License Proliferation and OSL 3.0 (part 2)

[Lawrence Rosen]

Alex Bligh asked:
> Is it your intention to allow/encourage people to use 
> specific TERMS (bits of) your license in their own licenses? 
> I think as we discussed off-list commonality of terms between 
> licenses would be useful even if they don't all end up with a 
> common ancestor. For instance, if OSL 3.0 came out now with 
> these terms in, would you encourage OVPL folk to adopt the 
> "External Deployment" language rather than roll their own? If 
> this is the intent, the above could perhaps be phrased a little wider.

Yes, I intend to allow/encourage people (including you) to use as much OSL
3.0 language as you want. The more the merrier. [REMEMBER: The license is
still in DRAFT and so copying is premature.]

The conditions in section 16 are three different ways to help prevent
*licensee* confusion: (i) Requires that your license specify different
wording for the licensing notices; (ii) Requires that you pick a different
name for your license; and (iii) Reminds you that OSI approval is what gets
your license its "open source" credentials.

I won't require "common ancestry" or any form of copyright credit in your
derivative work licenses using OSL 3.0 language. But I might ask to copy
some of your language into OSL 3.0 if you and others suggest it would make
OSL 3.0 better. :-)

/Larry Rosen