Re: discuss: SHPTRANS License Template
[Whew!] I'm glad I checked this again before going to bed. From now on until this approval process is done, I will talk about my WILLINGNESS to make changes here on the list first, but I will not actually MAKE the changes until someone from OSI tells me whether that will help or harm my bid for license approval. Maybe that will help things go smoothly. (Russ: if we reach an impasse or if too many changes are required, then we can talk candidly, privately, about whether I should continue this bid or not.) -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: discuss: SHPTRANS License Template
I made a revision to the SHPTRANS License Template. http://gisdeveloper.tripod.com/shptrans_license_template.html The changes are highlighted in the HTML. For those looking at the text version which Russ posted: I reversed the order of the first two conditions, got rid of the required brief notice, and replaced it with a required pointer to the complete license. Before, the notice distilled to This work is licensed under the license terms for this work, which should have accompanied this work. That was circular and, in a product using libraries under various licenses, probably ambiguous. Also, in the description of what I mean by complete license agreement I reversed the items disclaimers and provisions to provisions and disclaimers - not for any legal reason; it just sounds better that way. The first two conditions were: a. The above copyright notice must appear in all copies or substantial portions of the software. The copyright notice must be followed immediately by the complete text of this license agreement, or by the following brief notice: This work is distributed on an as is basis without warranty of any kind. For more information, and to understand your rights and obligations, please refer to the complete license agreement for software short name, which should have accompanied this work. The same license agreement applies to derivative works. This work may also be redistributed and/or modified under the terms of the GNU General Public License, version 2 or any later version, as published by the Free Software Foundation. b. A verbatim copy of this license agreement (including the above copyright notice, this permission notice, and the following disclaimers and provisions) must appear in the documentation and/or in other materials accompanying the software. They are now: a. A verbatim copy of this license agreement (including the above copyright notice, this permission notice, and the following provisions and disclaimers) must appear in the documentation and/or in other materials accompanying the software. b. The above copyright notice must appear in all copies or substantial portions of the software. The copyright notice must be followed immediately by the complete text of this license agreement, or by a pointer stating where the complete license is found. regards, bruce -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
RE: discuss: SHPTRANS License Template
Here are my comments on the SHPTRANS License Template (as modified): * You grant permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute the accompanying software. Do you also intend to grant permission to distribute the modifications? Is the grant perpetual? Sub-licenseable? Royalty-free? * In paragraph (a) you use the term and/or. Which do you mean, and or or? Do you intend to give the distributor a choice? * In paragraph (b) you use the phrase substantial portions. How large a portion is substantial? Is it a matter of size or importance of the portions? * In paragraph (c) you confuse the very different concepts of derivative work and combined work. The second sentence starts with the word Thus but it isn't a logical conclusion from the first sentence. (Simply because a work is a derivative work doesn't *necessarily* bring it under the terms of the original license, although I understand you want it to be so in this case.) What other agreements are you referring to in the second sentence, and why are those other agreements of any concern to you as long as the licensee satisfies the terms of *this* license? * Concerning paragraph (e), it is one thing not to allow misrepresentation of a derivative work as the original, and quite another to require the the original be identified as the basis for the derivative work. Given the poor quality of some derivative works, I'm not sure I'd want the original to be so identified. If by this clause you're attempting to state obligations regarding trademark, I think you should do so in more precise language. * I don't understand the legal significance of the conclusory sentence in the first un-lettered paragraph. That statement is probably true regardless of what you were to write in this license agreement. The second sentence, however, because it is a restatement of part of paragraph (c), leaves you open to confusing interpretation. (The GPL has also been criticized for defining things in subtly separate ways in separate sentences.) * In the termination sentence, you don't say what the consequences of termination are. Would a licensee whose license is terminated have to stop using the software, even though use of software requires the making of a copy (in memory)? Is the license sub-licenseable? * In the warranty disclaimer you refer to the software and the accompanying materials. In the first paragraph of the license you define software so as to encompass those materials. By the way, if you define a term like that, you should capitalize the word Software and use it as a defined term thereafter. Be consistent. Because a copyleft (or as I prefer, reciprocal) license places onerous burdens on a licensee, it is essential that the terms of the license be clear and unambiguous. You don't want a licensee to escape the license by proving to a court (where the judge probably doesn't know what software is!) that the license is ambiguous. If you want your license to be more widely adopted, you should probably also think more carefully about other legal issues relating to software licensing. I tried to address many of those issues in the Open Software License, about which you already gave me good suggestions. You might find it useful to evaluate whether a license such as the OSL would better suit your purpose, or if not, explain for your readers why those other licenses are not suitable. /Larry Rosen -Original Message- From: Bruce Dodson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2002 