Proposed DanielMD License for Review.

Daniel MD IM-Thinking at
Tue Aug 28 21:18:48 UTC 2001

At 13:23 28-08-2001 -0700, you wrote:
>on Tue, Aug 28, 2001 at 01:08:14PM +0100, Daniel MD (im-thinking at 
> > 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.

A summary: a resumé of the facts of the case. - From,
and no it is not i apologize for any syntax errors. I write in 5 languages 
(one of the advantages/disadvantages of being European) and sometimes i 
confuse certain words, but resume, means the same thing in English, i have 
checked it in, in Portuguese we say "resumo", and many other 
languages follow the same guideline since, they are mostly based in Latin.

> > 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

Fork code is one of the worst things that happened to the BSD community in 
my opinion, and the efforts of the Free Standards Group, is the prove that 
sooner or latter standardization becomes a necessity, i wish to avoid that 
necessity, by providing standard ways of creating new processes.

> > 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

But this is the same concept that lies under the linux kernel, apache and 
MIT license. :-?

> > 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

Isn't that what i just did ? My goal Release Free Code, be able to maintain 
a Official Distribution, and enable others to create their distributions, 
but all with standard processes so that they are all compatible.

>Karsten M. Self <kmself at>
>  What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?             There is no K5 
> cabal
>    Free Dmitry! Boycott Adobe! Repeal the 
>Geek for Hire              

Thank You for your time, Compliments, and Have a Nice Day...
Daniel MD [DanielMD at] of IM-Thinking Consulting

license-discuss archive is at

More information about the License-discuss mailing list