Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Education Government The Courts News

An Open Source License for Education? 50

Posted by Cliff from the on-alert-for-legal-licensing-gotchas dept.
Erno_Rubaiyat asks: "The educational foundation that I work for is preparing to release some software. We are committed to releasing it with an Open Source license, but are unsure what license to use. I was curious if anyone had considered or compared the Sakai license to the Creative Commons licenses? I like the Sakai license because it is so simple, but does it leave any obvious areas open for abuse? As a side note: we are including several packages that are licensed under the LGPL and the GPL. Are there any pitfalls that we should be aware of while licensing our 'original' work with a different license than these components?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

An Open Source License for Education? More

An Open Source License for Education?

Comments Filter:
  • It really will save you a lot of headache. You won't be faced with the problem of some esoteric license that hasn't found OSI approval [opensource.org]. It will also guarantee that you are A-OK with anything that is under the GPL (which will be a lot).

    "Everybody uses it" isn't enough reason to choose the GPL, but it is hard to suggest anything better if you don't know your requirements.

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday November 09, 2004 @09:44PM (#10772640)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Simulations/Models/Programs where Output Matters (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Noksagt ( 69097 ) on Tuesday November 09, 2004 @09:48PM (#10772668) Homepage
    I have a similar question that has been in the back of my head for a long time. Most F/OSS licenses only consider derived works to be improvements to your program or new programs which are released with some of your IP. I wonder if there was some license that was more restrictive, that also considered the output of modified programs as publishing a derived work. If I open source great simulation software, other researchers would be allowed to make substantial changes, generate output, and publish papers without contributing the code changes to the community. Academic integrity does limit how frequently this occurs. And many are happy to have your springboard that they do collaborate with you. Also, the journals often at least require them to document their procedure so that you can eventually figure out what they did & change it yourself. But is there any legally-binding & accepted license to protect you from when the system doesn't work?
    • IANAL, but I believe that copyright law prohibits you from claiming copyright on works produced by your work as part of its normal functioning, since they are not considered 'derivative works'.
      • You're correct, of course. I shouldn't have used the term "derivative works" (though some licenses do spell out what they mean by that).

        You can license what people are allowed to do with your product. I see no obvious barriers to licensing them to make modifications, so long as those modifications are released whenever they use the program to do ______. Traditionally, this is "release software." But why can't it be "publish papers or present presentations based on the software?" I've definitely seen m
        • "You can license what people are allowed to do with your product."

          This is far from legally clear. Copyright law only restricts certain things. The main one it restricts is copying and distributing copies. The reason that open source licences work is that in order to redistribute you need the authors permission. A copyright licence (such as (L)GPL or BSD) is a limited permission to do something which copyright law would otherwise prohibit.

          On the other hand, you don't need the author's permission to run sof
          • Interesting reply. It was quite informative & it does look like I was expecting copyrights to solve something they can't. I am not so sure that an academic EULA that had roots in free software copyright licenses would be unobtainable or bad.

            This is far from legally clear.

            Well some anti-F/OSS people say the same thing about the GPL. I think that the various shrinkwrap licenses (and other EULAs & the like have had numerous expensive lawyers thrown at them too. I suppose you've reminded me that in

            • So companies are effectively prohibited from making changes to code and releasing it "in house."

              Actually, the GPL allows this, (see the faq question http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#InternalD istribution [gnu.org])

              The biggest problem with EULAs as they are generally implemented is the fact that they cannot be legally binding since the user doesn't actually sign anything either on paper or in the electronic signature sense. Also, the user cannot read them before opening the shrinkwrap, which, if I reme
              • Ah--thanks very much for the correction. I had followed a long discussion on the Debian list about this issue quite a while ago & people seemed to be under the impression that anyone who used your inhouse code could release it to the outside world under the GPL at any time.

                I agree that the non-signature is a common concern. In fact, that point is explicitly addressed by the GPL.

                I also agree that not being able to read a license before subscribing to it would be a major concern. However, I wouldn't
              • The biggest problem with EULAs as they are generally implemented is the fact that they cannot be legally binding since the user doesn't actually sign anything either on paper or in the electronic signature sense. Also, the user cannot read them before opening the shrinkwrap, which, if I remember correctly, invalidates the agreement.

                That makes perfect sense but unfortunatley court cases havn't been going that way lately. The reasoning seems to be that since shrinkwrap contracts are the industry norm then

              • The biggest problem with EULAs as they are generally implemented is the fact that they cannot be legally binding since the user doesn't actually sign anything either on paper or in the electronic signature sense. Also, the user cannot read them before opening the shrinkwrap, which, if I remember correctly, invalidates the agreement.

                This is not quite correct. Signature is not a requirement for contract (except in some restricted unrelated areas such as land transactions). Most of the contracts you enter ar

            • I want to further restrict the changes that can be made without needing an open release of the changed software. Nearly every F/OSS license considers the criteria to be the release of any software.

              That would be against any sense of freedom My feeble mind can imagine. Practicaly it would be impossible to enforce without an "ET phone home" function which would move your software into the relm of spyware. The only way around that would be a gentlemen's agreement based on an honor system, which would be un-en

              • Practicaly it would be impossible to enforce without an "ET phone home" function which would move your software into the relm of spyware.

