Simple Public License, draft

[John Cowan]

Justin Wells scripsit:

> The idea of first paragraph is from the Mozilla license (including the
> use of the word "cure"), and the second one is practically straight
> out of the GPL.

What you say is fundamentally different from what the GPL says.
The GPL is a copyright license concerned only with copying, modifying,
and distributing software. Your license purports to restrict 
*use*, like a typical proprietary shrink-wrap license.

If I buy a CD containing gcc, I own the CD, and also that particular
copy of gcc.  I can use it, read it, or wipe the floor with it as I
please.  If I want to modify it or distribute it, then I most
follow the GPL.  Clause 5 says "modify or distribute under this
license or not at all."

If I buy a CD containing MS Office, I own the CD, but not the software.
I only have a license to use it in specified ways.

Owning (a copy of) software is distinct from being the *copyright*
owner.  Open Source licenses permit anyone to own a copy of your
software with or without payment, but you remain the copyright owner,
and you license (part of) your copyright rights to others.

> As for the right of sale, I'm happy to add that. The basic rights
> section now reads:
> 
>     The right to use, copy, reproduce, distribute, display,
>     perform, and sublicense the software, and to charge a fee
>     for any of these purposes.

Good.  You now reserve all rights and essentially then give away
all ownership-related rights, which is confusing but not incorrect.

I also wish to align myself with Bruce's comments on license proliferation
(bad) and licenses written without legal input (problematic).
Please reconsider the LGPL.

-- 
John Cowan                                   cowan at ccil.org
       I am a member of a civilization. --David Brin