[License-discuss] Does this look like an open source license?

[Cinly Ooi]

In this case it is probably better to get a lawyer to look at the final
text if you can. Attempting to write a legalistic sounding license will
probably be counterproductive compared to a layman license.

Best Regards,
Cinly

*****
I do not read footer and will not be bounded by them. If they are legally
enforceable then this one always triumph yours.

On 23 January 2015 at 01:09, ChanMaxthon <xcvista at me.com> wrote:

> I was once using straight 3c-BSDL but one incident (I am not from an
> Anglophone country) proved to me that it's language is too complex in local
> courts. Now I am sort of forced into creating a functional equivalent using
> only simple English (definition: restrict word usage to the 3000 basic
> English word defined by Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary) so this is my
> first attempt.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Jan 23, 2015, at 02:00, Ben Cotton <bcotton at fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 10:32 AM, Maxthon Chan <xcvista at me.com> wrote:
> >> I have used a license like this for my open projects for a very long
> time. Does this look like a real open source license?
> > <snip>
> >> Is this a rephrase of the 3-clause BSD license?
> > It looks like a rephrase of the BSD 3-Clause, but there are some
> > concerns I have about it (I am not a lawyer, so my concerns may be
> > incomplete and/or irrelevant)...
> >
> >>>    *   You distribute this software in its executable form with the
> copyright
> >>>        notice above, this license and the disclaimer below intact and
> display
> >>>        them in appropriate ways;
> >>>    *   You distribute this software in its source code form with the
> copyright
> >>>        notice above, this license and the disclaimer below intact and
> the end
> >>>        result of such source code displays them in appropriate ways;
> >
> > These two clauses, pedantically interpreted, would require anyone who
> > uses the software to distribute it. Basically you'd want "If you
> > distribute...then you must include..." The BSD 3-Clause begins both
> > clauses with the word "Redistributions" in order to make it clear.
> >
> > In addition, I'm not sure what is meant in the second clause by "the
> > end result of such source code". Does that mean any
> > compiled/interpreted code must display the license? What if it's a
> > program that generally produces no output (think `cp`, `mv`, etc.)?
> > The BSD 3-Clause requires the notice in the documentation, etc., but
> > not in the "end result of the source code". I would argue that it
> > violates item 10 of the Open Source Definition, but that's a debatable
> > point. In any case, it seems impractical.
> >
> >>>    *   The name of the author and contributors are not used without
> previous
> >>>        explicit written permission by the author and contributors.
> > This also seems impractical, as it would disallow attribution. This
> > license doesn't require attribution, so it's not a direct conflict,
> > but it would prevent a common courtesy (at least without
> > administrative overhead for both the original and downstream
> > developers). The BSD 3-Clause forbids the use of the author's name to
> > "endorse or promote products derived from [the] software", but not
> > attribution. This wouldn't technically violate any part of the OSD as
> > far as I can tell, but it's unwieldy.
> >
> >>> THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED TO YOU ON AN "AS-IS" BASIS. NO WARRANTY
> WHATSOEVER
> >>> COMES WITH THIS SOFTWARE, IMPLICIT OR NOT, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY
> THE LAWS.
> >>> THE AUTHORS, CONTRIBUTORS AND COPYRIGHT HOLDERS SHALL NOT BE HELD
> RELIABLE TO
> >>> ANY DAMAGE OR LOSS OCCURRED FROM USING OF THIS SOFTWARE.
> > "THE LAWS"? What laws?
> >
> > It's not clear from your post if you've written this license or if you
> > got it from somewhere else, but if it's yours I wonder what the
> > motivation for this is as opposed to just using the BSD 3-Clause,
> > which seems to have the same intention but with more practical
> > wording.
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> > BC
> >
> > --
> > Ben Cotton
> > _______________________________________________
> > License-discuss mailing list
> > License-discuss at opensource.org
> > http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
> _______________________________________________
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at opensource.org
> http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20150123/a09fc4f3/attachment.html>