the skinny -- a LEGAL *nightmare*

[Nelson Rush]

I see a few problem areas.

Section 2 describes the inclusion of patented software algorithms as being
allowable. Now there might be "open source" certified licenses that allow
this, but I believe there should be a clause that says patented algorithms
are not compatible with this license. The point is freedom to modify and
distribute, that point is moot if the said code is patented. I understand
that Novell might use patented code and would still like provide the source
code and make it redistributable (to cash in on the whole open source
movement thing...), but they shouldn't have the right to call it open
source if they choose that path. We shouldn't make allowances for certain
things just to get the OSS stamp on them, otherwise we end up smudging the
rules associated with OSS.

Section 2 also says, "distribute", it does not mention re-distribution...
This could become a legal minefield if it is not corrected. (Note: I
believe the document should be more thorough and legally binding, as it
is... it's shorter and less explainitory than the GPL, and the GPL is
always under scrutiny for namely that.)

Quick note: The grammar in this thing is appalling. It's obvious this draft
wasn't written up by a lawyer, he'd have more tact. The way it is written
offends my eyes and thoughts.

The following rant refers to section 3 subsection 2:

Why not make the license interchangable? For instance, why not say that the
GPL may be used instead of the NCL when redistributing. (Of course Novell
will have to decided which licenses it will allow to replace the NCL
(something compatible), maybe even any license that is OSS certified). It
is understandable that Novell wouldn't be so hot for this sort of thing,
but I'm talking about OSS licenses in general. If they are so compatible,
why can't they be interchangable? Just my thoughts on this. (Note: If
Novell gets upset about this, you can tell them they still hold the
copyright even if the license changes... and the license cannot change to
anything too much different than what the NCL is already... Since of
course, all the OSS licenses are compatible... right? ;-)

Another fine note, "distribution of distributions" is sort of redundant
isn't it? ...someone failed English 250? ;o)

Section 5:
"If the Contributor prevails, You shall pay the Contributors costs and
attorneys fees, and the licenses granted to you by the contributor shall be
revoked unless you cure the breach within a reasonable time specified by
the arbitrator." -- Is this legal? If so, is it legal to do in every
state/country? Something about this sets off alarm bells in my head...

"If you prevail and the Contributors allegation of breach was brought in
bad faith, the Contributor shall pay your costs and attorneys fees." --
Again, this is accepted practice in some parts of Europe (Britain), but I
do believe this is not covered under Judicial laws in the U.S. and the
Judge might constitute that this section is far too demanding and basically
makes the judges decision on punishment for him. Otherwise we'd see more
licenses saying things like, "...and if the defendant fails in court, he
shall be flogged fifty times, and if the defendant wins, Brent Stone of
Indiana shall be given a toy for his birthday, every birthday until his
20th birthday... If he is 20 after this fact, Brent shall have a Bachelor
party and a pool installed in his backyard." I mean, seriously, give me a
break.

Let me reiterate, this license is far too short and does not cover
everything that needs be covered.

That's about it, now flame my ass to high heaven.

Sincerely,
Nelson Rush

"One world, one web, one program."
-- Microsoft promotional Ad

"Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer."
-- Adolf Hitler