Ben Tilly wrote:
> 4. The names of the contributers to this package may not be used to
> endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific
> prior written permission.
Lawyers typically point out that this issue is not covered by copyright law,
and it isn't worth putting statements like this in licenses. They are
unenforceable through copyright law, and thus
> Proffered Contract
> for Distribution, Modification
> and Derivative Works
>
> Preamble
> This contract is offered by the copyright holders for your convenience
A copyright license is never a contract unless a person signs it, so it
isn't good to call this a contract, and it may even invalidate the license
(although I am not sure).
> should you wish to modify or distribute a Standard Version or some
> derivative of a Standard Version.
> You are under no obligation to accept it, however under Copyright law you
> will need permission to undertake the activities covered.
This statement is ok; and it states what is true. I think it's enough, and
we don't need to say "contract".
> 5) To distribute you must do at least ONE of the following:
I would add an extra clause in 5:
e) Accompany your distribution with machine-readable source of the
Package with your modifications. The modifications must be
presented in a way that is includable in the Original Version, and
you must include the full sources of the Original Version itself.
It is acceptable to either (1) include both the complete modified
sources of your modified version, as well as the full sources of the
Original Version, both in electronically readable format or (2)
include your sources as electronic patches that can be automatically
applied against the Original Version by some reasonable, well-known,
automated method.
> 7) You may charge whatever you like for this Package, or the support of
> this package. Additionally you may aggregate this Package with other
> packages of your choice. However you may not advertise the Original
> Version or any Standard Version as a product of your own.
Again, this advertising clause is not really enforceable under copyright law,
so I don't see the point in having it. This would be an issue for trademark
law.
With the addition of part e in section 5, I believe this is a free software
license, incompatible with the GPL. It's probably an open source license
too.
We'd need to run it by a lawyer to confirm that, though.
--
Bradley M. Kuhn - http://www.ebb.org/bkuhn
PGP signature
