Talk:Software license

message: 'ownership of a copy of software' is meaningless. One either owns the copyright to the software, or they are a licencee.
'acceptance of the licence is essentially optional' is false. The acceptance of the licence is the condition on which one is allowed to copy the software, otherwise it falls back to 'all rights reserved' therefore the end-user has no rights in relation to the software.
Re describing the effects of a licence... the end user capable of reading the licence text for themselves.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.180.1.224 (talk) 01:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't necessarily so, at least not in the United States.  It's possible to buy copies of software, the same way you can buy copies of a book, without holding copyright to the creative work in question. There's some dispute about whether consumers own copies of commercial programs with a "licensed not sold" EULA (see Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc., 555 F.Supp.2d 1164 (W.D.Wash. 2008)), but I'm unaware of any legal reason to believe that you *can't* buy and sell copies of programs, absent such an EULA.  Asrabkin (talk) 08:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issues with FOSS section 

message: I recently removed misleading information about the ramifications of the fairly recent Jacobsen v. Katzer decision regarding the enforceability of open source software licenses. These edits were made by an anonymous author. Before re-inserting that information, please be sure that you understand the difference between mere use of software versus copying, distributing, and making derivative works of software. Open source licenses do not restrict who may use software. Just as anyone may read a copyrighted book, anyone may use copyrighted open source software. If you accept the terms of an open source license, then, in addition to the right to use the software, you are granted the additional rights to copy, distribute, and make derivative works of the software pursuant to the terms of the license. If you reject the terms of the license, you may still use the software. This follow from the fact that "use" is not one of the exclusive rights retained by copyright holders. But by rejecting an open source license, you may not copy, distribute, or make derivative works of the software in question. In Jacobsen v. Katzer, the defendant admitted to copying, distributing, and making derivative works of the open source software, which is why the court found that copyright infringement had occurred. If the defendant had merely used the software for his own personal purposes, then no copyright infringement would have occurred. Moulding (talk) 01:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jacobsen v. Katzer 

message: The act of licensing software is a separate topic from the sofware license itself.
Although they are obviously interrelated, they still remain two separate things.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jigordon (talk • contribs) 
:I disagree.  One article can manage that issue as this separation only serves to confuse the reader.  Separate article Site license should be merged also. — Moondyne 09:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I support the merge, but the article should be titled Software licensing, not Software license. I'll change the tags to undirected merges. ~ Keiji (iNVERTED) (Talk | Contribs) 20:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Software Licensing should not be merged with Software License 

message: sure it is  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.110.66.72 (talk) 13:27, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  is software tangible for tax purposes? 

message: pro·pri·e·tary  
Pronunciation: \prə-ˈprī-ə-ˌter-ē\ 
Function: noun 
Inflected Form(s): plural pro·pri·e·tar·ies 
Etymology: Middle English propietarie, from Anglo-French, from Medieval Latin propietarius, from Late Latin, adjective 
Date: 15th century 
1: one that possesses, owns, or holds exclusive right to something; specifically : proprietor 1
2: something that is used, produced, or marketed under exclusive legal right of the inventor or maker; specifically : a drug (as a patent medicine) that is protected by secrecy, patent, or copyright against free competition as to name, product, composition, or process of manufacture
3: a business secretly owned by and run as a cover for an intelligence organization
proprietary 
Function: adjective 
Etymology: Late Latin proprietarius, from Latin proprietas property — more at property 
Date: 1589 
1 : of, relating to, or characteristic of a proprietor <proprietary rights> 
2 : used, made, or marketed by one having the exclusive legal right <a proprietary process> <proprietary software> 
3 : privately owned and managed and run as a profit-making organization <a proprietary clinic> 
Perhaps you have a different dictionary?
Perhaps this is the GNUish and not the English Wiki?
Shjacks45 (talk) 13:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The term "proprietary license" is conventionally used to describe any kind of software license where the producer of the software maintains that they retain ownership over copies of the software that are distributed to end-users. This, by the definitions you gave for the word proprietary, seems to make the term quite apt. I'm not sure why you think the term is mis-applied here. Usage of this term has nothing to do with GNU -- it is commonly used throughout the software industry, often even in contexts that don't involve any kind of open source. Nevertheless, even if use of the word "proprietary" in this instance were technically improper, it is a term that is widely used by convention. So it may be a misnomer (I'm not saying that I think it is, I find it appropriate) but it is the de facto name for the type of license described here. Moulding (talk) 18:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Software can be proprietary not Licenses 

