For Approval: Public Security Interrest "PSI" License

James Michael DuPont mdupont777 at
Wed Sep 17 14:09:17 UTC 2003

--- Wolfram Kleff <xenonfs at> wrote:
> Hello Mike,
> > --- Wolfram Kleff <xenonfs at> wrote:
> > > With GPL it would be no problem to distribute such stuff and the
> > > author(s)
> > > have no chance to prevent such distribution!
> > > Please consider that the PSI license is intended for
> high-security
> > > and
> > > critical software, not for "normal" software.
> >
> > Dear Wolfram,
> >
> > this sounds like what I am proposing with an alternative solution
> >
> To my understanding this is some sort of DRM technique which is much
> more 
> strict than what I intend with the PSI license.

Well, the details of the auditing are complex, the core is very simple

1. you have the right to make dervied works.
2. Each transaction is with an agreed upon version of the software
3. the Parties in a transaction are not allow to change the software
during the transaction

everything else is just increased security to check if the software was
changed in the tranaction.

> > I dont think that you are right about the GPL, I think you are
> looking
> > to copyright for a solution for an EULA.
> If EULA is really legal in international law is quite controversial.
> Don't forget that there are even many differences between USA-law and
> EU-law 
> not to mention the large differences in international laws.
> That's why the PSI license is rules based which should be adaptive to
> most 
> law-systems.

I dont mean MSEULA. I mean an agreement as in the agreement to use only
a specific version of the software in a transaction.

> > You need a stronger agreement to bind all the networked users to
> single
> > agreed on version of the software for the duration of the
> transation
> > and a means to audit that software.
> Well, I try it with cooperation.
> And I think there are more not-so-strict ways to get cooperation.

Yes, the cooperation is fine. The only time when this coop. breaks down
is when one party can gain much from betraying this trust.

> > The gpl is fine for what it does, trying to make that a stronger
> > contract is dangerous.
> Thats a misunderstanding. I'm not trying to improve, alter or change
> the GPL.
> And I don't intend to make a stronger contract or force people.
> The intention is that people who violate the security loose at least
> their 
> right to use the software. And in very hard cases it's possible to
> accuse 
> them at court (or tribunal >;-) ).

Ok. I need to reread your license. My point was that this added
securtiy can be achived by just an extract agreement that does not have
anything to do with the GPL, but with the agreed upon version of the
software to use in a transaction.


James Michael DuPont

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
license-discuss archive is at

More information about the License-discuss mailing list