Request opinion on proposed license

[John Cowan]

Kevin Halle scripsit:

>    Thank you all for considering my message.  I am considering
> submitting a request for approval of a new license.  Before
> formally submitting it, I would like to elicit the opinions of
> you, the members of this list, on whether it is likely to pass
> the Open Source Initiative requirements.

What's so great about this plan is that it does not require any new license
at all.  You can just use a standard reciprocal license like the GPL or
the OSL, and get everything you want by doing a few other things as well.

>    Thus, I propose a new license which modifies the GPL.  It
> carries the same language, with the one exception that a
> third-party organisation is named which has the power to
> negotiate with commercial entities.   

In order to achieve this, you as the initial developer must simply
transfer the copyright, lock stock and barrel, to the third-party
organization (henceforth 3PO).  The 3PO, being the copyright owner,
is not bound by the GPL, and is free to make whatever arrangement
it wants for proprietary licenses.

For suspenders-and-belt-class assurance, require all future contributors
to sign over their copyrights to the 3PO as well.  This is probably not
necessary, at least under U.S. law, because such contributors have
nothing to gain by suing, but it does make sure all your ducks are in a row.

>    For non-commercial entities, such as researchers and
> individual developers, the license reverts to the standard GPL,

The 3PO just licenses it to them under the GPL (but do consider the
OSL; it has certain advantages, like an explicit grant of patent rights).

> with the one exception that any derivatives may only use the
> name of the original work upon condition that they pass the
> conformance test suite.

This requires no exception to the GPL.  You simply create another
non-profit organization which administers the name of the work as a
certification mark: nobody can use it unless they pass the conformance
tests.  The GPL neither requires nor forbids restrictions on the
name of a program, because names are outside copyright law and the
subject of trademark law.

> If they fail the conformance suite or
> are not tested with it, they must include a notice stating that
> the work is derived from the original but has failed the
> conformance suite.

This does exceed the bounds of the GPL, but surely not being allowed
to use the original name is strong enough?

>    The third-party entity charged with negotiating with
> commercial entities must be a non-profit organisation committed
> solely to carrying out the responsibilities of managing work
> assigned to it under the new license.

Then just make it so.  That in no way has to be written into the license.

> Will a license such as this be certifiable as Open Source?  

Save yourself considerable time and aggro by not drafting a new license,
please.  You really don't need one.

IANAL, TINLA.

-- 
"You're a brave man! Go and break through the           John Cowan
lines, and remember while you're out there              jcowan at reutershealth.com
risking life and limb through shot and shell,           www.ccil.org/~cowan
we'll be in here thinking what a sucker you are!"       www.reutershealth.com
        --Rufus T. Firefly