Ben Tilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>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.
>It means that your obligations are much more clearly spelled
>out, and there is less micromanagement of what you may and may
>not do.  

This does not read as well as the previous one. Part of the problem 
is inverting can/cannot leads to de-morgans theorem logic 

That is were as before we had  
    A or B 
 we now need  
   NOT (NOT A and NOT B)

For example:  
>                    Proffered Contract
>              for Distribution, Modification
>                   and Derivative Works

>Should you not seek to use the modified or derived version
>outside of personal use, within your corporation, or within your
>organization, you have no further obligations under this

I read that 1st as "Thou shalt not seek to use modified version 
except within your org". As I knew that NOT to be our intent 
I took another look, it took three passes to get the sense.

Taking a leaf out of perl's book we can re-cast that using unless 
in the middle:

You have no other obligations unless you seek to pass the modified
version beyond the person or organization which developed it.

(In which case read on ...)

>6) An unburdened complete source distribution of a Standard
>Version shall refer to a a publically available distribution
>free of charge or license obligation of the complete source to
>a Standard Version, 

But we don't want a version " free of license obligation " - 
we are trying to impose a license obligation ;-)

I think that "definitions of terms" are normally in a "preface" rather than 
a numbered item.

>if applicable a summary of how that differs
>from a previous Standard Version it is derived from, and if
>applicable the exact modification in machine readable form.
>11) Subject to the limits in 2) above, 

I hate back refs like that when trying to read so what was that: 

>2. The permissions and requirements in this agreement only
>pertain to the copyrights and licenses arising from the Original
>Version.  If this is not a Standard Version then statements of
>what is allowed shall be read as statements of what this
>agreement does not restrict you from doing.

So (2) says whole license only relates to the "Original".
We also say what it means if it is NOT a  "Standard Version"
(all be it with multiple negatives again).
But what if it is a non-Original Standard version?

>you are allowed to charge
>for distribution of the Package, support, etc.  You are also
>allowed to distribute it aggregated with other products.
>However you shall not advertise any Standard Version as your
>product.  Nor shall you use the names of the copyright holders
>and developers of the Original Version to endorse or promote
>products derived from the Original Version without specific
>prior written permission.
>12) Subject to the limitations laid out in 2) and 7)-11), if all
>necessary copyright and license statements are included then
>permission is granted to distribute the Package.
>Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at
>Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at 
Nick Ing-Simmons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Via, but not speaking for: Texas Instruments Ltd.

Reply via email to