WinGrid Free Public License

[j.Maxwell Legg]

David Johnson wrote:

> On Wed, 15 Dec 1999, j.Maxwell Legg wrote:
> >
> > a     Distribution of the program or any work based on the program by a
> > commercial organization to any third party is prohibited if any payment is made
> > in connection with such distribution. This applies whether directly (as in
> > payment for a copy of the program) or indirectly (as in payment for some
> > service related to the program, or payment for some product or service that
> > includes a copy of the program "without charge".
>
> By specifying "commercial organization", you are going against section 6 of the
> OSD which states "No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor". However, I
> believe you could apply this clause to anyone, commercial or otherwise, and be
> okay, except ...

"commercial or otherwise" has now been included. Ta.

>
>
> However, this brings up point two. The first section of the OSD says that a
> license may not "restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as
> a component..." Your clause as written would restrict people from including
> your software on a CD collection which they then sold for $1.99 + S/H.

Such pricing as you mention would fall under the category of distribution of any
equivalent amount of random data selected from the medium and is specifically
allowed. What is restricted is preemptive packaging. An example would be selling an
accreditation course in which the software was given away not as a typical program
for conducting studies but as an integral part of the training offered. In such a
case the entire course would have to be free or subject to dual licensing
arrangements.

>
>
> Moving on down we see:
>
> > For United States government users, the program is provided with restricted
> > rights...
>
> This is a big OSD no-no! Government workers are still in a "field of
> endeavor." Furthermore, you are singling out a single nation for the following
> restrictions.

That's now fixed. see

http://ingrid.netpedia.net/wingrid_html/wingrid_free_public_license.htm

The license no longer singles out any specific country but applies to any country
that uses ruses like the U.S. example to obfuscate the term "freeware" by saying that
"we have to call it 'commercial software' even though everybody knows its freeware".

>
>
> And finally, a lot of the language is taken directly from the GPL. Be warned
> that the GPL is copyrighted and allows only verbatim distribution. The GPL is
> *not* under the GPL :-) I would suggest rewriting those parts.

I stand warned, but "Allah be praised" is also enjoined by several "copyrighted"
sects who aim to keep the faithful on the true path!!!

Religious and economic wars have been and are continuing to be waged based upon this
sort of intolerance. The present Caucasian conflict dates from the twelfth century.
see

http://www.alharamain.org/alharamain/articles/art01whbi.htm

In a similar vein by saying the GPL is *not* under the GPL an attempt is being made
to use lawyer muscle to move the goal posts by intimidation. I don't hold a lawyer's
skill to be more important than those of the programmer and though the former's
skills can be manipulated to enforce an injunction, they provide little more than
legerdemain to the equation.

A case in point is the IBM Public License. This license cannot be used by someone
wishing to apply it to their product even though it is on offer at the opensource.org
amongst others that can. It belongs to IBM and can only be used to include the
specific IBM "Jikes Compiler" component within another product. I suggest its ilk be
classified as 'underware'.

Fortunately the differences in the collection of terms presented in the WinGrid Free
Public License to those of the GPL is so vast that the devices used, e.g., "dual
licensing" and the "viral sublicense" has changed the license by such an extent as to
render the derivative quite a separate entity from the GPL case.

In the fashion industry a 10% alteration in a finished product is commonly accepted
as the threshold for being a separate design. A lawyer's use of language to render a
finished component is no different to the seamstress' use of needle and thread.

In this case the license is but a component. Take it or leave it, I say, but it's not
the whole story.