For Approval: The Azure License

[Kenneth Ballenegger]

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