Zeratec Public License

[Mark Wells]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Wed, 14 Jul 1999, Charles A. Jolley wrote:

> 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.

I think the splitting-of-licenses idea was about moving everything
relating to permission to use trademarks (except 'Degas-based') and
certification into a separate license.  In fact, I wouldn't even call
this second license a license.  I'd call it a 'certification agreement' or
something, to reduce confusion if nothing else.  (Bruce suggested putting
information about how to apply for certification in an appendix to the
first license.  Good idea.)

> 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...

Yes, but they'd be licenses for totally different things.  One is the
license for use of the patented technology, and the other is license to
use certain trademarks relating to the patented technology.  I don't think
there would be much confusion here, especially considering how well we've
all learned to live with things like the GPL vs. the LGPL, the BSD license
vs. the X license, et al.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v0.9.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: PGPEnvelope - http://www.bigfoot.com/~ftobin/resources.html

iD8DBQE3jRLZ2GOwREX5+xQRAt0zAKCcViz1lxFIjTG82Mj+sl+KqTJgHgCfRPgb
ItlxiN+5kDR67gF7Hx+VrsE=
=Zdck
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----