License Question?

[Jason Martin]

Can I use part of the ICU License verbatim in a distributed NetRexx application as part of my own License,

The part that starts "THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", .................... and goes to
............................THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE,

or would a language lawyer consider it copyright infringement?

If I distribute the runlib NetRexxR.jar, do I have to provide the ICU License in the package outside the Jar
even though it is bundled in the Jar itself?



_______________________________________________
Ibm-netrexx mailing list
[hidden email]
Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/

[rvjansen]

It is a meta-license problem! And the first one I ever encountered.

I have seen this sentence over and over in other license texts and
apart from this email nobody will know that you lifted it.
Also, the license seems not to be licensed or copyrighted. Be sure not
to give it the same name though.
The provision might not be valid in all jurisdictions, however.

best regards,

René.


On 2012-09-06 15:59, Jason Martin wrote:

> Can I use part of the ICU License verbatim in a distributed NetRexx
> application as part of my own License,
>
> The part that starts "THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS",
> .................... and goes to
>  ............................THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE,
>
> or would a language lawyer consider it copyright infringement?
>
> If I distribute the runlib NetRexxR.jar, do I have to provide the ICU
> License in the package outside the Jar
>  even though it is bundled in the Jar itself?

_______________________________________________
Ibm-netrexx mailing list
[hidden email]
Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/

[Mike Cowlishaw]

Given that the ICU licence requires that "that both the above copyright
notice(s) and this permission notice appear in supporting documentation." I
would hazard that the licence explicitly permits copying of the licence.

The ICU words are a slight modification on much earlier licences .. at least as
far back as the 'MIT licence'.  Tens of thousands of words on this can be found
on the Internet/Wikipedia for those who find such things compelling reading.
:-)

Mike

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email]
> [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of rvjansen
> Sent: 06 September 2012 15:24
> To: IBM Netrexx
> Subject: Re: [Ibm-netrexx] License Question?
>
> It is a meta-license problem! And the first one I ever encountered.
>
> I have seen this sentence over and over in other license
> texts and apart from this email nobody will know that you lifted it.
> Also, the license seems not to be licensed or copyrighted. Be
> sure not to give it the same name though.
> The provision might not be valid in all jurisdictions, however.
>
> best regards,
>
> René.
>
>
> On 2012-09-06 15:59, Jason Martin wrote:
> > Can I use part of the ICU License verbatim in a distributed NetRexx
> > application as part of my own License,
> >
> > The part that starts "THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS",
> > .................... and goes to  
> ............................THE USE
> > OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE,
> >
> > or would a language lawyer consider it copyright infringement?
> >
> > If I distribute the runlib NetRexxR.jar, do I have to
> provide the ICU
> > License in the package outside the Jar  even though it is
> bundled in
> > the Jar itself?
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ibm-netrexx mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2012.0.2197 / Virus Database: 2437/5251 - Release
> Date: 09/05/12
>

_______________________________________________
Ibm-netrexx mailing list
[hidden email]
Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/

[billfen]

IANAL, but ...

The ICU license is at
http://icu-project.org/repos/icu/icu/trunk/license.html

and you can learn more about the ICU project at
http://site.icu-project.org/

Clearly IBM and others hold the copyright to the ICU license text
itself.  The copyright for the license itself is the third line.  In
other words, the ICU License is a copyrighted document itself which
provides permissions concerning "this software ..." meaning the attached
software files.

Technically you might want to check with a lawyer if you use part of the
text from it, but from a practical standpoint it might not matter.

You didn't say if this is for an open source effort or not - if so check
http://opensource.org/licenses/index.html

If you are trying to roll your own commercial (closed source) license
and you suspect there is significant $ involved, you might want to
consult a lawyer.  You probably can write up any kind of license you
want, and it won't matter until you get into court.


