Artistic License (license to steal?) - Open Source copyrights

[Jon Skeet [C# MVP]]

Yeah but look at the terms of the artistic license--it's nearly as bad
as GPL (not that I've studied GPL but I can imagine).

How can you compare two things when you don't know anything about one
of them?

What would you think of someone who saw a painting and said, "That's
nearly as good as a Van Gogh. I haven't seen a Van Gogh, but I can
imagine." ?

Here's the part of the Wikipedia GPL entry which talks about the GPL's
"viral" nature:

<quote>
The GPL has been described as being "viral" by many of its critics
because the GPL only allows conveyance of whole programs, which means
that programmers are not allowed to convey programs that link to
libraries having GPL-incompatible licenses. The so-called "viral"
effect of this is that under such circumstances disparately licensed
software cannot be combined unless one of the licenses is changed.
Although theoretically either license could be changed, in the "viral"
scenario the GPL cannot be practically changed (because the software
may have so many contributors, some of whom will likely refuse),
whereas the license of the other software can be practically changed.
</quote>

Now, please show where that applies in the artistic licence, or
withdraw the suggestion that the artistic licence is viral.

As I pointed out to you, there's not much you can do with works
covered by artistic license except modify it (and documenting all
changes with tedious man pages), negotiate with the owner, or, on a
point we dispute, use it in- house

Nonsense. You can use it without modification *very* easily, and even
with modification you can use it *quite* easily, without exposing the
rest of your source code. You have no evidence for the supposed
"viral" nature of the artistic licence.

(I say if the in-house use is ultimately for commercial purposes, it
doesn't qualify as 'in-house' but you disagree--on this point we
agree to disagree).

You're claiming this with *no* evidence. Please point out which part of
the licence says this.

Without being able to refer to anything explicitly in the licence, all
your scaremongering is just FUD.

 

[raylopez99]

BTW, you should have been able to figure it out, because an
open source license can not prevent commercial usage.

http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd (item #6)

Well you must be an EFL student like me. English not your first
langauge, eh foreigner Arne?

Reed this passage carefully:

"

6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor

The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in
a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the
program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic
research.

"

This simply means with the Open Source cannot be used to restrict
somebody from, say, using it in the pornography business or field.
It's got nothing to do with commercialization.

RL

 

[raylopez99]

How can you compare two things when you don't know anything about one
of them?

In my mind's eye.

Here's the part of the Wikipedia GPL entry which talks about the GPL's
"viral" nature:

<quote>
The GPL has been described as being "viral" by many of its critics
because the GPL only allows conveyance of whole programs, which means
that programmers are not allowed to convey programs that link to
libraries having GPL-incompatible licenses. The so-called "viral"
effect of this is that under such circumstances disparately licensed
software cannot be combined unless one of the licenses is changed.
Although theoretically either license could be changed, in the "viral"
scenario the GPL cannot be practically changed (because the software
may have so many contributors, some of whom will likely refuse),
whereas the license of the other software can be practically changed.
</quote>

Now, please show where that applies in the artistic licence, or
withdraw the suggestion that the artistic licence is viral.

No. Please withdraw your suggestion that it's not. Read the below.
Are you an EFL student too? Like Arne and I? You have no excuse,
since english is your first language. Read then:

/*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artistic_License

You may otherwise modify your copy of this Package in any way,
provided that you insert a prominent notice in each changed file
stating how and when you changed that file, and provided that you do
at least ONE of the following:

a) place your modifications in the Public Domain or otherwise make
them Freely Available, such as by posting said modifications to
Usenet
or an equivalent medium, or placing the modifications on a major
archive site such as uunet.uu.net, or by allowing the Copyright
Holder
to include your modifications in the Standard Version of the Package.
b) use the modified Package only within your corporation or
organization.
c) rename any non-standard executables so the names do not conflict
with standard executables, which must also be provided, and provide a
separate manual page for each non-standard executable that clearly
documents how it differs from the Standard Version.
d) make other distribution arrangements with the Copyright Holder.



