[discuss] License Approval Request: Macromedia Open Source License

[David Johnson]

On Wednesday 19 June 2002 02:31 pm, Tom Harwood wrote:
> [ Please discuss this license.  -russ ]
>
> Gentles,
>
> Macromedia, Inc., would like to obtain OSI certification for its Open
> Source License.  The Macromedia Open Source License is based on the IBM
> Public License, with the following changes per our Legal department:
>
> (1) changed IBM to Macromedia,

Why not just use the Common Public License? It is essentially identical to the 
IBM Public License, but with the "IBM" changed to vendor-neutral terms such 
as "initial Contributor". There are a few "IBM's" left in, but there's few 
enough that you can easily change them and still use the CPL(1).

Imagine if every software company had to have its name in a generic Open 
Source license. Imagine how many licenses the OSI would have to approve. 
Imagine trying to decide which one is most appropriate for your project. 

Imagine what the community would do when faced with ten thousand nearly 
identical, but significantly different, Open Source Licenses (should I use 
the Macromedia Open Source License or the IBM Public License of the Fubaritsu 
Open Public License or BarBazCo Public Source License or...).

Please, please, please don't get on the "Me Too Bandwagon". Just use the 
existing licenses that are out there.

> 2) clarify that if Macromedia includes its own open source in its products, 
> Macromedia does not have to state in its documentation where the source
> code version of the open source material is made available, 
> (3) clarify that Macromedia does not have to include its own copyright
> notice in the event Macromedia decides to incorporate its own open source 
> materials in its commercial products, 

The key word here is "clarify". That means it's not essential. As the licensor 
you don't have to follow terms meant for the licensee. So either strike that 
language or place it in a prologue that is not part of the actual license. 
That way you can use the Common Public License.

In short: I do not see and significant changes between your license and the 
original. So just use the original.

(1) Footnote. The OSI has been considering (I believe)  the automatic approval 
of licenses which merely change the name of the licensor. The urgency of this 
change is aptly demonstrated by the very existance of this license proposal. 
I humbly beg the OSI to fast track to the day when all Open Source Certified 
licenses are either generic or templatized so that we do not end up with 
several hundred identical CPL's with merely the name of the governing 
jurisdiction changed.

-- 
David Johnson
___________________
http://www.usermode.org
pgp public key on website
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3