Re: To Alex


Guga wrote:
> "Sorry. Sometimes I *do* have to get some work done :-). I followed up
> your earlier post with appropriate comments.
> cheers, "
>
> ? What ? No....lete me explain this.
>
> Just to clear up....On the time i posted for an answer ..Your previous
> post was not showing here..
>
> Now about your answer:
>
> You are misinterpretating the license,

Obviously. But if *I* misinterpret it, don't you think other people
will, too?

> but...ok..i´ll explain it.
> Afterall you don´t have obligation to understand how to interpret
> legal issues ;) If it was hard for me to build it, i can imagine how
> hard it can be for your to interpret it.

And everyone else who tries to read it.
If I were a school and I saw that line about "institutes" (and schools
are institutes), I'd scrub every copy of RosAsm off the servers just to
be on the safe side.

>
> Clause 19 is the one related to the usage of the program for civilian
> people. All people described there are allowed freely to use,
> distribute and do whatever they wants (Of course, respecting the terms
> of the license and it´s purposes stated in all previous clauses). So,
> shools/universities are allowed to use them (By it´s students,
> teachers, academic corps etc), any single person, civil organizatinos
> or institutes, research centers etc...and all non governamental
> agencies....So, as it is stated at the end of the paragraph, all others
> people (juridic or a individual) that are related to a civilian or
> humanitarian purporses.

Civilian generally means "non-military", not "non-governmental".
Perhaps you should change section 20 to say "military" rather than
"governmental" if that is your intent?


>
> So, i was correct....Schools are allowed to use them, and the sentence
> does not restrict the usage of the term "shcool" as you are leading
> people to think that way...

A state-run university or college is a "government institute". Section
20 says government institutes are forbidden from using the license. If
it explicitly says that schools are allowed to use the code elsewhere
in the license, then you've got a contradiction and the license is not
worth very much if it's self-contradictory. You need to fix this.

>
> You won´t appologyse for ssaying that is stated literally that a
> school is forbidden to use ?

Apologize? What for?
The license *explicitly* states that government institutes are not
allowed to use the software. Schools are governmental institutes. That
may not be what you *meant*, but it's certainly what the license
*says*. It's not like I'm spreading some evil "lie" about this
document. It's quite clear that governmental institutes are not allowed
to use the software. As for any claim elsewhere in the document that
schools can use it, here's how a normal person would interpret this
contradiction: private schools can use the software, state-run schools
cannot. Perhaps I should have been more specific and said "state-run
schools cannot use the software"?


> No problem....I wasn´t exactly expecting
> that you could be humble enough to apologise on that subject, but
> well...

You're way out of bounds expecting an apology on this one. You've
written a license that *explicitly* forbids government institutes from
using the software. State-run colleges and universities are classic
examples of government institutes. Ergo, your license forbids them from
using the software. Whether you intended this or not, this is what your
license states. Why are you owned an apology because I've pointed out
that your license forbids this?

>
> Clause 20, is specific for restrict the usage for military and
> para-military, or any belic agencies or individuals.

Then use the word "military" rather than "governmental".
Government encompasses a whole lot more than military, you know?

> The usage of those
> people/institutes/agencies related to military or governamental or
> belic purposes must be authorized.

They may have been your intent, but that's not what the license says.

>
> This is _not_ unusual. I remember reading a similar clause on a M$
> license (Not Eula...i don´t remmeber now where i read it, but i did
> read), and also we can have a clause that imposes restrictions to
> governamental usage in any sort of contract, specially when this
> contract (In case this License) is focused to civilian and humanitary
> people/organizatinos/institutes.

You don't have to explain yourself to me. It's your software and you
can do anything you want with it. If you want to disallow military
personnel from using your software, or anyone else for that matter, be
my guest. Just don't try and pretend that the license is "freer than
the GPL" when you place such restrictions on it. It is not free; it is
restrictive. And as I pointed out before, RosAsm's user base isn't so
large that you have the luxury of turning away some user just because
he happens to be a member of the military or some other organization
that you don't particularly like.


>
> You may state that it is uthopia think that a governamental agency
> would use RosAsm anyhow....Well...i agree...the odds for that happens
> are almost null....But they are NOT null.

So why turn away one more possible user? You need all you can get :-).


>
> Restriting the license for military/governamental purposes is totally
> Ok to do.

Of course it is totally okay to do. It's *your* software. You have the
right to specify exactly how it can be used and who can use it. But
don't try and call it *free* software after you've put restrictions on
it. And don't try and claim these restrictions exist for some "moral"
reason. They exist because of prejuidice and hate, no other reason.

I mean, gee, why not say "Israelies can't use it" or "Americans can't
use it" or "Christians can't use it" or ...?


> As i caid ...i can restrict the license if i don´t want a
> specific usage of the product. This does not applyes only for
> RosAsm..This applyes to licenses, generally speaking.

