SOS license

[Alex Nicolaou]

Bruce Perens wrote:
> 
> To paraphrase your license... Sorry if this is laying it on a bit thick :-)

No problem. To paraphrase your paraphrase:

1. verbatim distribution is allowed if there is no charge
2. charged distribution is allowed if you add a notice
3. you can modify the software if you distribute the mods
   you can't distribute a version with your patch applied, except
binaries.
(Aha! Ok, an exception we agree on :-)
4. You can only do what's allowed in this license
(But the phrasing says "except". It's the same style of phrasing as in
the GPL's 4.)
5. You don't have to use the license, but if you do you accept it.
(Also almost exactly the same term as GPL clause 5.)
6. You're not required to use this license unless you submit your
patches to the copyright holder, who wants to use this license.
(Another exception we agree on!)
7. You must follow this license, or it is void.
(Almost the same phrasing as GPL clause 7.)
8. If one part of the license is crap, it's all crap.
(Similar phrasing to part of GPL clause 7, but in GPL it only applies to
#7.)
9. No warranty.

At least now I understand what you mean. I thought you meant that the
clauses contradicted each other; I couldn't see any pair that did. You
suggest that 2/3 are exceptions to 1 but I don't see it that way. The
first two terms are similar to the GPL's first term, without requiring
"that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an
appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty" (GPL clause 1)
if you're providing a free service. This GPL rule is widely ignored
anyway - it is easy to ftp GPL software from various distributors and
never see a conspicuous notice of copyright and disclaimer of warranty;
the ftp sites should print the notice as part of their welcome banner
but few do. 

Within each clause the phrasing uses exceptions; I especially agree with
the issue of binaries which as you know was added to the license after
the first draft. Most of the exception-like phrasing has its roots in
the GPL which I considered a model for the SOS license. I'll see if I
can rewrite the clauses without it. Since I basically followed the GPL
style I didn't realize that this would be a big issue.

alex


 
> 1. Verbatim distribution only, you can't charge.
> 2. Except that you can charge if you publish a notice.
> 3. (a, b) Except that you can modify the software if you distribute
>    the modifications.
> 
>   You can't distribute versions with your patch applied.
> 
>   Except that you can distribute binaries with the patch applied if
>   you include a notice.
> 
> 4. You can't do anything.
>    Except as provided by this license.
> 
> 5. You're not required to accept this license
>    Except that doing anything with the software indicates your
>    acceptance of the license.
> 
> 6. You're not required to distribute patches.
>    Except that if you submit them to the copyright holder you grant
>    him a copyright.
> 
> 7. This license is valid
>    Except if you are unable to comply with the terms, it's void.
> 
> 8. This license is valid
>    Except if any part of it is unenforcible, in which case it's void.
> 
> 9. There's no warranty. No exceptions.