Proposed DanielMD License for Review.

Karsten M. Self kmself at
Tue Aug 28 20:23:15 UTC 2001

on Tue, Aug 28, 2001 at 01:08:14PM +0100, Daniel MD (im-thinking at wrote:
> After i read your comment's (mailing list members) and my post again,
> i realized that i was trying to oblige people to do something that is
> suppose to flourish naturally. If the program is used and becomes
> popular, people will want their names in the developers page and will
> add themselfs to the mailing list, a community will be created its the
> logic evolutionary step.
> In Resume what i want is this, I created the program, and want to make
What do you mean by "resume"?

I take it English is not your first toungue.

> the source code/bin/docs available to others to change as they please,
> they can use them as they want, and make compilations (A work that is
> a compilation of existing new and derivative works - from the OpenBSD
> site).
> I want the developers to hack as they please, and use the code or
> part's of the code in other Open Source licensed applications,
> basically let the code be FREE.
> What i DON'T want, is to have 100 completely incompatible
> distributions that will retard the development and evolution of the
> code, and latter will lead to the hard task of standardization like in
> the case of the Linux OS undergoing right now
> (

See Sun's Java history WRT this point.

It's been argued by many (self included) that the ability to fork code,
compatibly or otherwise, is a major benefit of the free software

> I will give an example of what i want people to do and what i don't
> want people to do, and oblige them under licensing terms not to do it.
> Let's say i released the code of ProgramX and, developerX, sees the
> code, likes the program, but needs/wants to add a feature, i want him
> to be able to add that feature, and optionally send me the feature to
> include in the Official ProgramX Distribution, if i see that it's a
> public interest feature i will add it to the Official ProgramX
> Distribution, if i see otherwise i chose not to include it in the
> Official Distribution, but i want him DeveloperX to be able to release
> his own distribution, with the added word's ProgramX Hacked
> Distribution.  For example, DeveloperX send's me a suite of features,
> that he uses, like random special effect's wend the initial splash
> screen start's or end's, i want to be able to say to him, Look this is
> very cool, but it will increase the size of the code immensely so i
> will not include it on the Official ProgramX distribution, but you can
> create a Hacked Distribution.

This level of control is inherent in most free software licensing and
development models.  It's far less a licensing issue than a development
/ project management one.

> Resume: You can Hack the Code, and Create your Distribution, but First
> you have to send a RFC to (the malling list ) with the hacked code,
> so that (the development team ) has the opportunity to put it the
> Official Distribution, if it's in the official distribution, there
> will be no need to create more distributions, and Standardization will
> not be a problem.  Resuming even more: Hack IT, Send IT For Comment,
> Approved and Polished for standardization issues (included in the
> Official Distribution), Not Approved (you can create your own Hacked
> Distribution).

I'd drop this whole concept.  Rather, explore the concepts of integrity
and/or trademark management as espoused by Perl (Artistic License), 
the Apache Project (Apache License -- BSD derived), or the Linux kernel
(GPL plus a trademark held by Linus Torvalds, managed by Linux

> I DON'T Think that software can be more free that THIS, without
> compromising development evolution and standardization.

Talk to Sun, and/or study the Java/SCSL debates.

I suspect it's premature to start discussing specific language until
you've clarified (internally and externally) your goals and their

Karsten M. Self <kmself at>
 What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?             There is no K5 cabal     
   Free Dmitry! Boycott Adobe! Repeal the DMCA!
Geek for Hire              
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <>

More information about the License-discuss mailing list