                No! The GPL restricts you from modifying a program & selling it without giving out the sourcecode. The changes I'm looking for would be similarly based on a license agreement.

                When you want to control use, you need a patent, not a copyright.

                This is fair, but I think that "derived work isn't nearly so concretely defined as everyone assumes. Copyright law predates soft

                • The binaries are commonly believed to be under copyright. Yet a machine produced those from my source code. Why wouldn't the plots and other machine produced outputs also be under copyright?

                  the difference is that the binary is a derivitive work of the source code, while the output of your program is just the output of your program which is creating a derivitive work from it's input data.
                • "What if some other research group takes your code, makes changes, and is then able to print more papers then us, get more funding than us, etc.?"

                  The trollish thing to say would be they are smarter, or more politicaly astute to peer-reveiw ect. But the reality is if your concern is protecting your IP, then trying to force fit a project into a F/OSS is probably going to be a lose-lose proposition, it'll make you look bad, it'll hurt your project and give ammo to people who are knee-jerk against F/OSS.

                  Mayb
          • I don't know if this applies or not, but for musical compositions there's both duplication and performance rights. That sounds like a similar distinction to what we're talking about here.

  • GPL Question (Score:2, Informative)

    by jmorey ( 38458 )
    What GPL licensed software are you using in your application? Depending on what GPL stuff you are using you might have to release your software under the GPL also.

  • yes- the biggest risk of all. (Score:3, Funny)

    by millia ( 35740 ) on Tuesday November 09, 2004 @10:00PM (#10772744) Homepage
    Richard Stallman. Fear the Gnu!
  • Creative commons is typcially about documentation rather than source code.

    Options are with great simplification:

    GPL like: You cannot use this software except with other open source software.

    LGPL like: You can use my software with anything but ANY modifications to my software must be published. Great for libraries.

    BSD like: You may use this as you like, we may want attribution, we recommend that you release source code.

    Public domain: Use it as you like.

    What do you want to acheive is the question yo
    • GPL like: You cannot use this software except with other open source software.

      And by ``open source'' you mean ``GPL''. The GPL specifies that if you make a derivative work, it has to be released under the GPL. You don't get to modify the license of the derived work. I don't know all of the arguments for what exactly a derived work is.

      Public domain: Use it as you like.

      Remember that this gives you no rights. If people take your product, change the name, and charge $10 for it on eBay, tough.

      What

      • Re:WAY too simplified (Score:2, Insightful)

        by tepples ( 727027 )

        I don't know all of the arguments for what exactly a derived work is.

        For programs with authors in the United States, a "derivative work" is defined by 17 USC 101 [cornell.edu] and the body of case law interpreting the Copyright Act. Mr. Stallman intentionally left this up to the court system to decide.

        Remember that [public domain] gives [the author] no rights. If people take your product, change the name, and charge $10 for it on eBay, tough.

        But isn't what you described possible with software under GNU GPL as w

        • Original quote:

          "Remember that [public domain] gives [the author] no rights. If people take your product, change the name, and charge $10 for it on eBay, tough."

          GPL allows you to charge for distribution. If you distribute the software then you must also make source code available and cannot restrict redistribution except for the terms of the liberal GPL.

          Under public domain the person may put a restrictive non-redistibution license on the software.

          PS: Appologies for 'use software' I meant this i the sen
      • The GPL specifies that if you make a derivative work, it has to be released under the GPL.

        Not true. The GPL specifies that if you DISTRIBUTE the original OR a derivatice work, that it has to be according to the terms of the GPL. Distributed derivative works must be under the terms of the GPL. If you are not entitled to distribute the derivative under the GPL (other peoples copyright code, patents, etc) then you are not allowed to distribute the derivative work at all as nothing else permits you to what co

    • Re:Creative commons is more about doco (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      GPL like: You cannot use this software except with other open source software.

      Please don't spread this FUD. I don't know whether you intended it this way or not, but it is what you said. The GPL doesn't restrict use at all.

      LGPL like: You can use my software with anything but ANY modifications to my software must be published. Great for libraries.

      Again, the same problem. It doesn't cover use. Also, you don't have to publish your modifications unless you distribute altered binaries.

      What do yo

    • Yeah, it would be really nice to hear from the OP about the details of what kind of stuff they're licensing, and what they hope to accomplish. They're leaving us completely in the dark, so there's no possible way to give a reasonable answer. The fact that they're considering CC implies that either (a) their work is more "writingish" than "programmish," or (b) they don't understand the distinction between the kinds of thing CC is used for and the kind of thing software licenses are used for.

      I see several po

    • Re:Creative commons is more about doco (Score:4, Insightful)

      by david.given ( 6740 ) <dg@cowlark.com> on Wednesday November 10, 2004 @07:15AM (#10775095) Homepage Journal
      GPL like: You cannot use this software except with other open source software.

      NO! NO! WRONG!

      I'm sorry, but you're not doing anybody any favours here. You're making a huge, fundamental mistake that's just going to mislead people. This mistake is made over and over again and is the OSS community's biggest problem...

