Now I'll do it myself: OWL R1
eccesys at topmail.de
Sat Apr 28 23:26:10 UTC 2001
----- Original Message -----
From: "Karsten M. Self" <kmself at ix.netcom.com>
To: <license-discuss at opensource.org>
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.
>I've also suggested in the past that the following might be helpful in
> - 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
>> (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
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
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