R: discuss: Duemetri Public License (DPL) Version 1.1

Graziano Poretti graziano at duemetri.com
Thu Nov 21 18:28:24 UTC 2002

Hi to all
I'm not a lawyer like Mike, just a developer, and english is not my
mother language, so, i think that what i wrote may be not so

I will try to fix the points and explain what i meant.

Well, points 7 and 8 in DPL derived from the point 4 in the OPEN SOURCE
DEFINITION (http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php) and my
intention was to be completely compliant with this point.

By the way, i think that the point 3 of the Q Public License Version 1.0
is exactly what i need so i'm going to substitute the points 7 and 8
with this point.

At this point, original point #6 is part of the new point #6

This means that ALL the part of this license come from osi certificated

In this way i'm sure that we have a full professionally written license 

DPL 1.1 is at http://www.duemetri.it/licenza.htm

Special thanx to Bruce and Mike
Graziano Poretti - DUE METRI
http://support.facile.duemetri.net - Per creare e gestire un portale in
20 minuti
tel.: 0039 184 42163
Fax: 0039 184 462673

-----Messaggio originale-----
Da: Bruce Dodson [mailto:bruce_dodson at hotmail.com] 
Inviato: giovedì 21 novembre 2002 8.50
A: Graziano Poretti; license-discuss at opensource.org
Oggetto: Re: discuss: Duemetri Public License (DPL) Version 1.0

The QPL uses the same tactic to control distribution of customized
versions of Qt.  But this creates is a pain for developers and end-users
alike.  At least your term #8 provides an alternative, changing this
"requirement" to distribute patches into something that's optional.  But
it's confusing the way 7 and 8 seem to contradict one another.  As a
licensee, I would be scratching my head, unsure whether I was compliant
or not.

Please consider dropping term 7, and simply leaving term 8.  Given the
choice, most developers would choose that option anyway, because
distributing patches creates extra burden for the end-user.

Even term 8 creates a difficult situation.  You have a license whose
first line says, "The software is called RAINBOW", and then says that
for modified works, "The software must not be called RAINBOW".

If I were you, I would check out the AFL 1.2.  That version might not
have been approved yet when you made your request.  Depending on what
"business requirement" points 7 and 8 of your license are meant to
serve, you might find that the AFL's Attribution Rights provision can be
leveraged to deliver the same business value in a different way.  Then
you'd have a professionally written license, you wouldn't have to go
through a long drawn out process to try to get your license approved,
and you can get on with writing your software.


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

More information about the License-discuss mailing list