*/

FYI, FUD-denier, here is the definition of package:
http://www.perlfoundation.org/artistic_license_1_0
"Package" refers to the collection of files distributed by the
Copyright Holder, and derivatives of that collection of files created
through textual modification.

What part of "Package" don't you understand? Don't you see that
'derivatives' would encompass anything you do with the original code?
So essentially your whole software project that incorporates this
poisonous 'artistic license' source code is toast, and virally
infected by the same.

Nonsense. You can use it without modification *very* easily, and even
with modification you can use it *quite* easily, without exposing the
rest of your source code. You have no evidence for the supposed
"viral" nature of the artistic licence.

B.S. Jon. You only can do the four things listed above, as options a)
through d). Quite trying to mollify everybody. That's as dangerous
as FUD--worse even--since you're leading readers into a false sense of
security. And somebody in your position should know better. I can
always say "I was just flaming" and nobody relies on what I say, but
you're in a different boat. You're leading gullible readers down a
primrose path of destruction, to mix my metaphors. Shame on you. Or
maybe you work for the "Artistic License Society of England", eh?
Good for business for this license to be adopted widely, eh? Then
after it's widely adopted you can swoop in and claim royalties from
everybody. Trojan horse tactic, I'm familiar with that thank you very
much.

You're claiming this with *no* evidence. Please point out which part of
the licence says this.

The english language, as defined by Bill Shakespeare and William "Ben"
Jonson. Can you reed? Read this: "b) use the modified Package only
within your corporation or
organization. ". Do you think artistic license code that is used to
build stuff that ships commercially, even if that code is for
prototyping, is "only within your corporation"? Methinks not. "Only
within" means the code never is used, even as helper code, for
anything that ships or is used outside the four walls of your
corporation. Nuff said.

Without being able to refer to anything explicitly in the licence, all
your scaremongering is just FUD.

Like I said, the most liberal or catholic part of the license is
option "c)", and you've not refuted me on that. You wanna be writing
a man page for every artistic license block of code that you modify,
"[the] separate manual page for each non-standard executable that
clearly documents how it differs from the Standard Version. "? How it
differs. Now, if you want to be too clever by half, you can say that
your man page will simply state "my derivatives *DO NOT* differ at
all--they are copied verbatim from the artistic license code!" But
this schoolboy trick will not work, since you run afoul of the first
part of that paragraph: "You may otherwise modify your copy of this
Package in any way, provided that you insert a prominent notice in
each changed file stating how and when you changed that file, and
provided that you do at least ONE of the following:"

Thus, you cannot modify (and you infringe the copyright) unless you
can do at least ONE (emphasis in the original) of the following four
options a) through d).

Nuff said. Use artistic licenses at your peril. Unless you are a
penniless hobbiest like me. Or you?

RL

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

Well you must be an EFL student like me. English not your first
langauge, eh foreigner Arne?

Reed this passage carefully:

"

6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor

The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in
a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the
program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic
research.

"

This simply means with the Open Source cannot be used to restrict
somebody from, say, using it in the pornography business or field.
It's got nothing to do with commercialization.

No.

"in a business" means commercial !

Arne

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

No.

"in a business" means commercial !

That becomes very clear when you read the annotations at:

http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php (see item #6 again)

Arne

 

[Jon Skeet [C# MVP]]

In my mind's eye.

Fortunately, the law doesn't consist of what you imagine. It consists
of what's actually in the licence you agree to by using the software.

No. Please withdraw your suggestion that it's not. Read the below.
Are you an EFL student too? Like Arne and I? You have no excuse,
since english is your first language. Read then:

FYI, FUD-denier, here is the definition of package:
http://www.perlfoundation.org/artistic_license_1_0
"Package" refers to the collection of files distributed by the
Copyright Holder, and derivatives of that collection of files created
through textual modification.

