Simple Public License, second draft

[bruce at perens.com]

From: Justin Wells <jread at semiotek.com>
> In a later section I will turn around and grant these "basic rights"
> to myself, with respect to modifications--so once again that 
> would include the patent rights:

I think you should grant them to the user and distributor as well.

> > >   Finally, you agree not to include any part of our software, or any
> > >   part of a binary application based on our software, in a competing
> > >   product, unless that competing product as a whole is considered
> > >   to be a modified version of our software. A "competing product" is
> > >   understood to mean software which has, at least in part, the same 
> > >   purpose as we stated for our software in its definition.
> >    
> > 1. You are writing your own loopholes. Why include the restriction at all
> >    if it is now so easy to circumvent?
> 
> It's not circumvented. I'm invoking the copyleft associated with 

There is a logical contradiction here. Part of your software included in
someone else's program can be something other than a modified version?

> The claim here is that if you use the software to build other software
> that has the same purpose as the original, then no matter how you 
> did that, the result is a "modified version" rather than just a (less
> restricted) binary.

Note this part of the OSD:

	6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor.
	The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the
	program in a specific field of endeavor.  For example, it may
	not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from
	being used for genetic research.

Competing products, or products that have the same purpose as the original,
are "fields of endeavor" and this certainly discriminates against them.
Does that make my concern more clear?

	Thanks

	Bruce