Bruce Perens

>Do you happen to know of a licence that has anything like a "can only be used for the benefit of humanity" clause? A terrible idea for a number of reasons (in terms of legal enforceability, unintended side effects, and more). The following two articles do a good job of explaining why such a license really isn't practical: https://perens.com/2019/09/23/sorry-ms-ehmke-the-hippocratic-license-c… https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/programs-must-not-limit-freedom-to-run.…

That is Bruce Peren's Post-Open Source License: https://perens.com/2020/10/06/post-open-source-license-early-draft/ But POSL is at best a forlorn hope since it's playing the game that proprietary software companies are literally designed around winning: "They're charging 1% of revenue you say? Let me show you how our software is cheaper; just think of the savings!".

I think both are at fault. Amazon for provoking this and Elastic for over-reacting like this and totally break with the open source licensing, when that isn’t necessary to stop Amazon. They could do like MariaDB rather than follow MongoDB: https://perens.com/2017/02/14/bsl-1-1/ Would be much more appropriate and alienate the open source community much less.

> The problem is you could have a huge legal battle over it. Of course, and it would be a real PITA, but I don't see how it would be that much different from a GPL violation law suit right now. If you publish your source code, even under GPLv3, there is nothing that really stops anybody else from taking it and violating the crap out of the terms and conditions. In pretty much all jurisdictions I'm aware of, the copyright holders are the only ones who can sue for copyright infringement (setting aside the whole "is the GPL a contract?" debate for the moment[1][2], which would also open up suing for breach of contract in some juristicions). You can slap any license constraints you like on your source code and publish it, but if you really don't have the resources to pursue legal action for violations to begin with, that already isn't worth anything and the software is effectively in the public domain. [1] https://perens.com/2017/05/28/understanding-the-gpl-is-a-contract-cour… [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#License_versu…

some people are working on that, among others there is bruce perens: https://web.archive.org/web/20251206160538/https://perens.com/2024/03/… (sadly his site seems broken, the static files still work however: https://perens.com/static/DEVELOPMENT_LICENSE.txt ) FUTO is also exploring this space: https://sourcefirst.com/

> A EULA needs to be a contract. THe AGPL is clearly not a contract nor does it meet the basic requirements for an enforceable contract in common law countries. Can you show me where I am wrong about this? https://perens.com/2017/05/28/understanding-the-gpl-is-a-contract-cour…

The Post-Open license proposed by Bruce Perens consists in making it contractually mandatory for companies generating more than $5 million a year to redistribute 5% of these revenues to the open source community. (Source: point 3.2 of the licence draft: https://perens.com/static/DEVELOPMENT_LICENSE.tx)

> It is legal and does not violate any license. That's debatable: https://perens.com/2017/06/28/warning-grsecurity-potential-contributor…

According to this article https://perens.com/2017/02/14/bsl-1-1/ about the Business Source License, the intention conveyed by the word "production" for that license is use "in any capacity that is meant to make money".

See Bruce Perens's explanation: <https://perens.com/2017/06/28/warning-grsecurity-potential-contributor… The short story: adding a penalty to an action that the GPL allows is a restriction of that action, and the GPL does not allow setting additional restrictions. This has not been tested in court, as far as I know.

False. In the application to software, Bruce Perrens most definitely did define ther term, based on the Debian Free Software Guidelines, and the Free Software Foundation's Three Freedoms definition of Free Software, in June 1997: https://opensource.org/docs/osd https://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines https://perens.com/2017/09/26/on-usage-of-the-phrase-open-source/ The term was not previously used with regard to software, though the intelligence community have used the phrase "open sources" to refer to unclassified information.b

This is just horrible, and must stop of course. No idea why they don't just take this to the courts, I thought that would be the primary function of such an organization. As a side note, it was interesting that the fourth comment on the article was by Bruce Perens [1], author of BusyBox and just a very productive and influential open source person. Glad to see him still active. :) [1] https://perens.com/about-bruce-perens/

Bruce Perens argues[1] that this is a penalty for exercising your rights under the GPL and therefore violates section 6[2]: "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein" [1] https://perens.com/2017/06/28/warning-grsecurity-potential-contributor… [2] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html

Both ESR and RMS have warned against such "ethical" licenses. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/programs-must-not-limit-freedom-to-run.… Bruce Perens has as well: https://perens.com/2019/10/12/invasion-of-the-ethical-licenses/