What part of "Package" don't you understand? Don't you see that
'derivatives' would encompass anything you do with the original code?

No, it wouldn't. If I create an online game which happens to use a
library for its HTTP communications, only changes to that library would
be included in "the package". The best way to achieve that in .NET
would be to keep the library itself in a separate assembly, and release
changes made in that assembly. At that point you're distributing a
modified version of the package, and a larger program which uses that
modified version.

So essentially your whole software project that incorporates this
poisonous 'artistic license' source code is toast, and virally
infected by the same.

Nope.

Perhaps if you don't believe me, you'll believe Larry Wall, who wrote
the artistic licence in the first place.

From http://www.linux.com/feature/14792

<quote>
"I was a little bothered when Microsoft, or one part of Microsoft
labels Perl's artistic license as potentially viral," said Wall,
explaining that he had written Perl's license as an antidote to the
GPL.

B.S. Jon. You only can do the four things listed above, as options a)
through d).

Those options are only relevant if you actually want to *modify* the
package. Otherwise, clause 4 is relevant:

<quote>
4.You may distribute the programs of this Package in object code or
executable form, provided that you do at least ONE of the following:

a) distribute a Standard Version of the executables and library files,
together with instructions (in the manual page or equivalent) on where
to get the Standard Version.
b) accompany the distribution with the machine-readable source of the
Package with your modifications.
c) give non-standard executables non-standard names, and clearly
document the differences in manual pages (or equivalent), together with
instructions on where to get the Standard Version.
d) make other distribution arrangements with the Copyright Holder.
</quote>

4a is the most commonly used option - you include an acknowledgement in
your user manual, or readme, or whatever, saying where you got the
code. Easy.

Quite trying to mollify everybody. That's as dangerous
as FUD--worse even--since you're leading readers into a false sense of
security. And somebody in your position should know better. I can
always say "I was just flaming" and nobody relies on what I say, but
you're in a different boat. You're leading gullible readers down a
primrose path of destruction, to mix my metaphors. Shame on you. Or
maybe you work for the "Artistic License Society of England", eh?
Good for business for this license to be adopted widely, eh? Then
after it's widely adopted you can swoop in and claim royalties from
everybody. Trojan horse tactic, I'm familiar with that thank you very
much.
LOL.


The english language, as defined by Bill Shakespeare and William "Ben"
Jonson.

Have you noticed how everyone else in this thread, reading the same
licence, has agreed with my reading rather than yours? The artistic
licence is well-known to be a permissive one. You're the only person
I've ever heard trying to claim it's viral and akin to the GPL.

Can you reed? Read this: "b) use the modified Package only
within your corporation or
organization. ". Do you think artistic license code that is used to
build stuff that ships commercially, even if that code is for
prototyping, is "only within your corporation"? Methinks not.

Absolutely it is.

"Only within" means the code never is used, even as helper code, for
anything that ships or is used outside the four walls of your
corporation. Nuff said.

No it doesn't. It means that the code is never distributed beyond your
organisation. If you run a server which executes the code (e.g. for
database access) and then provides the results to the user, that is in
no way distributing the code. You are only *using* it within your
organisation.

Like I said, the most liberal or catholic part of the license is
option "c)", and you've not refuted me on that.

It's an *option*. One of four options, and only even necessary if you
modify the package, which most people won't.

You wanna be writing
a man page for every artistic license block of code that you modify,
"[the] separate manual page for each non-standard executable that
clearly documents how it differs from the Standard Version. "? How it
differs. Now, if you want to be too clever by half, you can say that
your man page will simply state "my derivatives *DO NOT* differ at
all--they are copied verbatim from the artistic license code!" #

No, because at that point I wouldn't be taking up option c. I would use
option 4a.

But this schoolboy trick will not work, since you run afoul of the
first part of that paragraph: "You may otherwise modify your copy of
this Package in any way, provided that you insert a prominent notice
in each changed file stating how and when you changed that file, and
provided that you do at least ONE of the following:"

Thus, you cannot modify (and you infringe the copyright) unless you
can do at least ONE (emphasis in the original) of the following four
options a) through d).

