Subject: Re: For Approval: Lucent Public License Version 1.02
From: Ben Reser <ben@reser.org>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 10:34:40 -0800

On Fri, Feb 13, 2004 at 09:59:40AM -0500, David Presotto wrote:
> I sent the following in the past (see the Sept 2003 archive) and
> never really got a reply.  I figured I'ld try again with a slightly
> reformated message.
> 
> =========================
> Section 1
> ---------
> 
> The Lucent Public License version 1.0 was approved in 2003.
> Since then we've been using it to distribute Plan 9.  As a result we've
> gotten feedback from our users, IBM's council David Shofi (a CPL person),
> and our own lawyers.  Their comments have led us to make some changes.
> I am submitting the version 1.02 license for approval.  Thanks.
> 
> I've included the diffs to make it a bit easier to see the changes.
> The text version of the whole license is in a mime attachment.
> The original 1.0 license is at http://www.opensource.org/licenses/plan9.php
> The modified 1.02 version is at http://plan9.bell-labs.com/hidden/lpl102-template.html
> 
> We've been distributing with the modified license since July and
> all of the requests for modifications died out in the first month
> so I doubt if there'll be a version 1.03 any time soon.
> 
> Here are the changes:
> 
> (1) The number changes every time we change the license.
> 
> 	old: Lucent Public License Version 1.0 (OSI-approved)
> 	---
> 	new: Lucent Public License Version 1.02
> 
> (2) The biggest change was wording.  Too many people were confused by our
> lawyerese in defining a contribution.  I really wanted to say that its
> a contribution if you say it is and isn't if you don't.  Our lawyers
> didn't like that.  It still looks too lawyerly to me but at least its
> clearer/shorter.
> 
> We don't believe this affects anything to do with the OSD, just makes it
> clearer what the license says.
> 
> First the definition of 'additions':
> 
> 	old: additions to the Program; where such changes and/or additions to
> 	old: the Program originate from and are "Contributed" by that
> 	old: particular Contributor.  A Contribution is "Contributed" by a
> 	old: Contributor only (i) if it was added to the Program by such
> 	old: Contributor itself or anyone acting on such Contributor's behalf, and
> 	old: (ii) the Contributor explicitly consents, in accordance with Section
> 	old: 3C, to characterization of the changes and/or additions as
> 	old: Contributions.  Contributions do not include additions to the Program
> 	old: which: (i) are separate modules of software distributed in conjunction
> 	old: with the Program under their own license agreement, and (ii) are not
> 	old: derivative works of the Program.
> 	---
> 	new: additions to the Program;
> 	new: 
> 	new: where such changes and/or additions to the Program were added to the
> 	new: Program by such Contributor itself or anyone acting on such Contributor's
> 	new: behalf, and the Contributor explicitly consents, in accordance with Section
> 	new: 3C, to characterization of the changes and/or additions as Contributions.
> 
> Then the definition of contributor (clause 3C mentioned above):
> 
> 	old: C.  In addition, each Contributor must identify itself as the
> 	old: originator of its Contribution, if any, and indicate its consent to
> 	old: characterization of its additions and/or changes as a Contribution, in
> 	old: a manner that reasonably allows subsequent Recipients to identify the
> 	old: originator of the Contribution.  Once consent is granted, it may not
> 	old: thereafter be revoked.
> 	---
> 	new: 
> 	new: C.  In addition, each Contributor must identify itself as the
> 	new: originator of its Contribution in a manner that reasonably allows
> 	new: subsequent Recipients to identify the originator of the Contribution.
> 	new: Also, each Contributor must agree that the additions and/or changes
> 	new: are intended to be a Contribution. Once a Contribution is contributed,
> 	new: it may not thereafter be revoked.

This seems fine...

> (3) We also changed the templating of the license.  We don't believe this affects
> anything to do with the OSD.
> 
>  (a) David Shofi and our lawyers pointed out that the state in which the
>      license is interpreted should not be templated.  Templating it makes
>      the definition of the license variable since laws, interpretations,
>      precedents, etc vary from state to state.  All the lawyers said they
>      liked NY best (don't really know why) so I fixed it as NY just like the
>      IPL and CPL do.
> 
>      This was my fault.  I templated the state when OSI asked that we template
>      the license (I'm a hacker, looked like a formal parameter to me) and the
>      lawyers didn't notice before we submitted our final version.
> 
>  (b) We also fixed who could change the license.  This was done because this license
is
>      based on the IBM Public License (under IBM's copyright) and they want some
>      control over changes, so they made a condition of our using theirs that we don't
>      give that right away.  Once again, my fault.  Noone noticed that I added that
>      to the template either.  This is my attempt to get out of hot water.
> 
> Here are the actual changes:
> 
> 	old: The following is a license template.  To generate your own,
> 	old: change the values of OWNER, ORGANIZATION, YEAR, and STATE from their original
> 	old: values as given here, and substitute your own:
> 	old: 	<ORGANIZATION> = Lucent Technologies Inc.
> 	old: 	<OWNER> = Lucent
> 	old: 	<YEAR> = 2003
> 	old: 	<STATE> = New York
> 	---
> 	new: The following is a license template.  To generate your own,
> 	new: change the values of OWNER, ORGANIZATION, and YEAR from their original
> 	new: values as given here, and substitute your own:
> 	new: 	<ORGANIZATION> = Lucent Technologies Inc.
> 	new: 	<OWNER> = Lucent
> 	new: 	<YEAR> = 2003
> 
> 
> 	278c276
> 	old: <OWNER> may publish new versions (including revisions) of this
> 	---
> 	new: LUCENT may publish new versions (including revisions) of this
> 
> 	285c283
> 	old: version.  No one other than <OWNER> has the right to modify this
> 	---
> 	new: version.  No one other than LUCENT has the right to modify this
> 
> 	292c290
> 	old: This Agreement is governed by the laws of the State of <STATE> and
> 	---
> 	new: This Agreement is governed by the laws of the State of New York and

I've never really liked licenses that only permitted one organization to
modify them.  I guess it makes sense for licenses where you presume the
only people using them on new software is the originators.  I'd much
rather see a clause that said you can change it provided you don't try
to call it the Lucent Public License.  We've already got a couple
licenses that are roughly similar so it can't be all that confusing.  

Such a clause would allow anyone to base a new license on your license
which is much more consistent with the open source principles.

While I feel this way I don't think this is an impediment to reapproving
the license.  Just thought I'd point it out to see if you agreed and
wanted to change it...

> (4) Plan 9 includes encryption which is controlled by US export
> regulations.  Since the click through in our distribution web page
> won't necessarily follow the code/license, we added a clause.  I
> believe that this is consistent with clause 5 of the OSD which has
> in its rationale:
> 
>    ``Some countries, including the United States, have export restrictions
>    for certain types of software.  An OSD-compliant license may warn
>    licensees of applicable restrictions and remind them that they are
>    obliged to obey the law; however, it may not incorporate such
>    restrictions itself.''
> 
> 	new: 7.  EXPORT CONTROL
> 	new:
> 	new: Recipient agrees that Recipient alone is responsible for compliance with
> 	new: the United States export administration regulations (and the export control
> 	new: laws and regulation of any other countries).

This seems to make everyone responsible for following the export
regulations of the United States, even if they wouldn't be applicable
(e.g. non-US only distribution).  Wouldn't the following wording be
better:

Recipient agrees that Recipient alone is responsible for compliance with
applicable export control laws and regulations.

-- 
Ben Reser <ben@reser.org>
http://ben.reser.org

"Conscience is the inner voice which warns us somebody may be looking."
- H.L. Mencken
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3