Eiffel Forum License

[Roger Browne]

"Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M." wrote:
> 
> The Eiffel "license" ...
> ... may be too "permissive" to constitute an enforceable
> agreement...in that it appears to lack consideration.

I am aware that in some countries, a consideration is required to make a
contract enforceable. But does that also apply to licenses? Surely the
common BSD/MIT licenses also lack consideration?

I was assuming that licenses that lack consideration would work as
described in the GPL text:

   "You are not required to accept this License, since
    you have not signed it.  However, nothing else
    grants you permission to modify or distribute the
    Program..."

> (The use of the phrase "without license" in a public license is slightly
> self-effacing and unreliable).

Good point. I will certainly suggest that this is changed when the
Eiffel Forum next reviews the license text.

Would a suitable alternative be the following wording from the MIT
license?

   Permission is herely granted, free of charge, to any person
   obtaining a copy of this software...

> ... These questions are meant to get
> you started on considering what your goals are first. Then, draft the
> license you think will accomplish those goals.

Our goals are very clear:

1. Anyone can do whatever they like with a package that
   is licensed under the Eiffel Forum License, provided
   that any distributions they make are also made
   under the Eiffel Forum License.

(It doesn't make any difference whether the "package" is source, binary,
documentation, etc).

This goal is supposed to be covered by the requirement to retain the
copyright notices (e.g. "Copyright (C) 2000 Roger Browne, see file
forum.txt.") and to include "this file" i.e. the license text.

2. As an additional right, anyone may release a 
   binary program (under any license of their own
   choosing) that depends on the package (in any
   way whatsoever), provided that if they _enhance_
   the package they must publicly release their
   enhancements.

This goal is supposed to be covered by the requirement to release the
modified version of the package.

OK, maybe it is a clumsily-worded license. But it is "working" for those
who are using it, in that no violation of its spirit has ever been
reported. Sure, it may not hold up in court - but then neither may the
GPL.

If someone like Rod wants to help us clean up this license in such a way
that it is still:

   - recognizable as having the same basic intent
   - short and easy to understand

then I would be _very_ happy to present it to the Eiffel Forum as a
revision for their approval.

Otherwise, I would be interested to know whether anyone sees any
problems with this license and the Open Source definition.

Regards,
Roger

> > Eiffel Forum License, version 1
> >
> > Permission is hereby granted, without written agreement and without
> > license or royalty fees, to use, copy, modify and/or distribute this
> > package, provided that:
> >
> >   - copyright notices are retained unchanged
> >
> >   - any distribution of this package, whether modified or not,
> >     includes this file
> >
> > Permission is hereby also granted, without written agreement and
> > without license or royalty fees, to distribute binary programs which
> > depend on this package, provided that:
> >
> >   - if the binary program depends on a modified version of this
> >     package, you must publicly release the modified version of this
> >     package
> >
> > THIS PACKAGE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND WITHOUT WARRANTY. ANY EXPRESS OR
> > IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED
> > WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE
> > DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS BE LIABLE TO ANY PARTY FOR
> > ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL
> > DAMAGES ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS PACKAGE.

-- 
Roger Browne - roger at eiffel.tm - Everything Eiffel
19 Eden Park Lancaster LA1 4SJ UK - Phone +44 1524 32428