Um, that means the "schoolboy trick" *would* work, if it were actually
necessary - but it isn't.

Nuff said. Use artistic licenses at your peril. Unless you are a
penniless hobbiest like me. Or you?

No, I work in a multinational corporation which uses open source
extensively. Every company I've previously worked at has used open
source extensively too. At each company there have been lawyers poring
over the licences of code we've used. They haven't been happy with the
idea of distributing code linking to GPL code (understandably); they've
just about allowed (sometimes after a struggle) distributing code
linking to LGPL code. They've not had any problem with Apache, BSD,
artistic etc licences.

 

[Ken Foskey]

But don't take my word for it...not my field.

Of all your posts. This is the one point I have to agree with. I
suggest reading groklaw for a while to get the feel of copyright law
instead of showing your ignorance of the subject.

Using your definition of 'distribution' via HTTP use then Googles Linux
farm is subject to code release because it is exposed to HTTP. I have
never seen this argued ever, and I don't expect it ever to be.

Ken

 

[raylopez99]

raylopez99 wrote:

No.

"in a business" means commercial !

Arne

OK, you win on this point, but still, even in a business, you have to
comply with the license, which means, for the artistic license we are
discussing, picking one of the four options a) through d).

RL

 

[raylopez99]

Nope.

Yep. See the link you cited: http://www.linux.com/feature/14792 if
this wasn't an issue, why would MSFT even mention it? Clearly it's
not unambiguous.

Perhaps if you don't believe me, you'll believe Larry Wall, who wrote
the artistic licence in the first place.

Fromhttp://www.linux.com/feature/14792

Proves my point. Read between the lines and ignore the usual FUD
about Microsoft (MSFT).

<quote>
"I was a little bothered when Microsoft, or one part of Microsoft
labels Perl's artistic license as potentially viral," said Wall,
explaining that he had written Perl's license as an antidote to the
GPL.
</quote>

Well, a critic of MSFT can't be trusted, can he?

Those options are only relevant if you actually want to *modify* the
package. Otherwise, clause 4 is relevant:

OK, I concede this, but you then, by your own logic, concede these
four options a) - d) *are* relevant and *are* viral for *modified*
code.

4a is the most commonly used option - you include an acknowledgement in
your user manual, or readme, or whatever, saying where you got the
code. Easy.

You are correct--but changing the goal posts. Yes, if you do nothing
to the artistic license code, and distribute as is, then yes, option
4a (a different option than what we've discussed to date) applies.
But, the minute you make the most minute change to the artistic
license code, you run afoul of the other four options I've discussed--
and at this point your entire project is contaminated, unless you
comply with one of the onerous options we've discussed.

Have you noticed how everyone else in this thread, reading the same
licence, has agreed with my reading rather than yours? The artistic
licence is well-known to be a permissive one. You're the only person
I've ever heard trying to claim it's viral and akin to the GPL.

Because they hate Microsoft.

Um, that means the "schoolboy trick" *would* work, if it were actually
necessary - but it isn't.

Yes, you got me on that. Indeed, as you pointed out in your last
thread, the one I'm replying to, if you do nothing to the artistic
license code then you only have to acknowledge it--which is not
onerous at all and quite generous to the non-author user. But,
contrary to what you assert, how many people 'do nothing' to such
artistic license code? I doubt very many, though you could be
right.

No, I work in a multinational corporation which uses open source
extensively.

Yeah, and if it's Google it explains your anti-MSFT stance. But let's
not get personal over this, as you cannot dump on your employer, and I
don't want you to (BTW I am a MSFT shareholder, just to show my bias).

They haven't been happy with the
idea of distributing code linking to GPL code (understandably); they've
just about allowed (sometimes after a struggle) distributing code
linking to LGPL code. They've not had any problem with Apache, BSD,
artistic etc licences.