      You see, none of these license say anything about how you can use the software. The GPL even explicitly states this. They are concerned solely with how you may redistribute changed copies of the software.

      Here's the corrected version, to the best of my knowledge:

      • GPL like: you may only distribute a changed copy of the software if your changes are licensed under the GPL. Copyright on the unchanged portions is retained.
      • BSD like: you may distribute changed copies of the software however you like. Copyright on the unchanged portions is retained.
      • Public domain: the original copyright holder relinquishes all rights to the software.

      The corrolory to the above is: if you don't distribute your changes, the licenses are irrelevant, because their redistribution licenses, not user licenses. (This is why it's incorrect to use the GPL as an EULA.)

      I don't know enough about the LGPL to comment; I believe that it's similar to the GPL, but has a much laxer definition of what constitutes a changed copy of the software.

      Please, this is important. It's worth your while to try and get it right!

  • Don't Use the GPL (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    First of all, if you're distributing GPL'd software, you might have to GPL your own software. For example, if your software requires a GPL'd library to work, then you must use the GPL.

    Second, using the GPL assigns copyright of the source code to the FSF. Here is an excerpt from the GPLv2:

    We protect your rights with two steps: (1) copyright the software, and (2) offer you this license which gives you legal permission to copy, distribute and/or modify the software.

    That's why the FSF ends up being

    • Re:Don't Use the GPL (Score:4, Informative)

      by Gherald ( 682277 ) on Tuesday November 09, 2004 @11:19PM (#10773297) Journal
      The parent is a troll.

      > > We protect your rights with two steps: (1) copyright the software, and (2) offer you this license which gives you legal permission to copy, distribute and/or modify the software.

      >the FSF ends up being the ones defending violations in court. You give your software to them, and they use their power of copyright to defend it.

      Incorrect, the "We" refers to the person licensing the software under the GPL.

      Note how the copyright owner is explicitly named. Also note that Linux falls only under version 2 of the GPL. Many software projects state that they use the GPLv2 or any later version (there is no later version at the moment). There's nothing preventing the FSF from stating that the GPLv3 requires that only GPL software run on a computer where any GPL software runs, or that GPL software can only be used with the HURD. The HURD doesn't have to conquer Linux; it will start out with a full toolchain and many programs to go with it. Under the GPLv3, the FSF could deny the use of those programs under Linux. Suddently the big players in the OS market are Microsoft, the BSDs, and the HURD.

      Wrong, the full text in question actually reads: "either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version."

      Thus if the FSF were to publish a more restrictive GPL v3, Linux and everything else originally licensed under v2 would remain available under the terms of v2.

      > The best thing to do is to roll your own license, using either the BSD or GPL as a basis (depending on which you prefer).

      No, do not roll your own. This would only promote confusing. BSD and the GPL are accepted and well-recognized standards. Use them!
  • Dig a little deeper on their website and you can see they have a working/discussion group on an educational license.
    • I really think that whole effort by CC to develop an educational license was a mistake. I participated in the discussion group for a while, and I'm glad to see that it doesn't seem to have gone anywhere. One huge problem with it is that it's so hard to define educational use. Does self-instruction count as educational use? How about homeschooling? How about a corporate training seminar?

      There are already a whole bunch of different CC licenses. The last thing we need is to add more of them. What's next? A li

  • Talk to a lawyer. You're with an educational institution, so you can probably get someone pro bono.

    • so you can probably get [an attorney] pro bono.

      Be careful. The term "pro bono" can refer to "pro bono publico," the community service for which an attorney does not charge, but it could also refer to "pro Sonny Bono", referring to a stance that copyright law should grant the author as much power as possible over users of a work for as long as possible. The latter stance resulted in the No Electronic Theft Act, the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, various eff

  • I used to release all my stuff under the BSD license, but I've switched to MIT [opensource.org]'s. It's clearer, more succinct, and explicitly spells out that there is no implied warranty that the software is noninfringing. If you get sued by SCO for using my code, I'm not liable.
    • From the MIT license :
      The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

      I was wondering, what does this mean, in legal terms ? i.e. where should it be included ? In the online docs ? Printed if it is shelfware ?...

  • Sakai Provisions (Score:3, Insightful)

    by More Trouble ( 211162 ) on Wednesday November 10, 2004 @01:57AM (#10774167)
    These make me nervous:
    • Notice of any changes or modifications to the Original Work, including the date the changes were made.
    • Any modifications of the Original Work must be distributed in such a manner as to avoid any confusion with the Original Work of the copyright holders.
    • Title to copyright in the Original Work and any associated documentation will at all times remain with the copyright holders.
    The last one might be a "duh", but the first two are probably unreasonable in an "open source" project.

    :w
  • B S D

    got that?
    wouldn't it be cool to find out some of your educational institutes code will be incorporated in longhorn?

    nah, serious though... BSD is the most friendly license to whomever wants to 'use' that code, and that's what education is all about now isn't it?

Slashdot Top Deals

Math is like love -- a simple idea but it can get complicated. -- R. Drabek

Close