License for EasyList and EasyElement?

[Guest]

Do EasyList and EasyElement have any kind of Free Software license attached? If not, could they? (Perhaps the same as Firefox or Adblock Plus?)

That would allow some interesting possibilities, such as redistributing them to multiple machines from a central location, packaging them (particularly for system-wide configuration and update), and modifying it (naturally with credit to the original and a clear statement of modification).

Thank you.

[chewey]

Disclaimer: Not speaking for rick here.

It's a point I've been thinking about for my own list already. Although I personally don't really see the
necessity for it, I can understand why the question comes up. I would have no problem at all with people
redistributing my list to their internal network - I'm even fairly sure a couple of the big gateways I see
in my logs with exactly one hit every 24h do exactly that for quite some time already. Same goes for
large-scale deployment: Go ahead, my list is meant to be used.

Packaging might have an unrelated issue though: Being at least reasonably up to date is a prerequisite
for a list to really work as good as possible. Integrating a static list in a software package without the
possibility of updating to a current version therefore is not recommended (read: really discouraged).

So I guess my personal, completely unlegalese licensing terms are:

• This list is meant to be used, so go ahead and do so.
• Redistributing is OK, but please include a link to my feedback page.
  (This serves both sides: Issues can be reported, so the list gets better. It also provides more users
  who can potentially report issues - so the list gets better.) If at all possible, include the possibility to
  update the list - respecting the list-declared update interval. (I might have to have a word with the
  guys from IE7pro about that occasionally...)
• Don't even think about charging for or making money off of it!
  I'm currently in the process of having a site taken down which just copied my site's HTML content, even
  keeping list and image links pointing to my site - while adding just one thing to it (of all things): Ads.

[rick752]

My personal opinion is mostly reflected in Chewey's opinion (btw ... nice Hobbes' hat ) BTW, chewey is the author of Cedrics' Liste and co-author of the ABP Tracking Filter (the Tracking Filter is BOTH of ours).

I have had no interest or necessity for a license at the moment. If all credits are given to "Rick752" and the subscription names are displayed, I have no problem with a central distribution of it. I DO have a problem with modifications however as this would NOT really be my list anymore and could cause problems that I wouldn't want to deal with. However, using mine (with credits) and ANOTHER list 'separately' combined would not bother me as long as full credits were given to my subscription(s) as well.

There is a danger in packaging (as chewey says) because the lists are ever-changing ... packaging would cause a problem. These filters are "not for profit" too.

[chewey]

(btw ... nice Hobbes' hat )

I was wondering who would first notice. You win.

I DO have a problem with modifications however as this would NOT really be my list anymore and could cause problems that I wouldn't want to deal with.

Very good point, I completely agree.

[Guest]

My personal opinion is mostly reflected in Chewey's opinion (btw ... nice Hobbes' hat ) BTW, chewey is the author of Cedrics' Liste and co-author of the ABP Tracking Filter (the Tracking Filter is BOTH of ours).

I have had no interest or necessity for a license at the moment. If all credits are given to "Rick752" and the subscription names are displayed, I have no problem with a central distribution of it. I DO have a problem with modifications however as this would NOT really be my list anymore and could cause problems that I wouldn't want to deal with. However, using mine (with credits) and ANOTHER list 'separately' combined would not bother me as long as full credits were given to my subscription(s) as well.

When I said "with credit to the original and a clear statement of modification", I meant something along the lines of "Based on EasyList by rick752 (link to EasyList site), with modifications by X and Y as documented in the changelog; report bugs in this version to X and Y, not to the original author". Does that address the concern you have about causing problems? I wouldn't want to increase your support burden by having people come here to get support for a modified list, and I would want to make sure that people know they did not get the original EasyList. At the same time, I would also want to ensure that any bugs or feature suggestions which also applied to the original made it upstream to you.

Given the nature of an Adblock Plus filter list, combining your list and another list amounts to creating a modified list, but due to technical limitations of ABP, the modified list couldn't easily make some kinds of changes, such as changing element hides or avoiding false positives (without whitelisting).

There is a danger in packaging (as chewey says) because the lists are ever-changing ... packaging would cause a problem.

