Politics-Free Licence ;)

[Matthew Flaschen]

Nicholas Cole wrote:
> [1] It more clearly defines what a 'derived work' is.  Most of the FSF
> discussion I could find concerned C code, and was in any case external
> to the licence.

The definition of derivative work is a complex question of copyright
law.  The FSF has an interpretation, but only the license is binding.

> [2] It specifies a jurisdiction.

This is generally frowned upon in FOSS licenses.  Why do you want it?

> [3] It is intended to be shorter than the GPL.  It doesn't contain the
> preamble, and sticks to just defining the terms rather than explaining
> their rationale.

If this is what you want, you may want to consider SimPL
(http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:msn:12796:ljlcebgacpjodogfcegi),
which is compatible with GPLv2 and will probably be approved by OSI shortly.

> For the purposes of this licence derivative works (works based on the
> Program) shall include works that contain part or all of the Program and any
> machine-readable code generated by compiling or interpreting the
> Program in whole or part and any other computer program in any form which incorporates
> the Program or parts of it by linking to or importing the Program. Nothing in this
> licence shall be interpreted as excluding any work that would otherwise be
> considered as a derivative work by applicable law.

I appreciate what you are attempting here, but this clause really
doesn't do anything.  If a program isn't a derivative work under
copyright law, your license can't cover it.  If it is, it's covered by
the GPL (or SimPL) already.  Also, "Nothing in this licence shall be
interpreted as excluding any work that would otherwise be considered as
a derivative work by applicable law." makes it clear that you're not
limiting the scope of the license (or its ambiguity) either.

Matt Flaschen