SOS license

[Alex Nicolaou]

Brian Behlendorf wrote:

> > 2. clear about what was a derived work
> 
> Why should a license redefine what copyright law defines?

Since the user must accept the terms of the license to do anything with
the software, the license becomes the definitive contract of what is and
is not allowed. While some assumptions about how copyright law works may
need to be made, the fewer they are, the clearer the license is. 

I think that the GPL's wording regarding derived works does much more to
obscure the issue than clarify it, and I tried to avoid the whole issue
in the SOS' wording. I think that the license is clear that you can
either distribute your patch on your own terms, or return it to the
copyright holder and have it be distributed under the SOS license.

alex

P.S. SOS at http://www.cgl.uwaterloo.ca/~anicolao/sos/