Admission noted. They've not had problems with certain specific well
tailored licenses. But this artistic license was 'bizarre' if I
recall the news story--that's why it was litigated--not at all like
the tamer Apache, BSD etc licenses.

Thanks for your time. I originally was trying to do a bit of trolling
with this story but in the process actually learned a few things.
Namely, if you don't touch the artistic license code we've discussed
and as was recently litigated, it's not viral, otherwise, it is, and
you have to comply with one of the onerous four options we originally
discussed early on in this thread.

Goodbye

RL

 

[raylopez99]

Using your definition of 'distribution' via HTTP use then Googles Linux
farm is subject to code release because it is exposed to HTTP.  I have
never seen this argued ever, and I don't expect it ever to be.

I vaguely recall in fact such as argument was made. It was in some
minor litigation, and it was just a lawyer's 'talking point', nothing
serious. I think and I agree it's a weak argument, but one that could
and I believe has been made.

RL

 

[Jon Skeet [C# MVP]]

Yep. See the link you cited: http://www.linux.com/feature/14792 if
this wasn't an issue, why would MSFT even mention it? Clearly it's
not unambiguous.

Or Microsoft was perhaps being a little ungenerous to open source? It
would hardly be the first time.

Proves my point. Read between the lines and ignore the usual FUD
about Microsoft (MSFT).

I believe the person who *wrote* the licence rather than Microsoft's
interpretation of it.

Well, a critic of MSFT can't be trusted, can he?

Wow. That statement just amazes me. It shows you can't be objective
about anything.

OK, I concede this, but you then, by your own logic, concede these
four options a) - d) *are* relevant and *are* viral for *modified*
code.

Relevant, yes. Viral, no.

You are correct--but changing the goal posts.

Not at all. I'm just taking in the whole of the licence, as opposed to
just part of it. You were choosing to ignore the most common case,
where you don't need to modify the library you're using. That's been
the case for probably 90% of the libraries I've used, beyond bug fixes
(which are covered separately in the licence).

Yes, if you do nothing to the artistic license code, and distribute
as is, then yes, option 4a (a different option than what we've
discussed to date) applies. But, the minute you make the most minute
change to the artistic license code, you run afoul of the other four
options I've discussed-- and at this point your entire project is
contaminated, unless you comply with one of the onerous options we've
discussed.

Not your entire project - just the piece which relates directly to the
package. You effectively create a modified package, distribute that and
make those modifications available, and then use the modified package
in the rest of your program.

Because they hate Microsoft.

Oh you are a card. I certainly don't hate Microsoft. However, some
elements of Microsoft (not all) are very unfriendly towards open source
- which historically has included making some overly critical comments
about some licences, in my view.

Yes, you got me on that. Indeed, as you pointed out in your last
thread, the one I'm replying to, if you do nothing to the artistic
license code then you only have to acknowledge it--which is not
onerous at all and quite generous to the non-author user. But,
contrary to what you assert, how many people 'do nothing' to such
artistic license code? I doubt very many, though you could be
right.

Most, actually, in my experience. How much time have you spent working
in industry, experiencing how people use 3rd party libraries? I can
only remember making changes to a couple of the dozens of open source
libraries I've used.

Note that with the artistic licence:

o If these are bug fixes or portability fixes, they don't count as
modifications
o If the interface to the 3rd party code isn't made overtly available,
a separate clause applies and you don't need to worry anyway.

Yeah, and if it's Google it explains your anti-MSFT stance.

Disagreeing with one thing that Microsoft has said doesn't make me
"anti-MSFT". If I'm so anti-Microsoft, why do I spend so much time
writing about C#?

But let's not get personal over this, as you cannot dump on your
employer, and I don't want you to (BTW I am a MSFT shareholder, just
to show my bias).

Your bias was pretty obvious from the moment you said that any critic
of Microsoft can't be trusted. Of course, that was *perhaps* tongue in
cheek - it can be hard to tell.