I wouldn't want to put them in a "stable" Linux distribution, certainly. However, some distributions have a section specifically for volatile data, such as virus definitions and spam filter rules, which needs to update more frequently than the normal distribution cycle. I had imagined putting it in something like that, and updating it regularly.

Right now, I can set up a new system very quickly, by saying "install all the packages from my old system". Firefox extension configuration remains one of the things I cannot easily do that with. I'd like to install firefox, Adblock Plus, EasyList, and EasyElement, all through my distribution's packaging system, just like any other piece of software. This would also mean I could keep it up to date the same way I do other software.

These filters are "not for profit" too.

I understand your concern about seeing your work exploited, particularly when people could just as easily get EasyList for free from your site. However, a "not for profit" restriction prevents the filter lists from qualifying as Free and Open Source Software, and thus prevents many distributions from packaging them. Firefox itself has the same concern, and in fact sites occasionally pop up which attempt to sell people a Firefox download. However, Firefox still uses a Free Software license, and thus can appear in numerous distributions.

In any case, I thank you for taking the time to consider the issue, whatever you decide.

[Stupid Head]

Can a list be copyrighted? From the U.S. Copyright Office, it says "mere listings of ingredients or contents" cannot be copyrighted, and I wonder how that would apply to filter lists.

[Guest]

Can a list be copyrighted? From the U.S. Copyright Office, it says "mere listings of ingredients or contents" cannot be copyrighted, and I wonder how that would apply to filter lists.

In the United States, at least, copyright applies to creative works, and expending effort alone does not create copyright. In particular, a compilation of facts does not comprise a creative work; see the case of "Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service", which provides precedent in the case of a telephone directory not having sufficient creativity to merit copyright. Similarly, if you listed all the words in the English language (without definitions), or listed all the pages or domain names on the Internet, or listed all the elements in the periodic table, most likely none of of those lists would qualify for copyright.

If you want to argue that an Adblock Plus filter list does not qualify for copyright, you would have to argue that constructing that list involved no creativity, merely effort. I personally think that any moderately complex Adblock Plus filter list involves sufficient creativity for copyright. Creating such a list requires selection criteria (both in deciding what represents an advertisement and in deciding which advertisements to list) and requires choosing the best way to block broad groups of ads together without false positives. In my opinion, that represents a creative process.

(Not a lawyer; just someone with an interest in copyright law, primarily as part of my work as a Free and Open Source Software developer.)

[rick752]

Can a list be copyrighted? From the U.S. Copyright Office, it says "mere listings of ingredients or contents" cannot be copyrighted, and I wonder how that would apply to filter lists.

I would say that the EasyList subscriptions COULD actually be copyrighted as there is "program specific" $coding and "creative writing" that would constitute more than just a "list of contents". An un-copyrightable list would simply be a just a list of known advertisers. Adblock lists are much more than just a list ... the lists work within themselves to allow/disallow elements items and are written for use in a specific program's engine (mainly ABP). In that case it could be interpreted as "code" for a program. Adblock Plus is open source ... but no one ever said the 3rd-party filtering was. My statement says that these filters are made "SPECIFICALLY for the Adblock Plus extension for Mozilla". I have let some other uses go because they are properly identified and are "not for profit" uses.

What it comes down to though is that copying and using someone else's entire filtering works without their permission and passing it off as your own IS plagiarism (non-profit or not)! Whether it is legal or not is not important .... taking something that someone else has worked very hard on for a long time and passing it off as your own (especially for profit) is just being a lowlife, lazy scumbag. THAT is important. I don't make a dime doing this so why should someone just be able STEAL it and make a profit? Fortunately, users on the internet HATE fraud and word about these kind of things can travel VERY quickly. "Adblock Pro" tried this EasyList ripoff for $$$ and I put out the word on them.

Saying all of that, I am not against my subscriptions being used as long as "Rick752's EasyList" (and any other of my subscriptions) are marked as such. What I WON'T tolerate is stealing whole or a major part of any subscriptions and packaging it as something else ... and I feel very strong against any usage that is "for profit".

From the way this post started, it seems that the OP wants to STEAL the EasyList subscriptions and do want he wants with them for profit ... I hope that is not the case. I would not be the only one angry about that. I would be angry against anyone who would do that to anyone else's subscriptions (as would they) .... and I know they would be angry if someone tried to do it to me.

