[License-discuss] [NEW LICENSE] OTPL (OPEN TOM PUBLIC LICENSE) v1.0

[Josh Berkus]

Tom,

> I would like to submit a new license for discussion: the OPEN TOM PUBLIC
> LICENSE (OTPL) version 1.2.

Overall, this is pretty standard.  Are you sure there's not an existing 
license that has these same terms?   You might look through our license 
catalog and see if you can save yourself some time.

> - Permissive for derivative works (can be closed-source, commercial,
> modified without redistribution of changes).
> - Requires source code to accompany binary distribution (any reasonable
> format: ZIP, folder, 7z, etc.).

So, this is isn't exactly true.  The license as you've written it 
requires distribution of source code, and that the source code remain 
under the license.  The actual terms are more "soft copyleft" and not 
permissive.

> 2. Source Code Inclusion for Binary Distribution.
> If the Software (or a work containing the Software) is distributed in
> compiled, executable, binary, or any non-source form (including but not
> limited to executable files, installers, container images, mobile
> applications, or embedded systems), such distribution must be accompanied
> by the complete corresponding source code of the Software as provided by
> the original copyright holder. The source code may be provided in any
> reasonable and commonly used format or medium, including but not limited
> to: a ZIP, RAR, 7z archive; a directory containing the source files; or
> any other machine-readable format that allows the recipient to
> conveniently access and inspect the source code. Modified source code need
> not be disclosed unless the modifier chooses to do so.

This feels like you copied some very old text from a ~~1999 license 
somewhere.  RAR?   This is MSDOS days text.

Also, this requires the source code to be distributed *with* the 
binaries, which current licenses rarely do since it's not compatible 
with how binaries are distributed these days (think Android App, how 
would you include the source code there?  Or a Linux container?).

All of this suggests that you copied text from a very old license, which 
you could simply just use.

-- 
Josh Berkus