Modified Artistic License (eNetwizard Content Application Server)

[Robert Samuel White]

Taken from the Artistic License (which is approved by OSI):

5. You may charge a reasonable copying fee for any distribution of this
Package. You may charge any fee you choose for support of this Package.
You may not charge a fee for this Package itself. However, you may
distribute this Package in aggregate with other (possibly commercial)
programs as part of a larger (possibly commercial) software distribution
provided that you do not advertise this Package as a product of your
own.

-- According to this, it is acceptable for me to say "You may not charge
a fee for the Package itself." - especially since I also went on to say
in my license, "However, you may charge..." just as the Artistic License
does.

-- And furthermore, the effect is greatly different in my opinion.  I am
not asking the users to post their changes on bulletin board systems,
etc.

Why are you suddenly being hard nosed with me?  My license went through
the review process.  It was discussed by the members of your list.  Some
of your list members fully supported my reasoning behind wanting a new
license approved.  They also said that they would support approving my
license.

As I said before, if you will not approve my license, that's fine.  I'll
just post a message on my website stating your apparent "selective
decision making process" even when a license complies with your OSD.

-Samuel




-----Original Message-----
From: Russell Nelson [mailto:nelson at crynwr.com] 
Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 12:23 PM
To: Robert Samuel White
Subject: RE: Modified Artistic License (eNetwizard Content Application
Server)

Robert Samuel White writes:
 > Russ, some of the conditions set forth within my license are unique
to
 > my license and cannot be found in any other license.

And for good reason.  I just noticed this: "You may not charge any
fees for the Package itself."  The OSD doesn't let you not charge a
fee for the Package.  People are allowed to sell open source software
as long as they comply with the license.

So no, unless you want to take that section out, it's not approvable.

I've reviewed your license, and quite frankly, it's nothing special.
Yes, you have quite a bit of language in there which differs from any
existing licenses, but the effect of the language is not different
than the language in other licenses.
 
 > I want my license associated specifically with my product.  That's
 > very important to me...

It's not important to us.  Reducing the number of redundant licenses
is.

-- 
-russ nelson              http://russnelson.com |
Crynwr sells support for free software  | PGPok | businesses persuade
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | governments coerce
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  | +1 315 268 9201 FAX   |


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