[chewey]

I understand your concern about seeing your work exploited, particularly when people could just as easily get EasyList for free from your site. However, a "not for profit" restriction prevents the filter lists from qualifying as Free and Open Source Software

Not at all. It just makes it incompatible with licenses allowing for-profit use. I don't see that as a problem, as proper usage
of those lists would require them to be updated from their original source. And as ABP is to be used with a webbrowser,
offline distribution seems to be rather useless to me .

[chewey]

From the way this post started, it seems that the OP wants to STEAL the EasyList subscriptions and do want he wants with them for profit ...

I don't think so. He just pointed out that the GPL and related licenses allow for-profit use of code under such a license.

On a slightly unrelated point: I'm not sure at all ABP filter lists qualify as "source code".
That would make them unGPLable in my opinion.

[rick752]

I'm not sure at all ABP filter lists qualify as "source code".
That would make them unGPLable in my opinion.

That could possibly be true, but I still think it could be considered "creative works". All legalities aside, I still stand by the 'ethics' statements I made.

[Guest]

Saying all of that, I am not against my subscriptions being used as long as "Rick752's EasyList" (and any other of my subscriptions) are marked as such. What I WON'T tolerate is stealing whole or a major part of any subscriptions and packaging it as something else ... and I feel very strong against any usage that is "for profit".

From the way this post started, it seems that the OP wants to STEAL the EasyList subscriptions and do want he wants with them for profit ... I hope that is not the case. I would not be the only one angry about that. I would be angry against anyone who would do that to anyone else's subscriptions (as would they) .... and I know they would be angry if someone tried to do it to me.

I have absolutely no interest in such a thing, and I would certainly never distribute your work in a way you did not approve of. My original question arose because I have some interest in packaging Adblock Plus and one or more filters as part of a GNU/Linux distribution (specifically Debian), primarily so I could easily create a unified configuration across several machines. I believe strongly in Free and Open Source Software, and I do not like the idea of having to package a filter list in the "non-free" component of the distribution; thus, I hope you might consider licensing the list under some existing Free and Open Source Software license, much like Adblock Plus itself.

For some reason, someone brought up the side issue of filter copyrightability. I responded to that side issue only because I felt that it insulted both EasyList and you to suggest that EasyList lacked sufficient creativity to merit copyright, and because it seemed wrong for someone to seek out a reason (such as lack of copyrightability) to ignore your wishes. I hope that responding to that issue did not color your opinion of my request.

You have raised an issue you feel strongly about, namely that you don't want someone ripping off your work. If it helps, I would point out that by using a "copyleft" license, meaning one which required all derived works to use the same license, nobody could successfully rip off your work in a legal way. Anyone who attempted to sell EasyList as their own work would quickly find themselves lacking in customers; you can't easily sell copies of something that anyone can copy for themselves. Furthermore, such licenses generally include provisions that require deriviative works to credit the original author and to state that the work uses a Free and Open Source Software license, so someone cannot take advantage of people by not telling them.

I develop exclusively Free and Open Source Software, both in my free time and for a living, and I almost always use a copyleft license. I have never once seen or heard of someone successfully passing off a copylefted piece of Free and Open Source Software as their own and getting away with it. I share your concerns about having my work passed off as the work of others, and I feel that copyleft licensing protects me from this.

If you would consider licensing EasyList under a Free and Open Source Software license, then I would gladly package it for convenient use with Debian GNU/Linux. If you do not feel comfortable with this, then my apologies for taking up your time. Regardless, thank you very much for EasyList, and thank you for taking the time to consider this issue.

[chewey]

I have absolutely no interest in such a thing, and I would certainly never distribute your work in a way you did not approve of. My original question arose because I have some interest in packaging Adblock Plus and one or more filters as part of a GNU/Linux distribution (specifically Debian), primarily so I could easily create a unified configuration across several machines.

What about just including preconfigured filter list URLs and leaving the rest to ABP's internal auto
update? That would completely avoid the issue and still do what you want to achieve. A client would need
to have access to the "outside world" for ABP do be of much use anyway.

