SOS license

[Alex Nicolaou]

Bruce Perens wrote:

> In addition, I think its "simplicity" isn't real - you aren't an attorney,
> and hidden within the license language are some ambiguities and a number of
> self-contradictions.

I'd appreciate it if you could take the time to point out the
ambiguities and self-contradictions. I worked hard to make the language
as plain and unambiguous as possible!

If the license isn't really simpler than the others then I've failed in
my primary goal: the production of an OSI license that people will read
and understand. 

> It doesn't seem as if you really _need_ this license. You could use one or
> more of the existing ones and have the same effect.

I could not find a license that was simultaneously:

1. less than two pages long
2. clear about what was a derived work
3. permissive in allowing patch distribution under other license terms
4. explicit about how the "official" version of the software is
distributed

I believe my license fulfils all of these, but if there's another one
that does even three of the above 4, please point me at it and I'll read
it.

alex

P.S. The license: http://www.cgl.uwaterloo.ca/~anicolao/sos/