Talk:License-free software

Disputed (2004.12)

Since the disputed tag links to here, I guess I should explain the problem on this page as well: DJB's software is not actually "license-free", as he explicitly grants a license to redistribute it. See also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Licence-Free Software. ~leif ☺ _HELO 01:13, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. The term "license-free" suggests a number of possibilities, chiefly:

• Software in the public domain. People who wish to republish this software (with or without modifications) need no license from the author to do so.
• Software which is wholly proprietary. No license is available for others to republish the software.

DJB's works fall into neither category, since he does offer license (permission) for others to republish these works. (Recall, "license" means "permission" -- a copyright license is not essentially a formal document; it is simply the permission of the copyright holder.)

I do agree with something the article (and DJB) suggest: that there is a certain amount of misleading going on in the software business regarding licensure. Specifically, some software houses promulgate the idea that copyright grants copyright holders the right to limit non-copying actions of end users of software -- for instance, to place onerous conditions upon use of software in the form of end-user license agreements.

The legitimacy of such pseudo-licenses is by no means established in copyright law, and has in some jurisdictions been expressly rejected by the courts: a person who owns a copy of a copyrighted work does not have the right to publish copies of it, but does have the right to use and dispose of that work as he will. Moreover, the construction that software is "licensed, not sold" has been explicitly rejected -- if two parties carry out the overt ritual of selling and buying a box containing software, the law recognizes that a sale has occurred; language contained in a document inside that box notwithstanding.

However, the article as originally posted here (prior to my edits) made a thoroughly erroneous accusation, that the FSF and others in the FS/OSS world sought to perpetuate this lie upon software users. The fact of the matter is quite different: the GPL for instance is quite explicit in stating that it only applies to actions relevant to copyright, and that use is outside the scope of the license:

Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted[...]. [1]

The works of other FS/OSS groups such as Debian make the point even more clear regarding private (undistributed) modifications. One of Debian's tests of whether a product is Free Software is the "desert island test", which asks whether an isolated person may legally make modifications to the software without being obligated to release them back to the copyright holder. Debian here agrees with DJB that private modification is not rightly restricted under copyright. The idea that FS/OSS and DJB have a disagreement here is bogus. --FOo 02:26, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

These "multiple problems" aren't actually problems at all.

• The request for deletion does not meet the requirements of Wikipedia deletion policy. The request is based primarily upon the assertion that since the facts are disputed, the article should be deleted. But policy clearly puts {{disputed}}, which is what was added here, into the Problems that don't require deletion category. The requestor should read Wikipedia policy. (You "correct" URLs without reading RFC 2396 to find out the correct form, Leif. Now you propose deleting articles without reading what Wikipedia deletion policy actually is.)
• the title should actually be ... — A poor choice of title is not justification for deletion. Wikipedia has a perfectly good renaming mechanism for addressing such things. If you think that the title could be better, fix the title. Deleting the article outright is not the answer.
• this is not a widely used term — It's the term used by its advocates. It's not widely used because there aren't that many advocates. But given that it as equally as descriptive as the titles of other articles about similar philosophies, such as "open source" and "free software", are, it appears to be a reasonably good choice of article title. This is not justification for deletion. And the fact that Google has problems with searches for hyphenated phrases, because of its use of hyphen as a metacharacter, is not actally a relevant criterion at all.
• some general information that is relevant to all of djb's software should be on a different page than the qmail article — Leif even provides the very reason for incorporating this text into a single article. As things stood, copyright of Bernstein softwares was addressed, in various ways, on several pages. On the qmail page, indeed, discussion of the copyright issue (which is not particularly special to qmail, of course) was threatening to outweigh discussion of qmail itself.
• Maybe a section on the Daniel J. Bernstein article? — No. Just as this topic is not specific to qmail, it is not specific to Bernstein either. Other authors have followed Bernstein's example. And, of course, the discussion applies to licence-free software that any other authors, who may have never even heard of Bernstein, have published. There is no justification for deletion here. And there are arguments against merging.
• The text I put on is much more accurate — No, it wasn't. It was much less accurate, if anything. It got things wrong that even the FSF gets right. The FSF lists the Bernstein non-licence as "non-free" because it mostly prohibits the distribution of modified versions. Your text did not reflect the FSF's "mostly", but instead said without qualification "3rd party modifications are not allowed to be redistributed". This is wrong. Ironically, your text was a replacement for text that, whilst stilted, did get this right, and did describe the situation correctly.
• It is still a licence. — This is widely and strongly disputed, and a subject of perennial debate. The article, furthermore, notes the irony of this assertion.
• The term "licence-free" suggests ... The term "licence-free" suggests "free of a licence", just as "fat-free" suggests "free of fat". Don't resurrect the "What does the 'free' in 'free software' mean?" debate by the back door. The advocates of the philosophy have chosen their banner. Don't presume to choose it for them.
• The article made a thoroughly erroneous accusation. Then correct it! This is not a reason to vote for deletion. Deleting an article because one doesn't want to edit it in order to make corrections (especially when one was happy to have little edit wars in all of the several articles whose discussions of the same topic were merged into this one) is an extraordinary idea for Wikipedia. Also, note that you failed to understand the point that was actually being made by that text.
• The idea that FS/OSS and DJB have a disagreement here is bogus. This is not a reason to vote for deletion. And it should be clear, from the FSF's own criticism and from articles written by Russell Nelson, OSI board member that the FSF and the OSI themselves both seem to think that there's a definite disagreement between them and Bernstein on the subject of software licences, even if you do not.

