Modifying existing licenses in minor ways

[Danese Cooper]

Adam,

Sorry to take so long to answer you, but I've been travelling in Europe for
the last 2 weeks with uncertain connectivitiy and I typically punt on my
mail list emails until I get home...but Sun is very interested in having
people use the SISSL (because we think its a really good license).

> Title: I'm presuming that the title should remain the same (rather
> than calling it the XNS Industry Standards Source License or
> something). Is that true, even though it's covering a different
> technology than originally intended (and one that's not from Sun)?

When Sun adopted the Mozilla Public License v 1.1, we were forced to change
the name and all internal references from "Mozilla" or "Netscape" to "Sun".
We published a diff file to show that the only changes we made were this
renaming (and broadening to include coverage of "documentation" in addition
to "source code").

Sun wouldn't require you to rename the license, but you might decide you
want to.

> These two clauses apply to new versions of the license itself. 6.1
> (letting Sun release new versions) doesn't seem problematic since 6.2
> says that code covered by a particular version can always be covered
> by that version. And I presume that by using this license, we could
> choose to use future versions as we wish. Initially, I was concerned
> that the last sentence would enable Sun to modify the terms, but on
> reflection, it would seem that sentence is instead saying only Sun
> can modify the license itself, and the fact that we're using it with
> non-Sun Original Code is irrelevant. Am I reading that correctly?

I've sent email to the Sun attorney who authored the SISSL requesting
comment on this question, but pending that official answer (and here I must
say, IANAL ;-), I believe your reading is correct.  Certainly the intent of
SISSL was not to set up a situation wherein Sun could control T&C when the
license is used in OEM situations.

> Obviously, we'll have to change Exhibit A to include a different
> Initial Developer, but the implication of having this information in
> an Exhibit would seem to be that it should be filled in. I don't see
> any problem with modifying this part of the License for use with XNS
> - OSI shouldn't need to certify the Exhibit, since it's no different
> than a Contributor modifying the Exhibit. Seem reasonable?

First your suggested mods seem reasonable to me.

Second, I might agree with you about the role of OSI in certifying licenses
which are essentially OEM'd from "approved" licenses...but OSI would
disagree with you & me.  Sun was required to submit our version of the
Mozilla Public License (our Sun Public License), even though the changes
were well documented and not substantive.  I think you need to plan to
submit your version (and the delta from our SISSL) to OSI, and hopefully
they'll turn the request around quickly.

> Similarly, the Standard definitions listed here would seem to be
> "fill-in" material and something to which OSI wouldn't mind
> modification. Seem reasonable?

See above.  Your mods again seem reasonable to me

Please let me know if you need any more help,
Danese