Licensing

[rvergara]

This a forum discussion on licensing, now open to general public for receiving feedback.

The FSF responded to my email with this note

Dear Ramiro,

Please try contacting the Software Freedom Law Center
(http://www.softwarefreedom.org/); they sometimes help in cases like this.

I really wish I could help you, but the special clauses that have been
added to CPL are not well-written, and so it's very difficult for me to
tell what you may and may not do. For example, the third section states
that you have no license to the trademark, but then forbids you from
removing the logo -- even though using it generally requires a license.
Moreover, it seems like it might be possible to get around this clause by
licensing your modifications under the GNU GPL, which apparently causes the
entire work to be licensed under the GPL, per section 1. But that seems
like an unintentional effect, so I would not suggest you try it.

I am sorry that I couldn't be of more help. Please feel free to contact us
if you have other questions in the future; we definitely like to help when
we can.

Best regards,

--
Brett Smith
Licensing Compliance Engineer, Free Software Foundation


These are interesting comments anyway.

I have already contacted the software freedom organization. For reference its chairman is Eben Moglen, the most renown lawyer in free software licensing.

I will keep you posted on any developments.

Regards

Ramiro

[afalcone]

Hi all,

Ramiro, very interesting the comments from FSF.
I believe that some already had done observations on contradictions into the Compiere licence. I think that we should expect comments about this from Software Freedom Law Center.
Perhaps they can help us.

Regards

Alejandro

[croo]

I know I said this before but can I repeat.

I downloaded my version of 253b source as a tagged release from CVS ... it and I might add the current license on http://www.compiere.org/license.html DO NOT contain these "amendments" that restrict use of the Logo & at the same time do allow it's removal!
Now the logo & Compiere name are trademarked (at least they claim it is) so we can't use it ...but I do not think the license STILL stops use removing them.

Those license limitation are in my 253a release ok. Taking into account the post from Michael Judd concerning jaztek contacting OSI - I can only guess that Inc were forced to modify their contract to remove these amendments in other to keep the status as an OSI certified contract.

The current CPL (still version 1.1. I might add!) is basically a MPL license so I see no problem in using the code and modify it (i.e. removing the logo & compiere name) as need be. We would of course leave the (c) JJ & Compiere Inc.

So that coveres, trademark & copyright, the only other question of IP is patents... now in Europe (well the EU at least) sofware can NOT be patented so i don't think he can have any IP claim there either; but that might be different in different countries. Still I can't imagine what in the application could be covered by Patent??? But then given some ofthe things the US patent office has provided a patent for in recent years you never can tell.

colin

[croo]

I did a quick search in the USPTO website for any patents grated to, or aplpications from Janke-Jorg or Compiere, and got ZERO documents

colin

[afalcone]

I downloaded my version of 253b source as a tagged release from CVS ... it and I might add the current license on http://www.compiere.org/license.html DO NOT contain these "amendments" that restrict use of the Logo & at the same time do allow it's removal!

Yes colin, you are right. The amendments are present in the 2.5.3a version, but not in the 2.5.3b neither 2.5.3c.
In any form i believe that we should wait the response from SFLC to be sure.

Regards

Alejandro

[rvergara]

I know I said this before but can I repeat.

I downloaded my version of 253b source as a tagged release from CVS ... it and I might add the current license on http://www.compiere.org/license.html DO NOT contain these "amendments" that restrict use of the Logo & at the same time do allow it's removal!

colin

Colin,

I believe you were right. Apparently we downloaded the wrong license (2.5.3a). I double checked directly in cvs and effectively the ammendments were removed from 2.5.3a to 2.5.3b.

My assumption is that we are in very good ground as far as using the 2.5.3b source as the basis for Adempiere and our project. However I will assume nothing. I just wrote another note to both the FSF and software freedom. This is a copy of my note to them:

"Dear sir,

I believe my previous request for advice got a lot easier.

The actual source we are using has a CPL license without the ammendments.
Apparently there was a complain from somebody in the community to the OSI
and this forced the change in the license.

The Compiere License is based on the Mozilla Public License (MPL) Version
1.1 changing: Mozilla to Compiere - Netscape, Inc. to Compere, Inc. -
Juristriction to Oregon.