Summary: This request for deletion does not meet policy. Most objections seem to be ill-founded, and reasons to do things other than delete the article. There's scant justification even for {{cleanup}}; and, of course, this article is a merge itself. KEEP -- 81.138.100.115 18:15, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Deletion (2004.12)

For a December 2004 deletion debate over this page see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Licence-Free Software —Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonP (talk • contribs) 2004-12-27 11:55:38

Page needs signifigant work (2005.03-2005.08)

First off he is correct that users can run, use, patch and modify software without a "license". You should read the CONTU Final Draft which created the Chapter 1 Section 117 Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs in US Copyright Law.

This is what the courts found in Step-Saver Data Sys., Inc. v. Wyse Tech., 939 F.2d 91 (3d Cir. 1991)

When these form licenses were first developed for software, it was, in large part, to avoid the federal copyright law first sale doctrine. Under the first sale doctrine, once the copyright holder has sold a copy of the copyrighted work, the owner of the copy could "sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy" without the copyright holder's consent. See Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus, 210 U.S. 339, 350, 28 S.Ct. 722, 726, 52 L.Ed. 1086 (1908); 17 U.S.C.A. § 109(a) (West 1977). Under this doctrine, one could purchase a copy of a computer program, and then lease it or lend it to another without infringing the copyright on the program. Because of the ease of copying software, software producers were justifiably concerned that companies would spring up that would purchase copies of various programs and then lease those to consumers. Typically, the companies, like a videotape rental store, would purchase a number of copies of each program, and then make them available for over-night rental to consumers. Consumers, instead of purchasing their own copy of the program, would simply rent a copy of the program, and duplicate it. This copying by the individual consumers would presumably infringe the copyright, but usually it would be far too expensive for the copyright holder to identify and sue each individual copier. Thus, software producers wanted to sue the companies that were renting the copies of the program to individual consumers, rather than the individual consumers. The first sale doctrine, though, stood as a substantial barrier to successful suit against these software rental companies, even under a theory of contributory infringement. By characterizing the original transaction between the software producer and the software rental company as a license, rather than a sale, and by making the license personal and non- transferable, software producers hoped to avoid the reach of the first sale doctrine and to establish a basis in state contract law for suing the software rental companies directly. Questions remained, however, as to whether the use of state contract law to avoid the first sale doctrine would be preempted either by the federal copyright statute (statutory preemption) or by the exclusive constitutional grant of authority over copyright issues to the federal government (constitutional preemption). See generally Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc., 489 U.S. 141, 109 S.Ct. 971, 103 L.Ed.2d 118 (1989); Kewanee Oil Co. v. Bicron Corp., 416 U.S. 470, 94 S.Ct. 1879, 40 L.Ed.2d 315 (1974); Compco Corp. v. Day-Brite Lighting, Inc., 376 U.S. 234, 84 S.Ct. 779, 11 L.Ed.2d 669 (1964); Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co., 376 U.S. 225, 84 S.Ct. 784, 11 L.Ed.2d 661 (1964). Congress recognized the problem, and, in 1990, amended the first sale doctrine as it applies to computer programs and phonorecords. See Computer Software Rental Amendments Act of 1990, Pub.L. No. 101-650, 104 Stat. 5134 (codified at 17 U.S.C.A. § 109(b) (West Supp.1991)). As amended, the first sale doctrines permits only non-profit libraries and educational institutions to lend or lease copies of software and phonorecords. See 17 U.S.C.A. § 109(b)(1)(A) (West Supp.1991). (Under the amended statute, a purchaser of a copy of a copyrighted computer program may still sell his copy to another without the consent of the copyright holder.) This amendment renders the need to characterize the original transaction as a license largely anachronistic. While these transactions took place in 1986-87, before the Computer Software Rental Amendments were enacted, there was no need to characterize the transactions between Step-Saver and TSL as a license to avoid the first sale doctrine because both Step-Saver and TSL agree that Step-Saver had the right to resell the copies of the Multilink Advanced program.

