request for approval of APOSSL

[dave sag]

Hi Forrest,

I think you have missed the finer points of the APOSSL.  comments inline below.

At 11:24 AM -0500 5/3/02, Forrest J. Cavalier III wrote:
><snip>
>This is not a Free software license because clause 4 requires
>promotion of derivatives.  I should be free to create a derivative
>and keep it totally private, which is not allowed by clause 4.

Clause 4 does NOT require promition of derivatives at all. Should you 
never obtain written permission, you never need endorse anything.

>I also think the OSI should not approve it.
>
>Your text explanation of the clause 4 and 5 is not going to be
>part of the license.  Approval is based on what the license
>says, not what you say it says.

my text is simply to outline some of the anticipated differences to a 
traditional OSSL. the licence stands alone.

>In my interpretation, Clause 5 is a clear OSD conflict. "pronoic"
>is not a word, it is (appears to be) a name.   Distinctions in
>capitalization of "Pronoic" cannot be significant.

pronoic is a word (albeit a made up word) meaning the opposite of 
paranoic.  it is also a name, but so is apple, and netscape and 
apache.  they can use their name in their own licences.

>Therefore, the phrase:
>
>    Products derived from this software will always be "pronoic"
>
>can only have one interpretation: that "pronoic" is a name,
>and that all derivatives must be named "pronoic."

you could not be more wrong.  the aim is that the product should be 
able to be regarded as being pronoic, and NOT in any way named 
pronoic.  Just because it is never called pronoic (the name) does not 
imply that it is not is essence still pronoic in nature.

>Then clause 5 goes on to say that "Pronoic" may not appear in
>the name without prior written permission.  That's a conflict
>with the OSD.

is it? i just had another read over 
http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.html and can't see any such 
conflict.

>
>Your meme may be important to you, but I think you can
>find better ways to propagate it than compelling behavior
>with a license.

what better mechanism to compel behaviour, albeit on the surface 
seemingly nonsensical behaviour.  our memes are important, and are 
the basis for our whole development culture.

>BTW, I am glad you looked through the archives.  (It would
>be nice if everyone would follow that procedure before submitting.)
>But the license-submission procedure appears on www.opensource.org,
>and following it will streamline your submission.

yep found it, thanks.

cheers

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