<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"><html><head><meta content="text/html;charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type"></head><body >Link to the updated license: http://paste.moritz30.de/view/raw/72d5911b
<div id="message"></div>
<br id="br3">
<div id="signature"></div>
<div id="content"><blockquote><br> ---- On Mi, 08 Jun 2016 18:21:08 +0200 <b> moritz30@moritz30.de </b> wrote ----<br><br><meta><div>"As for linking the "original" homepage, I don't see the reason: the very concept of "original" seems to lack meaning in the FOSS context."<br>-<br>The reason for that is to ensure an other way for users who maybe don't want to download the software through a specific platform and to prevent claiming an unmodified version as own work.<br>As I see "original" is misunderstandable. I'll define the meaning in an update I'll make later today.<br><br>"To preserve a link (where? in the interface) can be a limit to the exploitation of the software and be against the OSD, as others have pointed out. People would not be allowed to take snippets of code out of the release just for a starter."<br>-<br>A link is only required for completely unmodified and complete versions. As soon as you just take a snippet of code you will no longer have to place a link anywhere. Also the link just have to be on the download page where the redistributor allows downloading the software. This will also be defined in the update I'll do today.<br><br>"There is a well known trade-off between introducing copyleft and complexity of the legal text. You cannot have both copyleft and very simple and straightforward licenses. Copyleft means introducing conditions and such conditions need to be clearly worded and hardened, else they are very easily gamed; on the other hand, lack of clarity and vagueness of terms of the license can scare people away from using the software due to uncertainty as to their obligations. Despite common sense, good lawyers don't like using many words when they can use less."<br>-<br>The only thing of copyleft in the license is<br>"Redistribution of modified versions is allowed as long as the binary files (if available) AND the source code are published under this license."<br>what is stated clearly and not misunderstandable for me. <div></div> <br> <div></div> <div><blockquote><br> ---- On Mi, 08 Jun 2016 17:45:05 +0200 <b> <a href="mailto:carlo@piana.eu" target="_blank">carlo@piana.eu</a> </b> wrote ----<br><br><meta> <div> <div>Dear Matthias, <br> <br> I think all appreciate your eagerness and good intentions. However, you read as totally misguided to me, and I suggest you take the advice which has very kindly given to you by Josh and Richard among others.<br> <br> On 08/06/2016 17:19, Matthias Merkel wrote:<br> </div> <blockquote> <meta> 1. As far as I read doesn't the GPL require redistributors to link thw software's original homepage and what is more important it's source code.<br> </blockquote> <br> *GPL licenses require to provide (or offer to provide) the complete source code corresponding to the distributed, modified object code. So does MPL.<br> <br> As for linking the "original" homepage, I don't see the reason: the very concept of "original" seems to lack meaning in the FOSS context. Usually what is required is to preserve *reasonable* copyright attribution. To preserve a link (where? in the interface) can be a limit to the exploitation of the software and be against the OSD, as others have pointed out. People would not be allowed to take snippets of code out of the release just for a starter.<br> <br> <blockquote>2. One goal of my license is to make a license that isn't to long and to complex. <br> </blockquote> <br> You think you can do better than several hundred of the world best best legal minds and copyright + copyleft experts working together to create the likes of GPL and MPL, while achieving the same level of protection? Does it occur to you that it might be a tad too optimistic and you might be underestimating the effort it requires?<br> <br> There is a well known trade-off between introducing copyleft and complexity of the legal text. You cannot have both copyleft and very simple and straightforward licenses. Copyleft means introducing conditions and such conditions need to be clearly worded and hardened, else they are very easily gamed; on the other hand, lack of clarity and vagueness of terms of the license can scare people away from using the software due to uncertainty as to their obligations. Despite common sense, good lawyers don't like using many words when they can use less.<br> <br> Simple and straightforward licenses are either non copyleft or gravely defective. <br> <br> All the best<br> <br> Carlo<br> <br> <br> <br> <blockquote> <div> <blockquote> ---- On Mi, 08 Jun 2016 15:38:27 +0200 <b> <a href="mailto:josh@postgresql.org" target="_blank">josh@postgresql.org</a> </b> wrote ----<br> <br> <div>Matthias,<br> <br> So, first, you haven't shown that you have licensing needs which are not<br> satisfied by existing licenses. It really seems like what you want is<br> the LGPL, or a similar license; why not just use that?<br> <br> Using an existing license both means that you benefit from the legal<br> expertise of many other people, it also makes it easier for developers<br> and companies to use your code because they know what to expect from<br> that license. Even assuming that we accepted your license (which is<br> unlikely), it would be a barrier to adoption and contributions to your<br> software just because it would be strange and unexpected.<br> <br> Second, you really need the help of a professional to write this; the<br> reason why real licenses are "wordy" is that certain language is<br> required for the licenses to be effective. Unfortunately, OSI does not<br> currently supply such help.<br> <br> --Josh Berkus<br> _______________________________________________<br> License-review mailing list<br> <a href="mailto:License-review@opensource.org" target="_blank">License-review@opensource.org</a><br> <a href="https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review" target="_blank">https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review</a><br> </div> </blockquote> </div> <br> <fieldset></fieldset> <br> <pre>_______________________________________________
License-review mailing list
<a href="mailto:License-review@opensource.org" target="_blank">License-review@opensource.org</a>
<a href="https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review" target="_blank">https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review</a>
</pre> </blockquote> <br> _______________________________________________<br>License-review mailing list<br><a href="mailto:License-review@opensource.org" target="_blank">License-review@opensource.org</a><br><a href="https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review" target="_blank">https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review</a><br></div></blockquote></div>_______________________________________________<br>License-review mailing list<br><a href="mailto:License-review@opensource.org" target="_blank">License-review@opensource.org</a><br><a href="https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review" target="_blank">https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review</a><br></div></blockquote></div></body></html>