Simple Public License, Please Review

[Justin Wells]

Rod, thanks again for your help.

On Thu, Apr 06, 2000 at 07:05:32AM -0400, Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote:
> 
> > 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.

> 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.

OK, if I really can't then I will have to resort to two different licenses
as you suggest. However, there are significant advantages to keeping it 
all in one license:

  o People using a modified version of the software, under the copyleft,
    should have the right to sublicense to end users too. Someone who 
    depends on being able to earn a living "selling" software to end 
    users might feel that they also depend on the ability of the 
    community to take over development of WebMacro if I go away.

So I want to take another kick at this can:

    You may distribute and sublicense your derivative work to third
    party end users with whom you have an existing business relationship, 
    possibly in exchange for a fee, providing that you place it
    under a license which permits only use (including making backups)
    of the software, and forbids any other copying, distribution,
    lending, or adaptation of your derivative work.
 
If this still isn't going to work then I guess I'll give up on this 
clause and write a separate, probably simpler license allowing 
commercial use of my software under limited circumstnaces.

However it seems to me that if I am entitled to sepcify a copyleft 
term (which becomes the license for third party recipients) then
I ought to be able to do this on exactly the same legal basis.

Justin