KLLSD License

[Ricardo I. Vieitez]

2010/4/6 Bruce Perens <bruce at perens.com>:
> Vieitez Parra wrote:
>>
>> The problem with the Apache License is that it's too extensive
>
> You mean too wordy?
Exactly.
>>
>> 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.
I didn't say the public is unwilling to accept it (I don't know that),
but is probably unwilling to read it or to understand it. The same
goes for the GNU GPL and long license texts in general, because they
are aimed at a great deal of different applications that makes the
concepts in them very complex to see clearly unless with the help of a
lawyer and/or research on its scope.
>>
>> 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.
Indeed. It might be tedious. However, this clause is intended to be
applied on 'less
traumatic' way: a simple comment on the source field saying "This
piece of software is
based on XXXX" and then commenting when a modification took place so
that the final
user can identify them. On the other hand, patch files may use any
other license (as per (2)h)
and therefore such a warning may not be required.
>
> 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.
Agreed. That would work as well, but I feel the first way much cleaner. Maybe
both techniques may be combined enforcing trademarks and banning the
requisite of pointing out the changes. Or that could be added as an exception.
>
>   Thanks
You're welcome. Thank you too for your time
>
>   Bruce
>
>

Ricardo