For Approval: Panda3D Public License Version 1.0

Jesse Schell jns at
Sun Feb 22 05:25:34 UTC 2004

I apologize for my slow reply to the very sensible comments below. These all
make sense to me, and I have discussed them with the other key members of
the Panda3D team at Disney, and there is general agreement that these seem
like reasonable suggestions (at least to the software developers).
Unfortunately, the lawyer who originally helped draft the license has left
the company, and it is taking some time to get a new Disney lawyer to adopt
this project. As soon as we can get a lawyer to help us either change the
license appropriately, or explain of why Disney would prefer not to, we will
post again. 

I appreciate your patience in this matter, and the detailed feedback the
members of this list have provided. 

-Jesse Schell, Professor of Entertainment Technology

----- Original Message Follows -----

Subject: Re: For Approval: Panda3D Public License Version 1.0 
From: "Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M." <rdixon at> 
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 22:12:25 -0500 

Although we are discussing the specific terms of a particular license, of
course, my comments are not meant to constitute or substitute for legal

The Panda3D license makes a much better license template than the APSL; even
in revised form, the APSL is wordy and less than clear at times. I think
your lawyer did a good job.

I think this license will warrant OSD approval; I have a couple suggestions,

Clause 1 appears to be your mutual assent clause. Good. I would suggest,
however, that the last sentence couple sentences be clearly written in the
conjunctive or disjunctive (I suspect the drafter meant to use the

Clause 6 (the treaded anti-advertising clause) is understandable, but is it
really needed? If there is no implied or explicit right to use a Disney
trademark or service mark anyway, why is the clause necessary? The
anti-advertising clauses have been a source of discontent with free software
folks, but I do not think the OSD strictly applies.

(Minor point here) Clause 7 is informative, but it says nothing about the
relations between licensor and licensee; hence, I am not sure it warrants
the prominence of an entire clause of the body of the license.

Clause 8 is unclear after the first sentence, which is probably all that is
needed. Sublicensing?

I feel obligated to mention that using approved OSI licenses as useful
templates in drafting makes good sense, but as touchstones does not.


Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.
Author: Open Source Software Law
Best points of contact:
e-mail:rdixon at

license-discuss archive is at

More information about the License-discuss mailing list