On 9/6/2012 10:23 AM, rvjansen wrote:

> It is a meta-license problem! And the first one I ever encountered.
>
> I have seen this sentence over and over in other license texts and
> apart from this email nobody will know that you lifted it.
> Also, the license seems not to be licensed or copyrighted. Be sure not
> to give it the same name though.
> The provision might not be valid in all jurisdictions, however.
>
> best regards,
>
> René.
>
>
> On 2012-09-06 15:59, Jason Martin wrote:
>> Can I use part of the ICU License verbatim in a distributed NetRexx
>> application as part of my own License,
>>
>> The part that starts "THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS",
>> .................... and goes to
>>  ............................THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE,
>>
>> or would a language lawyer consider it copyright infringement?
>>
>> If I distribute the runlib NetRexxR.jar, do I have to provide the ICU
>> License in the package outside the Jar
>>  even though it is bundled in the Jar itself?
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ibm-netrexx mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/
>
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2012.0.2197 / Virus Database: 2437/5252 - Release Date: 09/06/12

_______________________________________________
Ibm-netrexx mailing list
[hidden email]
Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/

[George Hovey-2]

http://site.icu-project.org/ says

ICU is released under a nonrestrictive open source license that is suitable for use with both commercial software and with other open source or free software.

This link points at the license itself: http://source.icu-project.org/repos/icu/icu/trunk/license.html

This seems to imply that anyone can use the license as shown (after changing the copyright holder).

How about querying ICU-project.org?

On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 10:23 AM, rvjansen <[hidden email]> wrote:

It is a meta-license problem! And the first one I ever encountered.

I have seen this sentence over and over in other license texts and apart from this email nobody will know that you lifted it.
Also, the license seems not to be licensed or copyrighted. Be sure not to give it the same name though.
The provision might not be valid in all jurisdictions, however.

best regards,

René.

On 2012-09-06 15:59, Jason Martin wrote:

Can I use part of the ICU License verbatim in a distributed NetRexx
application as part of my own License,

The part that starts "THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS",
.................... and goes to
 ............................THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE,

or would a language lawyer consider it copyright infringement?

If I distribute the runlib NetRexxR.jar, do I have to provide the ICU
License in the package outside the Jar
 even though it is bundled in the Jar itself?

_______________________________________________
Ibm-netrexx mailing list
[hidden email]
Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/

--
"One can live magnificently in this world if one knows how to work and how to love."  --  Leo Tolstoy

_______________________________________________
Ibm-netrexx mailing list
[hidden email]
Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/

[billfen]

ICU is not the ICU license :) -  "ICU is a mature, widely used set of C/C++ and Java libraries ... "

The open source license is itself copyrighted by IBM and others.

On 9/6/2012 11:10 AM, George Hovey wrote:

http://site.icu-project.org/ says

ICU is released under a nonrestrictive open source license that is suitable for use with both commercial software and with other open source or free software.

This link points at the license itself: http://source.icu-project.org/repos/icu/icu/trunk/license.html

This seems to imply that anyone can use the license as shown (after changing the copyright holder).

How about querying ICU-project.org?

On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 10:23 AM, rvjansen <[hidden email]> wrote:

It is a meta-license problem! And the first one I ever encountered.

I have seen this sentence over and over in other license texts and apart from this email nobody will know that you lifted it.
Also, the license seems not to be licensed or copyrighted. Be sure not to give it the same name though.
The provision might not be valid in all jurisdictions, however.

best regards,

René.

On 2012-09-06 15:59, Jason Martin wrote:

Can I use part of the ICU License verbatim in a distributed NetRexx
application as part of my own License,

The part that starts "THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS",
.................... and goes to
 ............................THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE,

or would a language lawyer consider it copyright infringement?

If I distribute the runlib NetRexxR.jar, do I have to provide the ICU
License in the package outside the Jar
 even though it is bundled in the Jar itself?

