Re: For Approval: Panda3D Public License Version 1.0
I apologize for my slow reply to the very sensible comments below. These all make sense to me, and I have discussed them with the other key members of the Panda3D team at Disney, and there is general agreement that these seem like reasonable suggestions (at least to the software developers). Unfortunately, the lawyer who originally helped draft the license has left the company, and it is taking some time to get a new Disney lawyer to adopt this project. As soon as we can get a lawyer to help us either change the license appropriately, or explain of why Disney would prefer not to, we will post again. I appreciate your patience in this matter, and the detailed feedback the members of this list have provided. -Jesse Schell, Professor of Entertainment Technology www.etc.cmu.edu - Original Message Follows - Subject: Re: For Approval: Panda3D Public License Version 1.0 From: Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 22:12:25 -0500 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 -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Panda3D Public License Version 1.0
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
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
