4 ms·

It doesn't matter which product it was for - it still seems contradictory. It says I can distribute patches but then it says I can't. I wasn't joking when tell

by nadams 11y ago

It doesn't matter which product it was for - it still seems contradictory. It says I can distribute patches but then it says I can't. I wasn't joking when telling you that you should get a lawyer on the phone. I've seen a number of people try to write their own software license - and fail miserably. It really has me kind of worried that your response wasn't "we did consult with a lawyer when creating that license".

antsar 11y ago
In what way does it seem contradictory? It seems to allow one to write and publish patches, while disallowing the redistribution/resale of the original code.
- nadams 11y ago
  Distributing a patch would require distributing parts of the original code (the patch file will include lines of original and changed code) - which the latter is not allowed per the license. I'm not saying that gitlab would go after you for just distributing a patch - but if anyone gobbled up gitlab coughOraclecough I'm sure they would summon a swarm of lawyers at your doorstep.
  - sytse 11y ago
    If you have any suggestions how to word this better I'm open to them. We did have a lawyer look at this. It is like sampling, you can use a bit but you can't use it all.
    - nadams 11y ago
      Well for starters most licenses will define the meaning of the terms in question. You should define exactly what is a patch file (such as format and what it contains). Potentially a patch file could include whole files. Here is a hypothetical situation: what would you say if I included your entire program in a patch file. If you are saying patch files that contain your code are ok to distribute - but I'm sure you are going to say that's not ok. But why not? Your license says I can distribute patches - it just so happens this patch file contains every file in your program. The question here is how much patch file is too much? Is there a limit? A better idea would be to require your sign off on every patch. Or only allow patch files to be uploaded to a forum that is accessible to enterprise only customers (vBulletin has a similar setup).
      - sytse 11y ago
        In contracts most terms are not defined. This allows the judge to interpret them according to their common meaning, for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patch_(computing) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patch_(computing) I don't think most people will consider an entire program a patch. Having us sign off on every patch defeats the intent of the clause. The intent is to give our customers a way to submit merge requests on https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/merge_requests https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/merge_requests and to be able to comment on for example Stack Overflow with fixes they made so other customers can learn from that. We don't want to slow down that process.
        nadams 11y ago
        > In contracts most terms are not defined. The GPL is one that I know that spells it out [1]: > This License applies to any program or other work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public License. The "Program", below, refers to any such program or work, and a "work based on the Program" means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law: that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it, either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated into another language. (Hereinafter, translation is included without limitation in the term "modification".) Each licensee is addressed as "you". > This allows the judge to interpret them according to their common meaning Uhhh....you mean the same legal system that claimed that Ron Rivest et al. were not the original inventors of the RSA algorithm? [2] I don't know who is counseling you on legal matters but I strongly believe you should define anything that can be ambiguous. [3] > DO define all technical terms. [3] > DON'T assume the other party defines terms the way you do. If there is any doubt, include a definition in the contract. [3] > DON'T accept the other party's oral explanation of a confusing term. Include everything in writing. [3] > I don't think most people will consider an entire program a patch. Why not? It can easily be done [4]. Example: here is a patch file to upgrade from CE to EE. [1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.en.html#SEC1 http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.en.html#SEC... [2] https://gigaom.com/2013/11/26/troll-wins-newegg-encryption-patent-case-threatening-web-firms-that-protect-customers/ https://gigaom.com/2013/11/26/troll-wins-newegg-encryption-p... [3] http://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/business-contracts-forms/do-s-and-don-ts-contracts-terms.html http://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/business-contracts-forms/do... [4] http://stackoverflow.com/a/9982282/195722 http://stackoverflow.com/a/9982282/195722

by nadams 11y ago

antsar 11y ago

In what way does it seem contradictory? It seems to allow one to write and publish patches, while disallowing the redistribution/resale of the original code.

nadams 11y ago
Distributing a patch would require distributing parts of the original code (the patch file will include lines of original and changed code) - which the latter is not allowed per the license. I'm not saying that gitlab would go after you for just distributing a patch - but if anyone gobbled up gitlab coughOraclecough I'm sure they would summon a swarm of lawyers at your doorstep.
- sytse 11y ago
  If you have any suggestions how to word this better I'm open to them. We did have a lawyer look at this. It is like sampling, you can use a bit but you can't use it all.
  - nadams 11y ago
    Well for starters most licenses will define the meaning of the terms in question. You should define exactly what is a patch file (such as format and what it contains). Potentially a patch file could include whole files. Here is a hypothetical situation: what would you say if I included your entire program in a patch file. If you are saying patch files that contain your code are ok to distribute - but I'm sure you are going to say that's not ok. But why not? Your license says I can distribute patches - it just so happens this patch file contains every file in your program. The question here is how much patch file is too much? Is there a limit? A better idea would be to require your sign off on every patch. Or only allow patch files to be uploaded to a forum that is accessible to enterprise only customers (vBulletin has a similar setup).
    - sytse 11y ago
      In contracts most terms are not defined. This allows the judge to interpret them according to their common meaning, for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patch_(computing) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patch_(computing) I don't think most people will consider an entire program a patch. Having us sign off on every patch defeats the intent of the clause. The intent is to give our customers a way to submit merge requests on https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/merge_requests https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/merge_requests and to be able to comment on for example Stack Overflow with fixes they made so other customers can learn from that. We don't want to slow down that process.
      - nadams 11y ago
        > In contracts most terms are not defined. The GPL is one that I know that spells it out [1]: > This License applies to any program or other work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public License. The "Program", below, refers to any such program or work, and a "work based on the Program" means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law: that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it, either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated into another language. (Hereinafter, translation is included without limitation in the term "modification".) Each licensee is addressed as "you". > This allows the judge to interpret them according to their common meaning Uhhh....you mean the same legal system that claimed that Ron Rivest et al. were not the original inventors of the RSA algorithm? [2] I don't know who is counseling you on legal matters but I strongly believe you should define anything that can be ambiguous. [3] > DO define all technical terms. [3] > DON'T assume the other party defines terms the way you do. If there is any doubt, include a definition in the contract. [3] > DON'T accept the other party's oral explanation of a confusing term. Include everything in writing. [3] > I don't think most people will consider an entire program a patch. Why not? It can easily be done [4]. Example: here is a patch file to upgrade from CE to EE. [1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.en.html#SEC1 http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.en.html#SEC... [2] https://gigaom.com/2013/11/26/troll-wins-newegg-encryption-patent-case-threatening-web-firms-that-protect-customers/ https://gigaom.com/2013/11/26/troll-wins-newegg-encryption-p... [3] http://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/business-contracts-forms/do-s-and-don-ts-contracts-terms.html http://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/business-contracts-forms/do... [4] http://stackoverflow.com/a/9982282/195722 http://stackoverflow.com/a/9982282/195722