got the spelling right), and end up
> > > > being crushed in its tentacles and eaten, nobody can sue us.  In fact,
> > > > if they dive to the bottom of their own swimming pool and the hull
> > > > collapses because of our design flaw, we would still be covered... in
> > > > theory.
> > > > 
> > > > The fact that there will be absolutely no warranty needs to be made
> > > > abundantly clear in any documentation that we eventually release.
> > > > 
> > > > On Tue, 2003-01-28 at 10:20, Warrend Greenway wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > They recommended the GPL, of which they already have a form
> > > > > intended for non-software documents. The FSF is interested in
> > > > > promoting the free exchange of information. As for liability,
> > > > > that is one of the reasons that any hardware is totally out of
> > > > > the question. Furthermore, they already cover software that
> > > > > is medical, and aerospace in nature. It sounds like they are
> > > > > simply interested in helping to make this kind of information
> > > > > available to the public. Hhhmmmm. Digital signature, though...
> > > > > I will check the message, I can have them put it on paper...But
> > > > > they said that there were already projects that dealt with designs
> > > > > like this under their protection.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Warren.
> > > > > 
> > > > > > Warren, which of their licenses did they recommend?  Did the agreement
> > > > > > come with any kind of digital signature that can be verified?  I'm a bit
> > > > > > surprised that they would be so quick to agree to something like this so
> > > > > > early in the project... submersibles are inherently lawsuits waiting to
> > > > > > happen.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > On Mon, 2003-01-27 at 13:51, Warrend Greenway wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Hey, Dale. I contacted the FSF (Free Software Foundation), and
> > > > > > > they agreed to harbor us under their legal umbrella. Any input
> > > > > > > on this? They said that they are already covering similar projects,
> > > > > > > and that they only problem would be hardware...Which we don't
> > > > > > > want to cover anyhow. This would mean that we would be covered
> > > > > > > under the GPL with a preamble. I am open to any discussion on this
> > > > > > > point. The GPL would have some drawbacks, but it would solve our
> > > > > > > license problems and give us a legal shield.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Warren.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Dale A. Raby
> > > > > > Editor/Publisher
> > > > > > The Green Bay Web
> > > > > > http://www.thegreenbayweb.com
> > > > > << dalesignature.gif >>
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Dale A. Raby
> > > > Editor/Publisher
> > > > The Green Bay Web
> > > > http://www.thegreenbayweb.com
> > > << dalesignature.gif >>
> > > 
> > > -- 
> > > ______________________________________________
> > > http://www.linuxmail.org/
> > > Now with e-mail forwarding for only US$5.95/yr
> > > 
> > > Powered by Outblaze
> 
> -- 
> ______________________________________________
> http://www.linuxmail.org/
> Now with e-mail forwarding for only US$5.95/yr
> 
> Powered by Outblaze
Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] ideas and learning
  - From: "Herve" <caribsub@coqui.net>
References:
- Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] OSS License
  - From: "Warrend Greenway" <dub@linuxmail.org>
Prev by Date: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] OSS Embedded Controllers
Next by Date: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] OSS Pressure hull basic layout.
Index(es):
- Chronological
- Thread