Licence Specified Inclusion Requisites...

[Adam Moss]

Hello,

> That would be best. From your description it sounds like you want to
require
> the downline developer to inundate their non-technical users with design
> documents.

As per the request I have uploaded a "work in progress" version.  It is
available at http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~admoss/nnay.html.

To clarify this a little bit let me say what I am hoping to achieve.  I am
trying to target two distinct groups with this effort - new "inductees" and
businesses.

For the new users this is a means by which they can be assured that the
application does what it should and nothing else.  By this I mean that the
software is not a victim of developer bloatware (exactly how does a flight
simulator fit into Microsoft Excel?).  This is of particular importance I
feel for those users who are not familiar with software development.

For businesses I am trying to provide a means by which they are able to
guarantee continuity of support should they choose to use the application.
Whether this is by the original authors, the community at large, or indeed
their own "in-house" teams (depending on the nature / popularity / purpose
of the application in question).

I don't want to require that the downline developer inundates their
non-technical users with superfluous information but rather makes that
technical information available in a medium that is readily accessible to
anyone that wants it.  I believe this is similar to the source code aspect
of open source - it doesn't have to be provided with everything, but it must
be available to those that want it?

I am also trying to make this a generic licence.  In this attempt I have
included placeholders (denoted by italicised < >) to allow users of the
licence to customise it to themselves without affecting the overall content.

Ideally I would also like to include the OSI definition clause:

> Accordingly, an open-source license must guarantee that source be readily
> available, but may require that it be distributed as pristine base sources
> plus patches.  In this way, "unofficial" changes can be made available but
> readily distinguished from the base source.

to further increase confidence in the application (although I do recognise
that this may adversely affect the community involvement in software that
makes use of the licence in the long-term).

Unfortunately I am not a legal expert by any means and as such am unsure of
how to include this.  Any suggestions would be appreciated.

Any other questions just ask.

Thanks again,


Adam M.


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