Robert Samuel White and Russ Nelson: I'm sorry I haven't stepped into this conversation sooner. I've been lurking and handling other matters....
I am unhappy with the current status of this request. Robert Samuel White (RSW) is absolutely within his rights to obtain approval for his license if it satisfies the published criteria on OSI's website. Russ Nelson is also absolutely correct in worrying, as do all members of the board of directors of OSI, about the proliferation of licenses that only serve to confuse and confound the community. Let's concede that all of us (including Robert Samuel White) are focused on trying to develop better open source licenses. The question that Russ asked RSW is important to us and we want to hear your answer. The board of OSI is considering adopting as an official goal that a few licenses -- including the GPL, MPL, OSL and AFL, but not necessarily limited to that set and perhaps only after certain changes are made to those licenses -- become the major, recommended, free and open source licenses. Therefore, we need to understand, as part of our analysis of your license, why one of those "best practice" licenses can't serve your needs. What's wrong with the AFL, for example, as an alternative to RSW's Simplified Artistic License? Why doesn't trademark law give RSW the artistic protection he desires? These are not just idle questions intended to give you one more hurdle to overcome; your answers are vitally important so we can determine whether the AFL itself needs to be improved. Here's one objection about the AFL that two independent projects have now raised: The AFL does not guaranty the kind of artistic control that certain people want. These projects seem to define "artistic control" as a requirement for notices of original authorship that are to be retained in derivative works, or as restrictions on the right to use individual or program names in derivative works. More broadly, perhaps we should consider what *moral rights* really should be for software in an open source environment. The Berne Convention contains provisions that allow the author of a work to control (in some ways) how his work can be changed. The United States has never adopted these moral rights provisions into US copyright law except as pertains to a work of visual art, but moral rights are a part of the law in many other countries. In some countries, I understand, moral rights may not be contracted away regardless of what a license says. (I actually know very little about the law pertaining to moral rights in other countries.) By copy of this email, I'm specifically asking Robert Samuel White, Glenn Randers-Pehrson and Bruce Perens (all of whom have raised the same issue in different contexts), to help us understand what OSD-compatible form of license provision should be recommended to protect an author's rights in a work: * to claim authorship of that work; * to prevent the use of his or her name as the author of any work which he or she did not create; * to prevent the use of his or her name as the author of a work in the event of a distortion, mutilation, or other modification of the work which would be prejudicial to his or her honor or reputation. Do we really want to go down such a path in open source licenses, opening up a whole pandora's box of litigation about what constitutes "honor or reputation" in the sofware arena? Should we instead try to implement a meaningful moral rights provision for US copyright law? Inquiring minds really do want to know what you think about these issues. /Larry Rosen > -----Original Message----- > From: Robert Samuel White [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 2:18 PM > To: 'Russell Nelson' > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Simplified Artistic License (A Proposed Compromise) > > > I've decided to just forget it. I'm going to use my license > and forget about OSI approving it. I didn't want this much > controversy. I was very patient and listened to every one's > comments on the list, and I adjusted my license as > recommended, all with the misguided belief that my license > would be approved as long as it met the conditions of the > OSD. I support OSI, the OSD, and the open source community. > So I guess this is the end. Have a wonderful life and keep > up the good work. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Russell Nelson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 5:01 PM > To: Robert Samuel White > Subject: RE: Simplified Artistic License (A Proposed Compromise) > > Robert Samuel White writes: > > > > There are some things I like about the Academic Free > License, then there > are many things that I do not like... > Do you really want me to go into > it? > > Yes. > > -- > -russ nelson http://russnelson.com | > Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | businesses > persuade 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | > governments coerce > Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | > > > -- > 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