License Committee Report for September 2008

[Russ Nelson]

allison shi writes:
 > Based on your September's report on the reject reasons to our UOML License,
 > we had modified our license and would like to issue our request again,

What if somebody wants to use reuse the licensed code for a general
purpose parser of something which isn't UOML, doesn't claim to be
UOML, but for which the code is ideally suited?  Your license does not
permit this, but the Open Source Definition requires that you allow it.

I appreciate your desire to have a body of UOML parsing code which is
not mutated.  This is an honest and a genuine desire, and a worthy
goal.  The best way to do that is to have a trademark.  You only grant
permission to use it after the code passes a UOML conformance test.

Have you considered the Artistic License?
    http://www.opensource.org/licenses/artistic-license-2.0.php
Look at its sections about Standard Version vs. Modified Version.

-- 
--my blog is at    http://blog.russnelson.com   | Delegislation is a slippery
Crynwr sells support for free software  | PGPok | slope to prosperity.
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-323-1241       | Fewer laws, more freedom.
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  |     Sheepdog          | (Not a GOP supporter).