BXAPL - request for comments

[Abe Kornelis]

Larry,

thanks for your reply. Please find my responses inserted.

Abe.

> > A) Programming tools and dependent software versus other software
> >      and derivatives. I have found no mention of this 
> > distinction in your
> >      OSL.
> 
> The OSL doesn't need to distinguish among these because it relies on the
> statutory definition of derivative works.  In my view, the OSL has the
> same effect as both the GPL and the LGPL.  One license instead of two!
--> For some people (most?) people that may be fine. I for one, however,
      do need to distinguish between the two.

> > B) Copyrights of Modifications to be passed to Copyright Holder.
> >      Found no mention of such a requirement in the OSL.
> 
> The requirement that downstream licensees who modify the software assign
> their copyrights to the licensor is entirely unacceptable.  Why do you
> need that?  The OSL is fully enforceable by the licensor even if he
> doesn't own the copyrights.  (This is not true for the GPL or LGPL!)
--> It was based on QPL, section 2. If it is utterly unacceptable
      then how did the QPL ever get approved? If it hadn't been approved
      I never would have used it as a source of inspriation.

> > E) Recognizability of modifications. Not mentioned in OSL.
> Take a look at section 6 in www.rosenlaw.com/osl1.1.html.
--> My apologies. English is not my native language. Looked up
      attribution in the dictionary - is different from attrtition.
      My fault. I see your point.

> > F) Dual licensing. Section 4, right?
> Any licensor can license his software under any license (or licenses) he
> wants.  Of course, if he is licensing a derivative work of someone
> else's software, he must honor the requirements of THAT license.  If he
> is licensing a derivative work of OSL-licensed software, he can only use
> the OSL.  The same is true for the GPL.
--> And the BXAPL.

> Entirely up to you.  But if you insist on your point B, above, I'll
> recommend disapproval of your license.  I should also note that,
> although this is not legal advice nor intended to create an
> attorney-client relationship with you, I believe several sections of
> your license are probably unenforceable and of dubious legal effect.  In
> particular, your claim that your license is not a contract is legal
> hogwash.
--> This list has recently seen a heated debate over the very issue.
      I know your point of view. Nevertheless, since so much debate
      was spent on it, I thought it prudent to make it explicit.
      Whether or not it is enforcible or hogwash or whatever will
      - in the ultimate case -  be decided by a judge of appropriate
      jurisdiction. Which will be Dutch in my case, French for 
      Steve Lhomme's case. You may be right when it comes down
      to American jurisdictions - you're undoubtedly way better
      informed than either of us on that matter. But when it comes
     to the Dutch or French case? And even if it is hogwash in 
     some jurisdictions, it is nobody's way and may help to  make
      things clear.

Larry, thanks again for your response and your time.
Kind regards, Abe.


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