In this case it is probably better to get a lawyer to look at the final text if you can. Attempting to write a legalistic sounding license will probably be counterproductive compared to a layman license.
Best Regards, Cinly ***** I do not read footer and will not be bounded by them. If they are legally enforceable then this one always triumph yours. On 23 January 2015 at 01:09, ChanMaxthon <[email protected]> wrote: > I was once using straight 3c-BSDL but one incident (I am not from an > Anglophone country) proved to me that it's language is too complex in local > courts. Now I am sort of forced into creating a functional equivalent using > only simple English (definition: restrict word usage to the 3000 basic > English word defined by Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary) so this is my > first attempt. > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Jan 23, 2015, at 02:00, Ben Cotton <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 10:32 AM, Maxthon Chan <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I have used a license like this for my open projects for a very long > time. Does this look like a real open source license? > > <snip> > >> Is this a rephrase of the 3-clause BSD license? > > It looks like a rephrase of the BSD 3-Clause, but there are some > > concerns I have about it (I am not a lawyer, so my concerns may be > > incomplete and/or irrelevant)... > > > >>> * You distribute this software in its executable form with the > copyright > >>> notice above, this license and the disclaimer below intact and > display > >>> them in appropriate ways; > >>> * You distribute this software in its source code form with the > copyright > >>> notice above, this license and the disclaimer below intact and > the end > >>> result of such source code displays them in appropriate ways; > > > > These two clauses, pedantically interpreted, would require anyone who > > uses the software to distribute it. Basically you'd want "If you > > distribute...then you must include..." The BSD 3-Clause begins both > > clauses with the word "Redistributions" in order to make it clear. > > > > In addition, I'm not sure what is meant in the second clause by "the > > end result of such source code". Does that mean any > > compiled/interpreted code must display the license? What if it's a > > program that generally produces no output (think `cp`, `mv`, etc.)? > > The BSD 3-Clause requires the notice in the documentation, etc., but > > not in the "end result of the source code". I would argue that it > > violates item 10 of the Open Source Definition, but that's a debatable > > point. In any case, it seems impractical. > > > >>> * The name of the author and contributors are not used without > previous > >>> explicit written permission by the author and contributors. > > This also seems impractical, as it would disallow attribution. This > > license doesn't require attribution, so it's not a direct conflict, > > but it would prevent a common courtesy (at least without > > administrative overhead for both the original and downstream > > developers). The BSD 3-Clause forbids the use of the author's name to > > "endorse or promote products derived from [the] software", but not > > attribution. This wouldn't technically violate any part of the OSD as > > far as I can tell, but it's unwieldy. > > > >>> THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED TO YOU ON AN "AS-IS" BASIS. NO WARRANTY > WHATSOEVER > >>> COMES WITH THIS SOFTWARE, IMPLICIT OR NOT, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY > THE LAWS. > >>> THE AUTHORS, CONTRIBUTORS AND COPYRIGHT HOLDERS SHALL NOT BE HELD > RELIABLE TO > >>> ANY DAMAGE OR LOSS OCCURRED FROM USING OF THIS SOFTWARE. > > "THE LAWS"? What laws? > > > > It's not clear from your post if you've written this license or if you > > got it from somewhere else, but if it's yours I wonder what the > > motivation for this is as opposed to just using the BSD 3-Clause, > > which seems to have the same intention but with more practical > > wording. > > > > > > Thanks, > > BC > > > > -- > > Ben Cotton > > _______________________________________________ > > License-discuss mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss > _______________________________________________ > License-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss >
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
