Simple Public License, v0.20

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

Yes, you changes sound fine. After your explanation of what you were
attempting to do, I think you have done a good job with it.

___________________________________
Rod Dixon
Visiting Assistant Professor of Law
Rutgers University School of Law
Camden
www.cyberspaces.org
rod at cyberspaces.org

General Counsel
FreeBuyers Net, LLC
dixon at freebuyersnet.com



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Justin Wells [mailto:jread at semiotek.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2000 4:32 PM
> To: Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.
> Cc: license-discuss at opensource.org
> Subject: Re: Simple Public License, v0.20
>
>
> Hi Rod,
>
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2000 at 09:10:08PM -0400, Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> I dropped one use of "free of charge" in my license, but a few remain. I
> think in those cases I really mean "free of charge"--for example, where
> the license insists that modifications be made available to the public
> under an open source license "free of charge", that is there to prevent
> someone from saying that the open source version is available for
> $100,000 to anyone who wants it.
>
> However, I dropped it from my grant of rights, and now simply say
> you may use(...) our software, rather than "use(...) our software
> free of charge". It didn't seem to add anything there.
>
> > As for section 3, you use "combined work" when I think you mean
> "collective
> > work."
>
> > 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, these are related and I've tried to define them now. I now
> use the term
> "collective work" as part of the definition of "combined work".
>
> Here are my definitions from section 5:
>
> > A "combined work" is a collective work where the parts are
> linked, used,
> > and distributed together as an application, but remain distinct and are
> > separately licensed. A "bona fide application" has substantial
> functionality
> > beyond that of other works it is combined with.
> >
>
> And here is the revised section 3, where these definitions are used:
>
> > (3) "COMBINE OUR SOFTWARE WITH YOUR WORK"
> >
> > You may combine an unmodified copy of our software as a whole,
> or a compiled
> > version of it, with your own separate source materials to
> create a combined
> > work which you may use, display, and perform. 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 version of the combined work which may be used under the
> same terms as
> > the original. 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.
>
> The full text of the license can be found here, for reference:
>
>    http://shimari.com/SPL/
>
> Hopefully it is getting clearer now, and thanks yet again for your help!
>
> Justin
>
>