For approval: MirOS Licence Template & OpenBSD License Template
tg at 66h.42h.de
Fri Nov 5 21:55:23 UTC 2004
Short foreword to both licences:
I haven't put up a HTML rendered version of either _yet_ but I
volunteer to do for _both_ once the approval process is finished,
in the style the existing licences are already listed on your
Both licences are different enough from the already certified
licences that it warrants the approval process in my eyes.
For the MirOS licence template:
- the licence template is most similar to the "historic permission
notice" but actually derived from the BSD licence. It's modified
so that it fits better into (continental-)european copyright law
but with no impact on international usability.
- The disclaimer is not written in CAPS. (*g*)
- The licence tries to be as compatible to others as possible, all
possible uses are enumerated (thanks to Till Jaeger from ifrOSS)
to avoid interpretation ambiguities. Compatibility should not be
an issue as long as you credit the original author.
An optional advertising clause can be inserted - the trend seems
to be going _towards_ them; that's deprecated but allowed, and a
template for these is given to assist. (The template matches 98%
of all advertising clauses I've found in current MirOS source.)
- The authors accept that they're liable for work done with malice
intent, or if they include work by third parties which they have
not obtained a licence for, in order to prevent European (German
at least) laws from asserting a much broader liability.
I think this licence is necessary so that for example companies
(which aren't the holder of the "moral rights") are indemned as
well as the authors and contributors, and because it's shifting
away from "software", "source" and "binaries" towards "work" as
a more generic term - since software can be shell code and com-
monly includes documentation which needs to be licenced too.
This template has been carefully drafted (by lawmen) for years,
assisted twice by the license-discuss@ list and once by ifrOSS,
and has been subject to much discussion - the form presented is
a consent between all parties actively involved.
There is no legal analysis however.
* Copyright (c) year, year...
* First M. Last <user at host.domain>
* Licensee is hereby permitted to deal in this work without restric-
* tion, including unlimited rights to use, publicly perform, modify,
* merge, distribute, sell, give away or sublicence, provided all co-
* pyright notices above, these terms and the disclaimer are retained
* in all redistributions or reproduced in accompanying documentation
* or other materials provided with binary redistributions.
* Licensor hereby provides this work "AS IS" and WITHOUT WARRANTY of
* any kind, expressed or implied, to the maximum extent permitted by
* applicable law, but with the warranty of being written without ma-
* licious intent or gross negligence; in no event shall licensor, an
* author or contributor be held liable for any damage, direct, indi-
* rect or other, however caused, arising in any way out of the usage
* of covered work, even if advised of the possibility of such damage.
* OPTIONAL ADVERTISING CLAUSE:
* Adding advertising clauses is not recommended, because they reduce
* the interoperability of the licence and place, if overused, a huge
* load on distributors. Still there are cases in which adding an ad-
* vertising clause might be appropriate. To add an advertising clau-
* se, insert the following paragraph in between the first and second
* paragraph shown above:
* All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this soft-
* ware must display the following acknowledgement:
* This product includes (material|software) (provided by|devel-
* oped (at|?(or owned )by|under|for?( use (in|with)))) <NAME>?(
* ?, and (its|their|by other) contributors)?( (for|by) <NAME>).
* Please adapt the template above for your situation; items prefixed
* with a question mark can be left out.
[ snipped INSTRUCTIONS for length ]
For the OpenBSD license template:
- it's worded after the ISC licence
- it ranges similar to the MIT licence and is obviously open source
- I'm not involved with creation or advocating the licence, but since
it's being actively used in various open source project by various
vendors (ISC and OpenBSD being the biggest ones I know of), it's
important in my eyes that it becomes officially certified
- I don't know there's a legal analysis of the licence
- "with or without fee" explicitly allows selling
- I don't have an official statement from OpenBSD at all about this
except what's reproduced below:
Below is an example license to be used for new code in OpenBSD,
modeled after the ISC license.
It is important to specify the year of the copyright. Additional years
should be separated by a comma, e.g.
Copyright (c) 2003, 2004
If you add extra text to the body of the license, be careful not to
add further restrictions.
* Copyright (c) CCYY YOUR NAME HERE <user at your.dom.ain>
* Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software for any
* purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above
* copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies.
* THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE AUTHOR DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES
* WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
* MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR
* ANY SPECIAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES
* WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN
* ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF
* OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE.
More information about the License-discuss