_______________________________________________
Ibm-netrexx mailing list
[hidden email]
Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/

--
"One can live magnificently in this world if one knows how to work and how to love."  --  Leo Tolstoy

_______________________________________________
Ibm-netrexx mailing list
[hidden email]
Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.2197 / Virus Database: 2437/5252 - Release Date: 09/06/12

_______________________________________________
Ibm-netrexx mailing list
[hidden email]
Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/

[billfen]

To clarify, just ignore all the words after the first three lines.  Imagine that you have printed it out on a piece of paper.

The first three lines in effect say: This is a copywritten document, and IBM and others hold the copyright to it.  The copy right applies to all of the following text.

It doesn't matter what the following words say, they are covered by the copyright.

On 9/6/2012 11:13 AM, Bill Fenlason wrote:

ICU is not the ICU license :) -  "ICU is a mature, widely used set of C/C++ and Java libraries ... "

The open source license is itself copyrighted by IBM and others.

_______________________________________________
Ibm-netrexx mailing list
[hidden email]
Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/

[rvjansen]

Bill,

you have, as before, an interesting view on this. I regard the
copyright statement to be part of the file. It contains a statement
about the contents of the file, in a way that the rest of the file does
not. It is commented out, otherwise it would make compiling or
interpreting it much harder. This also sets it apart from the work;
although the other comments in the file will be part of it, they too
describe the work (if you are so lucky - not in my experience of
maintaining programs), but not from the perspective of ownership. I
clearly see a description level issue and a recursive element in seeing
the statement as part of the copyrighted work. It is the village barber
that shaves everyone in the village except the ones who shave
themselves.

The official UK copyright site tells us a copyright statement is "A
piece of text which accompanies a work and expresses the rights and
wishes of the owner(s)." This is in line with my thoughts. The keyword
is 'accompanies'. The page that states this, has a copyright statement
(fortunately, creative commons - so I can quote it here).

By the way, do I reserve the rights to my discussion of the
copyrightability of copyright statements of copyright statements? If I
do, you cannot answer.

I would suggest to James not to worry. But also to choose an existing
open source license to avoid the subject - if you are open sourcing,
otherwise I have no opinion on it.

I would also suggest to limit copyright discussions in the future to
the NetRexx Development Advocacy list.

best regards,

René.



On 2012-09-06 17:26, Bill Fenlason wrote:

> To clarify, just ignore all the words after the first three lines.
> Imagine that you have printed it out on a piece of paper.
>
>  The first three lines in effect say: This is a copywritten document,
> and IBM and others hold the copyright to it. The copy right applies
> to
> all of the following text.
>
>  It doesn't matter what the following words say, they are covered by
> the copyright.
>
> On 9/6/2012 11:13 AM, Bill Fenlason wrote:
>
>> ICU is not the ICU license :) - "ICU is a mature, widely used set
>> of C/C++ and Java libraries ... "
>>
>> The open source license is itself copyrighted by IBM and others.

_______________________________________________
Ibm-netrexx mailing list
[hidden email]
Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/

[billfen]

In this case, the copyright statement is part of "the file", and "the
file" is the the text of the permission statement.  The meaning of the
words in the copywritten document do not matter - just the words
themselves, and they can be anything.

I still encourage you to check with a lawyer to understand this



On 9/6/2012 12:09 PM, rvjansen wrote:

