SOS license

[Brian Behlendorf]

On Tue, 9 Nov 1999, Alex Nicolaou wrote:
> 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!

"plain" and "unambiguous" are usually not compatible notions.

> I could not find a license that was simultaneously:
> 
> 1. less than two pages long

I think the BSD, Apache, and Artistic licenses qualify under that
one.

> 2. clear about what was a derived work

Why should a license redefine what copyright law defines?  

> 3. permissive in allowing patch distribution under other license terms

An author can *always* distribute patches under a license of their
own choosing, at least by my reading of fair use.  Also, it looks like
even if people modify the software for personal use, they have to publicly
post their patches.

> 4. explicit about how the "official" version of the software is
> distributed

That's not a copyright issue, it's a trademark issue, though the
copyright license can tie the use of that trademark to rights granted by
the license.

	Brian