The full text is here http://www.compiere.org/license.html

So the questions are a lot simpler now:

1. Can we change the Compiere to Adempiere in the license?
2. Can we change the jurisdiction?
3. Are we forced to use this MPL derivative license? or can we use a
different open source license?, namely gpl or lgpl?

Thanks for your advise

Regards

Ramiro"

I will keep you posted on any developments.

[red1]

I propose Ramiro to be Adempiere's Legal Counsel and PR Man or SpokePerson

So if we get any news reporter calls, we say "speak to our spokesman".

[afalcone]

I propose Ramiro to be Adempiere's Legal Counsel and PR Man or SpokePerson

I agree with this. Then when JJ call us, we can tell him that who receives and response the threats is our spokesman.

[rvergara]

I just received this from the FSF:

> 1. Can we change the Compiere to Adempiere in the license?
> 2. Can we change the jurisdiction?
> 3. Are we forced to use this MPL derivative license? or can we use a
> different open source license?, namely gpl or lgpl?

"Dear Ramiro,

So long as your work is based on Compiere, your own work must also be
released under the CPL. As section 3.1 states:

The Modifications which You create or to which You contribute are
governed by the terms of this License, including without limitation
Section 2.2. The Source Code version of Covered Code may be distributed
only under the terms of this License or a future version of this License
released under Section 6.1, and You must include a copy of this License
with every copy of the Source Code You distribute.

If you released your work under a different license, or modified the CPL
directly, you would be violating these terms.

I'm sorry I don't have a better answer for you. This issue inevitably
comes up with "branded" licenses like the MPL, unfortunately. Again, this
is not legal advice."

So, in summary:

1. We need to continue our development using exactly the same CPL license
2. We cannot call the CPL something else
3. We can not change jusrisdiction (I hope Oregon is good)
4. distribution under a different license, namely gpl or lgpl, would be a violation of the license
5. Our enhanced code has to be licensed under CPL as well

It is not the answer we hope for but at least we have a clear way to continue development as long as we deliver our work under the CPL.

I am still waiting response from the software freedom organization but I do not expect something different to the above.

Lets focus on having the best open source ERP in the world

Regards

Ramiro

[afalcone]

Ok, i believe that is now clearly.
Then we must continue under CPL license and must maintain the JJ & Compiere copyright.
Some way i believe that we can add Adempiere's copyright on modified or added code.
What do tou think?

Regards,
Alejandro

[rvergara]

Alejandro,

As per clause 3.5 of CPL 1.1:

"If You created one or more Modification(s) You may add your name as a Contributor to the notice described in Exhibit A."

So yes, we can list Adempiere contributors however the JJ copyright listed in exhibit A has to be included in every file of the source.

Regards

Ramiro

[globalqss]

OK, I'm not a lawyer but my father was, so I'm going to try to read the license like one

Please let me a little time to review, I think that there are points that we must take account of.

Regards,

Carlos Ruiz

[globalqss]

Ready Council, IMPORTANT CONCLUSIONS HERE !!!!
This is my US$1.000 contribution as pettifogger

SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS:

- We must adhere to CPL 1.1, we're not allowed to change license
- We must not integrate or use GPL code (like Jasper or freePDF) [statement corrected later, Jasper is LGPL]
- Header must keep Compiere references (is obvious and is fair).
- Notice on executable must show Compiere too (is fair too)
- We can put the ADempiere logo, name System "ADempiere 2.6" and to honour Compiere we can add the words "powered by Compiere 2.5.3b"
- We can publish initial version with Compiere Header and in a later phase change the header for those proposed on this document
- We're going to need a License for Documentation
- We must change "Compiere public license CPL" by "ADempiere public license ADCPL" when:
1 - ADempiere exists as a company
2 - we can apply it to code which is not already Covered Code governed by this License. This is what OpenBravo did, extension of MVC was so vast that they changed the code, and they are an organization.

