In general, I think this new license is bit more convoluted then it needs to
be.  I proposal generally the following measures.  I am editing it up today,
and I will post a version of my proposal tommorrow.

First, in a couple of different places, it unnecessarily makes restatements
of what is already true about copyright law anyway.  For example, saying
"distribution outside your company or organization" isn't actually
necessary, and is in a way, problematic.  First, "distribution" is already
defined by copyright law, so we don't have to be that specific---copies made
inside a single organization aren't distribution.  Plus, what if it is an
individual who is redistributing the software?  We likely want to cover all
different types of distribution.

As another example, there is no need to say: "To redistribute, modify, or
derive from the Package you must satisfy all copyright and license
obligations on it."  That's already true, by nature of the fact that's a
copyrighted work.

Second, I think many of the goals can be reached with much simpler
language. Chris' point is valid; non-lawyers should be able to read this
license and be able to understand it.

I will modify Ben's version, and will post my draft today or tommorrow

Bradley M. Kuhn  -

PGP signature

Reply via email to