Although we are discussing the specific terms of a particular license, of course, my comments are not meant to constitute or substitute for legal advice.
The Panda3D license makes a much better license template than the APSL; even in revised form, the APSL is wordy and less than clear at times. I think your lawyer did a good job. I think this license will warrant OSD approval; I have a couple suggestions, however. Clause 1 appears to be your mutual assent clause. Good. I would suggest, however, that the last sentence couple sentences be clearly written in the conjunctive or disjunctive (I suspect the drafter meant to use the disjunctive). Clause 6 (the treaded anti-advertising clause) is understandable, but is it really needed? If there is no implied or explicit right to use a Disney trademark or service mark anyway, why is the clause necessary? The anti-advertising clauses have been a source of discontent with free software folks, but I do not think the OSD strictly applies. (Minor point here) Clause 7 is informative, but it says nothing about the relations between licensor and licensee; hence, I am not sure it warrants the prominence of an entire clause of the body of the license. Clause 8 is unclear after the first sentence, which is probably all that is needed. Sublicensing? I feel obligated to mention that using approved OSI licenses as useful templates in drafting makes good sense, but as touchstones does not. Rod Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. Author: Open Source Software Law Best points of contact: Blog: http://opensource.cyberspaces.org e-mail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] voice:202-361-0797 fax:202-521-9317 ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Cowan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Jesse Schell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 10:51 PM Subject: Re: For Approval: Panda3D Public License Version 1.0 : Jesse Schell scripsit: : : > I believe the license was loosely based on the Apple Public Source : > License. The lawyer who drafted the Panda3D license left the company : > some time ago, and I haven't been able to reach him. Obviously, the : > Apple license itself wouldn't suffice, since it explicitly names Apple, : > where the Panda3D license names Disney instead. : : If you globally replace "Apple" with "Disney", the result will be : trivially Open Source and will be no problem. It's possible that Apple : might object, but not very likely. : : > 4. [...] : > An electronic copy of the source code for all modifications : > made to the Software are to be forwarded to Licensor at : > [EMAIL PROTECTED] within 90 days of the date of the : > modifications. : : Clauses like this are unreasonably burdensome on the makers of distros, : who typically have to make hundreds of patches to get everything : working together. Having to send hundreds of copies of source code : to different locations every time there is a new release is just too : hard. : : The license should be changed to require that the licensor be notified : of the location from which modifications can be downloaded. In that : way, there is only a single transmission required from the licensee, : not a whole series of them. : : If this problem is fixed, I see no problems with OSI approval. IANAL, : TINLA, IANA OSI board member either. : : -- : You let them out again, Old Man Willow! John Cowan : What you be a-thinking of? You should not be waking! [EMAIL PROTECTED] : Eat earth! Dig deep! Drink water! Go to sleep! www.reutershealth.com : Bombadil is talking. www.ccil.org/~cowan : -- : license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3 -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3