For Approval: The Azure License
Kenneth Ballenegger
seoxys at gmail.com
Sun Jul 12 13:54:05 UTC 2009
Replying in a single email again.
Carlo, I personally don't see anything in the Azure License which
would cause it to be incompatible with the GPLv2. I'm no GPL expert
though. Suffice to say that GPLv2 compatibility isn't of much
importance to me. The debate on whether the GPL is good or evil is a
pointless one -- there will always be proponents of both sides, and
everybody is entitled to their own opinion.
Dag-Erling, I wasn't aware of the CPAL license. However, it's one of
those super-long licenses, which is something I'm trying to avoid. I
want to keep it short, sweet and simple.
I'm pretty set on going with my own custom license, because none of
the other public license do exactly what I'm looking for. Many have
similar qualities to what I'm looking for (BSD / MIT especially), but
none get it completely right.
With all the discussion I've been hearing lately on how nice a CC
equivalent for software would be, there is clearly a demand for a
comprehensible license which requires attribution only, yet in a
meaningful way, as opposed to a copyright notice file that both
unfriendly and never gets read.
Bruce: I personally like the word hereby. It could be left out, but I
think it makes the sentence friendlier and more attractive. I think
it's a matter of taste, though.
I think you've got a good idea with adding a place to fill in who
should be attributed. How about changing the copyright line to the
following:
-
Copyright (c) {year} {copyright holders}
Attribute to {individual or group name} - {link}
-
On second though, you are right about the intro paragraph. It would
just complicate things. The license (except for the warranty
disclaimer) is readable enough as is.
Michael, you have a very valid point about the lack of mention of the
word "source." I will most likely be using this for public source
files, frameworks and such, which by itself doesn't do anything and is
not software. So you are right, I need to include a mention to the
source. I could replace all mentions of software by source code, but
should a full app ever be released under this license, wouldn't that
be problematic? Is there a way to make it primarily about the source,
but also work when there's full software. What do you guys think?
Joel, I can see how it could cause confusion. Do you guys think it is
necessary to rename the license? I could entitle it The Azure Talon
License? It just doesn't sound as nice and is quite a bit longer.
(FYI: My company is named Azure Talon Software)
So far, the revised license:
-
The Azure License
Copyright (c) {year} {copyright holders}
Attribute to {individual or group name} - {link}
You (the licensee) are hereby granted permission, free of charge, to
deal in this software or source code ("Work") without restriction,
including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge,
publish, distribute, and/or sublicense this Work, subject to the
following conditions:
You must give attribution to the party mentioned above, by name and by
hyperlink, in the about box, credits document and/or documentation of
any derivative work using a substantial portion of this Work.
You may not use the name of the copyright holder(s) to endorse or
promote products derived from this Work without specific prior written
permission.
THIS WORK IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT.
IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY
CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT,
TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THIS
WORK OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THIS WORK.
-
I nuked the part about having to include this copyright notice in all
copies.
I'm uneasy about the wording of "You must give attribution to the
party mentioned above" -- can anyone think of a better way to put this?
I've also defined "this Work" as "this software or source code" and
I've replaced mentions of "this software" by "this Work" throughout
the license.
Also, I don't like the bottom all-caps paragraph, but it's a necessary
evil. I've tried to cut it down to the bare minimum, do you guys think
it still offers all the protection?
-
THIS WORK IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND. IN NO
EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM,
DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH
THIS WORK OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THIS WORK.
-
Best,
Kenneth
---
Kenneth Ballenegger
kenneth.ballenegger.com
kenneth at ballenegger.com
On 09 Jul 2009, at 9:51 PM, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I wonder, did my mails make it to the list at all? I do not
> have an SMTP error in my logs, so it should've reached crynwr...
>
> //mirabilos
> --
> “It is inappropriate to require that a time represented as
> seconds since the Epoch precisely represent the number of
> seconds between the referenced time and the Epoch.”
> -- IEEE Std 1003.1b-1993 (POSIX) Section B.2.2.2
More information about the License-review
mailing list