AW: For Approval: The netX Public Lisense (in plain text)

[Christian Solmecke]

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen, 

On behalf of our client Hilscher Gesellschaft für Systemautomation mbH, we would like to thank you for the great number of constructive remarks concerning the NetX Public License.

1. Technology-Neutral
As we have seen, in particular the special treatment of the kernel interface is partially considered as a violation of # 10 (License must be Technology-Neutral) of the Open Source Definition. This is why we would clarify, that the purpose of the License is not aim to create a special treatment of the kernel interface. Rather, the aim is the porting of the licensed software to other operating systems in order to guarantee the distribution of the software throughout the Community. Therefore the License asks to publish all changes concerning the porting to other operating systems for distributing purposes. All other changes or adaptations can, but do not necessarily need to be published. We would therefore ask you, what do you think is the right way to describe this issue in the License. We welcome any feedback and concrete proposals.

In addition we would ask you, if it makes any difference, if we prospectively would do not distinguish between the styles of interfaces. Accordingly, ANY changes of the program - regardless of whether the changes affect the Kernel or not - must be uploaded to a website. Although this would be a much stricter handling, in our opinion the requirement of the technological neutrality would be guaranteed. Do you think, this could be a way to resolve the problem concerning the technological neutrality?

2. Mandatory Upload on a website
Furthermore we ask ourselves, which provision of the OS-Definition is infringed by the mandatory upload of the changes of the Program, which is demanded by the NetX-Public License.  To our mind, the reference duties concerning any changes and modifications of the Program (in particular concerning the Kernel) according to § 4 clause 1 and 2 netX Public License do not infringe the Open Source Definition. According to # 4 Open Source Definition the License can request the documentation of changes and modifications to the Program in order to preserve the integrity of the author´s source code. 
Perhaps we can overcome your concerns, if the licensor engages himself to provide another suitable website, in case the website www.industrialNETworX goes away. 

3. Renaming of the License
Finally, we would like to follow the suggestion of Matthew Flaschen to rename the license in order to avoid confusion with other similar programs. Therefore we have the intention to rename the License to "industrialnetworx Public License"

We are looking forward to receiving your feedback and your reply. 
Yours faithfully, 

Christian Solmecke, LL.M.
Lawyer


-------------------------------
Christian Solmecke, LL.M.
Rechtsanwalt

WILDE BEUGER & SOLMECKE
Rechtsanwälte
Kaiser-Wilhelm-Ring 27-29
50672 Köln

Tel. +49 (0) 221 951563-45
Fax +49 (0) 221 951563-3

www.wbs-law.de 


-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: John Cowan [mailto:cowan at ccil.org] Im Auftrag von John Cowan
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 7. Oktober 2010 18:43
An: Wilson, Andrew
Cc: license-review at opensource.org; Schmitz, Patrice-Emmanuel
Betreff: Re: For Approval: The netX Public Lisense (in plain text)

Wilson, Andrew scripsit:

> Let's try a thought experiment.  I want to copy some BSD code into my 
> netX-licensed project.  The combined work presumably must be 
> netX-licensed since it is the more restrictive license. However, all 
> existing BSD disclaimers of liability must remain in place, and those 
> disclaimers (while they might not be enforceable in all jurisdictions) 
> are broader than netX's.  Conflict of licenses?

I don't see how.  Each licensor is disclaiming liability for his own code.
The fact that there is BSD-licensed code in the Windows TCP/IP stack doesn't mean that the BSD disclaimer controls Windows.

-- 
John Cowan              cowan at ccil.org          http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Historians aren't constantly confronted with people who carry on self-confidently about the rule against adultery in the sixth amendment to the Declamation of Independence, as written by Benjamin Hamilton. Computer scientists aren't always having to correct people who make bold assertions about the value of Objectivist Programming, as examplified in the HCNL entities stored in Relaxational Databases.  --Mark Liberman