"Possibly" is not a term you want to use in a contract because it means something and its contrary. For instance we had problems of defining the i) definition of FOSS-for-contracts (I put the definition at the end of the mail for convenience) on the term "but not limited to" because we wanted to included in i) some non OSI compliant open-source-like license: some SW coming in open source form but with specific constraints for instance beerware (you have to offer a beer to the copyright owner if you meet him/her). Note that beerware license might be OSI compliant it is just that nobody has made the request to OSI 8-). And we want that to be acceptable to companies in a legal framework. We cannot limit us on this i) to the 60 or 70 OSI compliant licenses. We thought to a lot of things: - "Downloadable software": does not work we have contract for proprietary software for which we pay and the software is downloadable however it is not entering in the FOSS-contract definition. - "unpaid third party software": does not work. We have software part of the FOSS-contract definition which come with a paying license and OSI compliant licenses (for instance linux distribution form Linux distributors). - "Software not coming through procurement". Same as above - "Software without an explicit signature of a contract or license". Same as above - "software for which we cannot negotiate conditions". That does not work with proprietary software coming for free (ii) we have sometimes negotiated special conditions. - ... Perhaps we should say "Free of cost Software and/or Open source-like software" and noted it F&|OSS (& is the logical "and" and "|" is the logical "or" symbols used in some programming languages and mathematic). Note that I am rather in favor of keeping the world "open source" in this name because it is the major aim for this definition even if it is broader. Note I am happy in this discussion that we do not focus on the definition by itself. It seems that the definition is clear enough to everybody and the scope is clear. Finally, I think that this current thread shows the need for standardizing this wording. Since 2007 that we put that clauses in our contracts, we discussed any world of these clauses with hundreds of companies each time implying lawyers, procurement, technical people in both companies, that's a huge effort but so far nobody challenged us really on the term "FOSS" 8-). Michel "Free and/or Open Source Software" or "FOSS" means (i) software provided to Licensor royalty-free in source code form, under a license including, but not limited to, one approved by the Open Source Initiative (OSI http://www.opensource.org/) or (ii) proprietary software provided to Licensor royalty-free in binary code form, under an end user license agreement that is accepted without a signature, or (iii) shareware provided to Licensor free of initial charge, such as on a trial basis, but where a fee may become due once the user decides to use the software beyond the trial period, or (iv) public domain software Michel.Ruffin@..., PhD Software Coordination Manager, Bell Labs, Corporate CTO Dpt Distinguished Member of Technical Staff Tel +33 (0) 6 75 25 21 94 Alcatel-Lucent International, Centre de Villarceaux Route De Villejust, 91620 Nozay, France
-----Message d'origine----- De : spdx-bounces@... [mailto:spdx-bounces@...] De la part de Philip Odence Envoyé : lundi 25 juin 2012 13:19 À : koohgoli@...; spdx@... Objet : Re: Spdx Digest, Vol 22, Issue 33 Good one! On 6/22/12 4:57 PM, "Mahshad Koohgoli" <koohgoli@...> wrote: How about
"Possibly Licensed Unpaid Software" - PLUS ?!
Then we can have FOSSPLUS :)
-----Original Message-----
From: McGlade, Debra [mailto:dmcglade@...]
Sent: 22-June-12 4:50 PM
To: RUFFIN, MICHEL (MICHEL); koohgoli@...; spdx@...
Subject: RE: Spdx Digest, Vol 22, Issue 33
How about:
"Possibly, Might-be free Software" (PMS)
:)
-Debbie
-----Original Message-----
From: spdx-bounces@... [mailto:spdx-bounces@...] On
Behalf Of RUFFIN, MICHEL (MICHEL)
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2012 1:05 PM
To: koohgoli@...; spdx@...
Subject: RE: Spdx Digest, Vol 22, Issue 33
None of this expression is covering proprietary software delivered free of
cost but with an EULA, except the last one but it is not very accurate
Michel.Ruffin@..., PhD
Software Coordination Manager, Bell Labs, Corporate CTO Dpt Distinguished
Member of Technical Staff Tel +33 (0) 6 75 25 21 94 Alcatel-Lucent
International, Centre de Villarceaux Route De Villejust, 91620 Nozay,
France
-----Message d'origine-----
De : spdx-bounces@... [mailto:spdx-bounces@...] De
la
part de Mahshad Koohgoli Envoyé : vendredi 22 juin 2012 21:29 À :
spdx@... Objet : RE: Spdx Digest, Vol 22, Issue 33
PDC- Public Domain Code?
PAS- Publicly Accessible Software
CAS- Community Accessible Software?
GAC- Generally Accessible Code?
-----Original Message-----
From: spdx-bounces@... [mailto:spdx-bounces@...] On
Behalf Of spdx-request@...
Sent: 22-June-12 3:21 PM
To: spdx@...
Subject: Spdx Digest, Vol 22, Issue 33
Send Spdx mailing list submissions to
spdx@...
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
spdx-request@...
You can reach the person managing the list at
spdx-owner@...
