discuss: Modified Artistic License (eNetwizard Content Application Server)

[Nathan Kelley]

To OSI License Discussion subscribers,

> From: "Robert Samuel White" <webmaster at caofund.org>,

> I have updated the license to avoid the misunderstanding of the
> condition mentioned by Nathan Kelly.
>
> Before:  "You may not charge any fees for the Package itself."
>
> After:  "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 was borrowed from the Artistic License.  I did not include the
> first two sentences from that license, which said:  "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."  Why?
>
> Because this could be only two scenarios in which some one might be 
> able
> to justify a cost "in relationship to" the Package.  Who am I to say
> what other possibilities may exist?  Quoting those two sentences 
> implies
> a restriction to only those two scenarios.  Leaving them out leaves all
> possibilities open, as long as they do not charge a fee for the Package
> "itself."  If you feel the other two sentences are important, please 
> let
> me know and I will add them, but personally, I tried to design this
> license to be as open as possible without adding wording that might add
> unnecessary restriction.  This was, in fact, if you read my original
> post, one of the reasons I wanted to write my own license to begin 
> with.

That's fair, but that single sentence in the original license made it 
at best unclear whether the software could be distributed with other 
packages in a commercial way. My interpretation was that it didn't, and 
thus violated item 1 of the definition.

The addition of those other sentences makes it clear that it can be, as 
long as it is not advertised as being part of the fee being charged for 
the medium on which the packages are being distributed. This is 
consistent with the requirements of item 1, and with that change, the 
license is now, is believe, OSD compliant.

Cheers, Nathan.
________________________________________________
Nathan Kelley | phyax at runbox.com | phyax at mac.com
________________________________________________

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