message: The definition given here of free software is misleading and self contradictory. A free software does not transfer its ownership (Copyright) to the other parties. It simply grants license to others to use the software and to work upon it in a manner not contemplated by the traditional copyright law. It grants freedom to exploit the source and other codes of the software and to derive another software out of the free software.
The license so granted is subject to promise by the licensee to perpetuate the license conditions as is received by him to the derivative works (developed out of the free software)i.e the licensee has to make his own work derived from the free software subject to the License as accepted by him for making use of free software.check this link on Copyleft licensing of software. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copy_left
The entire gamut of software licensing in the free software is governed by a system of licensing. Licensing by definition is a 'conditional transfer of some and not all rights' over particular work in which case the Author continues to remain the Owner of the copyright in the software. He merely allows the 'GNUGPL or other similar licensees' to enjoy the rights but also bound by its conditions. The idea behind the free software movement is to 'perpetuate or spread or expand the the right to work on a software without any limitations and derive new works out of it'. 
A software is free in true sense only if the Author of such software irrevocably  waives his rights over it in which case it becomes free for all software. In the absence of ownership (copyright) rights over free software, the question of free software licenses and their control on how you must license your work do not arise.
Appropriate changes need to be incorporated to the meaning of free software in this article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.138.120.65 (talk) 08:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Free Software Vs Proprietary Software

message: I have done a bit of correction but still this article needs a lot of improvement.
Suggestions and productive collaboration are welcome.
--Grandscribe (talk) 17:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article needs a lot of improvement. 

message: What guidelines apply to source code that was always distributed freely, used in a scientific environment (such that the use of the software would be cited in scientific publications), but was never distributed under a certain software license? Specifically, if the source code is available on the internet, but the author of the software is dead, is that piece of software public domain or not?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.206.94.137 (talk) 23:35, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: All software written is under copyright, even if the author of the software died. In the case of death, the copyright is transferred to any surviving relatives, or the state to be auctioned off if non such relatives exist. Published source code does not fall under any exception, and even if someone gave away books with the source code in them, the legal status of the code would still be the same (ie, under copyright). Public domain only happens once the copyright has expired, which for software is unlikely to happen in this lifetime. Belorn (talk) 12:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source code without a license, public domain or not? 

message: This entire description is written from a limited point of view.  There are a lot more types of licenses out there than the ones listed.  In addition, the categories provided are not true types, but are the names used by certain manufacturers/vendors. 
Also, it says software maintance is part of the license and this is just plain wrong.  Sometimes they are sold as a bundle, but they are two distinct things.  In fact, the term maintenance can be mean a whole lot of different things depending on the manufacturer/vendor.
This entire thing needs a re-write by a qualified software license compliance expert.  Here is an outline for where this definition should be heading.
NUMBER OF COPIES:
Per Instance – the right to use one installed copy
Per Person — the right for one person to use multiple copies
Per CPU - etc... I've encountered at least a dozen types of licenses
TIME LIMIT:	
Perpetual – the right to use the specified version never expires
Lease – the right to use the specified version has a defined end-date
OTHER LIMITS:
Site License – the right to use is restricted to a physical location, but typically no limit of persons or instances (so far I have only seen this with a Lease)
Stand Alone – the license key is stored on the desktop with the software and cannot be shared
Network – the license key is stored on a server and loaned to a desktop temporarily (often called concurrent or floating licenses)
USB License Key – often called a dongle, is a USB device that must be connected to the machine that needs the license key. 
Not to be confused with a Security Token – often called a fob, is a device that randomly generates an access code to be manually entered
Issue Support – service that provides assistance with issue resolution, such as when product will not install
Product Patching – provides minor patch releases for the current version
Product Upgrade – provides major release to a new version
Data Service – provides operational data that is used within the application
Consulting Service – service that provides for guidance on how to use the application or how to operate
Confusing Terminology
These are terms that will be used differently be each vendor.  They are vague, confusing, or contradictory.  Make sure you know what how this term will be interpreted by the person you are talking to.
Subscription or Maintenance – could include any combination of issue support, product patching, product upgrade, data service, consulting service.  It could be a perpetual license or a lease.
Multi-Use License Key – this is any license key you can use more than one time.  It could be a perpetual or lease license.  It could be a network or stand-alone.  This term does not really define the type of license so much as describe the quantity purchased.
Commercial Use – this term can actually mean two different things.  
1.	It can refer to the use of the software by a commercial entity or any of its employees, etc.   An example is using label making software at a pipeline company.
2.	Or it can refer to the re-selling of the software’s functionality, often called ‘used for commercial purposes’.    An example of this would be using the label making software at a company that sells label making services.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.114.195.84 (talk) 19:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  This entire thing is biased. 