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than
"Re: Contents of Spdx digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. RE: "Scope" of licenses to be covered by SPDX (Mike Milinkovich)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 15:21:22 -0400
From: "Mike Milinkovich" <mike.milinkovich@...>
To: "'RUFFIN, MICHEL \(MICHEL\)'" <michel.ruffin@...>,
<Soeren_Rabenstein@...>, <mjherzog@...>,
<spdx@...>
Subject: RE: "Scope" of licenses to be covered by SPDX
Message-ID: <038e01cd50ac$35a4eb50$a0eec1f0$@eclipse.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
RMS - "Random May-be-free Stuff"?
Wait. That acronym's also taken. Darn!
<<Sorry, I just couldn't resist :) >>
More seriously: my apologies, but no good name or acronym immediately
comes
to mind.
From: RUFFIN, MICHEL (MICHEL) [mailto:michel.ruffin@...]
Sent: June-22-12 2:58 PM
To: mike.milinkovich@...; Soeren_Rabenstein@...;
mjherzog@...; spdx@...
Subject: RE: "Scope" of licenses to be covered by SPDX
Ok now we have an understanding, any suggestion ?
Michel.Ruffin@..., PhD
Software Coordination Manager, Bell Labs, Corporate CTO Dpt Distinguished
Member of Technical Staff Tel +33 (0) 6 75 25 21 94 Alcatel-Lucent
International, Centre de Villarceaux Route De Villejust, 91620 Nozay,
France
_____
De : Mike Milinkovich [mailto:mike.milinkovich@...]
Envoy? : vendredi 22 juin 2012 20:43
? : RUFFIN, MICHEL (MICHEL); Soeren_Rabenstein@...;
mjherzog@...;
spdx@... Objet : RE: "Scope" of licenses to be covered by SPDX
Re: "?Free and Open source Software? it is ?Free and/or Open source
software?; "
I understand that. Which is why I said it is the union, rather than the
intersection.
In my highly simplified view, the FSF defines what free software is, and
the
OSI defines what open source software is. If you're going to include a
bunch
of other stuff that does not meet either of those definitions, then please
(pretty please!) do not refer to your definition as FOSS or FLOSS. Find
some
other name, because that one's taken.
From: RUFFIN, MICHEL (MICHEL) [mailto:michel.ruffin@...]
Sent: June-22-12 1:55 PM
To: mike.milinkovich@...; Soeren_Rabenstein@...;
mjherzog@...; spdx@...
Subject: RE: "Scope" of licenses to be covered by SPDX
We do not discuss or put into question the FSF and OSI definitions of FOSS
(I know them by heart, I understand the philosophy behind them and respect
them). We try to make a definition of what should be the scope of software
subject to the clause that we put in the contracts and it is broader than
open source traditional definition. So perhaps the term ?FOSS? is
chocking
you for that. But this is why we need to discuss and standardize. For me
FOSS is not ?Free and Open source Software? it is ?Free and/or Open source
software?; Now should we select another term in this context? I am totally
open minded on this. Call it NPS (non-purchased software) or whatever, but
even this wording will not fit with shareware for instance.
Michel
Michel.Ruffin@..., PhD
Software Coordination Manager, Bell Labs, Corporate CTO Dpt Distinguished
Member of Technical Staff Tel +33 (0) 6 75 25 21 94 Alcatel-Lucent
International, Centre de Villarceaux Route De Villejust, 91620 Nozay,
France
_____
De : Mike Milinkovich [mailto:mike.milinkovich@...]
<mailto:%5bmailto:mike.milinkovich@...%5d>
Envoy? : vendredi 22 juin 2012 19:25
? : Soeren_Rabenstein@...; RUFFIN, MICHEL (MICHEL);
mjherzog@...;
spdx@... Objet : RE: "Scope" of licenses to be covered by SPDX
Re: " Out of this topic we just discussed (in my understanding) what could
be a proper definition of ?FOSS?. "
The Free Software Foundation (FSF) and the Open Source Initiative (OSI)
are
the two organizations which, in my opinion, define what FOSS is. Any
attempt
to define FOSS which do not take into account the collective wisdom and
process that went into their respective license lists [1][2] would be a
big
mistake.
FOSS = Free and Open Source Software, which is the union of software which
meets the definition of Free Software[3] and Open Source Software[4].
I have seen attempts in the past to expand the definition of FOSS beyond
licensing to include other parameters such as open development processes
and
the like. They've all been spectacularly unsuccessful. There be dragons.
In the interest of full disclosure, in addition to by day job at the
Eclipse
Foundation, I am also a Director of the OSI.
[1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#SoftwareLicenses
[2] http://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical
[3] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
[4] http://opensource.org/docs/osd
Mike Milinkovich
Executive Director
Eclipse Foundation, Inc.
Office: +1.613.224.9461 x228
Mobile: +1.613.220.3223
mike.milinkovich@...
blog: http://dev.eclipse.org/blogs/mike/
twitter: @mmilinkov
Out of this topic we just discussed (in my understanding) what could be a
proper definition of ?FOSS?.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.spdx.org/pipermail/spdx/attachments/20120622/7d7b16b7/attach
me
nt.html>
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Spdx mailing list
Spdx@...
https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx
End of Spdx Digest, Vol 22, Issue 33
************************************
_______________________________________________
Spdx mailing list
Spdx@...
https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx
_______________________________________________
Spdx mailing list
Spdx@...
https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx
_______________________________________________
Spdx mailing list
Spdx@...
https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx _______________________________________________ Spdx mailing list Spdx@... https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx
|
