<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"MS Mincho";
panose-1:2 2 6 9 4 2 5 8 3 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:SimSun;
panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"\@MS Mincho";
panose-1:2 2 6 9 4 2 5 8 3 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"\@SimSun";
panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.gmailquote
{mso-style-name:gmail_quote;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal>Thanks very much to everybody who commented; we found the
feedback to be very useful. We’ll try to respond to all of the
comments, but questions about the unique purpose of the SimPL seemed most
prominent so we’ll talk about that first. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>1. <i>What is the unique purpose of the SimPL?.</i>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>As Matthew Flaschen puts it: “In general, you
should only create a license if you want to achieve a distinct purpose from the
existing licenses.” We agree. The SimPL <b>was</b> drafted to
achieve a very important and unique goal: creating a simple, easy to read
copyleft license that can be read and understood by programmers. Many
people consider this to be one of the most important goals for a license.
No other copyleft license that we know of was written with this at the
forefront or achieves this goal.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>Many programmers have complained that they cannot parse the
GPL (even with its extensive FAQ). FSF acknowledged in its Rationale
document for GPL 3.0 that it values simplicity in licenses and mentions that
people “have asked us for a simpler and shorter GPL.” As
Linus Torvalds has been quoted as saying: “In many ways, my only
gripe with the GPL has been how many words it seems to need to say something
very simple.” FSF declined to write a simpler GPL (and said GPL 3.0
would be even more complex), believing it could not write a simple license that
protects user freedom. However, it did throw out this challenge:
“We enthusiastically invite those who believe that the GPL can protect
freedom just as well in fewer words to join our comment process and show us how
it can be done.” We believe that that SimPL is an easy-to-read license
that can protect freedom as well or better than other copyleft licenses that
are hard to read.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>2. <i>Why not just use the GPL?</i> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>It will not surprise us if most programmers do in fact
continue to use the GPL because it is well established and it has the
imprimatur of the Free Software Foundation. In this sense we don’t
disagree with Chris DiBona’s prediction that: <span lang=ZH-CN
style='font-family:SimSun'>“</span> . . . your desire to make a simpler
gpl will just mean another minority license. . .” <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>However, we have encountered a significant number of
programmers who do not care to pick a license primarily because of its legacy
or its endorser. They simply want the best license for the job,
regardless of its origins, and many of them do not think the GPL is a
particularly elegant piece of legal code. This may be a minority of
programmers but it’s a large enough group that it makes sense to provide
them a better tool for making a copyleft. In fact, we think the SimPL
potentially will encourage more software to be licensed copyleft because
programmers will have a clearer idea of the license terms—many people do
not use the GPL simply because they do not clearly understand its scope of
license. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>By the way, when GPL 3.0 has been finalized, we hope to
create a <span lang=ZH-CN style='font-family:SimSun'>“</span>SimPL 3.0<span
lang=ZH-CN style='font-family:SimSun'>”</span> that would provide a
simple copyleft license based on GPL 3.0 terms. We have no intention of
weighing in on the GPL 2.0 versus 3.0 debate (the SimPL was publicly released
back in 2005 and was submitted to FSF as part of the GPL 3.0 comment process at
that time). Our goal is to provide good legal tools; we’re agnostic
about whether a programmer should use SimPL 2.0 (as we’ll call the
updated version of this license) to make a copyleft under terms like GPL 2.0 or
SimPL 3.0 which will be a re-implementation of GPL 3.0 terms (whatever they
ultimately might be).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>3. <i>“Most of the GPL. . . exists for an
important legal purpose.” Shortening the license will create
ambiguity, not resolve it.”</i><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>A license does not have to read like legalese to be enforceable;
in fact, legalese can actually degrade enforceability in some cases. More
words do not necessarily create a clearer or more legally enforceable license;
in fact, the opposite is often the case. For example, the license grant
in the SimPL is both shorter and less ambiguous than the longer and famously
ambiguous license grant in GPL 2.0. While it is true that the most of the
words in the GPL are there for a purpose, that purpose can often be expressed
better in fewer words.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>By the way, the SimPL is not merely a “partial summary”
of the GPL. The SimPL was professionally crafted with considerable
thought given and care taken to make sure it was both faithful to the core
terms of GPL 2.0 and an enforceable legal document. We are confident that
the SimPL is at least as enforceable as GPL 2.0 (so far, courts have said the
GPL is likely enforceable just like any other mass market license—the
SimPL would be as well) and, indeed, we have done some things (such as moving
the instructions for manifesting assent to the top of the document and updating
disclaimer language) to potentially make it more enforceable. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>4. <i>Use of the term “derivative works.”</i><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>We acknowledge that there are pros and cons to using the
“derivative works” nomenclature. On balance we think it is
better because it can be interpreted in light of existing case law, legal
scholarship, and software industry practice. In addition, many (if not
most) licenses use this terminology, including GPL 2.0, so in this sense the
SimPL is merely following standard industry practice for software
licenses. If GPL 3.0 takes a different approach, SimPL 3.0 would follow
suit.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>5. <i>Why state that the licensee should “Follow
all export control laws?”</i><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>This is simply a matter of good license drafting
practice—the export control laws as best followed by giving notice to
potential licensees who may be subject to these laws. A software license
is a good place to place such a notice. It is also explicitly allowed by
the Open Source Definition.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>6. <i>Release of source code</i><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>We actually believe that by requiring that the source code
be easy to get and use, we’re making the right broader.