4:13 PM To: Russell Nelson; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: discuss: SHPTRANS License Template I made a revision to the SHPTRANS License Template. http://gisdeveloper.tripod.com/shptrans_license_template.html The changes are highlighted in the HTML. For those looking at the text version which Russ posted: I reversed the order of the first two conditions, got rid of the required brief notice, and replaced it with a required pointer to the complete license. Before, the notice distilled to This work is licensed under the license terms for this work, which should have accompanied this work. That was circular and, in a product using libraries under various licenses, probably ambiguous. Also, in the description of what I mean by complete license agreement I reversed the items disclaimers and provisions to provisions and disclaimers - not for any legal reason; it just sounds better that way. The first two conditions were: a. The above copyright notice must appear in all copies or substantial portions of the software. The copyright notice must be followed immediately by the complete text of this license agreement, or by the following brief notice: This work is distributed on an as is basis without warranty of any kind. For more information, and to understand your rights and obligations, please refer to the complete license agreement
Re: discuss: SHPTRANS License Template
[ Thanks, folks. Approval discussion of the SHPTRANS License Template is now closed. ] Bruce Dodson writes: I made a revision to the SHPTRANS License Template. http://gisdeveloper.tripod.com/shptrans_license_template.html The changes are highlighted in the HTML. By suggesting that changes are necessary, you are admitting that the license should not be approved. Okay, I will make an executive decision right now and say that the SHPTRANS License Template will not be approved in the form you submitted it nor in its current form under the same name. Feel free to submit the SHPTRANS License Template version 2, but please don't waste our time again by making changes after submission. Once is a mistake; twice is just plain stupidity. -- -russ nelson http://russnelson.com | New Internet Acronym: Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | IANAE Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | I Am Not An Economist -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: discuss: SHPTRANS License Template
I thought this process was one in which the license is submitted for discussion, minor revisions are made if needed, and the license is eventually accepted or rejected. From your web page describing the approval process: 6. At the same time, we will monitor the license-discuss list and work with you to resolve any problems uncovered in public comment. How can one resolve problems if one is not allowed to change the license? Or, on the other side of the coin, how can you hope to work with me to resolve a problem, if I am not allowed to admit when changes might be warranted? And let's be realistic: my change was minor: it amounted to removing a requirement for a boilerplate notice pointing to the license agreement; replacing it with a requirement for a free-form pointer to the license agreement. The new form just makes it easier for the recipient / distributor to do the right thing and unambiguously identify the license terms. Anyway, you've made your executive decision. It seems clear that the wasted time was primarily mine. Lawrence made some useful comments today after he had already read about the change I made; no one (other than me) had made any comments at all up to that point. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: discuss: SHPTRANS License Template
Bruce Dodson writes: I thought this process was one in which the license is submitted for discussion, minor revisions are made if needed, and the license is eventually accepted or rejected. How can one resolve problems if one is not allowed to change the license? I don't know? WHAT was I THINKING? Did space aliens capture my brain and replace it with one much smaller? Maybe I just had a stupid attack? Low blood sugar? Bad dates? I'm sorry, yes, you have the process right and I have it wrong. Of COURSE you can make changes. I just want to be sure that, when I make up the agenda, the comments that I forward to board members are made in reference to the same license they're reading. But I can see that you have clearly marked up the HTML with changes in red. -- -russ nelson http://russnelson.com | New Internet Acronym: Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | IANAE Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | I Am Not An Economist -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: discuss: SHPTRANS License Template
Russell Nelson scripsit: I don't know? WHAT was I THINKING? Did space aliens capture my brain and replace it with one much smaller? Maybe I just had a stupid attack? Low blood sugar? Bad dates? I actually thought it must be a forged response! -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ccil.org/~cowan http://www.reutershealth.com Charles li reis, nostre emperesdre magnes, Set anz totz pleinz ad ested in Espagnes. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: discuss: SHPTRANS License Template
So far there have been no comments on the list since I submitted this template for approval. I have tried to address the concerns raised in the previous discussions (copyleft lite? and simple copyleft...) Perhaps those who had suggestions for the previous versions could tell me whether I addressed their concerns adequately, and whether they see any new shortcomings in the current revision? Several of the comments from the previous iterations revolved around the question of GPL compatibility. To make sure I got that right, I sent a copy of the template over to the folks at FSF. They confirmed that, when the GNU Copyleft provision is included, a license created from this template is GPL compatible. So, that question is now put to rest and we can focus on the other aspects of the license, such as its ability to stand on its own. Regards, Bruce - Original Message - From: Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [ Please discuss this license. This version is different from earlier versions seen here. I have appended the license text to Bruce's email. Please note that the license must stand on its own, since GPL compatibility is an option, not a requirement. -russ ] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