Some bibliography:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-l ... leLicenses
http://www.croftsoft.com/library/tutorials/gplmpl/
http://www.dina.kvl.dk/~abraham/rants/license.html
http://www.faqs.org/docs/artu/ch16s07.html
http://www.tomhull.com/ocston/docs/mozgpl.html

IMPORTANT SNIPPETS FROM THOSE SITES:
Justification for the work presented here:

With all due respect to the legal profession, this would be fearful nonsense. The language of these licenses is as clear as legalese gets — they were written to be clear — and should not be at all hard to understand if you read it carefully. The lawyers and courts are actually more confused than you are. The law of software rights is murky, and case law on open-source licenses is (as of mid-2003) nonexistent; no one has ever been sued under them.

This means a lawyer is unlikely to have a significantly better insight than a careful lay reader. But lawyers are professionally paranoid about anything they don't understand. So if you ask one, he is rather likely to tell you that you shouldn't go anywhere near open-source software, despite the fact that he probably doesn't understand the technical aspects or the author's intentions anywhere near as well as you do.

About changing license:

Legal: Obviously, you must be sure you actually own the code. Otherwise, you are not the one who can select the license.

Also, MPL doesn't give us the right to change the license, in fact MPL compels usage of MPL on derivative work.

"MPL / GPL Incompatibility"
We must not use on standard ADempiere installation GPL products, this includes Jasper and freePDF. [statement corrected later, Jasper is LGPL]
If anyone wants to install those products as a personal decision it's ok, but we as a responsible Open Source project must not include that type of problems on our product.

You can download complete study here, WITH A LOT OF COMMENTS ON LICENSE:
(Please excuse me for the usage of proprietary software if you don't like Excel, but please remember the important is the content of the document, not the format)
http://adempiere.red1.org/docs/Study_ov ... se_MPL.xls

[ Red1, please tell me if it's ok to upload files to your server, excuse me if not ]

Kind Regards,

Carlos Ruiz

[red1]

Great stuff Carlos. But there are also two parties that will have their own lawyers advising too. One, i presumed is Jaztek, and the other is a partner from US whom just spoke to me yesterday, and volunteer their clean 253d. They have checked with the attorneys and ready to fork anyway but when they hear of ADempiere, decided to put with us instead.(They also agreed to check out the enterprise SourceFroge software. If they think the price is ok, they will setup AdempiereForge repository)

As IANA, To make life simple just tell me what license and wordings to place in my codes for now. Otherwise i leave it empty and fill it in later. As i still need to make them synch with any new codes.

Note - U all always have access to place necessary info in the FTP of adempiere.red1.org for the time being. Save me some work too.

[croo]

Let me start with the obligatory “I am not a lawyer” - like everyone else here

My understanding of the CPL is ...
The (c) JJ & Inc must remain in the code they respectively created.
If we create or contribute a modification to that code, we are then a “contributor” and we are entitled to (c) those modifications and via the CPL para 2.2 we also grant “world-wide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license”.

So the important point is what is a modification?
Well the CPL defines that ...
“1.9. ''Modifications'' means any addition to or deletion from the substance or structure of either the Original Code or any previous Modifications. When Covered Code is released as a series of files, a Modification is:
A. Any addition to or deletion from the contents of a file containing Original Code or previous Modifications.
B. Any new file that contains any part of the Original Code or previous Modifications. “

So an addition or deletion from the contents of a file or any new file that contains part of the original code... so if we write completely new modules or replace whole files completely then that is not a modification so we are free to use any other license.
I'm NOT sure how the law would interpret it if we “extended” a class and override the methods we wished to change? In theory we didn't modify the original code so it would seem to me we could argue that we do not need to include the JJ/Inc (c) or the CPL ... we can chose whatever license we want! If such an enhancement was deemed to be a modification then we would be obliged to include the Appendix A and license it via CPL (but we can still (c) it!)
While we are just making fixes and small enhancement I do not see the point in taking any risk and I think we should simply license it under CPL.
When we want to make more substantial changes then I think we should take into account the license and design such that we do not need to include the CPL.

As for using freePDF and Jasper, well I'm not sure exactly how they are integrated, but if they are simply tools used, i.e. libraries included, I do not see why we cannot use them? Sure they use different licenses and if we were adding some of JJ/Inc (c) code into them then it would be an issue. But Compiere for example can uses JBoss with no obligations to use its license ... I don't see how using pdfFree of Jasper would be any different. And I see for example in the directory Compiere2/jboss/server/compiere/lib there is a Sun Public License /Gnu Lesser Public License for BeanShell. the fact that it was a different license did not stop Inc using it! It just can't modify it and call its own and license it as such! but must, as they did, include the beanshell license.

