Larry, Thank you for your very thoughtful contribution to this subject matter. You have most certainly and more poetically expressed the reason for my desire to create a new license.
Since you obviously want to know my opinion of the Academic Free License, I will give it to you. But first, let me just explain what it is I am trying to accomplish, specifically what type of artistic control I am seeking: - I wish to claim authorship of my work. - I don't want my name used to endorse a product I did not create. - I want the comments that I place in a file (at the top and bottom) to remain there, even if someone modifies the file. - If someone modifies the file, I want them to say such, and explain how and why they modified it. And I want these comments placed directly underneath of the comments section I create at the top of the file. - I don't want some one else using the name of my product when their product is derived from my own; that invites too much confusion. Furthermore, and though you might think me petty on these points: - I don't want someone else copyrighting the license that I choose to use. I'd rather use a public domain license that is a template and can be freely used by anyone without reference to the author of the original license. The license I propose satisfies this requirement for not just me but every one. - I want my license to refer directly to the product in question. The license I propose allows me to do just that. I could have a hundred different products all based on the same license template, which also means they would all automatically be approved by OSI, and that's what I would like. That is all I am asking in my license, nothing more, nothing less. That is the extent of the artistic control I am seeking. There is no license available that satisfies all of these requirements, and that is why I have created the Simplified Artistic License. As to what I think about the Academic Free License when compared to the one I have created: - I like the use of the term "Original Work" and parts of the "Grant of License" section. Some of that section is confusing, especially everything said from non-sublicensable on down. I'm not likely to accept a license that I myself do not fully understand. - I like the section called "License to Source Code." I think it clears up and makes room for any type of language or file format that one might be distributing as part of their source code, that's really nice. In fact, there is no wording within that section that bothers me at all. - The section entitled "Mutual Termination for Patent Action" is confusing. It seems to me that if something is patented then there are laws regarding the use of patents and that information does not to be part of a license. Am I right on this? - Other than what I've mentioned, it seems okay to me, except for the fact it does not meet all of the conditions I set forth at the start of this email. I hope you find this information useful. -Samuel -----Original Message----- From: Lawrence E. Rosen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 6:33 PM To: 'Robert Samuel White'; 'Russell Nelson' Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Glenn Randers-Pehrson'; 'Bruce Perens' Subject: RE: Moral Rights (was Simplified Artistic License (A Proposed Compromise)) 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
