<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 09/25/2012 10:19 PM, Bruce Perens
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:506211D0.9050608@perens.com" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 09/25/2012 12:59 PM, Hadrien
Grasland wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:50620D15.40703@yahoo.fr" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<br>
Pretty much, but not quite. For derivative works, I also want
that additional licensing terms on derivative works do not alter
the meaning of the original terms. This is why I think that the
"provided that the following conditions are met" formulation
from the Sleepycat license is so interesting : it seems to
guarantee exactly this.<br>
</blockquote>
This depends on "must be freely redistributable under reasonable
conditions", which you indicated your intent to remove. That's the
only part that controls the license conditions of derivative
works.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
How did it depend on that ? Said "reasonable conditions" were
actually not clarified any further in the original text. As such, in
my view, this part did not actually specify anything on the
conditions in which source code must be redistributed. Instead, it
introduced a legal loophole, allowing someone to impose arbitrary
requirements on source code redistribution, as long as he can think
of an explanation of what would make them "reasonable". And
considering that we're dealing with a subjective concept here, it
probably wouldn't be too hard. This is why I thought that it would
be best to get rid of this part altogether.<br>
<br>
<br>
Now, to get back to your point that without this sentence,
derivative works are not bound by the terms of the original work's
license, it seems to me that they should because they constitute a
modified form of the original work, which is explicitly protected by
the original wording :<br>
<br>
"Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
are met:"<br>
<br>
If, however, you think that whether a derivative work is the same as
a modified version of the original work is debatable (and it may
indeed be the case), then the wording should indeed be extended to
remove any ambiguity. This could be done, as an example, by
explicitly using the GPL's extremely broad notion of a derivative
work, which is that of a work based on the original work. In which
case the introductory sentence would become...<br>
<br>
"Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, of the licensed
work or a work based on it, are permitted provided that the
following conditions are met:"<br>
<br>
Would you agree that this version should work as I expect it to ?<br>
</body>
</html>