I think (again I'm not sure) that if we WERE to breach the contact in some way then the first step is for Compiere Inc to inform us and ask us to remove or repair any offending work. I don't think they can just sue ... so while it's very important to know were we stand I don't think it'll be the “end of the world as we know it” -to quote REM-.
But I will be interested to hear was jaztek & our new US member;s lawyer have to say.

colin

[afalcone]

After i read the Carlos post, I believe that we need following the lines in red colour. I think that we can start the first Adempiere version with those points, and then, when those points be more clarified, to make the change if is possible and necessary to do it.

- We're going to need a License for Documentation

What's the meaning of this? We'll need a License from Compiere? Or signifies that we should write a license for the documentation? I don't understand this point.

So an addition or deletion from the contents of a file or any new file that contains part of the original code... so if we write completely new modules or replace whole files completely then that is not a modification so we are free to use any other license.

I understand that this is right Colin. The CPL is defining Modifications, not new code added (i mean, without using no existing code previously). Then i believe that for the new code we can use other license only for this new code; the previous we must maintain the CLP code.

regards

Alejandro

PS: Let me finish too with the obligatory “I am not a lawyer” - like everyone else here. And after read the Carlos comment, I add to this: thanks to God i'm not a lawyer!

[croo]

previously I wrote:

I think (again I'm not sure) that if we WERE to breach the contact

Actually I see now that is covered in para 8.1 of the CPL.

if You fail to comply with terms herein and fail to cure such breach within 30 days of becoming aware of the breach

So we have 30 days from when Inc were to tell us we were breaching the license.

colin

[afalcone]

I think that we should try not to violate the license. I believe that if we can do it without giving to them motives to protest is a lot better.

Alejandro

[croo]

of course Alejandro, that is the best plan.
I was just pointing out that if an unintened breach of license occurred it it up to Inc to point it out to us and allow us to rectify it before they could take any legal action!

colin

[afalcone]

Yes Colin, I understood that. We don't want to be "violators"

Regards,
Alejandro

[globalqss]

Hmmm, looks like because as I was thinking as a lawyer, maybe I wrote also as embroilled as normally they do

We must adhere to CPL 1.1, we're not allowed to change license

For me this conclusion is mandatory:
- We are not the owners of the code, so we can't choose a new license for Compiere.
- MPL explicitly states that CPL can't be changed (section 3.1 and 6.2)

3.1 states: "You may not offer or impose any terms on any Source Code version that alters or restricts the applicable version of this License or the recipients' rights hereunder."
So, we can't change it to GPL.
6.2 states: "No one other than ComPiere has the right to modify the terms applicable to Covered Code created under this License."

We must not integrate or use GPL code (like Jasper or freePDF) [statement corrected later, Jasper is LGPL]

For me this conclusion is mandatory:

I know that can be sad, but this is the license which we are struggling with. Maybe we WANT to use Jasper [statement corrected later, Jasper is LGPL], but this doesn't mean, that we're being responsible combining incompatible licenses.
Fully explained here: http://www.tomhull.com/ocston/docs/mozgpl.html

As for using freePDF and Jasper, well I'm not sure exactly how they are integrated, but if they are simply tools used, i.e. libraries included, I do not see why we cannot use them?

Yes, we can use TOOLS licensed with GPL, as tools, not as a LIBRARIES, neither integrating/copying code within Compiere.

I'm very clear that freePDF is a GPL LIBRARY, so we can't use it in the product, I repeat we can't be irresponsible with ADempiere. If you want to install freePDF to your clients, I believe it's ok if not redistributing that version, but ADempiere must be clean of licensing problems.

