License for approval

[Russ Nelson]

(You don't need to CC me; I'm on the list.)

Wang Donglin forwards:
 > If the software contains read/write document function, it should be
 > able to read/write a document pure via UOML call. If UOML Alliance
 > specify authorized test tools, and the software can't pass the
 > test, it should be revised within 90 days after receiving the
 > official notice from UOML Alliance.

I'm 100% opposed to having to go back to any other body to receive an
additional license to redistribute changes.  OSD #7 "Distribution of
License" prohibits that.

Here are things that are acceptable for an Open Source license:

1) immutable test software which, when run on the licensed software,
gives a yes/no response.  Obviously the test succeeds against the
software as originally distributed, so that all parties are subject to
the same constraints (needing to pass the test)

2) certification: the use of a trademark which is licensed only if the
software has been judged by the certifying body.  People can
redistribute changes, but they must not use the certification
trademark (technically a service mark).

3) dual licensing based on compliance with the standard.  If your
software complies with the standard, you are allowed to redistribute
under a permissive license like the Academic Free License.  If it does
not, then you must redistribute under a reciprocal license like the
Open Software License.  In both cases the redistributor has the choice
of an Open Source License.

4) a listing of complying software on the UOML website.

The advantage of #2 through #4 is that no new license is needed.  The
advantage of #3 is that it maximizes the Open Source effect -- which
is what everyone wants when they choose to use an Open Source license.

-- 
--my blog is at    http://blog.russnelson.com   | 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          |