Admission noted. They've not had problems with certain specific well
tailored licenses. But this artistic license was 'bizarre' if I
recall the news story--that's why it was litigated--not at all like
the tamer Apache, BSD etc licenses.

The problem wasn't with the licence at all - it was with the use of the
licenced code. IIRC, the violator was using the code without
acknowledgement - and that would have violated the Apache licence too.

Thanks for your time. I originally was trying to do a bit of trolling
with this story

Nice to hear you admit that. Please don't troll. It's a waste of
everyone's time. There are better ways to learn.

but in the process actually learned a few things. Namely, if you
don't touch the artistic license code we've discussed and as was
recently litigated, it's not viral, otherwise, it is, and you have to
comply with one of the onerous four options we originally discussed
early on in this thread.

It's not viral anyway.

 

[Ken Foskey]

Yep. See the link you cited: http://www.linux.com/feature/14792 if
this wasn't an issue, why would MSFT even mention it? Clearly it's not
unambiguous.

Today Microsoft accept that there is a license that is there for a
purpose and have released some of their code under a similar license. If
it was as bad as you say then why would Microsoft accept and support the
concept now.

Microsoft has grown up in the last 7 years. In 2001 they were trying to
spread the "Viral" marketing phrase that you are talking about, you
obviously swallowed it. They were, and are, rightly concerned about the
threat that Open Source in general represents to their business model.

You are right to be concerned about licensing and I encourage you to
actually study Copyright and Licensing. http://www.groklaw.net/ is a
great resource to help you in your search for understanding.

Ken

 

[raylopez99]

I believe the person who *wrote* the licence rather than Microsoft's
interpretation of it.

No, I believe the person who *adjudicates* the license. That would be
the judge.

Relevant, yes. Viral, no.

BTW, there's no definition of "viral". It's a layperson's term, not a
legal term. If you incorporate a tiny copyrighted code illegally into
your program, you entire program is toast. That's viral. If you
don't believe me, talk to a lawyer. I have been involved in some
litigation as a non-lawyer and from what I've seen, both in practice
and reading online, damages (where 'viral' is the issue) is always
based on the entire code (both infringing code and untainted code).
That's viral. They don't say (as you imply): "since your code only
uses infringing code in 10% of its total, the damages are 10% of the
revenue the copyright infringing product makes a year". They ask for
100% of revenue, not 10%. That's viral. And, depending on how bad
the infringement is, sometimes they get it. Google and read the
famous story: Cadence sues Avant! Corp.

Not at all. I'm just taking in the whole of the licence, as opposed to
just part of it. You were choosing to ignore the most common case,
where you don't need to modify the library you're using. That's been
the case for probably 90% of the libraries I've used, beyond bug fixes
(which are covered separately in the licence).

OK, I concede this point. You have industry experience in this field;
I don't. I did not know that most of the time 'open source' code was
not modified, but used verbatim. Interesting (if true).

Goodbye, I did learn something from this thread, and, if you're
honest, so did you.

RL

 

[Jon Skeet [C# MVP]]

No, I believe the person who *adjudicates* the license.  That would be
the judge.

But between Microsoft and Larry Wall, I think it's more reasonable to
believe Larry Wall. There hasn't been a judgement on the viral nature
of the Artistic Licence - the recent court case certainly didn't test
that aspect.

BTW, there's no definition of "viral". It's a layperson's term, not a
legal term.  If you incorporate a tiny copyrighted code illegally into
your program, you entire program is toast.  That's viral.

That's not what anyone I've ever heard talking about "viral" licences
has meant. The point is whether *in order to comply with the licence*
you need to release all of your code, or just the modification to the
code you're using. By the time you've violated the licence, you're
past the point of what's usually under discussion.

Goodbye, I did learn something from this thread, and, if you're
honest, so did you.

I learned more about the Artistic Licence by reading it more
thoroughly than I had before, yes. I don't think you actually shed any
light on it in your comments though...

Jon