NOTE: This is straight from the findings of facts and the finding of the 3'rd Circuit district court.

Essentially what the third circuit said was the only reason why a software company would employ a EULA after 1990 is to try to use contract law to further restrict rights of users, in paticular first sale rights, given by the Federal US Copyright Act. The EULA is therefore Pre-empted.

Note however that the 7'th and 8'th circuit disagree that the EULA is pre-empted due to the licensed for "Use" and not sold theory put forth by the software companies. Then again the Computer Software Rental Amendments Act of 1990 (See Chapter 1 Section 109 (b)(3) specifically leaves the software companies open to Clayton Act and the Fair Trade Act. Software companies routinly violate the Clayton Act, in paticular Microsoft's sales tactics to "compete" with FOSS by offering signifigant discounts to not roll out FOSS violate this act. Even MS's new policy of rolling out patches to preffered customers, such as the US Govt a month before they are rolled out to other customers and their new policy of locking WINE/Crossover office users out of MS Update could be interputed as a blatent violation of the Clayton Act.

A license however is required to distribute or make derivatives. This is where the article is wrong. Edward Moglen, General Counsel of the FSF, said this;

In general, users of copyrighted works do not need licenses. The Copyright Act conveys to copyright holders certain exclusive rights in their works. So far as software is concerned, the rights exclusively granted to the holder are to copy, to modify or make derivative works, and to distribute. Parties who wish to do any of the things that copyright holders are exclusively entitled to do need permission; if they don't have permission, they're infringing. But the Copyright Act doesn't grant the copyright holder the exclusive right to use the work; that would vitiate the basic idea of copyright. One doesn't need a copyright license to read the newspaper, or to listen to recorded music; therefore you can read the newspaper over someone's shoulder or listen to music wafting on the summer breeze even though you haven't paid the copyright holder. Software users are sometimes confused by the prevailing tendency to present software products with contracts under shrinkwrap; in order to use the software one has to accept a contract from the manufacturer. But that's not because copyright law requires such a license. [2]

Also note that except in the 7'th and 8'th district it is generally held that a sale of software is indeed a sale and EULAs are for the most part unenforcable. Also note that in States with so called Anti-UCITA laws, (Proposed or passed in Iowa, New York, North Dakota, Massachusetts, North Carolina, West Virginia, Vermont, and Oregon - Iowa, North Carolina, West Virginia and, Vermont have already enacted the legislation someone would need to research if it passed in the others). Most of these Anti-UCITA bills tend to ammend Article 2 of the Uniform Comercial Code (UCC) so that a sale of software is defined as a sale of goods under the UCC. The clickwrap license therefore, unless presented prior to the exchange of funds, are unenforcable changes to the contract for the sale of goods - Thus none of that licensed and not sold verbage in the EULA can be enforced.

In any case UCITA nor anti-UCITA, nor any other law, require that software be licensed for utilization (Use) due to section 117. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.242.136.187 (talk) 2005-03-13 20:57:45

Excellent explanation about not needing a licence for private usage of coipyrighted works, especially software. It may be noted anyway the follwing first-sale info:

• If EULAs do not ever apply I am allowed (based on classic copyright laws, not the DMCA [I know little about that monster]) to, for example, make a copy of my microsft office CD onto a DVD, Destroy the CD, and sell the dvd to a new owner. This is Allowed because i own the copy of the software, so the copy is what matters, not the medium.
• If EULAs do apply, then I may not own a copy of the software, but i paid good money for a box manual, jewel case, and compact disc, which I therefore own. Microsoft still owning my physical CD is absolutely rediculous. Since I own the CD I can dispose of it as a wish, as long as i destroy any copies made, or dispose of them in the exact same fashion.

Anyway I don't think anything in your big text there was disputed, but neverthe less you text is very nice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.34.245.44 (talk) 2005-04-25 19:28:00

Quotation and factual problems aside for a second, what's with the obsession over the Microsoft debate when it doesn't even belong here? It's an opinion piece not an encyclopedia piece. The entire article needs to be rewritten. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.16.209.90 (talk • contribs) 2005-08-11 02:06:38 UTC.

