License for approval

Russ Nelson nelson at
Thu Mar 27 20:33:18 UTC 2008

Simon Phipps writes:
 > Would you be so kind as to explain the differences in this license and  
 > their intent please? As license stewards for CDDL (which was itself  
 > based on the MPL) it was our hope to have created a license that made  
 > further proliferation unnecessary, so I am very keen to understand  
 > what needed fixing and why, and I don't see a red-line in your  
 > submission.

If nothing else, the license seeks, through its 3.2, conformity with a
standard.  The trouble with saying "you must do X" is that then
somebody needs to decide if you're doing X.  The license doesn't say.
For that reason alone the license should be returned to its author.

There are other reasons, though.  For example, the license requires
that you not commit fraud (if you offer a warranty you must not
pretend that UOML is offering the warranty.)

The license inserts a possessive apostrophe after "recipients" but
also uses the word "than" where "that" is called-for.  One must always
be carefull when corecting other's speling not to make any misteaks of
ones' own.

I did a crude (wdiff) green=CDDL red=UOML black=common diff here:

I've entered the license into Trac here:

--my blog is at   | Software that needs
Crynwr sells support for free software  | PGPok | documentation is software
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-323-1241       | that needs repair.
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  |     Sheepdog          | 

More information about the License-review mailing list