License Committee report

[James William Pye]

Just to precede my statements with a warning that they are as it seems to
me. I am not a lawyer, so my opinions could use any [dis|]qualifications.

On 02/17/04:07/2, Zooko O'Whielacronx wrote:
> Does the Fair License require the software developer who uses such licensed 
> source code to inform his users (i.e. at runtime or in documentation) about the 
> existence of the Fair License?

Yes, but the choice of method is ultimately left to the author and later
"forwarded" to the user. So not specifically at runtime or in
documentation.

I had concerns with that wording. I felt that 'notify' was a fine term to
help enforce a goal of Due Credit(attribution).  Although, my purpose was
not so much as to require a user to force the instrument in another user's
face, but rather to keep the creator of a derivative work from hiding the
instrument to obfuscate the origins of the original works to help his/her
profits. Of course, intention doesn't quite always map to effect, so I plan
to give this more thought in the future.  Another concern would be from the
other side. For instance, a litigious developer that claims works based on
his/her works did not provide a proper method of instrument notification.

The license does not specify the method of instrument notification, so I
think that leaving that ambiguity *might* imply that the method of
notification should be similarly conspicuous to the method that the author
implemented in his/her original works. Well, I think that would be the
safest way for the user.

---
I was thinking about this while I was writing this response, perhaps
something along the lines of: ...any entity that uses the works is notified
of this instrument by a method that is leastwise conspicuous as the method
implemented within the original works...

I think such an addition may help clarity, but is probably unnecessary from
both views, and potentially harmful in a case where an odd developer deems
it necessary to smother his users with copyright/license notifications.
Such a case would be more like advertising than mere notification.
---

> Another thing I don't understand is if the "let's not proliferate substantially
> similar licenses" reasoning should not also apply to the approval of the Fair
> License.

I was unsure of this myself. I think the main distinction between my
license and most open source licenses is that most open source license
specify the license as covering "source", "source code" or distribution,
which I felt may be too specific for my some of my usage. 'Works' seems
more appropriate to me; although, I'm not sure if it would make a
significant difference if it were ever brought under serious scrutiny.
 
Regards,
        James William Pye
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 479 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20040219/9d3c3ac7/attachment.sig>