A License

[Rafi M. Goldberg]

>On Mon, 20 Dec 1999, Rafi M. Goldberg wrote:
>>
>>  -Redistributions in binary or source code form must include complete and
>>  unaltered documentation from prior distributions provided that it is not
>>  obsolete, in which case said documentation must be properly updated.
>
>I'm a bit confused about this clause. How does one determine that the
>documentation is obsolete? Couldn't I just declare it obsolete,  and
>redistribute the software with my "updated" documentation?


Good point, I guess I should reword that.  "...from prior 
distributions unless it is clearly not applicable to the 
redistribution," perhaps?  What I want to do is allow a contributor 
to weed out information that has become inaccurate due to 
modifications to the software.


>Overall, I'd say this license differs only from the BSD/MIT in that 
>it attempts
>to protect the software's "artistic integrity". I would humbly suggest looking
>at the Artistic License for your needs, since it is essentially 
>restricting and
>permitting the very same things your license is.

Well it isn't _quite_ the same thing as the Artistic License, 
although it's probably similar enough.  Very minor details, like the 
addition in my license of an address where the original software is 
freely available (part of the copyright notice), makes me prefer to 
use it over the Artistic License.  Holding out might annoy some 
people, but I don't see why I can't use what I created. :-)

-Rafi Goldberg
-- 
Rafi M. Goldberg
rafimg at usa.net
PGP Key: 0xA39B4E14 - Keys are at http://pgp5.ai.mit.edu/