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 >4. >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 >agreement. 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 http://www.hotmail.com. > >Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at >http://profiles.msn.com. -- Nick Ing-Simmons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Via, but not speaking for: Texas Instruments Ltd.