Nick Ing-Simmons wrote:
>
>Ben Tilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >Well I sat down, thought carefully about it, and reorganized
> >my proposed license along the same lines that I would organize
> >a config file. Instead of enumerating what is allowed, deny
> >this, deny that, deny the other, allow everything else. I
> >think that this is a good way to rewrite it.
> >
> >It means that your obligations are much more clearly spelled
> >out, and there is less micromanagement of what you may and may
> >not do.
>
>This does not read as well as the previous one. Part of the problem
>is inverting can/cannot leads to de-morgans theorem logic
>
>That is were as before we had
> A or B
> we now need
> NOT (NOT A and NOT B)
Ack! One of the problems of being too close to what you
are doing, it is hard to see this kind of thing. I will
scan it tonight with an eye to removing double-negatives.
>For example:
>
> > Proffered Contract
> > for Distribution, Modification
> > and Derivative Works
>
> >4.
> >Should you not seek to use the modified or derived version
> >outside of personal use, within your corporation, or within your
> >organization, you have no further obligations under this
> >agreement.
>
>I read that 1st as "Thou shalt not seek to use modified version
>except within your org". As I knew that NOT to be our intent
>I took another look, it took three passes to get the sense.
>
>Taking a leaf out of perl's book we can re-cast that using unless
>in the middle:
>
>You have no other obligations unless you seek to pass the modified
>version beyond the person or organization which developed it.
>
>(In which case read on ...)
Will change. FWIW with each pass I have been removing phrases
taken from the current AL. This will remove another...
> >
> >6) An unburdened complete source distribution of a Standard
> >Version shall refer to a a publically available distribution
> >free of charge or license obligation of the complete source to
> >a Standard Version,
>
>But we don't want a version " free of license obligation " -
>we are trying to impose a license obligation ;-)
Hrmph. Good catch. (I have caught an amazing number of
mistakes like this in my previous passes...
>I think that "definitions of terms" are normally in a "preface" rather than
>a numbered item.
True, but after tonight's try I intend to refactor it so
that this term does not need to be defined.
> >if applicable a summary of how that differs
> >from a previous Standard Version it is derived from, and if
> >applicable the exact modification in machine readable form.
> >
> >
> >11) Subject to the limits in 2) above,
>
>I hate back refs like that when trying to read so what was that:
Tonight I intend to remove all need for such backrefs (while
switching to a numbering system that was privately
suggested, 1.1, 1.2, ... 2.1, 2.2, ...).
> >2. The permissions and requirements in this agreement only
> >pertain to the copyrights and licenses arising from the Original
> >Version. If this is not a Standard Version then statements of
> >what is allowed shall be read as statements of what this
> >agreement does not restrict you from doing.
>
>So (2) says whole license only relates to the "Original".
Exactly, and I should be able to remove the phrase tonight.
>We also say what it means if it is NOT a "Standard Version"
>(all be it with multiple negatives again).
>But what if it is a non-Original Standard version?
>
If it is a Standard Version then by definition the entire
Package is licensed under this license, and so (by the terms
in the Copyright statement) this agreement covers all
applicable licenses and Copyrights. If it does not then one
or more of the Copyright holders is going to be in breach of
contract. (Because the copyright says this agreement is
sufficient, but it isn't. You are in the same boat if you
try to claim someone else's code as your own and release
under the GPL.)
>
> >you are allowed to charge
> >for distribution of the Package, support, etc. You are also
> >allowed to distribute it aggregated with other products.
Another goal of tonight's pass is to include this phrase,
but make it redundant. Your rights and responsibilities
should work out to the same thing whether or not you view the
Package as a package which has been aggregated with others,
or whether you take the whole aggregate as the Package.
In theory that is, we will see if I miss anything in
practice.
> >However you shall not advertise any Standard Version as your
> >product. Nor shall you use the names of the copyright holders
> >and developers of the Original Version to endorse or promote
> >products derived from the Original Version without specific
> >prior written permission.
> >
> >12) Subject to the limitations laid out in 2) and 7)-11), if all
> >necessary copyright and license statements are included then
> >permission is granted to distribute the Package.
I suspect that this will wind up looking more like, "Under the
terms laid out above, full permission is hereby granted to
modify, derive from, and distribute any and all copyrighted
material from the Original Version in your Package, with or
without charge."
Hmm, is there even a need for me to mention, "with or without
charge"? :-)
Cheers,
Ben
PS I am cautiously optimistic that tonight's pass will be my
final restructuring of the basic flow of the document.
Hopefully then we can go to work on more specific issues
about terms and wording...?
_________________________________________________________________________
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.
