Approval Requested for AFL 1.2 and OSL 1.1

Bruce Dodson bruce_dodson at
Wed Nov 6 05:01:23 UTC 2002

It seems clear to me, yet another non-lawyer:

Derivative Works means "derivative works based upon the Original Work", as
upposed to "derivative works based upon Marvel Comics characters", or
"derivative works based upon previously-unreleased Elvis tracks".

"Prepare" - it doesn't say "to prepare yourself to create [Derivative
Works]".  It says "to prepare [Derivative Works]".  Like when you're
preparing dinner - after you have finished preparing it, you have something
that you can eat.  No offense, but "Duh."


----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Nordell" <tamlin at>
To: <license-discuss at>
Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 10:56 PM
Subject: Approval Requested for AFL 1.2 and OSL 1.1

> 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
> "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
> preparation).
> 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
> works" (capitalize however you like) could be explained before it was
> That would 1) obviate the need to write it twice in the same point, 2)
> (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
> didn't agree even with pt 1.
> /Mike
> --
> license-discuss archive is at
license-discuss archive is at

More information about the License-discuss mailing list