For Approval: Adaptive Public License
cleeming at engr.uvic.ca
Mon May 26 23:20:27 UTC 2003
I am pleased to submit the Adaptive Public License (the "APL") for
review and approval. The text version is attached to this message; an
HTML version may be viewed at: http://www.mamook.net/APL.html
The enclosed APL has been designed in an effort to address the ongoing
need for a flexible public license that may be used in a variety of
different circumstances. The APL achieves this by providing a generic
Open Source licensing framework with a series of adaptive features:
choice of jurisdiction, optional patent licensing provisions, a
flexible "internal use" provision with an adaptable definition for third
parties, an optional procedure for documenting distributed
modifications, and limited attribution options which protect the
interests of licensees while providing a fair incentive for developers
to offer their software to the Open Source community.
The APL is closest to the Mozilla Public License 1.1 (the "MPL").
However, the APL offers several advantages not available with the MPL.
1. The MPL is governed by the law of California, and all disputes that
involve a US party must be resolved in the Northern District of
California. The APL gives the Initial Contributor the ability to select
the governing law, and the courts of that forum also have jurisdiction
to entertain disputes under the APL.
2. The definition of "Covered Code" in the MPL is ambiguous. The APL
provides a greater degree of clarity with respect to the question of
code governed by the APL. The definition of Independent Modules in the
APL is precisely defined, and distinct from that of a Licensed Work. In
addition, consistent with the spirit of the APL as being adaptable, the
definition of Third Party is flexible depending on the selection of the
3. The MPL requires a patent license, which may be undesirable under
certain conditions. The APL gives the Initial Contributor the option
(but not the obligation) of including a set of patent licensing terms.
If the patent licensing terms are selected, then they are applicable to
the Initial Contributor and all other Distributors.
4. The APL expressly provides for a clear positive obligation on the
part of Subsequent Contributors to make a Licensed Work publicly available.
5. The doctrine of privity of contract in many jurisdictions may raise
significant barriers to parties who wish to enforce an Open Source
license. The MPL does not expressly address this problem, which could
lead to significant problems where members of the Open Source community
find there are licensees of Open Source software that intentionally or
repeatedly fail to make distributions publicly available. The APL
contains an explicit enforceability clause that permits not only parties
with privity of contract to enforce the License, but any other
sufficiently interested party, i.e., another Recipient.
6. The MPL requires extensive documentation of changes. The APL does
not require a documentation process by default, but does provide for a
documentation process if desired by the Initial Contributor, when the
APL is first selected. In order to include documentation requirements
in the APL, however, the Initial Contributor must clearly set out the
documentation requirements in a Supplement File that must accompany each
distribution of the Licensed Work.
7. By default, the APL does not require any recognition of the Initial
Contributor or any Subsequent Contributor. As a modest attribution, in
the hope that modest promotional value may justify the time, money and
effort invested in writing the Initial Work, the Initial Contributor may
require some limited recognition. Under the APL, Subsequent
Contributors of Subsequent Works cannot require any recognition. This
limitation was considered necessary to avoid the problems of badgeware
As far as precedence is concerned, if the Licensed Work is combined with
another work subject to another Open Source license, then the combined
work must be subsequently licensed under the APL. However, the APL
minimises the risk of conflict with other Open Source projects by virtue
of the definition of Independent Module. Thus, software licensed under
another Open Source license can be distributed with the Licensed Work
licensed under the APL, provided the software licensed under the other
Open Source license qualifies as an Independent Module.
Thank you for your consideration of our license.
University of Victoria
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
More information about the License-discuss