Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
>
>Ben Tilly wrote:
> > 4. The names of the contributers to this package may not be used to
> > endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific
> > prior written permission.
>
>Lawyers typically point out that this issue is not covered by copyright
>law,
>and it isn't worth putting statements like this in licenses. They are
>unenforceable through copyright law, and thus
>
I borrowed it from both the BSD and the GPL. Even if it is
unenforcable, it is likely to discourage people from abusing
that.
>
> > Proffered Contract
> > for Distribution, Modification
> > and Derivative Works
> >
> > Preamble
>
> > This contract is offered by the copyright holders for your convenience
>
>A copyright license is never a contract unless a person signs it, so it
>isn't good to call this a contract, and it may even invalidate the license
>(although I am not sure).
>
In the title I am not calling this a contract. I am
calling this a "proffered contract" which means that this
is a possible contract that has "been offered for acceptance;
tender". (Quoting from an online dictionary.)
The language in the preamble may need some cleaning up, but
unless there is a specific legal intention I truly mean to
have a copyright statement that contains the offer of a
contract which you may want to accept and follow.
The GPL does a similar thing, but the entire copyright
statement is the offer of a contract and the word contract
does not appear.
>
> > should you wish to modify or distribute a Standard Version or some
> > derivative of a Standard Version.
>
>
>
> > You are under no obligation to accept it, however under Copyright law
>you
> > will need permission to undertake the activities covered.
>
>This statement is ok; and it states what is true. I think it's enough, and
>we don't need to say "contract".
>
I was trying to reword verbiage from the GPL and clear up the
structure. I want it to be obvious that there is an offered
contract even to a layman (professional lawyers have had
trouble noticing that detail in the GPL) since that is key to
how it works.
>
> > 5) To distribute you must do at least ONE of the following:
>
>I would add an extra clause in 5:
>
> e) Accompany your distribution with machine-readable source of the
> Package with your modifications. The modifications must be
> presented in a way that is includable in the Original Version, and
> you must include the full sources of the Original Version itself.
>
> It is acceptable to either (1) include both the complete modified
> sources of your modified version, as well as the full sources of
>the
> Original Version, both in electronically readable format or (2)
> include your sources as electronic patches that can be
>automatically
> applied against the Original Version by some reasonable,
>well-known,
> automated method.
In that case clause b) should be cleaned up since that is what
b) is meant to do. I additionally do want to insist that the
changes be publically maintained so that the developers can
readily obtain the changes in one place without having to
purchase a proprietary package.
> > 7) You may charge whatever you like for this Package, or the support of
> > this package. Additionally you may aggregate this Package with other
> > packages of your choice. However you may not advertise the Original
> > Version or any Standard Version as a product of your own.
>
>Again, this advertising clause is not really enforceable under copyright
>law,
>so I don't see the point in having it. This would be an issue for
>trademark
>law.
>
This advertising clasue is part of a contract and under contract
law you most definitely *can* enforce it. In fact if the
standard disclaimer in the initial part of the copyright is
unenforcable then it should be repeated in the contract which
is.
>
>With the addition of part e in section 5, I believe this is a free software
>license, incompatible with the GPL. It's probably an open source license
>too.
I suspect that it is incompatible with the GPL when not used in
a dual-licensing situation with the GPL or a GPL-compatible
license. As I stated before, compatibility with the GPL is not
something I consider important.
Looking through http://www.opensource.org/osd.html it very
definitely meets all 9 criteria.
>We'd need to run it by a lawyer to confirm that, though.
Definitely I think it needs examination by a lawyer. Also key
is the need to verify that it really succeeds in being as aware
of dual-licensing as I intend it to be. For instance would
something like my proposed statement that Larry Wall could
(after a specified period of public discussion with no remaining
objections from copyright holders) relicense Perl really fly?
Cheers,
Ben
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.
