While there's a debate about licenses, below is my own Wildebeest License, 
which I invented to cover my Spiegel CD/DVD Writing Utility. You can still 
find my original email about Spiegel on the Internet, with all the Source 
Code. If anybody wants to suggest any modification for the Wildebeest License, 
feedback is welcome. Yours truly: Frank Mitchell



PREAMBLE: The Licenses for most Software are designed to repudiate any legal
liability if it doesn't work. By contrast, the Wildebeest License tries to
ensure that it will work, and that you know about any problems beforehand.
No permission is needed to modify your Software to serve its intended
purpose, because United States and European Union Law both allow Lawful
Users to do this anyway. So when this License speaks of Free Software, we
mean that you don't need to pay money for it, not that you can modify it
until it stops working and nobody understands why. Open Source Users will be
aware of such problems when using Free Software, and check for reliability
before depending on it. So instead of including a Warranty Disclaimer which
could be invalid, the Wildebeest License seeks to ensure that reliability
issues are documented. Note that Software is not patentable under European
Law, though it can be covered by a patent for another invention which is.
Also, Multiple Licensing is possible, so you can contact the Original Author
if you believe the terms of the Wildebeest License need to be altered. 

1: This version of the Wildebeest License is intended to be governed by the
Legal System of England, which entitles Lawful Users to modify Software if
necessary for their own use. You can correct it or adapt it to serve its
intended purpose, study its operation and incorporate any underlying ideas
into completely different Software licensed under other terms, and make as
many Backup or Development Copies as you wish.

2: For Users this Software is intended as a Free Gift, available free of
charge apart from incidental expenses, and free from any other obligation
beyond the provisions of Copyright and other legal requirements.

3: If you distribute this Software or a modified version to other people,
you must do so under the terms of this License. You must ensure that the
relevant Documentation and Source Code are available. If you are aware of
problems, you must check the Documentation and ensure they are described.
This could mean adding Comment Statements to the Source Code as well as
editing plaintext documents.

4: If you distribute an adaptation of this Software or a modified version,
you must update the Documentation, identifying yourself and your changes.
The Wildebeest License does not contain a Warranty Disclaimer, so this
Documentation amounts to a Limited Warranty that within the resources
available, you have tested the modified Software and that in your experience
it functions as future Users are likely to expect.


On Wednesday 11 April 2012 06:40:24 toredhiddenu...@tormail.net wrote:
> Hello everyone,
> There are many people who use GPL for their projects unaware of the terms
> of license. We can observe that most "new technologies" and protocols are
> licensed under BSD-license.
> As you are already subscribed to the mailing list, you probably have much
> education of licenses and may be aware of dreadful deeds of GNU * License.
> The main problem is "Viral" copyleft nature. Anything that even LINKS to
> the GPL'd files SHOULD BE under GPL, as you may probably know.
> LGPL is viral too. MPL, on the other hand, didn't catch much attention,
> but if you imply the protection of source code by means of copyleft, hope
> it's the best way around: Less restrictions, but provides copyleft nature.
> Apparently, new developers who are unaware of copyrights, release their
> source into GPL.
> The new developer communities have an inclined trend towards GPL like:
> "The projects we see are GPL'd. Why don't we use that license?"
> Some companies, (probably the worst) use the GPL to force an "addiction"
> and to force a need of dual-licensing. ****** and *** ************
> (removed because of problem) use this license for such purpose. Doesn't it
> seem like some sort of Blackmail?
> BSD people should start a project to request some near-mature projects to
> beta-projects to be licensed under BSD/MIT style license, or, at least MPL
> (better than GPL, anyhow).
> (Is the name BSDActivists and BSDActivism) nice?
> There have been many proposals by some people, you can observe:
> These proposals were collected (probably) anonymously, for privacy of the
> doers. These attracted attention. Summary:
> Audacity: Dominic Mazoni (lead developer), Re-licensing request failed
> (needs $);
>           Matt Brubeck: failed (but affirmative, says he have released
> other code under MIT license, but doesn't apparently have right
> to do relicensing.)
> Removing OpenAL from SFML: Failed, they say there is no "better one"
> PAQ compression, Matt Mahoney: New compression method, ZPAQ is Public
> Domain.
> CppCMS: needs $ to do so
> Wikipedia: FAILED, for a reasonable reason
> EFF HTTPS Everywhere / Vidalia / TorButton : IN PROGRESS
> Request for Kaos.To to remove Privoxy and to include Polipo: NO RESPONSE
> BSD developers should start an activism to promote the BSD license and to
> make re-licensing request to developers. All BSD promoters should take
> notice on this. Don't be afraid if this is posted on multiple BSD mailing
> lists, like OpenBSD's or NetBSD's, because, it's probably the time to
> unite all the BSD people.
> Is anyone interested?
> Thank you for your patient reading.
> Sorry for the last e-mail which was somewhat so-rant-like: Thanks to Eitan
> Adler for pointing out.
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-advocacy
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-advocacy-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-advocacy-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Reply via email to