bkuhn wrote:
> >law,
> >and it isn't worth putting statements like this in licenses.  They are
> >unenforceable through copyright law, and thus

Ben Tilly wrote:

> I borrowed it from both the BSD and the GPL.  Even if it is
> unenforcable, it is likely to discourage people from abusing
> that.

I don't seem to be able to find something like that in the GPL.  Can you
point me to it?

Some BSD-style copyright notices do have that, but I don't think they are
actually enforceable.

> The language in the preamble may need some cleaning up, but unless there
> is a specific legal intention I truly mean to have a copyright statement
> that contains the offer of a contract which you may want to accept and
> follow.

That makes sense; I don't know what a lawyer will say.  I will run it by
Eben when you get a finalized version into an RFC.  

> >This statement is ok; and it states what is true.  I think it's enough, and
> >we don't need to say "contract".

> I was trying to reword verbiage from the GPL and clear up the structure.
> I want it to be obvious that there is an offered contract even to a layman
> (professional lawyers have had trouble noticing that detail in the GPL)
> since that is key to how it works.

We could always just use the verbiage the GPL uses; I think it's pretty

          You are not required to accept this License, since you have not
          signed it.  However, nothing else grants you permission to modify
          or distribute the Program or its derivative works.  These actions
          are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License.
          Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work
          based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this
          License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying,
          distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it.

Ben, did you find something particularly unclear about this text?  I think
this text from the GPL is actually *clearer* than a phrase like "Proffered
Contract".  But, TMTOWTDI, after all.

> > > 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.
> In that case clause b) should be cleaned up since that is what b) is meant
> to do.  I additionally do want to insist that the changes be publically
> maintained so that the developers can readily obtain the changes in one
> place without having to purchase a proprietary package.

Ok, Then I propose my text for (e) to replace the text from (b).

However, my other concern is we may be turning it into a copyleft license.
What is the "out" if people don't want to distribute their source?  They
must install to a different location?

> >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.
> I suspect that it is incompatible with the GPL when not used in
> a dual-licensing situation with the GPL or a GPL-compatible
> license.

Oh, of course!  I was just making it clear that the license alone was

>  As I stated before, compatibility with the GPL is not something I
> consider important.

I realize that, and we may disagree.  But, it's up to Larry to decide if he
wants the new Artistic License to be GPL-compatible or not.

>   For instance would something like my proposed statement that Larry Wall
> could (after a specified period of public discussion with no remaining
> objections from copyright holders) relicense Perl really fly?

I am not sure I understand the question; perhaps I failed to read some of
the relevant discussion.  Could you take a minute and point me to your
proposal in the archives?

Bradley M. Kuhn  -  http://www.ebb.org/bkuhn

PGP signature

Reply via email to