Approval Requested for AFL 1.2 and OSL 1.1

Mike Nordell tamlin at
Wed Nov 6 02:56:44 UTC 2002

>From my wording, I think it's quite obvious that IANAL.

Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:

[link to OSL 1.1]

I must say, I read just down to 1 b) before I got hickups.

"to prepare"... What is prepare? To fork a CVS copy in preparation for some
"real work"? To... I don't know.

No, the "prepare" phrase is way too vague for me to like it - especially
since it seems to be completely superfluous. Why would I need a grant to
"prepare" something? Someone is going to look over my shoulder to say "Hey
there, it looks like you're 'preparing' derived works here!". Someone is
going to dissect my brain while it's running and say "It seems like a
preparation..." for even _thinking_ of doing something (which is a form of
I think you should either reword or just drop it.

What would happen if "to prepare" was replaced with "to create"? That
wouldn't try to forbid people to even think, would it?

I also have complaints about the 100% reduncance in explaining that
"derivative works" is _really_ "('Derivative Works')". I believe it is a
great merit to explain something before it's used. In this case "derivative
works" (capitalize however you like) could be explained before it was used.
That would 1) obviate the need to write it twice in the same point, 2) make
(reasonably) sure the reader knew what it was.

Besides that? Actually, that was enough for me to stop reading. Sorry
Lawrence, I'm sure you put great effort in creating this, but this developer
didn't agree even with pt 1.


license-discuss archive is at

More information about the License-discuss mailing list