Vandalism (2005.05)

Uncle G's destructive reversions and page renaming have been referred to Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts ... I wouldn't be surprised to see him changing 'license' to 'licence' even in this discussion page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.40.203 (talk) 2005-05-04 12:57:01

And now jguk is "standarising spelling" inside of quotations! Since the term, as used by Dan Bernstein and those discuss his work, is "License-free Software", not "Licence-free Software", these actions have all been deleterious to the quality of the article. But quality doesn't seem to be the primary concern. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.40.203 (talk) 2005-05-06T02:45:15

Move requested (2005.06, 2006.10)

I propose this page be moved (back?) to License-free software. After all, that is the term as used by its creator and most vocal advocate. "License-free software" also gets more than twice as many Google hits than "licence-free software" (with "-wikipedia" in the box); the "British" spelling is confined to U.K. pages and pages in non-English languages.

From the talk and deletion pages, I gather that the spelling has already been disputed at length, but I can't find any actual arguments for or against what seems to be (the American) DJB's original spelling, "license-free software," [3] versus the current title. Versus "License Free Software", apparently a copyright-friendly capitalization by Wayne Marshall [4], which I think is silly. Any comments? --Quuxplusone 17:49, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I vote Move, naturally. --Quuxplusone 17:49, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I would have to vote Move as well. It seems bizarre to specially favor the British/Canadian spelling for the title of a page describing a software licensing approach that is explicitly based on quirks of US copyright law. --Saucepan 23:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Move —Michael Z. 2005-06-17 04:46 Z

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. violet/riga (t) 18:49, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Someone moved it back to licence-free software, which I reversed because of this successful move request and its reasoning. I changed the spelling of license in the article, which was the reason given for the article's move back. -- Kjkolb 08:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

What users can do with Licence-Free Software (2005.07-2005.09)

What is this sentence supposed to say? "Thus modified versions of licence-free software can legally be distributed in source code form however the original can, by distributing a patch alongside it." It says that a modified version can be distributed, and the original can have something done with a patch.  ??? Dan Watts 23:26, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I think the uncommon use of 'however' may be confusing: as used in that sentence, it means 'in whatever ways', not 'but'.

"Thus modified versions can be distributed in source code form in whatever ways the original version can be distributed."

In other words, if you only have license (permission) to copy the original without changes, you can't distribute a modified version; but you can distribute the unchanged original, and also distribute patches that can be applied to produce a modified version. 82.36.28.132 02:42, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

{Disputed} tag removal (2005.11)

I have removed the {Disputed} tag , as it was added nearly a year ago, by a user who has not commented since then, and there is no present discussion of the tag(that I can see). If anyone still considers that there is a dispute, feel free to state the dispute on this page (and re-add the tag). Thanks! JesseW, the juggling janitor 10:47, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Irony (2006.03)

"The irony of the claim that people have been "bamboozled" by Microsoft into thinking that they need a licence is that by that token the OSI and FSF are also "bamboozling" people in the same manner." I think this sentence should be removed. People distributing licence-free software are not affiliated with or support FSF so there is no irony. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.75.26 (talk) 2006-03-04 14:57:28

deletion tag (2007.12)

an anonymous IP removed the deletion tag with the edit summary "Removed notice that isn't true". while concise, that's not an adequate explanation or justification for keeping the article. please explain the rationale. i'm open to any good argument, but simply exclaiming that the notice isn't true (whatever that means) isn't helpful. Anastrophe 16:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

another user removed the tag, explaining the rationale (that no justification is required by policy). i understand now. sorry for the error. Anastrophe 18:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Rare? (2010.03)

The introduction claimed that "computer software that is covered by copyright but is not accompanied by a copyright license" is rare. I removed the claim because I believe that it is quite common for individuals and businesses to create software covered by copyright that only they themselves use and that is thus never licensed to anyone. There are also e.g. 46 000 pieces of software on [5], of which very few are accompanied by a license. brtkrbzhnv 11:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Merge

Since this article is about Daniel J. Bernstein it should be merged to it. Palosirkka (talk) 15:13, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose; the concept originated with Bernstein, but has been generalized, as the page describes. Were Daniel to 'claim' the phrase, that would be rather ironic given the nature of the concept. I don't think that we need to force such a claim upon him. Klbrain (talk) 16:23, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on License-free software. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140506055146/http://userscripts.org/scripts to http://userscripts.org/scripts
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140506055139/http://userscripts.org/ to http://userscripts.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:23, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

This Article is just wrong

License-free software is exactly that, software that does not have a license. Almost every one of my 8bit Amstrad CPC games from the 80s/90s and even 2019s are license free whether they are commercial, copyrighted or not. There is no license plain and simple. ZhuLien 12:45, Aug 15, 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.214.190.174 (talk)