BXAPL - request for comments
Abe Kornelis
abe at bixoft.nl
Sun Oct 27 13:12:33 UTC 2002
Larry,
thanks for the hint. I've read your license - it is appealing for being
short concise, and pretty clear - at least for a lawyer ;-)
However, it does not distinguish between software and programming
tools, nor does it distinguish between derived software and what we
have termed 'dependent software', which is termed in the LGPL
as 'software that uses the Software'.
In the rationale for the BXAPL we have named 8 requirements
that our license would need to fulfill. Since you tried offered your
OSL1.1 as an alternative, I'll go over them 1 by 1.
A) Programming tools and dependent software versus other software
and derivatives. I have found no mention of this distinction in your
OSL.
B) Copyrights of Modifications to be passed to Copyright Holder.
Found no mention of such a requirement in the OSL.
C) Copyrights and Patent rights. Ok.
D) Disallow object-only distros. I assume section 3 of the OSL
settles that.
E) Recognizability of modifications. Not mentioned in OSL.
F) Dual licensing. Section 4, right?
G) Applicable law. Ok, section 11.
H) Local langauages. Found no mention of such things.
A quick count that the OSL covers 50% of our requirements.
So, thanks again, but I will stick with my own license.
Kind Regards, Abe.
==============
----- Original Message -----
From: Lawrence E. Rosen <lrosen at rosenlaw.com>
To: 'Abe Kornelis' <abe at bixoft.nl>
Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 8:48 PM
Subject: RE: BXAPL - request for comments
> Did you consider using the Open Software License? The latest version of
> the OSL is now at www.rosenlaw.com.osl1.1.html. I think it will do what
> you want. It is an alternative to both the GPL and the LGPL.
>
> /Larry Rosen
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Abe Kornelis [mailto:abe at bixoft.nl]
> > Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 12:33 PM
> > To: OSI-list
> > Subject: BXAPL - request for comments
> >
> >
> > Hello all,
> >
> > a few months ago, Steve Lhomme and I have requested
> > approval for the BXAPL license. That request was a
> > bit too rash.
> >
> > We received various comments and have taken our time
> > to create a new and improved version of the BXAPL.
> > For an overview of the differences with the preceding
> > version, please see below.
> >
> > We invite all readers on this list to take a look at the
> > new version of our license and gladly welcome any
> > comments, questions and other remarks you may
> > want to e-mail us. The license text can be found at:
> > http://www.bixoft.nl/english/license.htm
> >
> > One of the primary objectives for creating this license
> > is to make it possible to distribute both programming
> > tools and other software in a single package under a
> > single license.
> >
> > Unfortunately, this requirement has led to a rather lengthy
> > and complicated license. We apologize for this circumstance
> > but at the same time feel we have done our best to make
> > the license text understandable by supplying an explanation
> > and an abridged version by way of quick reference.
> >
> > Thank you all in advance for your time and effort.
> >
> > Kind Regards, Abe Kornelis. ======================================
> > Differences between versions 0.H and 0.J
> >
> > - Added explanation on Programming Tools and Derivatives
> > - Made requirement a in the list of requirements more explicit.
> > - Contributor redefined so as to include only the Copyright Holder
> > and all other parties supplying Modifications etc.
> > Checked all occurrences of Contributor and Distributor and
> > changed accordingly wherever necessary.
> > This change corrects an omission in section 16, where a claim
> > against Copyright Holder was not mentioned as a reason for
> > suspending or withdrawing the licensed rights.
> > - Definition of Source Code redefined to exclude assembler,
> > compiler, linker, etc.
> > - User redefined as anyone who 'possesses' a copy of the Software.
> > The mere act of receiving the Software therefore no longer
> > forces the receiver into a status as User. Also it enables
> > any User to quit being a User, simply by deleting all copies
> > of the Software.
> > I've been thinking to use 'has', 'keeps' or 'owns', but
> > as far as I can see, 'possesses' serves best.
> > - the word paragraph has been changed to section wherever it
> > referred to a numbered section of the license. This was done
> > to make it easier to differentiate between sections and
> > paragraphs within sections.
> > - Defined Licensor in paragraph 2.
> > - Defined Co-licensor in paragraph 2. Note the difference between
> > a Licensor and a Co-licensor. Suggestions for improving on the
> > terminology are very welcome.
> > Added Co-licensors to sections 17 and 18.
> > - Added definition of Licensor to paragraph 2.
> > - Added definition of 'Contribution'.