About Jasper, I'm not clear if this is integrated into Compiere as a library or as a external tool.
If as library -> then we can't integrate it
If as external tool -> I think it's ok
But as I have seen, Jasper is integrated.
So my advise is to integrate Pentaho (MPL 1.1) and forget about Jasper [statement corrected later, Jasper is LGPL]

But Compiere for example can uses JBoss with no obligations to use its license ... I don't see how using pdfFree of Jasper would be any different. And I see for example in the directory Compiere2/jboss/server/compiere/lib there is a Sun Public License /Gnu Lesser Public License for BeanShell

GPL CAN NOT be combined with MPL
LGPL CAN be combined with any license, this is the first L = Lesser, this means Lesser Restrictive.
So we can combine LGPL libraries with Compiere. Jorg did it.
Also I've seen some "Apache License 2.0" there, I believe that it can be combined with MPL, but must be researched in depth.

- We're going to need a License for Documentation

We're going to need a License for Documentation

Hmmm, I believe that you were going to read the document here:
http://adempiere.red1.org/docs/Study_ov ... se_MPL.xls

But it's ok, I transcript the comments there:

We're going to need a License for Documentation
Hearing proposals:
GNU Free Documentation License ?
Look here:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-l ... onLicenses
here you can find some criticism for GFDL:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Free_D ... on_License

Proposed headers

As IANA, To make life simple just tell me what license and wordings to place in my codes for now. Otherwise i leave it empty and fill it in later. As i still need to make them synch with any new codes.

OK, I transcript here the proposal of the doc:

Proposed header for Compiere Code

We must put a copy of CPL on http://www.adempiere.org/license.html
And start naming contributors on last line, i.e. we can start naming contributions of Victor Perez where he changed for postgres usage.

Code: Select all

/******************************************************************************
* The contents of this file are subject to the   Compiere License  Version 1.1
* ("License"); You may not use this file except in compliance with the License
* You may obtain a copy of the License at http://www.adempiere.org/license.html
* Software distributed under the License is distributed on an  "AS IS"  basis,
* WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, either express or implied. See the License for
* the specific language governing rights and limitations under the License.
* The Original Code is Compiere ERP & CRM Smart Business Solution. The Initial
* Developer of the Original Code is Jorg Janke. Portions created by Jorg Janke
* are Copyright (C) 1999-2005 Jorg Janke.
* All parts are Copyright (C) 1999-2005 ComPiere, Inc.  All Rights Reserved.
* Contributor(s): ______________________________________.
*****************************************************************************/

Proposed header for new ADempiere code.

All code for Manufacturing, etc, must have this header. I believe we must have two GenerateModel.java that is used for Compiere tables, or for ADempiere new tables.

Code: Select all

/******************************************************************************
* The contents of this file are subject to the   Compiere License  Version 1.1
* ("License"); You may not use this file except in compliance with the License
* You may obtain a copy of the License at http://www.adempiere.org/license.html
* Software distributed under the License is distributed on an  "AS IS"  basis,
* WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, either express or implied. See the License for
* the specific language governing rights and limitations under the License.
* The Original Code is ADempiere code.
* Contributor(s): ______________________________________.
*****************************************************************************/

_______________________________________

If Council agree we can put this instructions on public:
- usage of headers
- why we're not going GPL
- why we can't combine GPL libraries, but yes LGPL

Regards,

Carlos Ruiz

[trifon]

I'm very sad to read that we can't use JasperReports.
How this is possible...
This is the very wanted reporting tools.
Can't we ask JasperReports to provide us LGPL License?

Regards,
Trifon

[croo]

Hi Carlos,
First let me say I agree 100% with your statement:

ADempiere must be clean of licensing problems.

But bear with me while I interrogate purely for the purpose of ensuring we are all clear!

First, your link to Tom Hulls document on MPL vs. GPL compatibility explains to my why we cannot add GPL code to code with an MPL – for others who didn't read the link that reason being the GPL modification must apply to the entire work and not just the modification. And the MPL license forbids the changing of the license to a license that imposes restrictions that are not present in the MPL (MPL 1.3). I did smile when when I Tom writes

Beware that I am not a lawyer

But one point I'm not clear on, why do you say we can't integrate libraries?
We don't modify them?
We distribute the source code verbatim, unmodified with their appropriate license?
I'm not arguing we can ... I just don't understand why we can't!?

re: BeanShell, GPL & LGPL .. of course, my mistake.

