Hello, I would like to hear any comments on this draft which I have reworked several times in order to remove flaws I could find. Purpose: - small (2k, not 24k) - similar to LGPL derived works must be under same license - protection before hotmail-similar licensing - author can re-license his work even when others feeded patches back, e.g. I get a patch, include it and release the second version of the programme under my license. And I release it under, lets say, a commercial one. For this I need the "ownership of patches feeded back". Still a - code fork is allowed, but it should not be possible to first fork and then re-license (LGPL-style) but comes this clear enough? - definition of "original" so changed works bear different labels (and be it just that they don't bear the remark "original") This is just a draft and an excerpt, but includes enough for this purpose. Comments needed! Thank you. --- snip (...) Copyright (c) <author> All rights reserved. Work inferring this License for coverage is protected work and copyright and intellectual property by its author, the above if no others written. If any additional terms are to be applied they EXPLICITLY must be stated on a PER-FILE base and CANNOT be implied e.g. by service Terms of Usage. We, the author and contributors, shall in no event be liable for any da- mage or malfunction caused by the work which hereby is provided "AS IS", without warranty of any kind, neither expressed nor implied. YOU ACCEPT BY USAGE TO BE BOUND TO THIS LICENSE AGREEMENT TERMS and will not sue us over it. IF YOU DO NOT ACCEPT THIS YOU MUST NOT USE THE WORK! "USE" shall be considered: looking at, copying, distributing, executing, modifying, creating derivate work and including in other work. USE shall be allowed by this license as long as this Licensing Terms and the copy- right remarks on the work remain intact part of the work or its accompa- nying documentation, even in derivate work which shall be covered by the OWL as well as extensions, but this does not apply to parts that clearly separate against the work provided. In case of doubt obtain non-electro- nically written permission from the author. When contributing to the work you must credit yourself by adding another copyright line to derivate work, thus becoming contributor and accepting the ownership of the original copyright holder over patches feeded back, who in turn must not remove the contributor-copyright lines. A code fork is also allowed provided you leave existing copyright remarks intact and the derivate differs. You cannot claim intellectual property of yours on knowledge gained by USE of (looking at) the work. Releases of covered work shall be named "original" if the bytestream has not changed after release. --- snap Yes, this is a shrink-wrap license (spelled correctly?). The second-to-last sentence should read: - I release, lets say an encryption algorithm under this license - a company reads it and writes an implementation by their own - then they try to make a patent out of this => my (public) code becomes patented by them (?) This I want to prevent, too. Difficult to put this into 2k with CR-LF endings... if I get much feedback I consider 2.5 or even 3k. Thanks for your time, -mirabilos -- C:\>debug -e100 EA F0 FF 00 F0 -g --->Enjoy!