Of course. Within limits you can control who uses your software (for
example, in the US I doubt you could get away with "Blacks can't use
it" or "Women can't use it"). But when you put these restrictions into
your license, it is no longer "free" and it certainly isn't
"GPL-compatible" (which does not allow you to put restrictions on who
can use the software). No one is questioning your right to create
whatever license you please, you're being questioned as to whether the
result is "free" and whether it is "GPL-compatible".


>
> Noone knows the future of a open-source and free project. We cannnot
> tell if a product (Not talking in RosAsm specifically, but) will be
> used to para-military agencies, for example building a program that is
> used by drug dealers (organized cartel, or para-military ones), or any
> other belic reason. My point is that If a free and open-source product
> is good enough, _anyone_ can use it. And if you don´t impose any sort
> of restrictino, the whole project can bring bad results or bad usages.

Yes, ain't that a bitch? When things are *free* they can be misused in
socially irresponsible ways. Such is the price of freedom. If you want
to take the "communist" approach and place all kinds of restrictions on
who can and cannot use your software, it's no longer "free". And
besides, do you honestly think that a "drug dealer" who is using your
software to do societal harm is really going to care that they're
violating your license? Again, as the old saying goes, "when guns are
outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."

And consider the following -- suppose a drug cartel uses your software
to help manage patients at a hospital they've funded in the jungles of
Columbia? Yep, bad people those drug dealers. But suppose they're using
your software to actually do some good?

If you really think that your license is going to change the world for
the better, why not simply state that? That is, say something like
"this software is to be used for the betterment of society" rather than
trying to exclude various groups based on your particular prejudices
(that exist at the time you wrote the license)?

>
> Again...it seems inverosimel, it seems utopic...but it _is_ a
> possibility. I´m not talking specifically that a governamental or
> para-military agency will have any interest in RosAsm itself - If this
> should be your next move to discredit the license - but, as long as it
> is free and open-source we can at least try to avoid any Link with
> those purposes.

Discredit the license? I'm simply pointing out that, as it is written,
it doesn't allow governmental schools to use the software. That *may*
not be what you intended it to say, but that's what it says. I'm sorry,
a court of law cannot read your mind to get the intent correct.

Again, a utopia is what you seek, then drop all the exclusionary stuff
and say something like "this software is to be used for the
betterment....blah, blah, blah". What makes you think that a soldier
won't use your software for some good and a civilian won't use the
software for harm? Your license doesn't achieve what you're trying to
achieve.


>
> If you now try to make me proof where in M$ i read something similar,

You expect me to defend Microsoft licenses?
Forgive me, but the only licenses I've ever felt comfortable with have
been Borland's.


> i´ll only answer that i actually don´t rememeber where in the dozens
> of different licenses i read that. (I would say hundreds...but it was
> not hundreds..i guess i interpreted about 80 licenses at total,
> including US, french, germain, italian, and Brasilian). Of course that
> it _is_ 100% impossible to build a license to be used in many different
> legislations of different countries. So trying to adapt it to best fit
> for them all and also make it be _compatible_ with the purpose or the
> GNU Foundation was not exactly a easy thing to do.

Excluding users is not compatible with the GPL or the FSF's ideals.
Remember, the purpose of free software is to allow *any* user to do as
they want with it. If I take a piece of GPL software, modify it, and
distribute it (including sources), I have *no control* over what
happens to that software at that point. It is free to be utilized by
the users however, and *WHOMEVER*. Drug dealers can use it. Israelies
can use it. Palestinians can use it. Conservative Bush-voting Christian
Nazis can use it, Liberal tree-hugging Kerry-voting aethist fascists
can use it, and so it. It's free. I no longer have control over how it
can be used, it belongs to the users. *THAT'S* the FSF stance. It
would be nice to see that the software get's used for good, but FSF
isn't about to define what's good and what's bad. Nor should you.


>
> So, if you want to make a research if a similar clause exists, you can
> try on msdn/ or main m$ site...i remember i was reading some licenses
> in one of the links inside when i was researching the US laws and
> trying to see some examples of american licenses....

Again, don't expect me to defend Microsoft licenses. The only thing I
will say in their favor with regard to this discussion is that they do
*not* claim that their software is free (as in speech). Again, you can
do anything you want with your license, but calling the result "free"
is not kosher.

>
> Clause 20 states only that the usage for those agencies, institutes
> (governamental or para-military etc) must be authorized previously,
> after request.

Why would they bother?
They'd just use one of the other freely available assemblers (e.g., HLA
seems to be real popular at schools and universities) and not give your
product a second look. You've not stopped drug dealers, etc., from
achieving whatever it is they want to achieve, you've just limited your
audience. And given RosAsm's user base, why would you want to do that?




>
>
> So, if a boy-scout agency/entity is a para-military organization (I
> really don´t know..i never heard that boy scout were para-military or
> have any link with military agencies before) you can use upon request.
> Simple as that.

