Simple Public License, Please Review

[Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.]

Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.
www.cyberspaces.org
rod at cyberspaces.org


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Justin Wells [mailto:jread at semiotek.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2000 9:10 PM
> To: Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.
> Cc: justin at semiotek.com; license-discuss at opensource.org
> Subject: Re: Simple Public License, Please Review
>
>
>
> Hi Rod, thanks again for spending some time looking over my license.
> I've attached a copy of my license interspersed with explanation to
> this message, and below I answer the points you raised in your first
> message to the list.
>
> Thanks again--I really appreciate the help.
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 04, 2000 at 09:52:26PM -0400, Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote:
>
>
> > (But, remember, nothing beats the assistance of a paid lawyer).
>
> Definately. By trying this myself I am learning a lot about licenses
> and copyright. What I learn changes my perception of what I want
> to accomplish in an opensource license--if I had started out with
> a paid lawyer, I'm not sure I would have known what to ask for.
>
> Once I have fixed the license up as much as I can, and have a good
> idea of what is or isn't possible in a license, I will be looking
> for paid legal advice to debug and finalize the license.
>
>
> > First, could you tell us what your framework is. By that I
> mean, what are
> > you trying to accomplish and why?
>
> I have a Java software library that is currently released under the GPL,
> and I am looking to loosen up the licensing slightly.
>
> What I want is:
>
>   -- As short and simple a license as I can possibly have
>
>   -- A good generic copyleft that cathces *all* "improvements" to
>      my software, but lets people off the hook if they only "use" it.
>      More on this later.
>
>   -- People who use copyleft software have an interest in the copyleft,
>      and I feel they should be able to protect that interest.
>
>   -- I don't want people bypassing the copyleft via an
> application server
>
>   -- I do want to be able to grant exemptions to the license without
>      having to collect copyright releases from everyone
>
>   -- I don't want subversion of the copyleft by dependence on software
>      or patents that are not free
>
>   -- I want *prominent* credit for my work
>
>   -- I want disclaimers that work in Canada too
>
>
> > It's clear that you are promoting free software, but it is not
> > clear why you seem to want a weak copyleft.
>
> I want copylefting to ensure that I receive improvements to my software.
> By "improvements" I mean anything which makes my software a more effective
> solution--not just fixing bugs and adding functionality, but possibly
> linking my library up to a database in a genuinely useful way. That
> would be an "improvement" but it would only link with my software.
>
> But, I don't want to force a copyleft on people who are simply making
> use of my software. If they are writing some specialized software that
> incorporates the specific business practices of a particular industry,
> say dental offices, and perhaps even includes some trade secrets, then
> I can see why they might not want to release their source code. Also, if
> they did, it wouldn't benefit me because it's not an improvement to my
> software--it's just a use of it.
>
> So I would like a copyleft that covers improvements to my software, but
> allows ordinary uses of it. The LGPL is supposed to do this, but it is
> too weak--a database module that connected to my software would be a
> useful improvement that only links with my software.
>
> My solution was to write a general purpose copyleft, and then knock a
> few holes in it that would allow consultants and contractors to make
> ordinary use of the software without a copyleft.

OK, I now understand what you are trying to do. I am concerned that these
holes you want to knock in your copyleft may turn out to be extraordinarily
large. A "consultant" or a "contractor" are terms with no legal significance
in your license. Of course, it may be too burdensome to define the terms in
your license. I recommend inserting a statement permitting individuals to
seek a contractor or consultant license from you.


>
>
> > Also, please do not forget to explain your use of the term
> > "unmodified" in section 1. It is confusing.
>
> What I mean in section 1 (and in section 5) is that you can redistribute
> the software exactly as you received it, including everything.
>
> In section 2 what I mean by "unmodified" is that you can build derived
> works using my original software, providing you don't have to change my
> original in order to create the derived work, except that you can compile
> it into a binary form.

This is not clear. You cannot use a term in two distinct ways in the same
contract. Courts may pick one of the emanings for you, if you face legal
challenges to your license. I would stick with the meaning provided in
section 2.
>
> The language in section 1 might prevent Debian from distributing
> precompiled binaries, except that under section 3 they could create
> the compiled binary as a "derivative work", providing they were willing
> to release all the source code necessary to build it.
>
> Justin
>
>