Simple Public License, v0.20

[Justin Wells]

On Tue, Apr 25, 2000 at 09:10:08PM -0400, Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote:

> This version is much improved over the last. I think you will end up with
> something very useful. I will offer suggestions on some of the problem
> areas, but I like how you are developing your license.

Thank you.


> I will focus my comments on section 3 since that is new, but sections 1 and
> 2 need to be reviewed carefully because some of the language is unclear. For
> example, you use the word "improve" when you may mean "modify," and you use
> the word "copy" when you should use "distribute." I would also re-think
> using "free of charge." "Use Freely" is the FSF concept you might mean;
> recall, the cost of the software is not directly pertinent to the open
> source mission.

OK, I have switched to "modify" instead of "improve". I switched to copy 
from distribute in "provided that you copy all of it", and I added distribute
in addition to copy in "and we may copy, display, perform". 


> As for section 3, you use "combined work" when I think you mean "collective
> work."

I'll go look up collective work and see if it is what I mean.


> The term "bona fide application" has no  meaning or copyright significance.
> You need to define this term or abandone it since it could cause substantial
> confusion.

OK. I'll have to think up a definition for that.


> The first paragraph of section 3 is a little confusing. I am not sure what
> the goal is so I cannot suggest how to make it clearer. I would add that you
> may want to be careful with attempting to set restrictions on "combined"
> works if the other work is, itself, subject to copyright protection. Your
> restrictions may not be enforceable.

I'll give you my real life situation to help explain section three.

My software is called WebMacro, and it is a "template engine" for use in 
Java servlets. The Apache Software Foundation has a servlet building 
framework called Turbine, which can make use of WebMacro. They want to 
use Turbine and WebMacro to create a bug tracking system called Scarab. 

WebMacro will be under the SPL, Turbine is under the Apache license, and 
the big question on everyones mind is what conditions will apply to Scarab.

It is important to the Apache group that their backers, such as IBM, be 
able to repackage anything they do in a commercial product--possibly 
taking it closed source. Though they would prefer an Apache/BSD style 
license, they have indicated that they would be willing to work with 
material that was under a license like the MPL, since it doesn't infect
their own code.

I want changes to *my* code to be published. I could use the MPL, except
that I also want a license which promotes the creation of more open source
software, and the MPL doesn't do that. I also think the MPL is too lenient
in the kinds of changes that it requries publication of--it might be right
for Netscape, but I want to go a bit further. 

I'm trying to strike a balance:

  1- WebMacro will always be covered by my license, and all of these 
     "combined" works are really uses of WebMacro as an unmodified library.

  2- To use WebMacro as a library, a project must offer something of 
     real value to the open source community, and projects like
     Scarab and Turbine clearly do. This is the motivation for
     requiring that the other code be open source and form a bona
     fide application (which I know needs a better definition).

  3- Once a project is using WebMacro, though, it should be able to 
     continue using it even if someone takes the project closed source.
     So IBM could modify Scarab and Turbine (modifying only the parts
     under the other license, and doing that under the terms of that 
     other license) and still be allowed to use those modified versions
     with WebMacro, even though they may now be closed source.

  4- People should also be able to fix bugs in WebMacro as well. So they
     need to be able to make lawful modifications to WebMacro under my
     license (ie: publishing source), creating a new version of
     WebMacro, and then combine that new version as an "unmodified"
     library in their application. It is unmodified in the sense
     that it has not changed since the source code was published.

  5- WebMacro should be redistributable and usable within a project like
     Scarab in the same manner as Scarab's own license would allow, 
     except for the restriction on modifications to my source itself.

Effectively, once you use WebMacro in an open source project with enough
substance to be a "bona fide" application, I drop all of my demands 
except for the requirement that you publish changes to my own source,
and that you credit me.

This is all pretty complicated, I know, but I think that it's worth the 
effort. I like having a license that pushes the development of free 
software, such as the GPL, but it seems wrong to me that in some cases
that very same license prevents open source projects from collaborating. 

Having said all that, here is a copy of section three, for reference:

> (3) "COMBINE OUR SOFTWARE WITH YOUR WORK"
>
> You may include or otherwise combine an unmodified copy of our software
> as a whole, plus a compiled version of it, with your own separate source
> materials to create a combined work. You may distribute your combined
> work to anyone provided your separate source materials form a bona fide
> application which you distribute to the public, free of charge and including
> all source code, under any open source license approved by the Open Source
> Initiative (opensource.org) or under this agreement.
>
> You may permit third party recipients to use, display, perform, copy, and
> distribute your combined work as a whole, without modification, in any
> manner also permitted for your separate source materials.
>
> You may permit third party recipients to modify your separate source material
> under your license (possibly without disclosing source code) and modify our
> software under section (2). The modified parts may then be recombined to form
> a new combined work which may be used under the same terms as your combined
> work. Thus your combined work may be treated as if it were covered by your
> license, except that modifications to our software itself must occur under
> section (2) of this agreement.
>

I know that what I'm trying to do is difficult enough that some
people may tell me to give up--but I don't want to give up. My
language might be all wrong, but I believe there must be some way
of wording it that works.

Justin