Approval request for BXAPL

[Abe Kornelis]

Dear members of this license discussion list and
dear members of the OSI board,

We (Abe Kornelis of B.V. Bixoft with support from Steve Lhomme of Mukoli)
would have preferred to use an existing OSI-approved license, or a copy of
one with only slight modifications. Unfortunately none of the licenses
currently approved by the OSI meet all of our criteria:
a) Distinguish between software programs and programming tools.
b) Require contributors to allow the copyright holder to incorporate any or
    all of their *distributed* modifications in future releases of the
    software.
c) Treat copyrights and patent rights separately and explicitly.
d) Disallow object-only distributions.
e) Require that modifications remain recognizable as such.
f) Make our dual licensing policy explicit.
g) Allow the copyright holder to select the applicable law.
h) Allow application of local languages in addition to english.

So we needed to create our own - this has become the BXAPL,
or the Bixoft Public License. Drafts of this license have been
mentioned once or twice in this list, so this may not be too
much of a surprise.

Since so many licenses seem to be created with only minor
differences, we have tried to create a template license,
which we think will be usable to many.

We request that this license be discussed and welcome any comments.

Following are our answers to the requests on the OSI-site:

1. Put the license on a web page in HTML form.
--> Done, see: http://www.bixoft.nl/english/license.htm
       It is a rather large document containing:
       - Rationale
       - Preamble, including a summary
       - Glossary
       - The license itself
       - Exhibit
       - Remarks on each paragraph of the license
We will convert it into the same style as the existing approved licenses.
You can help us by publishing it in that style yourself to save us the
conversion step. ASCII text is preferred if asked to post your license
to the 'licence-discuss' mailing list.
--> I think that removing the header and trailer of the page suffices to
      create a piece of HTML that can be copied straight into your
      template.

2. Tell us which existing OSI-approved license is most similar to your
license.
--> First drafts were based on QPL and to a slightly lesser extent the MPL.
      Later we have added elements from IBMPL and various other ones.
      The draft has been extensively rewritten several times. More details
      can be found in the draft document. Every paragraph has a 'remarks'
      link which details the origin of that particular paragraph.
Explain why that license will not suffice for your needs.
--> See requirements. More is explained in the rationale
      of the draft document.
If your proposed license is derived from a license we have already
approved, describe exactly what you have changed.
--> Essentially, we've changed nearly everything, for details please
      refer to the 'remarks' section of the draft document.
This document is not part of the license; it is solely to help the board
understand and review your license.

3 . Explain how software distributed under your license can be used in
conjunction with software distributed under other open source licenses.
--> It is intentional that such software can be combined.
Which license do you think will take precedence for derivative or combined
works?
--> For such works the BXAPL maintains its own terms, unless the
      copyright holder allows otherwise. For Dependent Software
      (see glossary or paragraph 10 for definition) the matter is the
      same unless the Dependent Software is distributed in a separate
      package, in which case *any* OSI-approved license is ok.
Is there any software license that is entirely incompatible with your
proposed license?.
--> The BXAPL is incompatible with the GPL, but it allows dual licensing and
      thus the two may quite well coexist, if any author chooses to allow
      it.

4. Send your proposed license by email to license-approval at opensource.org.
--> That's this mail, isn't it?
Indicate in the email whether you want the license posted to the
license-discuss  list with your identification or anonymously.
(We are willing to consider licenses that the author doesn't want posted at
all, but since community review is an important part of the approval
process, we will have to circulate such licenses privately to individual
reviewers: because of this, licenses not posted to license-discuss at all
may take longer to approve, and are likely to require more interaction
with you.)
--> Anybody can mail his/her comments to me, either on the list or
      privately.
You are invited to follow discussion of the licenses by subscribing to
license-discuss-subscribe at opensource.org.
--> Been on it for some time now...

5. If we find that the license does not conform to the Open Source
Definition, we will work with you to resolve the problems.
--> That'd be nice.

6. At the same time, we will monitor the license-discuss list and work with
you to resolve any problems uncovered in public comment.
--> Ok.

7. As part of this process, we may also seek outside legal advice on license
issues.
--> That's understood.

8. Once we are assured that the license conforms to the Open Source
Definition and has received thorough discussion on license-discuss or by
other reviewers, and there are no remaining issues that we judge
significant, we will notify you that the license has been approved, copy it
to our website, and add it to the list below.
--> The decision is, ultimately, the board's. Let's work together to find
      any shortcomings, loopholes, and other defects and try to remedy them.

With kind regards from
Abe Kornelis - abe at bixoft.nl
Steve Lhomme - steve.lhomme at free.fr




--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3