Zeratec Public License

[Charles A. Jolley]

>From: bruce at perens.com

> From: Mark Wells <mark at ns2.pc-intouch.com>
>> They could still simplify it immensely by cutting out all the stuff about
>> certification and use of Zeratec's trademarks.

> I concur that it really should be two separate licenses, a commercial one with
> the validation requirement and trademark permissions, and a free software one
> with the permissions in 2.2 and little else.
>
> They could write an appendix _describing_ how they issue commercial licenses
> and what they cover, just to inform people about the availability of the
> commercial license, and they could require distribution of that appendix
> with the patent license.

Hi all:
    I agree that the language in the license could be made more precise for
a layman to read over.  While it's true that one should always consult an
attorney when there are questions, many people don't have the resources or
desire to do so.  Therefore, we (Zeratec) need to do what we can to make the
license clear enough that people don't need to consult an attorney.


The idea of splitting this into two separate licenses is an interesting one.
We had initially decided to leave things together because that way it could
function like the GPL in the sense that to license our patents you must
simply include some disclaimer like that described in annex A or B, and then
include a file (say DEGAS-LICENSE) or a printed card containing this
standard license that everyone uses regardless of whether or not their
product is being sold or is free or whatever.

Splitting this into two license would simplify the free component, but it
would also mean that people buying and using products would have to get to
know two separate license...

My lawyer is out of town until Friday, but when he returns I will grab his
ear for a bit and see what we can do about simplifying the clarifying the
license(s)...

Cheers,
-Charles