discuss: EPD CORE OPEN SOURCE LICENSE - Version 0.1
wmoran at potentialtech.com
Fri Feb 14 15:55:21 UTC 2003
David Johnson wrote:
> On Thursday 13 February 2003 09:06 pm, Bill Moran wrote:
>>[ Please discuss this license. -russ ]
>>I have attached a license that we are proposing to be OSI compliant.
>>The license is also posted here:
> First of all, it would be best if you can craft this license as a
> "template", so that someone else may use it without having to resubmit
> it for approval when merely changing the company and product name.
Hmmm ... that's an, er ... "editorial"? error on my part. I don't have
a problem rearranging it in template form, and I'll do so (in conjunction
with some of the other issue you describe.)
>>and has been submitted to the Open
>>Software Initiative (OSI) for approval.
> No need for this. If the license gets approved, you'll have to remove
> it, then undergo approval process all over again :-(
The point was, we didn't want to delay releasing the software, and we
wanted anyone interested to know that we're trying to come up with a
way to be OSI compliant.
I can see how it would make sense to announce that part of it outside
the license, though.
>>Usage of the software indicates acceptance of the terms of this
>>license. If you do not or can not agree to the terms of this license,
>>you may not use the software
> Ouch! All Open Source Software, in my opinion, must give the user the
> right to use the software without having to agree to anything. I
> realize you're just trying to protect yourself, but there are better
> mechanisms for this. For example, you *cannot* be sure that everyone
> has indeed read the license, since users may have obtained it through
> parties other than yourself. In addition, my disagreement with how I
> may or may not modify the source should have no bearing on my usage of
> the software.
Good point. Clause 1 in the QPL covers this much better. I'll change
>>The modifications are submitted to the Copyright holder for inclusion
>>in the main development tree and all intellectual rights are
>>surrendered to the Copyright holder under the condition that the
>>Copyright holder will publish the modifications under this License.
> You are placing a potentially onerous restriction upon yourself. It
> sounds like if someone submits modifications and assigns copyrights to
> you, then you are obligated to publish them. That may not be what you
> mean, but that's how it sounds to me.
Looking closer at the QPL, it makes a much better approach to the
problem, and is likely an adjustment we'll make.
>>If you contribute your modifications as described above, you warrant
>>that you have the authority to transfer ownership of the modifications
>>and that they are your work and do not infringe on the intellectual
>>property rights of others and are not encumbered in any way.
> I'm leery about making the recipient warrant anything, especially since
> you are offering no warranty of any kind in return.
All I'm asking is that the author assure us that he hasn't stolen from
someone else to give to us. While I understand the argument you have
of "warranty" vs. "no warranty", I don't feel it's unreasonable, and I
don't see how it violates the "open source" definition.
All things considered, we could add a clause that explicitly warrants that
we have legal ownership and the legal right to distribute the work, but I
didn't think that was necessary.
> In the large, this license seems rather close to the QPL. Have you
> examined that license for suitability?
Yes, for the most part it seems very similar, but here's where I see
Our license is designed specifically to respect the rights of anyone
and everyone who codes extensions to the system. Notice how explicitly
it's stated in clause 1. I didn't want to leave anything to chance
This is what I don't see in the QPL. Otherwise, it would be perfect
I'm open to feedback, however.
Sans additional input, I'll adapt the license as indicated elsewhere in
this email and post a v0.2 to the list.
I appreciate the input, David. Thanks for your help so far.
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
More information about the License-discuss