> Bill,
>
> you have, as before, an interesting view on this. I regard the
> copyright statement to be part of the file. It contains a statement
> about the contents of the file, in a way that the rest of the file
> does not. It is commented out, otherwise it would make compiling or
> interpreting it much harder. This also sets it apart from the work;
> although the other comments in the file will be part of it, they too
> describe the work (if you are so lucky - not in my experience of
> maintaining programs), but not from the perspective of ownership. I
> clearly see a description level issue and a recursive element in
> seeing the statement as part of the copyrighted work. It is the
> village barber that shaves everyone in the village except the ones who
> shave themselves.
>
> The official UK copyright site tells us a copyright statement is "A
> piece of text which accompanies a work and expresses the rights and
> wishes of the owner(s)." This is in line with my thoughts. The keyword
> is 'accompanies'. The page that states this, has a copyright statement
> (fortunately, creative commons - so I can quote it here).
>
> By the way, do I reserve the rights to my discussion of the
> copyrightability of copyright statements of copyright statements? If I
> do, you cannot answer.
>
> I would suggest to James not to worry. But also to choose an existing
> open source license to avoid the subject - if you are open sourcing,
> otherwise I have no opinion on it.
>
> I would also suggest to limit copyright discussions in the future to
> the NetRexx Development Advocacy list.
>
> best regards,
>
> René.
>
>
>
> On 2012-09-06 17:26, Bill Fenlason wrote:
>> To clarify, just ignore all the words after the first three lines.
>> Imagine that you have printed it out on a piece of paper.
>>
>>  The first three lines in effect say: This is a copywritten document,
>> and IBM and others hold the copyright to it. The copy right applies to
>> all of the following text.
>>
>>  It doesn't matter what the following words say, they are covered by
>> the copyright.
>>
>> On 9/6/2012 11:13 AM, Bill Fenlason wrote:
>>
>>> ICU is not the ICU license :) - "ICU is a mature, widely used set
>>> of C/C++ and Java libraries ... "
>>>
>>> The open source license is itself copyrighted by IBM and others.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ibm-netrexx mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/
>
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2012.0.2197 / Virus Database: 2437/5252 - Release Date: 09/06/12

_______________________________________________
Ibm-netrexx mailing list
[hidden email]
Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/

[Mike Cowlishaw]

 
> In this case, the copyright statement is part of "the file",
> and "the file" is the the text of the permission statement.  
> The meaning of the words in the copywritten document do not
> matter - just the words themselves, and they can be anything.

Suspect we have spent *way* too many words on this .. but I would argue that ICU
does not have copyright on the copyright statement/licence because it is just a
minor variation on earlier text.

And I certainly wouldn't throw any money at a lawyer to debate or discuss that
issue ... :-)

_______________________________________________
Ibm-netrexx mailing list
[hidden email]
Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/

[Jason Martin]

OK, thanks to all. What about the second question in which the LICENSE is inside the NetRexxR.jar.
Should users be able to read it easily?

_______________________________________________
Ibm-netrexx mailing list
[hidden email]
Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/

[rvjansen]

Well, this construct also follows prior art.

On 6 sep. 2012, at 19:34, Jason Martin <[hidden email]> wrote:

> OK, thanks to all. What about the second question in which the LICENSE is inside the NetRexxR.jar.
> Should users be able to read it easily?
> _______________________________________________
> Ibm-netrexx mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/
>

_______________________________________________
Ibm-netrexx mailing list
[hidden email]
Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/

[Jason Martin]

If I made product X and I license it Y and it uses the NetRexx runlib which already has the appropriate ICU license inside its jar,

Should the user of product X have a plain text copy of the ICU license outside the jar?


_______________________________________________
Ibm-netrexx mailing list
[hidden email]
Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/

[Fernando Cassia-2]

On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 11:23 AM, rvjansen <[hidden email]> wrote:

The provision might not be valid in all jurisdictions, however.

Can you imagine a world without lawyers?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0u9JAt6gFqM

;)

FC

_______________________________________________
Ibm-netrexx mailing list
[hidden email]
Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/

[Jason Martin]

Sorry if I am asking the wrong questions ( I have slept less than 3 hours in the last 28 ) but I am trying to package a piece of software using the debian packaging system. In my experience the Licenses of any java library on debian is always provided outside the jar in plain text. If I package say just the NetRexx runtime to use with my software, should I include its NetRexx ICU License outside the jar in its debian package?

_______________________________________________
Ibm-netrexx mailing list
[hidden email]
Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/

[Mike Cowlishaw]

 

Sorry if I am asking the wrong questions ( I have slept less than 3 hours in the last 28 ) but I am trying to package a piece of software using the debian packaging system. In my experience the Licenses of any java library on debian is always provided outside the jar in plain text. If I package say just the NetRexx runtime to use with my software, should I include its NetRexx ICU License outside the jar in its debian package?
 

