Proposed DanielMD License for Review.

Daniel MD IM-Thinking at
Tue Aug 28 23:09:04 UTC 2001

> > > > 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.
>"Summary" or "In sum" would be clearer phrasing.

I will use summary, to avoid confusion, thank's for pointing it out.

>I speak a smattering of about four languages (English, German
>(conversational), French and Spanish (very marginal)), which gets me by
>fairly well.  Actually managed to get around in Montreal this summer,
>did pretty well visiting Germany a few years back.

Completely OFF-Topic:
If you speak Spanish, then you can learn Portuguese slightly faster than 
most people, Portuguese is a complicated language to learn (i think only 
Greek is more complicated), but if you have a background on Spanish or 
Italian it's easier. You should give it a try.

> > > > 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
> > >process.
> >
> > 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.
>The argument here is that the GPL allows for two things:
>   - Forks can happen.

I wish them not to happen in the case of ProgramX.

>   - Forked variants are always compatible, from a licensing standpoint.
>     There's no inherent legal barrier to re-merging forked code.

Maybe in theory, not in practice.

>     The result is that forking in GPLd projects is rare, and
>     reconcilliation has been known to happen.  The Alan Cox (ac) Linux
>     kernel series is a persistant, but narrow, fork of Linus's own
>     development.  emacs/xemacs is probably the most significant
>     persistant fork.  Many window managers are forks of initial
>     development:  twm begat fvwm bgat fvwm2 begat WindowMaker, E, and a
>     slew of others.

And this is why i don't use most Linux Distributions (RED HAT, SUSE, 
etc...)you get 100 programs that do basically the same thing, almost 
without a distinguishing feature, i consider this neither productive or 
evolutionary positive.

>     Merges have occured.  The gcc/egcs fork was resolved in 1999,
>     probably one of the highest profile merges.
>The conventional wisdom is that forks are expensive, free software
>builds on network (aka Metcalfe) effects, which grow with the square of
>the nodes, and profit motives are weak.  Hence, forks are rare, unless
>driven by compelling rationales:  divergent goals, project management
>frictions.  There's a substantial literature on this topic.

As i said, a waste of time and resources, evolutionary counterproductive, 
and results on mergers most of the times. With my license i wish to make 
the evolution go forwards not sideways, witch is what forking creates. If 
the features to be added are good, they will be added, the developers will 
vote in a democratic way, in case of a 50-50 result, the feature will be 
submitted to the original author and will be added if the vote is positive.

> > > > 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
> > >International).
> >
> > But this is the same concept that lies under the linux kernel, apache and
> > MIT license. :-?
>It's a tacit, implied, concept.  There's no formal requirement for
>notification, there *is* some control over integrity-of-concept and use
>of marks.

Control is distributed by the developers, you can do everything with the 
mark we only require like in the case of Apache to ask us first.

> > > > 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
> > >implications.
> >
> > 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.
>I don't think your issues are yet resolved.

Could you create a list of things you think i have not been clear, it would 
be of great help to me, and point me some solutions, i have read all the 
OSI licenses, and none fits my needs they are either to restrictive or to 

Have you understand my needs ? If not please let me know i will try to make 
them more clear.

>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