-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Zak Greant wrote:
> Thanks for writing!
>
> On Jul 28, 2006, at 12:42PDT (CA), John Richard Moser
wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> I'm writing up my own license but don't
particularly have legal council
>> to seek and am not sure if I want to submit it for
approval. I have a
>> draft already; where would be the best place to
discuss such things?
>
> New licenses place additional burden on software
distributors and users.
> In fact, the Open Source Initiative even has a working
group dedicated
> to helping address the issue of license proliferation
> (http://www.opensource.org/docs/policy/licenseproli
feration.php)
>
> Are you sure that your license:
> a) doesn't duplicate an existing license
> (http://www.openso
urce.org/licenses/)
(there's a draft at
http://bluefox.kicks-ass.org/stuff/bluefox/lic
ense/license_gmd.txt )
I had a very difficult goal in mind when I started:
- Produce a weak license, one that tries to keep the
original code but
not to grab modifications (yes this was inspired by the GPL
AND the BSD
licenses)
- Prevent the proprietorization effect RMS talks about in
"The X
Windows Trap"
To this end I basically worked backwards from the BSD
license towards
the GPL; my target was a BSD license plus:
- Any protocols or file formats being supported can not be
propriety
licensed
I ended out with a little more, targeting in the same
spirit. Addressed
some kind of "Protective Encapsulation" (DRM)
with a "Null Protection"
(a format capable of DRM that can be used without DRM is
said to have a
Null Protection, one where its Protective Encapsulation is
null),
allowing the DRM-related code to be proprietorized but still
requiring
the Null Protection code to be open. Also I said something
about patents.
I think I may have actually missed the spirit of my license;
I allow
those things to be "released under this license"
or "in the public
domain," but releasing the modifications to the public
domain doesn't
require releasing the source code. There's also a weird
copyright thing
going on where any modifications released under "this
license" confer
separate copyright to the copyright holder of the source (in
other
words, you own your copy of the code, and I also own a copy
of the code,
we both have copyright to them as if they're two separate
but identical
works).
> b) meets the open source definition?
> (http://
www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php)
Maybe. Probably.
It does not satisfy section (2) insomuch as it does not say
that the
licensee must also distribute source code; but nor does the
BSD license
(which says you may distribute source or binary and doesn't
make you
redistribute the source).
Section (7) is an I-don't-really-know thing.
"Modifications to the
Source may be released under the terms of this or any other
license; or
to the public domain." probably needs some work, as it
does not cover
releasing modified binaries. Perhaps I should say something
about
binary code that is under a different license having to be
present in
different modules (i.e. different files, such as plug-ins or
.so files)
and clearly marked. This would allow users to strip away
the closed-up
parts and easily rewrite drop-in replacements at least.
I should probably take another look at this. I'm just
trying to allow
modifications to be closed but keep people from running off
with the
source and adding interoperability hurdles such as closed
file formats
and protocols. This would land in the BSD camp of people
who don't mind
you using their code; but would prevent the "embrace
and extend" hacks
where you pick up an open product and then add proprietary
features that
totally screw interoperability.
> c) is needed?
The only "needed" licenses are the ones a lot of
people use. That being
said, there is nothing that fills the BSD/MIT philosophy of
just giving
it all away while quelling the GPL fear of having the open
source
version become useless because it can't talk to the
proprietary ones.
Aside from that there's that copyright reciprocation
thing...
>
> --Cheers!
> --zak
>
>
>
- --
All content of all messages exchanged herein are left in the
Public Domain, unless otherwise explicitly stated.
Creative brains are a valuable, limited resource. They
shouldn't be
wasted on re-inventing the wheel when there are so many
fascinating
new problems waiting out there.
-- Eric
Steven Raymond
We will enslave their women, eat their children and rape
their
cattle!
-- Bosc, Evil alien overlord from the
fifth dimension
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iQIVAwUBRMq+Yws1xW0HCTEFAQJlJg//RaFy51NZbZPr5jK4r/XehNq6jDsC
9cZS
Spqy23MApCgydJm4YgglkzMGcnp/SiUZ2zyez83G3eWaxNzv1D4YQQIhlM+w
0nWG
2yqNjZNwbSBzOC1vUDVwQl/yFe99kiwDNVEDczbSHWwDvEqrz5ztWXrSnnRw
7uKz
wjO0TuqaN+mnbmf1ZwvT33UDYsndKcMUhnpEdixyQrZlnRd9qa/EcX5pMEk/
gQ1A
ihjToilLZm5FA5jigZWoEEX0zIUADMC3fZLCIqz0YzqzxCHa/7VJoI6xvSQL
dt/F
6+bmxxCG6kAcNuWTyp1XwdEfUHvBkhSl1P1lmiI0Yg9W7OiMfqttC9Km5c95
a+a0
MmWKElkcEfEjA8r8mgtH3CQb1EbFisHzYk5nhCVs1ybD3DMqMacSgCqN4ZmC
OvxM
87G2Sef/yFN8JbBSVhP63cR9MXKijtM7FgvlukWIDZ0XN5pJFmIoo608nKeF
uLZu
fB+lNYH231lxvR0OJ3GhnX8+Eso1kGb9tOYUS47CCgKUnBsBV4B4af46cRTK
xPmb
jaAHN4no4KrTs5dd1O+IHh3Q0k0zIxRd708gUpzSOGO6gHuUNNd3cMuawdPs
iNqm
eoHCrRSDvp7MjNsOMGKPuZ3YcCZRIWnCLQ1pP42Q8XFUnp1tG1APlRZypT2+
/3sH
e3mUbqHC6vU=
=R1Pc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|