ON Thu, 8 Jul 1999 Uli Kusterer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Subject: OODL: Uli's proposal (=first draft) for a License
>
> here's my draft for our license. It's based on the GPL 2, but I've made
> changes which hopefully summarize to the following:
IMHO, and I'm not a lawyer but have spent plenty of time talking with
them, it's a mistake to try to cobble together something like this
without a lawyer. There are too many ways to screw up and render the
whole agreement invalid. Hence my earlier recommendation to just use
one of the existing Open Source agreements out there *without
modification*.
(snip)
This is in section 2:
> c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively
> when run, you must cause it, when started running for such
> interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an
> announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a
> notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide
> a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under
> these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this
> License. (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but
> does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on
> the Program is not required to print an announcement.)
What this basically means is that your standalone has to present a
license splash screen with this information in it. This would be
confusing to the end user (does the product come with a warranty or
not?, Is the whole program freely redistributable or not?), and makes
it impossible to pass a standalone off as anything other than an
OpenCard stack.
To summarize my earlier point together with this one: IMHO you're
basically ruling out *all* commercial use of the technology if you
adopt any GNU-derived license.
Regards,
Scott
********************************************************
Scott Raney [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.metacard.com
MetaCard: You know, there's an easier way to do that...
