Request For Approval: Iggy Wanna Licence

[Bruce Perens]

Brendan,

I apologize for failing to take your submission seriously.

Brendan Scott wrote:
> 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.
"Accompanying" could apply to any browser distributed on the same medium 
as the server. It seems you are getting very close to saying what OSD #9 
prohibits, that all of the files on the medium must be Open Source.

You don't ever define "accompany" or introduce the concept of a 
"distribution medium", so "accompany" could apply to a download site or 
the entire internet.
> it is not clear why a violation of OSD#6 (No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor) would follow.
>   
Making use of the program to provide services to proprietary software is 
a field of endeavor. Note that the phrase "making use" is very important 
in OSD #6, and that "use" is a separate right from the creation of 
derivative works, which you could legitimately restrict.
> 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).
Use and the creation of derivative works are defined to be two separate 
rights in the copyright law of many jurisdictions, not just the U.S.

Regarding the Sleepycat license, "the DB software" mentioned in the 
license is a library from which works are derived. The word "use" is 
unfortunate in that context. I would hope that the OSI would ask for 
better language if faced with that license today. Certainly they would 
not accept a license specific to a product or company, as the Sleepycat 
license is, any longer.

Your transformation from "use" into _indirect_ use sufficiently 
separates your license from the Sleepycat one that approval of the 
Sleepycat license should not be viewed as precedent.

You allude to the GPL possibly restricting use. You should note GPL2 
section 0, second paragraph. First it states that use is outside of the 
scope of the license (and thus not restricted), and then it says that 
the act of running the program is unrestricted. Torvalds wanted to 
clarify this and added a note of his own. However, Torvalds' note 
doesn't add any permissions that don't already exist. Unfortunately, any 
time he touches this issue he only makes it more confusing.

    Thanks

    Bruce