“Easy” would prohibit code obfuscation, for example, as well as
requiring the distributor to avoid particularly onerous requirements. By
going broad like this, the license allows for more flexibility, so that
distributors could choose the mechanism that is most appropriate for the type
of program.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>We do, however, agree with your point about build scripts so
would amend the license as follows in the fourth bullet: <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>“Providing the source code (including build scripts
and interface definitions) of any Derived Work in a form that is easy to get
and use.”<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>6. <i>Limit of liability clause</i>.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>Our disclaimer of damages clause is drafted to avoid the
possibility that the license could fail of its essential purpose which could,
in the mind of some courts, allow the possibility that the licensee (despite
disclaimers) could recover consequential damages.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>7. <i>Tweaks to the SimPL based on your feedback</i>.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>Here are some changes that we think might make the SimPL
better based on your feedback:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>A. The license grant could be amended to read:
“The SimPL applies to the software’s source and object code and
comes with any rights that I have it (other than rights under
trademarks).” <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>B. The license conditions could be amended to read in
the first bullet: “Prominently noting when you change the
software.” This removes the concern that the programmer will have
to re-write documentation (which was not our intent).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>C. The license conditions could be amended to read in
the fifth bullet: “Licensing any Derived Work under a license with
terms substantially similar to the SimPL.”<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>D. The term section could be amended in two
ways: The intro could be amended to say:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>“The SimPL continues perpetually, except that your
license rights end automatically if” This makes it clear the
termination applies to a particular licensee. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>Then, keep the first bullet and revise the second bullet to
say: “Anyone prevents you from distributing the software under the terms
of the SimPL.” This broadens the clause to cover more than just
patent rights, as it should.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>To help the discussion, we’ve attached a revised
version of the license that is marked up with the changes discussed
above. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>Thanks again for the comments.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>Jim Sfekas<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>Bob Gomulkiewicz<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy'> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> Chris DiBona
[mailto:cdibona@gmail.com] <br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, March 15, 2007 10:22 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Richard Fontana<br>
<b>Cc:</b> sfekas@u.washington.edu; license-discuss@opensource.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: For Approval: Simple Public License (SimPL)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>Also, your desire to make a
simpler gpl will just mean another minority license that no one will adopt. If
it is just a simpler gpl, why not use the gpl and get access to billions of
lines of code already under that license, after all. <br>
<br>
By proposing new licenses, you muddy the waters and slow the adoption and
creation of free software and open source software. the world doesn't need more
licenses, it needs way less.<br>
<br>
Chirs<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span class=gmailquote>On 3/16/07, <b>Richard Fontana</b>
<<a href="mailto:fontana@softwarefreedom.org">fontana@softwarefreedom.org</a>>
wrote:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>Jim Sfekas wrote:<br>
> The SimPL has the same compatibility with other licenses as GPL, with all<br>
> the good and bad that that entails. It should, therefore, be
compatible<br>
> with GPL, LGPL, X11 License, etc. <br>
<br>
It can't be compatible with the GPL, because it has its own copyleft<br>
provision:<br>
<br>
> If you distribute a Derived Work, you must give back to the community by:<br>
[...]<br>
> - Licensing any Derived Work under the SimPL. <br>
<br>
Also,<br>
> The SimPL continues perpetually, except it ends automatically if:<br>
[...]<br>
> - A patent holder prevents you from distributing the software under the<br>
> terms of the SimPL.<br>
<br>
This is more restrictive than GPLv2 section 7 (on which it is presumably <br>
modeled).<br>
<br>
(Unless you mean something nonstandard when you speak of
"compatibility".)<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><br>
<br clear=all>
<br>
-- <br>
Open Source Programs Manager, Google Inc.<br>
Google's Open Source program can be found at <a href="http://code.google.com">http://code.google.com</a><br>
Personal Weblog: <a href="http://dibona.com">http://dibona.com</a> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>