For Approval: Open-Realty License

[Alex Bligh]

Ryan,

--On 04 June 2005 18:18 -0400 Ryan Bonham <ryan at transparent-tech.com> wrote:


> 5. The outputted source, html or other technical equivalent, of
> open-realty and any derivative works based on open-realty, must include
> the following acknowledgment in a human readable format: "<PRODUCT> is
> distributed by <OWNER> and is licensed under the Open-Realty License. See
> <LICENSE URL> for more information.".

I'm not quite sure what the above means. Firstly, what is "outputted
source"? Normally, source is something that is input, rather than output.

Secondly, what does "based on open-realty" mean? If this is a template
license, then surely it should be something like "based on <PRODUCT>".

Thirdly, I am unsure of the intended effect. I know you've been round this
loop a bit on the list, but I'm purposely not going back to discover the
answer, because that's not what a recipient of the license will do. Does
"Human Readable format" mean "Human readable in the HTML source" (i.e.
enclosed within HTML comments is OK), or does it mean human readable in the
HTML as displayed on a normal browser (in which case it is not)? Does a
technical equivalent of HTML mean any markup language? Or anything web
content can be encoded by? Given (say) Word and OpenOffice produce both,
does that mean that if I write a word processor and use this license to
distribute it, then any document produced by it must include the text you
describe?

Is what you are trying to say something like the following:

<PRODUCT> is designed to produce computer files for distribution, and the
original work may insert into such files text ("Attribution Text") which
identifies them as having been produced by <PRODUCT>, <PRODUCT>'s
distributor <OWNER>, and the terms of or a reference to this license.
Whilst the files themselves are not subject to this license, your grant to
use, distribute and modify this work is conditional upon your agreement not
to make any modification to the work which might causes such Attribution
Text to be removed, or its insertion to be modified in a manner which
is like to make it materially less readable to those using the files
in the manner in which they would customarily be used.

(though you've already got the conditionality bit in the header)...

> Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
> modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are
> met:

That should probably be: Distribution (in source or binary form),
Modification, and use, are each permitted provided that ....

> THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY <OWNER> AND ITS CONTRIBUTORS ``AS IS'' AND
> ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE
> IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
> PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL <OWNER> OR ITS CONTRIBUTORS BE
> LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR
> CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF
> SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS
> INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN
> CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE)
> ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF
> THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

Based on recently looking at this, given your license does not have
a fixed jurisdiction, you may find that the total disclaimer of warranty
and the total exclusion of all liability may be ineffective in certain
jurisdictions (UK and similar). In such jurisdictions, each is likely
to be struck in its entirety. The easiest way around this appears to
be to disclaim warranty and exclude liability only to the maximum extent
permitted by law, and possibly to insert an alternate liability / warranty
provision in case that itself is not effective. See the work we've
done on the OVPL (http://www.openvendor.org).

Alex