I wrote:
>Well I sat down, thought carefully about it, and reorganized
>my proposed license along the same lines that I would organize
>a config file.  Instead of enumerating what is allowed, deny
>this, deny that, deny the other, allow everything else.  I
>think that this is a good way to rewrite it.

Now I remember why I hate writing.  I cannot stop rewriting
large chunks.  Each time I think it is better but...

I will try a rewrite tonight refactoring by type of obligation,
not type of distribution.  I think that the types will be:

  - Guarantees on availability of unencumbered source.
  - Do not conflict with the original version.
  - Do not intentionally cause breakage of unaltered
    components (defined by causing them to violate their
    part of the regression suite)
  - Charge what you like, but do not represent the original
    as your own, or use developers and copyright holders
    for endorsement without separate written permission.

So please give feedback, I would like to get any other
significant details in now.  (I already have a request to
make it shorter.  I am not sure how much I can do but I
will try.)

BTW does anyone have any thoughts about the numbering?  When
I tried to refer back to earlier sections I realized that
"item 2" is ambiguous.  Should I simply continue numbering
in the agreement from where I left off before?  (ie Start it
at 6 and not 1.)

>It means that your obligations are much more clearly spelled
>out, and there is less micromanagement of what you may and may
>not do.  However it is a significant rewrite, and I would like
>to see another iteration (hopefully with some legal input)
>before I try drawing this up as an RFP.

I intend to move it even more in that direction, and tonight
I will cross-post to the opensource list which contains a number
of lawyers.


Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at 

Reply via email to