Again, why would they request? They could use HLA. They could use FASM.
They could use NASM. And not be bothered. What have you achieved other
than to scare them away from RosAsm?

>
> It is a matter of misinterpretation of you. I can perfectly understand
> it, but it does not make any right of you misleading others to think
> that a School (Civilian institue, innocent students ot teachers) are
> forbidden to use it.

Having worked for a couple of California State Universities, I can tell
you that the department chairs at both of the schools I taught at would
not allow RosAsm to be used in a course based on what clause 20 says.
It doesn't matter what your intent really was. When they see that
clause, they'll look for different software.


>
> And for that i would ask for an appology, since as there are _no_
> forbidden clause stating to school.

That may not be your intent. But that's what you've stated. You get no
apology. Your license is *very* clear to anyone that Governmental
Institutes (e.g., schools) may not use the software.

If this is *not* what you intended, then you owe me a little gratitude
for having pointed this out to you.

>
> I hope i can explained that properly.

Explain all you want. That's not what the license says. If you don't
want me saying things like "it forbids schools from using it" then
you'd better clean up the language in your license. Because, as
written, it surely does forbid government schools from using it.

>
> It is hard for me to make legal statements in public, due to my ethical
> code - which i´m obligated to follow. I have no idea if in US a lawyer
> can make any free statement (I assume it can be done, because as far i
> can remember in US lawyer are allowed to make publicity also), but here
> i must do such statements with limitatinos (And we are not free to make
> publicity ... we have restrictions that must fit the ethical
> purpose...It is hard to explain, anyway. I didn´t built my ehtical
> code, but i must obbey it).

This isn't an issue of ethics, legal or otherwise. Some portions of
your license are not written well and paint a completely different
picture than you intend. You need to fix those. Explaining yourself in
newsgroups is not the solution -- fixing your license is. As long as
clause 20 reads the way it does, I can assure you that any native
English speaker who knows anything about government agencies is going
to come to the conclusion that government-run schools cannot use your
software. If this is not what you intended, you need to change your
language.


>
> I ask you (and also ask Steve) to not force me to answer specific
> things about the license on this way. I can explain to the proper board
> in a sort of Faq in RosAsm board, if a RosAsm user eventually ask or
> question such things, but i can´t make it freely in public just to
> respond to attacks or misintrepretatinos of non-rosasm users.

Sorry, my posts get censored on the RosAsm board.

>
> I hope it is explained and i hope you understood and won´t try to
> distort my words once again.

I don't have to distort your words. Clause 20 is pretty explicit about
forbidding governmental institutes (like schools) from using RosAsm. If
this is not what you intended, then you need to change that clause.

And I would point out that *schools* are just *one* example of the type
of organizations that your license is going to forbid the use of
RosAsm. A social security office, unemployment office, or welfare
office is certainly a governmental agency. Would you disallow them to
use your software? Again, if you mean military, *say* military.

And if you mean military, what about all the defense contractors out
there? They're civilians? Why should they be allowed to use the
software to develop missiles and bombs while a soldier can't use the
software to help distribute food in Africa? Again, there are *all*
kinds of philosophical problems you run into when you try to "enforce"
ethics via some sort of software license.

Just use the GPL and be done with it.
After all, Rene has been bragging about how RosAsm is so great because
it's a GPL'd assembler. Why the change in heart all of a sudden? Does
this mean that RosAsm *wasn't* great because it used the GPL? Are more
proprietary licenses (like Microsoft's, which you've used as a model
apparently) better? This is all so very confusing.
Cheers,
Randy Hyde

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: FIVE STAR POLL - Glee "Mash Off" 11/16/11 (Spoilers)
    ... I had no idea that church deacon required a government license. ... This is where workplace rules and civil law step in to protect the weak. ... religion seems to be getting lumped in specifically as if it deserves some ...
    (rec.arts.tv)
  • Re: FIVE STAR POLL - Glee "Mash Off" 11/16/11 (Spoilers)
    ... I had no idea that church deacon required a government license. ... government license is dispensed to clergy. ... under the statute I posted, ...
    (rec.arts.tv)
  • Venezuela: TV Shutdown Harms Free Expression
    ... Venezuela: ... country's oldest private channel, when its license expires on May 27, 2007. ... RCTV is a serious blow to freedom of expression in Venezuela." ... RCTV has remained strongly critical of the government. ...
    (soc.culture.venezuela)
  • Re: TCL/TK license
    ... > Could anyone shed some light on the small clause in the tcl/tk ... Legend in the license agreement. ... It's meaningless drivel that some contract officers insist ... Government requires of all commercial software it buys. ...
    (comp.lang.tcl)
  • Re: Vista Checkpoint Nabs Motorists Breaking Laws
    ... conditioned to believe that driving is a government granted privilege. ... It is a privilege because it can't be a right. ... only ask for your license, registration, and insurance. ... The bank, Wachovia, will then lose my acount and the investments I ...
    (rec.autos.driving)