On 9/17/08, James liu <liuping.james在gmail.com> wrote:
> 有多少人真正遵守这些协议？
>

不遵守 BSD 协议又怎么样？
BSD 是个尼采式无私的协议，

一个东西 BSD 协议了就是泼出去的水，
所谓不遵守协议的情况，
无非就是衍生产品名字不小心没去掉 BSD 原名字，原作者字样，
或者是那个衍生产品哪个文件漏了个 BSD Licence 啥啥。

这样的"违反协议"，bsd 的人最多就是叫叫，要求要加个注解"本产品用了 BSD 协议的东西"，
或者要求把哪里的原名字去掉，
这都没有实质作用，除了一些作者名声。

2008/9/17 Jiahua Huang <jhuangjiahua在gmail.com>:
> On 9/17/08, James liu <liuping.james在gmail.com> wrote:
> > 有多少人真正遵守这些协议？
> >
> 不遵守 BSD 协议又怎么样？
> BSD 是个尼采式无私的协议，
>
> 一个东西 BSD 协议了就是泼出去的水，
> 所谓不遵守协议的情况，
> 无非就是衍生产品名字不小心没去掉 BSD 原名字，原作者字样，
> 或者是那个衍生产品哪个文件漏了个 BSD Licence 啥啥。
>
> 这样的"违反协议"，bsd 的人最多就是叫叫，要求要加个注解"本产品用了 BSD 协议的东西"，
> 或者要求把哪里的原名字去掉，
> 这都没有实质作用，除了一些作者名声。

我也有用 BSD 发布的东西, 其实我很想加上 "不许作恶" 的条款, 大家公认为是坏人的公司无权使用,
那么使用了本软件又突然作了坏事根据上一条款就属侵权, 得罚钱给希望小学和灾区。可惜可操作性太低无法界定是否作恶, 几乎不可能实现了, 假若
"不许作恶" 真的流行了, 这世界该多美好啊。

百度你说是不是啊? 挖哈哈哈 ... 哈。

On 9/18/08, Wilhelm Shen <wileishn在gmail.com> wrote:
> 其实我很想加上 "不许作恶" 的条款, 大家公认为是坏人的公司无权使用,
>  那么使用了本软件又突然作了坏事根据上一条款就属侵权, 得罚钱给希望小学和灾区。

自定许可证可得找靠谱的律师，
Perl 的那个所谓艺术许可证，
就已经被判为没有法律效力。

那些用 Perl 协议的东西，算是没有法律保护的了。

Jiahua Huang wrote:
> 自定许可证可得找靠谱的律师，
> Perl 的那个所谓艺术许可证，
> 就已经被判为没有法律效力。
>   
Artistic本身很艺术...
http://dev.perl.org/licenses/artistic.html

但是其还是有法律效力的。前一段的Jacobsen v. Katzer的官司，美国联邦巡回法 
院已经判违反开源协议的那个人败诉，并且承认自由软件许可是著作权协议的一 
种，而这个开源协议就是artistic license。

http://www.ruanyifeng.com/blog/2008/08/jacobsen_v_katzer.html

大概的内容见：
http://newmedialaw.proskauer.com/2008/08/articles/copyright/federal-circuit-says-open-source-license-conditions-are-enforceable-as-copyright-condition/

不过需要翻墙，所以摘录如下：


      Federal Circuit Says Open Source License Conditions are
      Enforceable as Copyright Condition
      <http://enterthat.info/index.php?q=uggc%3A%2F%2Farjzrqvnynj.cebfxnhre.pbz%2F2008%2F08%2Fnegvpyrf%2Fpbclevtug%2Fsrqreny-pvephvg-fnlf-bcra-fbhepr-yvprafr-pbaqvgvbaf-ner-rasbeprnoyr-nf-pbclevtug-pbaqvgvba%2F>

There are so few judicial opinions dealing with open source licenses 
that any single one is of great interest, but the pro-open source ruling 
of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Jacobsen v. Katzer 
<http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf>, No. 2008-1001 (Fed. 
Cir. Aug. 13, 2008) easily goes to the top of the charts of this small 
category. This is a highly significant opinion that will greatly bolster 
the efforts of the open source community to control the use of open 
source software according to the terms set out in open source licenses.

