KLLSD License

[Bruce Perens]

Vieitez Parra wrote:
> The problem with the Apache License is that it's too extensive
You mean too wordy?
> and it's an obstacle when getting to the public.
You think the public is unwilling to accept the Apache license? Maybe I 
don't understand what you mean.
> but it fails on the disclaimer.
>   
I see no problem with making your warranty disclaimer a separate 
document from the license. OSI doesn't have to approve it if it's 
nothing but a disclaimer. This would allow you to use one of the 
existing licenses.
> Lastly, although depending on the project this may be seen as a
> disadvantage, it protects the integrity of the original work, with its
> clause that: "Modified works must say clearly that they are a modified
> version AND clearly remark what the changes are."
A long time ago OSI accepted a license from Apple requiring email 
submission of modified source, after work on the text to make the 
requirement disappear if Apple didn't accept the email. Apple 
subsequently withdrew the license because they realized that it was 
still odious, impractical and unnecessary. IMO you won't get OSI to go 
for this again.

What you wish to do can be done through a combination of technical means 
such as checksums, and a trademark. You can simply require that a 
modified version have a different name than your official version, and 
then you can publish the checksum (and official source) for your version 
so that people can tell if a version is official or not.

    Thanks

    Bruce