Prashant Shah scripsit: > Mainly it differs from Apache License 2.0 in sections 3 (patent grants > to derivative works) and 4 (more relaxed terms)
In detail: In clause 3, the words "or derivative works" has been struck, so there no patent license on derivative works you make yourself and do not contribute back to the licensor. For historical reasons, the OSD has nothing to say about patent licenses, but I believe this violates OSD #3 by implication, which requires that derivative works be redistributable under the same license as the original. In clause 4: The requirement to redistribute the license with all copies has been removed. The OSD doesn't care. The requirement to propagate any NOTICE file or other third-party notices has been removed. The OSD doesn't care, but people who go to the trouble of adding attribution notices may be rather unhappy if they are stripped. If notices exist, you can add your own copyright, patent, or trademark notices to them, not merely attribution notices. This does not violate any specific OSD provision, but people are not used to looking for notices with legal effects there. In the Apache licenses, such notices are informational only and don't affect the licensing terms. In short, these differences are either neutral or negative in their consequences, and look to me like "they won't buy it unless it smells like them" (Jubal Harshaw). I recommend disapproving this license and urging the original proposer to use the Apache 2.0 license unchanged, unless extremely weighty reasons can be brought forward for using it. -- A rabbi whose congregation doesn't want John Cowan to drive him out of town isn't a rabbi, http://www.ccil.org/~cowan and a rabbi who lets them do it [email protected] isn't a man. --Jewish saying _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
