Uniform terminology (Re: UnitedLinux and "open source")

[Rob Lanphier]

On Sun, 9 Jun 2002, Mahesh T Pai wrote:
> I guess that software licences are right now in the midst of a similar
> process of standardisation.   Already, there is some kind of
> standardisation in software licences.  This certification process, and
> the terms and phraseology used by software developers/vendors like "this
> package is released under the  ......." and terminology like "freeBSD
> type license", "Mozilla type public license", "GPL", "LGPL", etc are
> examples of such standardisation.
>
> Few years from today, there time will come when the courts will fix
> liabilities on basis of names of the software license. This means, if it
> is shown that you knew that you are using software covered by the GPL,
> then, irrespective of whether you discussed or even actually knew of the
> actual detailed terms, the court will fix responsibility on the basis of
> "implied terms" doctrine.  The way terms are implied now, based on names
> of contracts. (like FoB, CIF, etc).  This is possible only if there is a
> industry-wide agreement on terminology.  Therefore, it is time for us to
> set aside such "elitist" mentalities, (if it exists at all) and settle
> on some standard terminology.

Incidently, this is exactly the problem that the Creative Commons folks
are trying to solve (http://www.creativecommons.org/).  Also, there's work
on rights metadata (e.g. http://www.xmcl.org) which is trying to mechanize
the process, but of course, one first needs to have the terms, and only
then will the mechanism work.

Rob


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