Request For Approval: Iggy Wanna Licence

[Matthew Flaschen]

Brendan Scott wrote:

> The relevant difference is between: (a) "any accompanying software
> that uses the DB software"; and (b) "all accompanying software that
> uses (or is intended to use) the Software whether directly or
> indirectly."
> 
> OKL's intention was that redistributors should not be able to avoid
> the licence by interposing an interface layer.  Arguably, the GPL has
> a similar action in this respect.[1]

GPLv2 clearly says, "Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim 
rights or contest your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, 
the intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution of 
derivative or collective works based on the Program."

GPLv3 has similar text, "A compilation of a covered work with other 
separate and independent works, which are not by their nature extensions 
of the covered work, and which are not combined with it such as to form 
a larger program, in or on a volume of a storage or distribution medium, 
is called an “aggregate”"

There is no such limitation in IWL, and it seems clear you are trying to 
overstep the bounds of copyright law.

> In respect of your argument about browsers accessing a web server.
> OKL does not believe that those browsers would be caught by the
> licence terms because the clause applies to "accompanying software"
> in the context of a redistribution.

Thus, if I give a corporation a network server under IWL, and a network 
client I wrote entirely myself, your license would attempt to require 
the client be under IWL.

   In the example given the
> browsers would not be "accompanying software".  If they were caught,
> it is not clear why a violation of OSD#6 (No Discrimination Against
> Fields of Endeavor) would follow.

I'm not sure exactly what his argument was.  However, your license does 
go against OSD #9, which says, "The license must not place restrictions 
on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software."

> 
> You have commented on the rights of use under copyright law.  OKL
> does not intend that the licence be tied to the copyright law of a
> specific jurisdiction (eg US).

Independently written software that merely indirectly uses IWL software 
is not a derivative work in /any/ jurisdiction.

> [1] As evidenced by Mr Torvald's "user programs that use kernel
> services by normal system calls" clarification in the Linux kernel's
> COPYING files.

He has no special right to "clarify" the GPL, except for code he owns, 
which is the minority of the kernel.

Matt Flaschen