[License-discuss] Akshar License 1.0 Final Draft
cowan at mercury.ccil.org
Sat May 4 01:12:02 UTC 2013
Prashant Shah scripsit:
> Mainly it differs from Apache License 2.0 in sections 3 (patent grants
> to derivative works) and 4 (more relaxed terms)
In clause 3, the words "or derivative works" has been struck, so there no
patent license on derivative works you make yourself and do not contribute
back to the licensor. For historical reasons, the OSD has nothing to say
about patent licenses, but I believe this violates OSD #3 by implication,
which requires that derivative works be redistributable under the same
license as the original.
In clause 4:
The requirement to redistribute the license with all copies has been
removed. The OSD doesn't care.
The requirement to propagate any NOTICE file or other third-party notices
has been removed. The OSD doesn't care, but people who go to the trouble
of adding attribution notices may be rather unhappy if they are stripped.
If notices exist, you can add your own copyright, patent, or trademark
notices to them, not merely attribution notices. This does not violate
any specific OSD provision, but people are not used to looking for
notices with legal effects there. In the Apache licenses, such notices
are informational only and don't affect the licensing terms.
In short, these differences are either neutral or negative in their
consequences, and look to me like "they won't buy it unless it smells
like them" (Jubal Harshaw). I recommend disapproving this license and
urging the original proposer to use the Apache 2.0 license unchanged,
unless extremely weighty reasons can be brought forward for using it.
A rabbi whose congregation doesn't want John Cowan
to drive him out of town isn't a rabbi, http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
and a rabbi who lets them do it cowan at ccil.org
isn't a man. --Jewish saying
More information about the License-discuss