Re: Approval Requested for AFL 1.2 and OSL 1.1
Bruce Dodson top-posted: > It seems clear to me, yet another non-lawyer: > > Derivative Works means "derivative works based upon the Original Work", as > upposed to "derivative works based upon Marvel Comics characters", or > "derivative works based upon previously-unreleased Elvis tracks". Since the definition of this isn't yet established in the license text, how would I know? > "Prepare" - it doesn't say "to prepare yourself to create [Derivative > Works]". It says "to prepare [Derivative Works]". Like when you're > preparing dinner - after you have finished preparing it, you have something > that you can eat. No offense, but "Duh." None taken, but I still think that the word "prepare" is not in place. Just me _thinking_ of doing anything later stated could be to "prepare" for action. I still don't like it, and never will - worded as it is. /Mike -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Approval Requested for AFL 1.2 and OSL 1.1
>From my wording, I think it's quite obvious that IANAL.
Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:
[link to OSL 1.1]
I must say, I read just down to 1 b) before I got hickups.
"to prepare"... What is prepare? To fork a CVS copy in preparation for some
"real work"? To... I don't know.
No, the "prepare" phrase is way too vague for me to like it - especially
since it seems to be completely superfluous. Why would I need a grant to
"prepare" something? Someone is going to look over my shoulder to say "Hey
there, it looks like you're 'preparing' derived works here!". Someone is
going to dissect my brain while it's running and say "It seems like a
preparation..." for even _thinking_ of doing something (which is a form of
preparation).
I think you should either reword or just drop it.
What would happen if "to prepare" was replaced with "to create"? That
wouldn't try to forbid people to even think, would it?
I also have complaints about the 100% reduncance in explaining that
"derivative works" is _really_ "('Derivative Works')". I believe it is a
great merit to explain something before it's used. In this case "derivative
works" (capitalize however you like) could be explained before it was used.
That would 1) obviate the need to write it twice in the same point, 2) make
(reasonably) sure the reader knew what it was.
Besides that? Actually, that was enough for me to stop reading. Sorry
Lawrence, I'm sure you put great effort in creating this, but this developer
didn't agree even with pt 1.
/Mike
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Plan 9 license
Lawrence E. Rosen top-posted: > Why on earth does anyone believe that OSL 1.0 forbids personal > modification? Beats me. Probably Lewis Collard could answer that (I didn't attribute all individual comments to keep down size of post - an error I'll try to not repeat). Personally I referred to the comments that OSL 1.0 had the same restriction as Plan 9, that "personal modification" was not allowed. I assumed those comments were true. /Mike -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Plan 9 license
Lewis Collard wrote: > > > The Plan 9 license forbids personal modification > > > > I agree, but so does the OSL 1.0, which is Open Source (the > > OSL 1.1 does not have this problem). > > Then I disagree with the certification of the OSL v1.0 as Open Source. Count me in. If I can't modify the software for which I have the source code, what point would it be in having it? Verifying that it contains bugs I'm not allowed to fix?! By giving someone access to the source code, you have also given them the option of rebuilding the software themselves. If soneone finds an error in named source, why on earth would any sane person want to stop that someone from fixing the bug for his/hers personal binary/binaries? /Mike -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
RE: a proposed change to the OSD (potentially OT)
I'm sorry for the OT post, but the mention of Sybase and OpenWatcom made me feel it was time for a reaction from me. Karen Williams from Sybase wrote: > I've been following this discussion with interest. Since some of it > is generated at least in part by Sybase's submission of a license for > OSI certification (which is based on the OSI-approved Apple Public > License, with the addition of a click-wrap structure as a preferred > alternative and a few other far less material changes), I wanted to > respond/add to a few points. Even that this might be the wrong thread for this, I'm more than a little surprised that the proposed Sybase OpenWatcom license hasn't been rejected immediately on the grounds that it in my opinion violates several requirements of the OSD. As the "Getting a License Approved" http://www.opensource.org/docs/certification_mark.php p 5 reads in full "If we find that the license does not conform to the Open Source Definition, we will work with you to resolve the problems." This suggests a license must conform to the Open Source Definition, found at http://http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php To mention what I believe are just a few of the current violations (the numbers are refs to the same OSD points): - 1 The proposed license does restrict redistribution. It states that the _only_ means of getting the software shall be by the act of _downloading_. This rules out e.g. CD-ROM, which seems like a rather odd restriction. However odd, it still restricts (meaningful) distribution. - 5 The proposed license does discriminate. Had You read and accepted the license on monday, it would terminate if You failed to also download the software on the same "date". Had You downloaded a tarball on a Monday, and read and accepted the license on the next day, the license would be terminated. Had You gotten the software on CD-ROM, the license would be void. The main reason for this I believe is the license clause that gives you a 30-day period to "cure such a breach". But since you can never undo neither the "download" action, or the "accept" action, you are forever out of the loop. - 6 The proposed license reads "You acknowledge that the Covered Code is not intended for use in the operation of nuclear facilities"... This seems to be for the explicit purpose of, if not forbidding at least strongly discourage, using the software in a few specific fields of endeavor. - 7 Due to the fact you need to read and accept the license, and on that same "date" _download_ the software for the license to be valid, it sure seems this is not attaching the same rights to all getting a copy. Again imagine downloading a tarball on another "date" than accepting the license, getting the software from a CD-ROM etc. - 8 in the OSD reads "License Must Not Be Specific to a Product". "OpenWatcom" seems to be a _very_ specific product. In addition I find it odd that from http://www.openwatcom.org/license_info/open_watcom_lic.html you can read "YOU INDICATE YOUR ACCEPTANCE BY IN ANY MANNER USING (INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION BY REPRODUCING, MODIFYING OR DISTRIBUTING) THE SOFTWARE.". That is, with the mere act of _reproduction_ this software tries to lock me into some kind of legal trap, claiming I somehow have accepted the license! What if I run a CD duplication plant? What if I just _carry_ a CD containing this software from one place to another (distributing)? What if I break said CD in 1000 pieces (modifying)? I hope the OSD board members considers these points, and vote to deny approval of this license. Again, I'm sorry for the OT post. Thank you for your time, Mike -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