The central issue in the case is whether the conditions in the open 
source Artistic License limit the scope of the license (in which case a 
failure to comply with those conditions constitutes copyright 
infringement) or whether those conditions are in fact merely covenants, 
the breach of which gives rise only to a cause of action for damages. 
For an open source licensor, the difference between those two causes of 
action is particularly relevant because because  injunctive relief 
usually is not as easily available in a breach of contract action. In a 
copyright infringement action, however, statutory damages and injunctive 
relief are more readily available, regardless of whether actual damages 
can be shown.

The appeals court concluded that the Artistic License "on its face … 
creates conditions." The court pointed to the literal language of the 
license, which expressly refers to "conditions under which a Package may 
be copied," and the use of traditional language to create conditions, 
i.e., the use of the term "provided that," which creates a condition 
under California law. The appeals court concluded that the district 
court failed to credit the explicit restrictions in the license that 
sought to govern the rights to modify and distribute code licensed under 
its terms:

The copyright holder here expressly stated the terms upon which the 
right to modify and distribute the material depended and invited direct 
contact if a downloader wished to negotiate other terms. These 
restrictions were both clear and necessary to accomplish the objectives 
of the open source licensing collaboration, including economic benefit. 
Moreover, the District Court did not address the other restrictions of 
the license, such as the requirement that all modification from the 
original be clearly shown with a new name and a separate page for any 
such modification that shows how it differs from the original.

In other words, the conditions of the Artistic License are "enforceable 
copyright conditions."

This language will no doubt be frequently quoted in any discussion of 
open source licenses:

Copyright holders who engage in open source licensing have the right to 
control the modification and distribution of copyrighted material. As 
the Second Circuit explained in Gilliam v. ABC, 538 F.2d 14, 21 (2d Cir. 
1976), the "unauthorized editing of the underlying work, if proven, 
would constitute an infringement of the copyright in that work similar 
to any other use of a work that exceeded the license granted by the 
proprietor of the copyright." Copyright licenses are designed to support 
the right to exclude; money damages alone do not support or enforce that 
right. The choice to exact consideration in the form of compliance with 
the open source requirements of disclosure and explanation of changes, 
rather than as a dollar-denominated fee, is entitled to no less legal 
recognition. Indeed, because a calculation of damages is inherently 
speculative, these types of license restrictions might well be rendered 
meaningless absent the ability to enforce through injunctive relief.
***
The clear language of the Artistic License creates conditions to protect 
the economic rights at issue in the granting of a public license. These 
conditions govern the rights to modify and distribute the computer 
programs and files included in the downloadable software package. The 
attribution and modification transparency requirements directly serve to 
drive traffic to the open source incubation page and to inform 
downstream users of the project, which is a significant economic goal of 
the copyright holder that the law will enforce. Through this controlled 
spread of information, the copyright holder gains creative collaborators 
to the open source project; by requiring that changes made by downstream 
users be visible to the copyright holder and others, the copyright 
holder learns about the uses for his software and gains others' 
knowledge that can be used to advance future software releases.

The appeals court remanded to the district court for reconsideration of 
the appropriateness of injunctive relief.

(Note: the appeal ended up in the Federal Circuit due to an included 
patent law claim.)


> 那些用 Perl 协议的东西，算是没有法律保护的了。
> _______________________________________________
> zeuux-universe mailing list
> zeuux-universe at zeuux.org
> http://www.zeuux.org/mailman/listinfo/zeuux-universe
>
> ZEUUX Project - Free Software, Free Society!
> http://www.zeuux.org


-- 
夏清然
Xia Qingran
E-mail: qingran at zeuux.org
Gtalk: qingran.xia at gmail.com
MSN: supermanxqr at msn.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.zeuux.org/pipermail/zeuux-universe/attachments/20080918/ef51c30f/attachment.html>