Now I'll do it myself: OWL R1

mirabilos eccesys at
Sat Apr 28 23:26:10 UTC 2001

----- Original Message -----
From: "Karsten M. Self" <kmself at>
To: <license-discuss at>
Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2001 11:07 PM
Subject: Re: Now I'll do it myself: OWL R1
>As past submission candidates have been advised, OSI is a volunteer
>organization, and the submissions process is slow.  I'm not a member of
>OSI or the submission process, and don't speak for either, though I'm
>one of several folks who comment on this list.  I'm also inclined to
>believe that a slow queue process isn't a bug.

Yes, ok.

>I've also suggested in the past that the following might be helpful in
>processing submissions:

>  - A synopsis of your license.

I'll put one tomorrow or so.

>  - An exhaustive analysis of existing licenses (particularly the GNU
>    GPL, GNU LGPL, BSD, MIT, and Mozilla Public License), and the   =20
>    reasons for which thesse are deemed inadequate.             =20

GPL ->  virus, too large
LGPL -> way too large, FSF won't support it (deprecated, etc. since 2.1)
BSD ->  I dont want to include kBytes into EVERY file. For me it is
        a line referring to a file called LICENSE.
        And I want the protection of the original name (verbatim vs.
original vs. other)
MIT ->  neither restrictive enough nor covering anything else than
 - If I was to do a MIT derivate, we'd have the same discussion here.
 - and in fact I started with a BSD derivate.
MPL ->  <funny>Do I look as I would ever use Netscape?</funny>
        It doesn't hit anything I want to achieve with my license.

>  - A statement of goals for the project.  I tend to see these myself
>    largely as ideological (you strongly believe in free software), =20
<    technological (you're promoting a standard or protocol, e.g.:
>    Kerberos, Apache), or free-software+business (such as the Mozilla
>    project, which uses the Mozilla browser as a platform for
>    commercial development).

I just want to pick the best out of your suggestions above which I've
and put them shortened into a separate low-overhead file.

>> I'll give it here without comment first, just plz have
>> a look onto it and - if you can spend some more minutes - discuss
with me.
>> (The last line is a CRC, the file is exactly 2kB, and
>>  the semicolones (yes I can latin) are for NASM. I put
>>  it into file LICENSE or - if I just have one source
>>  file in (my most used) assembly, at top of it).

>What is NASM?  I assume it's some automated machine-readable standard
markup format.

The Netwide Assembler, Version 0.98
A iX86 programming language (MASM, TASM would work, too) which is the
one I mostly code in when I dont do BASIC or now C.
If I didn't tell yet, it is just of personal interest and so I can put
my currently-running projects onto sourceforge.

>This list is not subject to NASM parsing rules.  Format your submission
>for maximum human legibility, preferably under monospaced font email

Doesn't apply. NASM is a compiler. The semicolones are comment signs.

>My own (non-legal) quick read is that this license simply doesn't parse
>as English, and doesn't appear to follow good legal construction.
>is inconsistant and unclear usage of language.  The last two sentences
>are troubling.

Oh, I have reviewed it some times and even a friend has looked at it.
C'mon, Linus isn't English either.


More information about the License-discuss mailing list