Another pass at redrafting the Artistic License

[David Johnson]

On Fri, 15 Sep 2000, Ben Tilly wrote:

> >This is a vastly different license than the old version. So I have to
> >ask, why the *huge* change? Another question is why there is a separate
> >agreement?
>
> ...[snip]...
> 
> Does that answer why I might want to propose a major rewrite?

Yes it does. If it's broke fix it, but it seems as if your trading in
the broken hunk for a completely different model :-)

> Now why the structure?  Well I am borrowing from the GPL the
> idea of having a license which is also used as a contract
> agreement.  (Read section 5.)  My understanding is that that
> allows you to have provisions enforcable under contract law,
> which allows you to enforce lots of things that copyright
> law won't.

Okay, this is my opinion, and as such I expect it to hit the bit bucket
microseconds after delivery...

My view of "proper" OSS and FS licenses is that they grant additional
permissions to the user beyond those offered by copyright, but take
away none of the rights of the user that copyright allows. You can give
but you can't take away. If a license follows this guideline, then
there is nothing that cannot be enforced by copyright law.  IANAL, but
it seems that if someone went against the terms of a copyright-based
license, they would be in violation of copyright law regardless of the
presence of any agreement or contract.

Since I am of the persuasion that contracts without explicit agreement
from both sides are onerous things, I would much prefer a list of
permissions to a contract. Tell me what I can do, not what you will sue
me over.

Okay, opinion over...

-- 
David Johnson
_________________________
<http://www.usermode.org>