There have been arguments (e.g. by Bruce Perens [1]) that this kind of behavior violating the GPLv2 section which prohibits the addition of further restrictions to the license, when the grsecurity team started doing similar things with their Linux patches. However this isn't really something that has been explored too far beyond that (at least to my knowledge). I'd personally tend towards this being more of a gap in the GPL's protections though, as forcing continued access to further updates would open a massive can of worms. Because then you'd need to figure out what is and what isn't a disallowed punishment for sharing GPL'd source code for any future contract between the two parties. [1] https://perens.com/2017/06/28/warning-grsecurity-potential-contributor…

Copyright license and contract are not (necessary) the same thing. An important related fact is that contract breach is generally less penalised than copyright infringement. See eg https://perens.com/2017/05/28/understanding-the-gpl-is-a-contract-cour… & https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6i9sngsv8G0 (And keep in mind that per-license US case law doesn't have standing globally)

I think you're referring to grsecurity kernel patch. https://perens.com/2017/06/28/warning-grsecurity-potential-contributor…

> You will not, and will not allow any third party to ... (v) publish or provide any Software benchmark or comparison test results. https://perens.com/2018/08/22/new-intel-microcode-license-restriction-…

I don't think it really changes anything, but there have been cases where the GPL has been considered a contract. https://perens.com/2017/05/28/understanding-the-gpl-is-a-contract-cour…

Being billed in the media as a failure: "SpaceX Expendable Rocket Fails" https://perens.com/2018/02/01/spacex-expendible-rocket-fails/ cbrf ynj vf tbvat gb uvg zr

> If I write a Linux kernel patch on a consulting project, I am absolutely not required to publish it. That would be a work for hire, and it is not the same thing as developing patches independently and distributing them with extra terms, because there is no distribution involved. > The GPL on the Linux kernel means that grsec can't distribute a new Linux kernel with their patches while withholding code. That's not what they're doing. That would be true if the patches were not derivative works of the Linux kernel in a legal sense. I'm no lawyer, but that seems contrary to the plain meaning of "derivative work". Bruce Perens' argument is persuasive to me: https://perens.com/2017/06/28/warning-grsecurity-potential-contributor… As is Linus Torvalds' ("kernel patches clearly _are_ derived works"): http://yarchive.net/comp/linux/gpl_modules.html

> Open-source is used broadly to define a way of developing software, but it says nothing about the rights it gives users. That is totally wrong and a myth spread by people who like to call their products "Open Source" while they aren't. The Open Source Definition is very clear: https://opensource.org/osd Practically there is no difference between Open Source licenses and Free Software licenses. The difference is merely a philosophical one - whether you emphasis the "freedom" aspect or the "openness of the code" aspect. Bruce Perens just wrote something about it: https://perens.com/blog/2017/09/26/on-usage-of-the-phrase-open-source/

Looks like one did, specifically they ruled that it was both a license and a contract, here's an article on it [0]. I think that just like the ToS example it shouldn't be counted as a contract, and I feel reasonably confident saying leggomylibro feels the same. This isn't a legal judgment on the current state of the law (which I'm not qualified to make), but a moral judgment that contracts shouldn't be able to be created like that. https://perens.com/blog/2017/05/28/understanding-the-gpl-is-a-contract…

Just to be clear: I'm not trying to fight or argue with you here, I'm just trying to understand :-) > Sorry, IANAL. Open Source software is written in Poland with all the usual open source licences and it works so I'm sure at least in practice it's not a problem. But "in practice" is hardly sufficient :P > A lot of it is thanks to the fact that suing people is much less common here, so it never gets challanged. Also the person who lost the case pays the costs here unlike in the US so that's a deterrent. I'm a European too, and live in a very non-litiguous country, so I have no problem understanding the mindset of not suing over everything. But it still seems really weird for a country's copyright system to rely on this (sane) behavior. > I think they'd have to prove that the way it's used harms them. It's not enough to say "I don't like it". But again IANAL. So if a Polish resident contributes an original photograph to a Wikipedia article under CC-BY-SA-3.0, and I (or a Polish entity) use that photograph under the terms of the CC-BY-SA-3.0 in a way that "harms" the copyright holder, he can sue me (or the Polish entity in question) under Polish law? This seems absolutely insane to me, and surely can't be the case! This sounds a lot like the license that Berkeley SPICE was under a long time ago [1], whereby it was essentially open source, but specifically the South African police were not allowed to use it. This kind of stuff – even when well-intended – causes massive…

GRSecurity is violating the GPL, and thus violating the linux programmers copyrights, as Bruce Perens explained: https://linux.slashdot.org/story/17/07/09/188246/bruce-perens-warns-gr… http://perens.com/blog/2017/06/28/warning-grsecurity-potential-contrib… Brad Spengler / PaxTeam / GRSecurity have no right to modify the linux code nor redistribute derivative works of it thusly. Placing a "no redistribution or else" clause in a "separate writing" does not absolve one from the requirement NOT to stymie the linux programmer's stipulation in their license that such restrictions NOT be created by distributees or those who have created derivative works. The linux programmers should sue Spengler, or simply revoke his license (another option: gratis licenses are freely revocable: they are not secured by an interest, and as-far-as-we-know Spengler has not payed the linux licensors for a license).

