Re: A new AL, take 2
Nick Ing-Simmons wrote: > >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) Ack! One of the problems of being too close to what you are doing, it is hard to see this kind of thing. I will scan it tonight with an eye to removing double-negatives. >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 ...) Will change. FWIW with each pass I have been removing phrases taken from the current AL. This will remove another... > > > >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 ;-) Hrmph. Good catch. (I have caught an amazing number of mistakes like this in my previous passes... >I think that "definitions of terms" are normally in a "preface" rather than >a numbered item. True, but after tonight's try I intend to refactor it so that this term does not need to be defined. > >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: Tonight I intend to remove all need for such backrefs (while switching to a numbering system that was privately suggested, 1.1, 1.2, ... 2.1, 2.2, ...). > >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". Exactly, and I should be able to remove the phrase tonight. >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? > If it is a Standard Version then by definition the entire Package is licensed under this license, and so (by the terms in the Copyright statement) this agreement covers all applicable licenses and Copyrights. If it does not then one or more of the Copyright holders is going to be in breach of contract. (Because the copyright says this agreement is sufficient, but it isn't. You are in the same boat if you try to claim someone else's code as your own and release under the GPL.) > > >you are allowed to charge > >for distribution of the Package, support, etc. You are also > >allowed to distribute it aggregated with other products. Another goal of tonight's pass is to include this phrase, but make it redundant. Your rights and responsibilities should work out to the same thing whether or not you view the Package as a package which has been aggregated with others, or whether you take the whole aggregate as the Package. In theory that is, we will see if I miss anything in practice. > >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. I suspect that this will wind u
Re: A new AL, take 2
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.
Re: A new AL, take 2
I wrote: > >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. Now I remember why I hate writing. I cannot stop rewriting large chunks. Each time I think it is better but... I will try a rewrite tonight refactoring by type of obligation, not type of distribution. I think that the types will be: - Guarantees on availability of unencumbered source. - Do not conflict with the original version. - Do not intentionally cause breakage of unaltered components (defined by causing them to violate their part of the regression suite) - Charge what you like, but do not represent the original as your own, or use developers and copyright holders for endorsement without separate written permission. So please give feedback, I would like to get any other significant details in now. (I already have a request to make it shorter. I am not sure how much I can do but I will try.) BTW does anyone have any thoughts about the numbering? When I tried to refer back to earlier sections I realized that "item 2" is ambiguous. Should I simply continue numbering in the agreement from where I left off before? (ie Start it at 6 and not 1.) >It means that your obligations are much more clearly spelled >out, and there is less micromanagement of what you may and may >not do. However it is a significant rewrite, and I would like >to see another iteration (hopefully with some legal input) >before I try drawing this up as an RFP. I intend to move it even more in that direction, and tonight I will cross-post to the opensource list which contains a number of lawyers. [snippity] Cheers, Ben _ 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.
