Expat license and "free for academic users"

[Andrius Merkys]

Hello,

[Please keep me in CC, I am not subscribed]

I encountered a package EvoEF2 [1] which is licensed under Expat and has
the following in its README.md:

"EvoEF2 is free to academic users."

To me such limitation seems to contradict the Expat license, but I
wonder what is the legal opinion about such combination. I know that I
can always ask the upstream for clarification which I did earlier when
the restriction was:

"... unauthorized copying of the source code files via any medium is
strictly prohibited."

However, I am interested in the legal meaning of the current situation.

[1] https://github.com/tommyhuangthu/EvoEF2
[2] https://github.com/tommyhuangthu/EvoEF2/issues/1

Best,
Andrius

[Francesco Poli]

On Tue, 20 Jun 2023 10:14:41 +0300 Andrius Merkys wrote:

> Hello,

Hi!

>
> [Please keep me in CC, I am not subscribed]

Done.

Well, take into account that I am not a lawyer.

Anyway, to me, the sentence "EvoEF2 is free to academic users." looks
a little misleading.

One could nitpick that the sentence is not false: it's true that EvoEF2
is free to academic users, since it's released under the Expat license,
and therefore it's free to everyone, including academic users.

However, the sentence may make the reader think that EvoEF2 is free
_only_ to academic users, although it does not say so.

I would suggest to once again get in touch with upstream and persuade
them to drop that sentence, or perhaps to replace it with something
like "EvoEF2 is free to all users."

I hope this helps.



--
http://www.inventati.org/frx/
There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory!
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE

[Nicholas D Steeves]

Francesco Poli <inver...@paranoici.org> writes:

> On Tue, 20 Jun 2023 10:14:41 +0300 Andrius Merkys wrote:
>>
>> [Please keep me in CC, I am not subscribed]
>>

>> I encountered a package EvoEF2 [1] which is licensed under Expat and has
>> the following in its README.md:
>>
>> "EvoEF2 is free to academic users."
>>
>> To me such limitation seems to contradict the Expat license, but I
>> wonder what is the legal opinion about such combination. I know that I
>> can always ask the upstream for clarification which I did earlier when
>> the restriction was:

1. EvoEF2 is licensed Expat
2. Expat makes EvoEF2 free for all users
3. "EvoEF2 is free to academic users."
4. I am a[n] [academic] user
5. EvoEF2 is free for me.

#3 is redundant because it is a subset of #2.

vs

1. EvoEF2 is licensed Expat
2. Expat makes EvoEF2 free for all users
3. "EvoEF2 is free to academic users."
4. I am a [commercial or nonacademic] user
5. EvoEF2 is free for me.

At #2, all users, includes nonacademic, commercial, etc. #3 becomes an
editorial: a statement of the anticipated audience and nothing more.

> Well, take into account that I am not a lawyer.

I'm also not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.

> Anyway, to me, the sentence "EvoEF2 is free to academic users." looks
> a little misleading.

Agreed.

> One could nitpick that the sentence is not false: it's true that EvoEF2
> is free to academic users, since it's released under the Expat license,
> and therefore it's free to everyone, including academic users.
>
> However, the sentence may make the reader think that EvoEF2 is free
> _only_ to academic users, although it does not say so.

I agree that this is the important part! It seems legally nonbinding to
me, and not nice to the reader.

Also, I think it would be a stretch to successfully argue that the
antecedent of a redundant statement in the README somehow acts as an
addendum to the LICENSE, such that the license is no longer Expat.
Maybe there are some parts of the world were this is how an addendum
works, but I think the additional statements usually need to be
explicitly defined as such. ie: "This is an addendum to the LICENSE...I
limit the LICENSE in the following way...".

> I would suggest to once again get in touch with upstream and persuade
> them to drop that sentence, or perhaps to replace it with something
> like "EvoEF2 is free to all users."

Agreed! On the other hand, if the author intends to forbid commercial
use, then the license should say so. While not great for the community,
that may also be what the author wishes for...

Cheers,
Nicholas

[Sam Hartman]

>>>>> "Andrius" == Andrius Merkys <mer...@debian.org> writes:

Andrius> Hello, [Please keep me in CC, I am not subscribed]

Andrius> I encountered a package EvoEF2 [1] which is licensed under
Andrius> Expat and has the following in its README.md:

Andrius> "EvoEF2 is free to academic users."

Andrius> To me such limitation seems to contradict the Expat
Andrius> license, but I wonder what is the legal opinion about such
Andrius> combination. I know that I can always ask the upstream for
Andrius> clarification which I did earlier when the restriction was:

I mean under xpat, it's certainly free for academic users, and it's also
free for everyone else.

Unless that statement in the readme is in a section called license or
otherwise claims to be a license, I'd treat it as xpat and move on with
life.
Sometimes the best approach to licensing is to take a defensible
position and not to try and find problems.

[Andrius Merkys]

Hi all,

Thank you for your prompt responses.

On 2023-06-22 17:49, Sam Hartman wrote:
> I mean under xpat, it's certainly free for academic users, and it's also
> free for everyone else.
>
> Unless that statement in the readme is in a section called license or
> otherwise claims to be a license, I'd treat it as xpat and move on with
> life.

The "free to academic users" comment is in "COPYRIGHT & CONTACT" section
of a readme file.

> Sometimes the best approach to licensing is to take a defensible
> position and not to try and find problems.

Just to clarify: does this mean one should avoid ambiguous licenses?

Best wishes,
Andrius