It's wonderful of grsecurity to produce a review like this - it'll be extremely helpful in addressing any issues in the development and patch management process. One can only think what improvements we might see in regards to Linux security, as a whole, if they'd work more proactively with the rest of the community. Of course, they're under no obligation to do so. Unfortunately, I doubt that we'll ever have their participation - or even see or review any of grsecurity's modifications - all because of grsecurity's "Access Agreement". [0] Essentially, if I understand it correctly, even if grsecurity's customers wanted to, by sharing grsecurity's work with us or anyone else, those customers stand to have their access to the latest grsecurity created derivatives of the Linux kernel revoked. Of course, if that's true, facing a penalty for sharing code grsecurity received and modified per the GPL just doesn't sound right or just to me. It seems obvious to me that one must carefully consider the wider picture when evaluating linux security posture evaluations, as presented by grsecurity, as there may be conflicts of interest in effect. I take what grsecurity says about the security of the Linux Kernel with a very large grain of salt, and you should as well. Further, I'm not a legal expert and I use measured tones as grsecurity have taken legal action against open source community members in the past for expressing their opinions [1] on the matter of the access agreement [2].…

My needs are simple. Keep the frequency allocations for my transmission, and help stop my neighborhood from filling with devices that emit stray RF and block my reception. My two issues are, almost certainly, the primary issues for many other people. Perens has http://perens.com/static/ARRL/TransparencyOctober2018.html about new people for five director slots. Going through them, I first see that the Valerie Hotzfeld website is "very worried" about 160,000 members versus 170,000. Seems like a minor concern to me. The Ria Jairam website says she'll oppose any proposal to the FCC unless there's open debate by membership. I believe that the correct ARRL position, when the FCC may be considering a change relevant to my two issues, is sometimes COMPLETELY OBVIOUS and what we actually need is the fastest possible action by ARRL. The Fred Hopengarten website mentions "A low cost basic membership: one idea - no QSL bureau (inbound or outbound)." But inbound QSLs (see the https://www.arrl.org/incoming-qsl-service page) don't require membership at all! I'm not sure why a prospective member would pay a "low cost" to reduce their current service level. The Michael Ritz website talks about "addition of Kosovo, Z6, to the DXCC Approved Country list." Hello? I'm a maker, not an international diplomat. The George Hippisley website has a tantalizing mention of "Frequency Spectrum" at http://www.w2ru.net/whatFrequencySpectrum.html - but it's BLANK! Five candidates' websites, and I can't…

I'm not a lawyer, but perhaps Facebook's BSD+Patent license is not even open source. It's tempting to consider the BSD license independent of the additional patent license. However, the OSI has not approved CC0 as being open source precisely because it expressly reserves patent rights [0]. In the OSI's justification, permissive MIT and BSD licenses may provide implicit patent license, so by themselves they are open source. However, like CC0, BSD+Patents expressly exclude this possibility. Indeed, Facebook's licensing FAQ deems the combined work of the BSD+patents to be the license [1]. Further, recent court case has shown that these licenses are not simply copyright or patent statements, but can be actual contracts [2]. Hence, we have to consider the BSD text + the patents file text as the combined license. This license is not symmetric and hence may violate OSI license standards. I've made this comment in the facebook bug report, https://github.com/facebook/react/issues/10191 [0] https://opensource.org/faq#cc-zero [1] https://code.facebook.com/pages/850928938376556 [2] https://perens.com/blog/2017/05/28/understanding-the-gpl-is-a-contract…

Just a few years ago, weren't we all up in arms about Microsoft's misrepresentation of the virality of the GPL and their attempts to frighten people away from using GPL'ed software? Looks like GPL zealots are doing their job for them now. At the time, various FOSS luminaries (including rms) signed this - http://perens.com/Articles/StandTogether.html Quote: If you do choose to incorporate GPL code into a program, you will be required to make the entire program Free Software. This is a fair exchange of our code for yours, and one that will continue as you reap the benefit of improvements contributed by the community. However, the legal requirements of the GPL apply only to programs which incorporate some of the GPL-covered code - not to other programs on the same system, and not to the data files that the programs operate upon. That doesn't sound like 'A GPL'ed program loads your template, making the templated GPL'ed' at all.