Abe Kornelis wrote: > However, it does not distinguish between software and > programming tools, nor does it distinguish between derived > software and what we have termed 'dependent software', which > is termed in the LGPL as 'software that uses the Software'. > > In the rationale for the BXAPL we have named 8 requirements > that our license would need to fulfill. Since you tried > offered your OSL1.1 as an alternative, I'll go over them 1 by 1. > > A) Programming tools and dependent software versus other software > and derivatives. I have found no mention of this > distinction in your > OSL.
The OSL doesn't need to distinguish among these because it relies on the statutory definition of derivative works. In my view, the OSL has the same effect as both the GPL and the LGPL. One license instead of two! > B) Copyrights of Modifications to be passed to Copyright Holder. > Found no mention of such a requirement in the OSL. The requirement that downstream licensees who modify the software assign their copyrights to the licensor is entirely unacceptable. Why do you need that? The OSL is fully enforceable by the licensor even if he doesn't own the copyrights. (This is not true for the GPL or LGPL!) > C) Copyrights and Patent rights. Ok. > > D) Disallow object-only distros. I assume section 3 of the OSL > settles that. Yes it does. > E) Recognizability of modifications. Not mentioned in OSL. Take a look at section 6 in www.rosenlaw.com/osl1.1.html. > F) Dual licensing. Section 4, right? Any licensor can license his software under any license (or licenses) he wants. Of course, if he is licensing a derivative work of someone else's software, he must honor the requirements of THAT license. If he is licensing a derivative work of OSL-licensed software, he can only use the OSL. The same is true for the GPL. > G) Applicable law. Ok, section 11. > H) Local langauages. Found no mention of such things. I'm going to get translations of the OSL. > A quick count that the OSL covers 50% of our requirements. > So, thanks again, but I will stick with my own license. Entirely up to you. But if you insist on your point B, above, I'll recommend disapproval of your license. I should also note that, although this is not legal advice nor intended to create an attorney-client relationship with you, I believe several sections of your license are probably unenforceable and of dubious legal effect. In particular, your claim that your license is not a contract is legal hogwash. /Larry -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
