Thank you very much for the explanation. On Thursday, 8 August 2019 21:55:16 CEST Pamela Chestek wrote: > I agree with McCoy. "Grants" and "obligations" aren't necessarily > separate concepts. I can say "I grant you a license with a scope of XYZ" > or I can say "I grant you a license" and under "obligations" say "You > can't use it outside the scope of XYZ." These have the same result but > are stated different ways. As currently written your grants and > obligations are inconsistent. > > Under US law, it's probably better to make your grants conditional > rather than state the desired result as a separate obligation. For > example, if you say "you are granted a license provided you give the > licensee a copy of the source code," the failure to provide source code > is more likely to be considered a copyright infringement. If you say > "You are granted a license." "You have an obligation to provide source > code." it is more likely that the court will sever the two and not > consider the failure to provide source code a copyright infringement, > just a breach of contract. > > These are things a lawyer can help you with. > > Pam > > Pamela S. Chestek > Chestek Legal > PO Box 2492 > Raleigh, NC 27602 > 919-800-8033 > pam...@chesteklegal.com > www.chesteklegal.com > > On 8/8/2019 1:47 PM, Smith, McCoy wrote: > > This license still doesn't obligate provision of source code. > > The patent grants are also inconsistent as between the preamble and the > > grant itself. > > > > You really should be working with a legal person on this if you're serious > > about it; there are a lot of basic drafting issues and language > > inconsistencies in all the drafts you have presented so far on this > > mailing list. People of course are welcome to comment if they so choose > > but I'm not sure I see a reason for anyone to spend the time given these > > issues seem to persist as your drafts continue to evolve. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: License-discuss > > [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@lists.opensource.org] On Behalf Of Moritz > > Maxeiner Sent: Thursday, August 8, 2019 10:17 AM > > To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org > > Subject: [License-discuss] For Public Comment: The Libre Source License > > > > Due to the acronym clash I've now renamed from Contribution Public License > > (CPL) to Libre Source License (LSL). I've also slightly reordered the > > license text for (what I think makes for) easier reading. Attached in > > plaintext is the new draft. > > > > Thanks for your time, > > Moritz > > > > On Saturday, 3 August 2019 23:48:38 CEST you wrote: > >> Hello, > >> > >> due to me being unable to find a reciprocal software license I'm truly > >> happy with I've been working on developing my own: > >> > >> https://github.com/MoritzMaxeiner/contribution-public-license/blob/mas > >> ter/ > >> LICENSE.org > >> > >> I would - eventually - like to submit the license for OSI approval, > >> but thought sharing it here, with this mailing list's audience, in > >> order to gather feedback beforehand would be prudent. > >> The current draft is attached in plain text as LICENSE.txt and the > >> license it in turn is under (due to it being derived from the Patches > >> Back Public > >> License) is attached in plain text as CHANGING. > >> > >> What I wanted was a license that's as close as possible in spirit to > >> the MIT license, except requiring any modifications to the software to > >> be contributed back to the public under the same license. > >> After looking over the list of OSI-approved licenses there were three > >> I could identify as being close to what I want, so here are my reasons > >> as to why they aren't satisfactory for me: > >> > >> Reciprocal Public License (RPL-1.5): > >> It's not only too long and complex for my purposes, but it also > >> explicitly defers arbitration to Colorado, USA, which I cannot accept. > >> > >> Eiffel Forum License, Version 2 > >> While being sensibly short and concise it only encourages - but does > >> not require - modified versions to be publicly released. > >> > >> Microsoft Reciprocal License (MS-RL) > >> It's copy-left for things such as static linking, containers, etc. > >> (section 3, paragraph A) and it deals with patents and trademarks. > >> > >> I hope the above highlights that there's a particular niche that's not > >> quite filled yet. > >> > >> Thank you for your time, > >> > >> Moritz > > > > _______________________________________________ > > License-discuss mailing list > > License-discuss@lists.opensource.org > > http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensou > > rce.org > _______________________________________________ > License-discuss mailing list > License-discuss@lists.opensource.org > http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensourc > e.org
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
