new license to review
signal11 at mediaone.net
Fri May 7 13:01:32 UTC 1999
Russell Nelson wrote:
> license to copy, modify, display, use and sublicense any Modifications
> You make that are distributed or planned for distribution. Within 30
> days of either such event, You agree to ship to Foobar a file
> containing the Modifications (in a media to be determined by the
> parties), including any programmers' notes and other programmers'
I don't like this clause. "media to be determined by the parties"?
That is in conflict with the 30-day clause if either party decided
to be uncooporative. I think that means the license dissolves..
It doesn't appear to hamper my own personal on-site modifications,
so long as they aren't "distributed" (vague?).
> license agreements with such third parties that are substantially
> similar in scope and application to this Agreement.
Who gets to say what substantial is, or not? Does that mean letter for
letter this license? Would the GPL qualify as "similar"? Only OSD
> any and all binary versions and removing any Modifications to the
> Original Code existing in any products. This Agreement will terminate
ZZzzt! Definate problem here. If Party A creates a patch for the software,
and passes it on to Party B via distribution.. then Party C, etc., down
the chain.. what happens if Party A decides to terminate the license?
Party A is responsible for use of a product beyond his control. One
of the big points of OSS (imho) is to be able to freely distribute
your code. This makes that abit difficult - how can you be sure that
developer doesn't have an "active" license? The author should retain
full control over the code he/she produces. I would go further to say
that, even if the author loses his right to further modify/use the software,
that should be no barrier for anybody else to.
I just read through the copyright section. Oi! I'm running alittle late,
so I'll have to post as-is.
More information about the License-discuss