One final point/question. I see you suggest that in the new code (such as the manufacturing code) we should add new header, that removes and JJ or Inc copyright, but that still stipulates the code is subject to a CPL license. Now the CPL (MPL) does stop us from imposing a new license if that new license if more restrictive, but it woudn't stop us apply an Adempiere Public License with is the same as the CPL with the exception that Adempiere is the named License controller so to speak... I'm referring now to paragraph 6.1 [ I feel like a lawyer now! ] ... anyway the reason I raise this is para 6.2 it states that

you may also choose to use such Covered Code under the terms of any subsequent version of the License published by ComPiere

So it would seem to me we risk compiere (and they alone as they are named) creating a later license with stipulations that we do not want!? Perhaps even closing down on the openness!?
Actually para 6.3 does say we cab created a modified version of the license to apply to none "Covered Code" code and states we must remove Compiere from this license to avoid confusion! Would this not be a good idea?

colin
ps. just read Trifon's post ... it would be nice of jasper, but given the code is already covered by GPL CAN they then issue it again with LGPL? Given what Carlos said about mixing licenses I not at all sure!

[globalqss]

Can't we ask JasperReports to provide us LGPL License?

My mistake - please excuse me - I reviewed and Jasper is LGPL, so I believe it can be used.

But it's ok to note that before integrating any library we must see the license to be compatible.

_____________

About freePDF I don't know exactly, I tried to look on which libraries are based this patch. Someone knows?

I saw something like iText library, and it looks like iText is multi-license LGPL and MPL too.

So if freePDF is based on iText is ok, if not we can migrate that solution to iText.

Regards,

Carlos Ruiz

[globalqss]

But one point I'm not clear on, why do you say we can't integrate libraries?
We don't modify them?
We distribute the source code verbatim, unmodified with their appropriate license?
I'm not arguing we can ... I just don't understand why we can't!?

This is a point where lawyers have different interpretations, this hasn't been discussed in tribunals so by now all that I interpret - or even lawyers interpret is normally mere speculation.
You can see Microsoft saying GPL is viral, and RMS saying is not. And both of them have their good arguments.

So, my proposal is: we, here at ADempiere must be very careful and cautios with licensing issues, so I'm going conservative.

So it would seem to me we risk compiere (and they alone as they are named) creating a later license with stipulations that we do not want!? Perhaps even closing down on the openness!?

Good point Colin !!

We're going to have two licenses
CPL -> we must upload to http://www.adempiere.org/licensecpl.html
ADPL -> we must upload to http://www.adempiere.org/licenseadpl.html

Proposed header for Compiere Code:

Code: Select all

/******************************************************************************
* The contents of this file are subject to the Compiere License Version 1.1
* ("License"); You may not use this file except in compliance with the License
* You may obtain a copy of the License at http://www.adempiere.org/licensecpl.html
* Software distributed under the License is distributed on an  "AS IS"  basis,
* WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, either express or implied. See the License for
* the specific language governing rights and limitations under the License.
* The Original Code is Compiere ERP & CRM Smart Business Solution. The Initial
* Developer of the Original Code is Jorg Janke. Portions created by Jorg Janke
* are Copyright (C) 1999-2005 Jorg Janke.
* All parts are Copyright (C) 1999-2005 ComPiere, Inc.  All Rights Reserved.
* Contributor(s): ______________________________________.
*****************************************************************************/

Proposed header for new ADempiere Code:

Code: Select all

/******************************************************************************
* The contents of this file are subject to the ADempiere License Version 1.1
* ("License"); You may not use this file except in compliance with the License
* You may obtain a copy of the License at http://www.adempiere.org/licenseadpl.html
* Software distributed under the License is distributed on an  "AS IS"  basis,
* WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, either express or implied. See the License for
* the specific language governing rights and limitations under the License.
* The Original Code is ADempiere code.
* Contributor(s): ______________________________________.
*****************************************************************************/

Regards,

Carlos Ruiz

Note:
1) In the tradition of Bazaar opennes, we open up even sensitive and private discussions of the ADempiere Council.
2) Furthermore this discussion is moved to SourceForge for more transparency => http://sourceforge.net/forum/forum.php? ... _id=610546
a personal thanks to Ramiro and Carlos et al for the extensive research for our benefit.
- red1