message: If you are familiar with international copyright law or laws of non-U.S. nations, please contribute to this article!
Currently this article is almost entirely focused on law in the United States, often without explicitly stating so.  International perspectives on software licenses and their enforceability is sorely lacking. --BBUCommander (talk) 19:56, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  International Perspective 

message: Someone added a lead rewrite template to the article, with the reason: "It's currently written from the point of view of proprietary software: "contract law", "end-user","software owner","license agreement". In addition the last sentence of the second paragraph is broken". All of the these terms are equally applicable to free and open source software, as well. As it is stated at Open source software#Open software licensing, an American court ruled that "free software licences definitely do set legally binding conditions on the use of copyrighted work, and they are therefore enforceable under existing copyright law. As a result, if end-users do violate the licensing conditions, their license disappears, meaning they are infringing copyright". Therefore, the first part of the tag (about the point of view) should be removed; if you disagree, please state why. --Joshua Issac (talk) 12:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead rewrite template 

message: This week there's discussion about whether to delete or keep the Index of Articles Relating to Terms of Service and Privacy Policies, which I created in early August. That index helps readers find:
* this article
* articles on different aspects of terms of service
* articles which cover terms of service at specific companies
Wikipedians are welcome to improve the index, and/or  discuss if it should be deleted or kept available. Numbersinstitute (talk) 17:26, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete or keep an index? 

message: Hello, I am employed by Boston University's Fineman & Pappas Law Libraries. After reviewing this Wikipedia page, I believe that information from one of our faculty's scholarship might provide a valuable addition to this page.  I would appreciate it if this requested edit could be reviewed.
Add to the end of the Software Licenses and Copyright Law Section: There have been many attempts at proposing model laws to regulate software transactions (including licensing), like the Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act.  Following unsatisfactory attempts by the Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act and Uniform Commercial Code to offer comprehensive ways to address issues with software transacting, the American Law Institute created the Principles of the Law of Software Contracts, which sought to formulate a body of law to (1) address the unique aspects of software transactions and (2) unify the disorganized body of law that surrounded software contracting and licensing at the time.   Some of the main components of the Principles of the Law of Software Contracts include  modifying of the UCC's warranty rules addressing requirements for assent to standard forms, the inclusion of a non-disclaimable warranty of hidden defects, etc.   However, many aspects of law pertaining to software licensing remain controversial.  For example, the Principles of the Law of Software Contracts resisted attempts to address issues related to disclosure.   However, there remain arguments in support of mandating different forms of disclosure (e.g. disclosure of facts, terms, and/or post-contract intentions), given the benefits of disclosure in relation to efficiency, social value, due process, etc. .
:. I think this particular section, as proposed, would be out of scope for an article about software licensing, since it is very broadly focused on contracts and transactions in general and not so much on licensing, which is the topic of the article. However, I see that both articles contain information that is relevant to software licensing (specifically) and that, as such, could probably be integrated in the article. JBchrch talk 09:06, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some Proposed Changes 

message: On the Permissive Software Licences  page, the examples given are BSD, MIT, and Apache which all fit the criterium. The Software Licences table (this site) cites MPL as a Permissive License, but it is also shown inside the Copyleft  page as an example of a Copyleft license.
While I understand it is an middleground between those two types, I think we should either change the one at Permissive to also be MPL to keep continuity or change it here to BSD (which I, personally, support more, because it is more clearcut)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.105.104.91 (talk) 16:13, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  request for evening out the tables 

message: Please replace the content of the article with User:Buidhe paid/Software license. Reason: Rewrite with improved sources and expanded content. Buidhe paid (talk) 01:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request