Approval request for BXAPL

[Steve Lhomme]

Forrest J. Cavalier III wrote:
> This is a very complicated license.   Thanks for providing
> the remarks and annotations.  Very nice.

Yeah. We tried to simplify as possible. But lawyer language is not 
common language. Anyway it seems that you found some bad ones. (none of 
Abe or me are lawyers anyway)

> After a quick read, I think that it should not be OSI approved,
> for numerous reasons, some follow.
> 
> Because the license is so complicated, it is not clear
> to me that addressing the following points would be adequate
> to make it OSD compliant.  I think the two fundamental issues
> are
>   it very much seems to be a EULA, trying to function
>   under copyright law, and EULA's are hard to get through OSD.
> and
>   the Rationale a) is very difficult to set forth legally.
>   Any license which attempts to make such distinctions must get
>   extra scrutiny.  After all, the license ends up defining
>   "Programming Tool" as 
>      "Any Software or portion of such Software
>      that is declared as being a "programming tool"
>      by the Copyright Holder. Such declaration must
>      be located in the Copyright Notice."
>    which I think is ripe for abuse and inconsistency in itself.

If someone doesn't care about distinguishing software and programing 
tool he doesn't do anything. If he wishes so, he just put the tools he 
consider as such in each copyright notice. Nothing complicated or 
abusive. The only problem I see is what it should actually put : the 
name and versions of softwares ? More general sentences ?

> The definition of "User" is too broad.  It allows any
> Distributor to force someone to be a "User" simply by
> sending them a copy.

But does it arm any part of the license ? Or just a personal feeling ?

> The "Source code" definition includes this statement, "Source files
> or members that contain obfuscated source do not count
> as Source Code."
> 
> "Obsfucated" is not well-defined.  I've see a lot of legitimate
> source files that appear to be obsfucated.

OK, one word that should be changed.

> Other OSI-approved licenses have definitions of "Source."
> 
> Also, as written, I think this definition includes
> compilers and linkers (and more!  run-time ld? ) as
> Source code.

ld is not a Source file.

> Paragraph 6 says, in part:
>      No right is granted to the trademark(s) of any Contributor even if such marks
>      are included in the Software. The names of Contributors or any of
>      their products may not be used in any way without prior written
>      permission from the pertinent Contributor. Derivatives and/or
>      Dependent Software may not be named after the Software, nor may
>      they be given a name that might be confused with the name of any
>      Contributor or any Contributor's products and/or trademarks.
>      Remarks 
> 
> Since "Contributor" is defined as to include any "Distributor" it is

Not *any* Distributor but the ones who "[supply] any Modifications 
and/or Derivatives and/or Dependent Software in any form to the 
Copyright Holder"

> fundamentally impossible to know the set of Contributors.  Without
> knowing that set, it is impossible to know what names you are
> not permitted to use.

Yeah, it seems a bit unclear to distinguish the *whole world* trademarks 
owned by a Contributor and the ones the used only in the BXAPLed covered 
software.

> Paragraph 10 claims that all items which "make use of ... 
> the original or modified versions of the Software"
> are "Derivatives."
> 
> That is plainly wrong.  md5sum will make use of the Software
> to compute the MD5 sum, and by Paragraph 10, md5sum is a
> "Derivative" of the Software.

Another word that should be changed.

> Paragraph 12 uses the term "Distributor" and "Contributor" in
> a manner inconsistent with the definition in the Item 2.

A Contributor can be (or not) a Distributor.
A Distributor can be (or not) a Contributor.
That's what the definitions say.
Paragraph 12 explains when they are a Distributor in detail.

> Paragraph 12.2 is unsatisfiable because the set of Contributors
> is unknown. 

Correct. It doesn't say what are the *other* Contributors.

 > It is against the OSD because as I read it, any
> new "official" contributed modification will invalidate
> existing versions.  This constitutes the need for a "separate 
> license": always checking some official site that there are no
> new contributions.

I don't think that it invalidates previous versions nor need to check 
for other licenses.
It just says that all the stuff in the distribution must at least are 
available as BXAPLed code. And that other licenses are only possible for 
code out of the "original software".

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