I would suggest that you revisit that question after you have 'slept on it' .. i.e., have a good night's sleep.  You will probably also find that even the bizarre Debian packaging system makes more sense in the light of a refreshed day.  But never, ever, release any code or documentation that you care about after having " slept less than 3 hours in the last 28 ".  Been there, haven't done that.

 

Mike

_______________________________________________
Ibm-netrexx mailing list
[hidden email]
Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/

[David Requena]

Seems to me the easier solution in this particular case would be to just release two separate deb packages: a netrexx-runtime.deb and  your-product.deb. The first one under ICU if 2.02 or the license we are using if a newer NetRexx version.

If you were to submit the first to Debian itself, there'd be further benefits to recoup:

- No one else would face the same dilemma when publishing NetRexx software on Debian, the runtime'd already be there.
- You are to get quite a bit of 'legal advice' on licensing from the Debian guys. They're known for being very picky regarding licensing of packages in the distribution.
- There is always some promotion value in having NetRexx included in any major Linux distro. And Debian packages tend to end included in most of the debian-based distros.

OTH what I do in these cases is to include at the end of my own license text a note to the effect of:

"This product includes software XXX, copyright YYY corp, licensed under the terms of the ZZZ license available at http://www.yyycorp.com/zzz-license.html"

Of course, IANAL, you know..

-
Saludos / Kind regards,
David Requena

NOTE: The opinions expressed here represent the opinions
of the authors and do not necessarily represent the opinions
of those who hold other opinions.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jason Martin <[hidden email]>
Sender: [hidden email]
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 14:49:53
To: IBM Netrexx<[hidden email]>
Reply-To: IBM Netrexx <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [Ibm-netrexx] License Question?

_______________________________________________
Ibm-netrexx mailing list
[hidden email]
Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/


_______________________________________________
Ibm-netrexx mailing list
[hidden email]
Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/

[kenner]

Does eclipse do everything for me that jedit is doing now?

I can not get pugins to work in the latest release.


_______________________________________________
Ibm-netrexx mailing list
[hidden email]
Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/

[measel]

That’s kind of like comparing an Avalon and a GT-1.

 

Most people prefer the Avalon for daily use.  But some people like driving the GT1 to the grocery.

 

Lots of discussion here lately about how to make a NetRexx turbocharger for the GT1.

 

Me, I like leather seats and cold AC.   ( translation:  eclipse is large pain in the transaxle )

 

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of [hidden email]
Sent: Friday, September 07, 2012 12:46 PM
To: IBM Netrexx
Subject: [Ibm-netrexx] jedit vs. eclipse

 

Does eclipse do everything for me that jedit is doing now?

I can not get pugins to work in the latest release.

_______________________________________________
Ibm-netrexx mailing list
[hidden email]
Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/

[billfen]

Kenneth, did you mean jedit plugins or Eclipse plugins?

Eclipse is certainly not for everyone, and it takes considerable time to learn and understand it.  Eclipse is project based, and often used for major sized efforts. 

For just hacking some NetRexx code (and if you already know jedit), jedit is probably a better choice.

I don't know jedit, so I can't tell you what it does that Eclipse does not.  If you want to try Eclipse and the NetRexx plugin for it, I'll be glad to help.

Bill

On 9/7/2012 2:05 PM, Measel, Mike wrote:

That’s kind of like comparing an Avalon and a GT-1.

 

Most people prefer the Avalon for daily use.  But some people like driving the GT1 to the grocery.

 

Lots of discussion here lately about how to make a NetRexx turbocharger for the GT1.

 

Me, I like leather seats and cold AC.   ( translation:  eclipse is large pain in the transaxle )

 

From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of [hidden email]
Sent: Friday, September 07, 2012 12:46 PM
To: IBM Netrexx
Subject: [Ibm-netrexx] jedit vs. eclipse

 

Does eclipse do everything for me that jedit is doing now?

_______________________________________________
Ibm-netrexx mailing list
[hidden email]
Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/