> > - Added allowance for waiver of entitlement to Source Code of
> > Modifications and/or Derivatives (see section 12.5) because not all
> > Licensors are likely to require such entitlement.
> > - Made it clear that the License is not a contract.
> > - The section numbers in the preamble now link to the
> > appropriate secton in the license.
> > - Corrected various small typos.
> >
> > Changes to the parts of the license document preceding and
> > following the license text are not listed individually, they
> > follow from the above.
> >
> > Changes to the license text:
> > - section 0 - added mixed case sentence
> >
> > - section 1 - copyright extended into 2002
> >
> > - section 2, Co-licensor - added
> > - section 2, Contribution - added
> > - section 2, Contributor - changed as explained above
> > added provision for transfer of ownership
> > - section 2, Copyright Holder - appropriatte -> appropriate
> > - section 2, Copyright Notice - a copyright notice ->
> > copyrights notice
> > - section 2, Distributor - the public in general -> any third
> > party or parties
> > Modifications etc. -> Contribution(s)
> > - section 2, Licensor - added
> > - section 2, Modifications - added 'changes to Derivatives
> > and/or other
> > Modifications.'
> > - section 2, Programming Tool - 'Any Software' -> 'Any
> > licensed Software'
> > - section 2, Software - Modifications etc. -> Contribution(s)
> > - section 2, Source Code - changed as explained above
> > - section 2, User - changed as explained above
> >
> > - section 3 - software which uses -> software that uses
> >
> > - section 4 - added (twice) 'Appending translated versions,
> > however, is allowed.'
> > added 'Appending translated versions is allowed.'
> >
> > - section 5 - Authorizaton -> Authorization
> > Second paragraph abridged.
> >
> > - section 6 - Copyright Holder's claim duplicated for all
> > other Contributors
> > Contributor -> Contributor and/or Distributor
> > Modifications etc. -> Contribution(s)
> > and some minor rephrasing
> >
> > - section 7 - added 'Since this License is not a contract'
> > second paragraph - which provides -> that provides
> >
> > - section 8.2, item b - code -> software portions
> > and some minor rephrasing
> > - section 8.3 - items a and b replaced by a single text,
> > which has been
> > heavily rephrased
> > - section 8.4 - contribution -> Contribution(s)
> > - section 8.5 - its contributions -> its Software and/or its
> > Contribution(s)
> >
> > - section 9.1 - info -> information
> > the term -> either the term
> > added: '- or its equivalent in the appropriate
> > language(s) -'
> >
> > - section 10, item c - modify -> include Modifications either to
> > added ', nor to any other component of
> > the Software'
> > - section 10, last paragraph - Programming Tools -> Software (4 times)
> >
> > - section 12, first paragraph - rephrased in its entirety
> > - section 12.1 - 'he' -> 'the' before Dependent Software
> > - section 12.2 - in the middle of the last sentence added phrase
> > 'Users who are both Distributor and
> > Contributor and only for'
> > Modifications etc. -> Contribution(s)
> > - section 12.5 - First sentence rephrased and modified
> > then it must be supplied. -> then it must
> > be supplied -
> > unless the Copyright Holder waives
> > this right in the
> > Copyright Notice, in which case the
> > Distributor may
> > or may not supply the Source Code.
> > - section 12.6 - and Court -> Court and waiver status for
> > section 12.5 of this
> > License may be changed,
> > The copyright holder of the distributed
> > Dependent Software
> > may either append Contributors to the list of
> > Contributors, or replace the list of
> > Contributors
> > -> In the Copyright Notice for the Dependent
> > Software the
> > copyright holder of the distributed Dependent
> > Software may either append
> > Contributors to the list
> > of Contributors, or replace it
> >
> > - section 13 - Contributor -> Contributor and/or Distributor and/or
> > Co-Licensor
> >
> > - section 17 - Contributor -> Contributor and/or Distributor and/or
> > Co-Licensor
> > its exercise of rights -> exercising any right(s)
> >
> > - section 18 - Contributor -> Contributor and/or Distributor and/or
> > Co-Licensor
> > Copyright Holder -> Copyright Holder and/or any other
> > Contributors and/or
> > Distributors and/or
> > Co-Licensors
> >
> > - Copyright Notice - Added statement on waiver of rights
> > claimed in section
> > 12.5 of the License.
> >
> > === end of list of modifications ===
> >
> > Thanks for your patience, Abe.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
> >
>
>
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
More information about the License-discuss
mailing list