Hi to all I'm not a lawyer like Mike, just a developer, and english is not my mother language, so, i think that what i wrote may be not so understandable.
I will try to fix the points and explain what i meant. Well, points 7 and 8 in DPL derived from the point 4 in the OPEN SOURCE DEFINITION (http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php) and my intention was to be completely compliant with this point. By the way, i think that the point 3 of the Q Public License Version 1.0 is exactly what i need so i'm going to substitute the points 7 and 8 with this point. At this point, original point #6 is part of the new point #6 This means that ALL the part of this license come from osi certificated licenses In this way i'm sure that we have a full professionally written license DPL 1.1 is at http://www.duemetri.it/licenza.htm Special thanx to Bruce and Mike ------- Graziano Poretti - DUE METRI http://support.facile.duemetri.net - Per creare e gestire un portale in 20 minuti http://www.duemetri.it tel.: 0039 184 42163 Fax: 0039 184 462673 -----Messaggio originale----- Da: Bruce Dodson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Inviato: gioved� 21 novembre 2002 8.50 A: Graziano Poretti; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Oggetto: Re: discuss: Duemetri Public License (DPL) Version 1.0 The QPL uses the same tactic to control distribution of customized versions of Qt. But this creates is a pain for developers and end-users alike. At least your term #8 provides an alternative, changing this "requirement" to distribute patches into something that's optional. But it's confusing the way 7 and 8 seem to contradict one another. As a licensee, I would be scratching my head, unsure whether I was compliant or not. Please consider dropping term 7, and simply leaving term 8. Given the choice, most developers would choose that option anyway, because distributing patches creates extra burden for the end-user. Even term 8 creates a difficult situation. You have a license whose first line says, "The software is called RAINBOW", and then says that for modified works, "The software must not be called RAINBOW". If I were you, I would check out the AFL 1.2. That version might not have been approved yet when you made your request. Depending on what "business requirement" points 7 and 8 of your license are meant to serve, you might find that the AFL's Attribution Rights provision can be leveraged to deliver the same business value in a different way. Then you'd have a professionally written license, you wouldn't have to go through a long drawn out process to try to get your license approved, and you can get on with writing your software. - -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
