Simple Public License, Please Review

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

> Currently it's written like this:
>
>   You may create a derivative work based on our software by combining a
>   complete unmodified copy of our software, or a compiled version
> it, with
>   your own separate source materials. You may license the work
> directly to
>   third party end users. Subject to your license, recipients may use the
>   work on one or more computers, and may create backup copies of
> it, but may
>   not otherwise copy, distribute, lend, sublicense, or adapt it.
>
> Though perhaps it can be narrowed even further.
This language is good, but be careful of the two competing goals. You have a
weak copyleft mixed with a strong restriction on the downstream user. The
reason why the GPL can impose terms on downstream users is because it has a
strong copyleft. Weak copyleft means you do not want to impose restrictions.
And, there is a good reason for that. You can't. If the consultant-developer
is free to add his own code AND change the terms of the public license (i.e.
use ihis own license), not only is the software no longer free, but you may
have little legal basis to dictate  what the third-party end user does.
Think of it like this, if you are willing to let your baby go, then yu have
to let her go. ;-) Seriously, I think you have two competing goals that
could be accomplished with two distinct licenses. The SPL should be like the
GNU GPL (strong copyleft) and perhaps a SPL-2 that would apply to
contractors and consultants.
>
> This clause has a lot in common with the LGPL, since to begin with
> you must only be linking or including my software, not making
> alterations to it. So it should be at least as strong as the LGPL.
>
> Where it goes further than the LGPL is in the limitations it imposes
> on you once you meet the exceptions criteria. The LGPL allows you to
> do pretty much anything at that point, whereas this license is still
> fairly restrictive.
>
> I am considering tightening up the exception criteria like this:
>
>   third party end users with whom you have an existing business
>   relationship.
>
This is good. Can you put it in SPL-2?
> or some other similar language.
>
>
> [ use of "unmodified" ]
>
> > 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.
>
> OK. I will rewrite the sections to use different phrasing.
>
> Justin
>

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