QuantLib License 1.0 submitted for OSD branding

[Karsten M. Self]

on Thu, Jan 10, 2002 at 07:29:31PM -0800, David Johnson (david at usermode.org) wrote:
> On Thursday 10 January 2002 07:40 am, Ferdinando Ametrano wrote:
> 
> > OK, thank you for the suggestion. I adopted that:
> > http://quantlib.org/license.html
> 
> It looks just fine. One tiny change I would make would be to change
> the name "QUANTLIB LICENSE 1.0" to "The BSD License". Then in the
> blurb above it state "Quantlib is Free Software released under The BSD
> License..."

I'm not sure this is either necessary nor advisible.  The license
changes the terms of the BSD (slightly).  It's arguably no longer the
BSD license, though it's templetized from it.

> > I think that the word REGENTS in the sentence#2 is just a typo.
> > Isn't it?
> 
> Yes, (I strongly believe that) it's a typo. The "REGENTS" are the
> copyright holders. The templatized BSD license should not have that
> word in it.

Agreed.

> > Should I still submit the resulting QuantLib License to
> > license-approval at opensource.org?
> 
> There is no need to. It now follows the approved BSD license. In my
> *layman* opinion, you have met all the requirements for OSI
> certification.

In _my_ lay opinion, any language change must be approved, but the
approval should be trivial.

> > I did that, then I placed the developers names into the "AUTHORS"
> > file: that is I listed RiskMap developers as authors, even if the
> > copyright of their code is own by their employeer. Is it OK?
> 
> I believe so, but I am not a lawyer. The authors are indeed authors,
> so it's appropriate to list them in the AUTHORS file, but they might
> not be the copyright holders. I would either place their employers in
> parenthesis next to their names, or indicate the real copyright holder
> in the source code where their contribution occurs.

This is likely going to vary according to local copyright.  Under US
law, works under employment (but not contracted works) are considered
works for hire, and the employer is the copyright holder.  Under various
EU law, there are other rights which may remain with the actual
individual uathoring the work.

> > One more consideration: I started from the FSF Xfree86-style license
> > suggestion (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html), then I tried to
> > adopt the OSI certified license that had the most similar wording,
> > that is the MIT license, finally I'm settling for BSD and I will
> > have to get back to FSF for GPL compatibility certification.
> 
> The new style BSD license is already approved by the FSF as being GPL
> compatible. There is no need to consult with them again, unless you
> just want to.

Agreed.

Note that the FSF doesn't have a formal approval process.  They indicate
that various licenses of interest are, or aren't, compatible with the
FSF's definition of free software (which is somewhat flexible), or the
GPL and/or LGPL licenses.

IANAL, TINLA, YADA.

-- 
Karsten M. Self <kmself at ix.netcom.com>        http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
 What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?              Home of the brave
  http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/                    Land of the free
We freed Dmitry! Boycott Adobe! Repeal the DMCA! http://www.freesklyarov.org
Geek for Hire                      http://kmself.home.netcom.com/resume.html
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20020111/d6d8bb16/attachment.sig>