[Guest]

I have absolutely no interest in such a thing, and I would certainly never distribute your work in a way you did not approve of. My original question arose because I have some interest in packaging Adblock Plus and one or more filters as part of a GNU/Linux distribution (specifically Debian), primarily so I could easily create a unified configuration across several machines.

What about just including preconfigured filter list URLs and leaving the rest to ABP's internal auto
update? That would completely avoid the issue and still do what you want to achieve. A client would need
to have access to the "outside world" for ABP do be of much use anyway.

I could certainly do that, and may end up doing so if necessary. However, I'd really like to use a uniform installation and upgrade mechanism for everything that needs regular updating. Similarly, I could install Adblock Plus itself through Firefox's addon system, and keep it up to date that way, but that represents one more independent update mechanism I'd have to deal with. I also want to mirror packages locally, to avoid having multiple machines (and for that matter multiple users on those machines) do the same downloads. I also want to track versions and upgrade machines in unison, and track what packages and what versions I have installed on each, so I get consistent behavior. Essentially, I want to deal with *one* configuration and update system rather than several.

Furthermore, packaging systems let me easily upgrade things systemwide without needing any user interaction when running the browser. I don't want people to get "please update $THINGY" messages when they run a browser. Several distributions have convenient notification mechanisms to help people keep their entire systems up to date; why should they need to deal with an entirely separate system provided by Firefox for addons, and another entirely separate system provided by Adblock Plus for filter lists? Again, consistency.

Furthermore, packaging systems work more easily than many other systems for distributing configuration across many machines. I can much more easily tell people to "install the packages mozilla-adblock-plus, adblock-plus-easylist, and adblock-plus-easyelement". Better yet, I can say "use this installer profile, which automatically installs these various up-to-date packages from the standard repositories", and they can get Adblock Plus pre-configured for EasyList and EasyElement.

Programs with their own update systems represent that much additional complexity. Uniformity means ease of maintenance, ease of customization, and ease of use.

[Guest]

Programs with their own update systems represent that much additional complexity. Uniformity means ease of maintenance, ease of customization, and ease of use.

To put it another way: why install Firefox through your distribution at all? Why not let every user install Firefox in their home directory, and let it auto-update? Why not have every program embed an auto-updater, to keep itself up to date?

Packaging systems keep the task of installing and updating software separate from the task of *using* software.

[rick752]

As long as the filtering is properly credited, I have no problem with this.

What do you think, Chewey? (seeing yours is there too)

[chewey]

What do you think, Chewey? (seeing yours is there too)

Huh... Where?

[rick752]

Oops , sorry Chewey.

This is the wrong topic. I was thinking of the other topic (wherever) where you thanked the person for using your filters in something similar to this (mine were being used too). Sorry. Now I actually don't even remember where that was.

[chewey]

I was thinking of the other topic (wherever) where you thanked the person for using your filters in something similar to this (mine were being used too).

Ah, you mean the Adblock for Safari guy.
That was over at the ABP forum.

I have no problem at all in this case: He links directly to the lists, gives proper credits and even links to the lists' websites.
His program also is open source and free of charge.

That's the way it should be done in my opinion.

[Stupid Head]

For some reason, someone brought up the side issue of filter copyrightability. I responded to that side issue only because I felt that it insulted both EasyList and you to suggest that EasyList lacked sufficient creativity to merit copyright, and because it seemed wrong for someone to seek out a reason (such as lack of copyrightability) to ignore your wishes. I hope that responding to that issue did not color your opinion of my request.

I didn't mean to insult EasyList or imply that it lacked sufficient creativity to merit copyright, and if it seemed like I did, I apologize. A while back, there was controversy when G licensed Filterset.G, and some people claimed that it couldn't be licensed. I was just curious if those accusations had any merit or not.

[rick752]

Don't apologize, Stu. I never took it that way. It was actually a very good argumentative point.

[rick752]

Ah, you mean the Adblock for Safari guy.

Ah, that was the one. I just got that one mixed with this one.

[fanboy]

. A while back, there was controversy when G licensed Filterset.G, and some people claimed that it couldn't be licensed. I was just curious if those accusations had any merit or not.

Ah yes, interesting debate with G about this, nothing was ever properly addressed. But my argument that you could copyright a url or regex of a url or a set of url's.. was questionable.