Cubit Business management software - licensing

[John.Cowan]

Karsten M. Self scripsit:

> > Also I do not want anyone to compile my code, php is executed as
> > source code.
> 
> That would violate #3, "Derived Works".  Compiled code is a derived work
> of the original work.

True.  But it wouldn't be inappropriate to forbid distribution of obfuscated
versions, including a compiled version without source.

> > 3.???Cubit??? means the entire distribution, including all files,
> > databases, source code, graphics, the name ???Cubit???, all systems,
> > work flows, methods of operation and processes and any or all
> > intellectual property implied or included in the Cubit Accounting and
> > Business management software suite distributed or released in any
> > fashion through any medium whatsoever.  4.???Distribution??? means any
> > distribution of Cubit, making available thereof electronic or
> > otherwise
> 
> This violates #8:  the license is specific to a product.

That's not what #8 means.  #8 forbids licenses of the form "You can only use
this software in connection with (or as part of) our products."  Licenses that
apply only to a single product aren't properly templatized, but they don't
violate the OSD as such: see the Sybase Open Watcom Public License version 1.0,
e.g.

> > Any modifications to Cubit is governed by the terms of this license.
> > Cubit is executed as source code and you may never compile, obscure or
> > cause to obscure Cubit. You may not move this license or the top left
> > Cubit graphic and link or the name Cubit from any Cubit file.
> 
> Violates OSD #3.

If properly toned down, however, I think it would pass muster.

> > General distribution:
> > Any modification must be made available under the terms of this license to 
> > anyone that requests it 
> 
> This is an unusually broad disclosure obligation.  While you're free to
> make it from a legal standpoint, and it doesn't violate the OSD, it
> *does* run contrary to some standards of FSF Free Software and tests
> used by some groups, such as Debian's "Desert Island" test:  how would I
> distribute my modifications to any third party if I were stuck on a
> desert island?

You are always excused from complying with license provisions that are impossible
(physically) to perform.  The law may be a h'ass and a h'idiot, but it's not
as stupid as all that.

> > Any application programming interface developed for Cubit must be
> > licensed under this license or the latest version of the GPL as
> > available from www.opensource.org 
> 
> <sniff><sniff>
> 
> Smells like a dual license.

Not for the product itself, but for any APIs developed for it.  I think this
unconscionably restricts what people may do with software: it sets a dangerous
precedent to let people constrain interoperability in this fashion.

> > Developer declarations:
> > All developers declare that all modifications to Cubit are the
> > developer's own original creation or that the developer has sufficient
> > rights to grant the rights required in this license.
> 
> This should probalby be part of a separate affidavit attached to any
> selected code contributions.

It comes from the AFL/OSL (the warranty of provenance) and is IMHO a Good Thing.

-- 
John Cowan                              <jcowan at reutershealth.com>
http://www.reutershealth.com            http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
                .e'osai ko sarji la lojban.
                Please support Lojban!          http://www.lojban.org