Simplified Artistic License

Fri Oct 4 15:58:58 UTC 2002

Lewis,

Yes, I really did take that clause out of the license -- I see no reason
to address "money" in the license since it is about "artistic control"
only.

Nathan,

I think I have addressed the issues that you brought up.  I think...

I believe I have changed the "Preamble" in such a way that it defines
the word derivative.

I don't understand what you mean by item (2) that you brought up.  I
don't care what license people use for their derivative works and I
think that my license is so simple that any license could be used in its
place for derivatives.  Are you saying I should say something to that
effect in the license itself?  Do I need to say something like that, or
by leaving it out, do I not give others "free choice" in the matter??

As for the changes made in a binary distribution:  I don't want to
require that binary distributions also include a source distribution.  I
wanted item two of the definition to be for source code only.  If they
distribute the source with a binary distribution, then it would apply.
It they distribute only a binary version, then no one will ever see the
changes, so it doesn't seem important to me at that point.  Although
maybe I should ask them to include a statement like "this version of
enetwizard has been altered" -- do you think that's important?  I guess
I'm divided on that point, either way is fine for me.  So for now, I
changed the license to say "this item is void for binary only
distributions."

Please look over my license and give me your feedback.  I'd appreciate
it...  

Thanks!

eNetwizard Content Management Server License

(Simplified Artistic License)

Preamble

The intent of this document is to state the conditions under which
eNetwizard Content Management Server ("Package"), and derivatives of
that collection of files created through textual modification, may be
copied, such that the author, Robert Samuel White ("Copyright Holder"),
maintains some semblance of artistic control over the development of the
Package, while giving the users of the Package the right to use and
distribute the Package in a more-or-less customary fashion, plus the
right to make reasonable modifications.

Conditions of Redistribution & Use

You may redistribute and use this Package, in source and binary forms,
with or without modification, provided that the following conditions are
met:

- Redistributions of the Package in source form must retain the original
copyright notices and associated comments that are included at the
beginning and end of each source file as furnished by the Copyright
Holder, both in the Package itself and in any documentation and/or other
materials provided with the distribution of the Package in source form. 

- If the source code was modified in any way, each file that was
modified must include the statement "this file was modified from its
original version" along with appropriate comments indicating how and why
the file was modified; these comments should be placed directly
underneath the first comment section of each file.  If these changes are
being made for a binary distribution only, this condition may be
considered void. 

- The name of the Copyright Holder may not be used to endorse or promote
products derived from this Package without specific prior written
permission from the Copyright Holder.  Nor may the names "eNetwizard"
and "eNetwizard Content Management Server" be used to endorse or promote
products derived from this Package without specific prior written
permission from the Copyright Holder. 

- Products derived from this Package may not be called "eNetwizard" --
nor may "eNetwizard" appear in their name -- without prior written
permission from the Copyright Holder. You may indicate that your
software works in conjunction with eNetwizard by saying "Product for
eNetwizard" instead of calling it "eNetwizard Product." 

- Redistributions of any form whatsoever must retain the following
acknowledgment: 
"This product includes eNetwizard Content Management Server, freely
available from <io.enetwizard.net>"

No Warranty

THIS PRODUCT IS PROVIDED ON AN "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR
CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, WITHOUT
LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF TITLE, NON-INFRINGEMENT,
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  EACH RECIPIENT IS
SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR READING THE SOURCE CODE FOR THIS PACKAGE AND
DETERMINING WHETHER THIS PACKAGE DOES WHAT (S)HE EXPECTS IT TO DO, AND
FOR DETERMINING THE APPROPRIATENESS OF USING AND DISTRIBUTING THIS
PACKAGE, AND ASSUMES ALL RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH ITS EXERCISE OF RIGHTS
UNDER THIS AGREEMENT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE RISKS AND COSTS
OF PROGRAM ERRORS, COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAWS, DAMAGE TO OR LOSS OF
DATA, PROGRAMS OR EQUIPMENT, AND UNAVAILABILITY OR INTERRUPTION OF
OPERATIONS.

Disclaimer of Liability

NEITHER RECIPIENT NOR ANY CONTRIBUTORS SHALL HAVE ANY LIABILITY FOR ANY
DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL
DAMAGES (INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION LOST PROFITS), HOWEVER CAUSED AND
ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR
TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE
USE OR DISTRIBUTION OF THIS PACKAGE OR THE EXERCISE OF ANY RIGHTS
GRANTED HEREUNDER, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.

-----Original Message-----
From: Nathan Kelley [mailto:phyax at runbox.com] 
Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 9:46 AM
To: OSI License Discussion
Cc: Robert Samuel White
Subject: Re: Simplified Artistic License

To OSI License Discussion subscribers and Robert Samuel White,

I have read the Simplified Artistic License. Robert, it mostly complies 
with the OSD, although I would look into three additional, minor points:

(1) The license should define "Derived" in the Definitions.

(2) The license should indicate that derivatives can be distributed 
under the same terms as this original license (to clarify the license 
against Item 3 of the Definition).

(3) The license should require that, when doing binary distributions, 
referencing how/where to get the source code in addition to the fact 
that changes have been made and by whom (to clarify against Item 2 of 
the Definition).

Once those items have been cleared up, I would be willing to call it 
OSD-compliant (even if it did not become certified).

Also, in response to the following discussion...

>> From: Robert Samuel White <webmaster at enetwizard.net>,
> From: David Johnson <david at usermode.org>,

>> - You may not charge any fees for the 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.
>
> This has been commented on before, but I'm bringing it up again. The 
> "no fees"
> clause in the AL is a no-op, is because it allows charging of fees for
> distribution and media. Your license does not. In the real world we 
> live in,
> charging for the package itself is equivalent to charging a license 
> fee, so
> it's not a huge deal that the AL denies it. But without the ability to

> charge
> for media or distribution services, your clause does indeed violate 
> the OSD
> because it becomes impossible to sell the software without first 
> aggregating
> it with other software. (I'm hoping my wording makes sense to others 
> besides
> myself...)

David, note Item 1 of the Definition:

"1. Free Redistribution

The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away 
the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution 
containing programs from several different sources. The license shall 
not require a royalty or other fee for such sale."

Regardless of how we interpret this item, what it _actually_ says is 
that you can't stop anyone from aggregating the software with other 
packages and then selling the medium on which those packages are 
aggregated for a profit; it does not cover at all the selling the 
software when it has not been aggregated. So in this context, Robert's 
license actually conforms to the OSD.

Now, if the intent of the OSD was to say that you can't restrict anyone 
from selling or giving away the package, regardless of the 
circumstances, then the OSD needs to be changed, because that is 
definitely _not_ what it says right now.

Cheers, Nathan.

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