[discuss] Application for License Review

[David Johnson]

On Tuesday 18 June 2002 07:26 pm, Joshua Colson wrote:

> After an examination of currently approved licenses, I believe that the Q
> Public License (QPL) is closest, as far as terms go, to the Public
> Scripting License. However, the QPL, along with most other similar
> licenses, refers to machine-executable code. Scripts, such as those
> programmed in PHP, Perl, and Python, are virtually never distributed in
> machine-executable form, and thus these previous licenses do not
> specifically address the special needs of licensing scripts.

What about cases where the script can be compiled into executable form? Many 
scripting languages have this ability now. I am thinking of Perl, which is 
(IIRC) compiled into byte code in later versions.

In addition, have you had an attorney review this license? It seems to me that 
there are a few clauses that seem strange. For example "originally programmed 
by" must be in printed material, but "originally created by" in named files. 
Also the warranty disclaimer seems weak.

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