Simple Public License, draft

[bruce at perens.com]

From: Justin Wells <jread at semiotek.com>
> The current version of my software is out under the GPL, but since
> there are now some competing products under less restrictive
> licenses, I feel pressured to loosen up my licensing as well.

Do you really have someone pressuring you, or is this some internal pressure?
I'd like to hear more about what factors (including other available software
and its licenses) brought you to this point.

I am not convinced that this is an improvement over other licenses available
to you, particularly the LGPL. First, it has some clear problems with OSD
conformance - making me question whether it is in truth less restrictive than
the GPL. Second, by creating another license, you add to the general confusion
about licenses because there's one more license for programmers to read and
deal with. Thus, it's important that there be a strong justification for every
new license. 

I'm also inclined to discourage non-attorneys to produce licenses this
complex without the advice of an attorney, as you may be leaving lots of
room for interpretation and problems with enforcement that can come back
and bite us later.

>   Finally, you agree not to use our software to create a competing
>   product, meaning one which includes some part of our software, and
>   which has, at least in part, a similar purpose.

Sorry, this clause isn't compliant with the Open Source Definition. It's a
restriction on both use and distribution. I don't think you can prohibit
forks without breaking the OSD, _but_ you can assure yourself of getting
access to any good software that is in the fork so that you can put it
in your own source thread.

>     b) You will first send a source-code copy of your modifications
>        to us, in a convenient electronic form.

This clause has been rejected in several other licenses, including Apple's
and IBM's. The problem is that distribution creators like Debian would have
to track down licensees and send modifications before every little change in
a beta release, etc., really after every edit they make, creating an odious
administrative load on their projects. In addition, modifications that you
get that way tend not to be useful to you because of the volume and lack of
coherence in what you are sent.

In the case of those licenses, Apple an IBM decided to allow developers to
give them a URL, _once_, where all of their modifications could be found.
This reduces the administrative load considerably and I suggest that you copy
the language from those licenses.

>   These obligations do not apply to copies of software that you place
>   under the GNU General Public License, version 2, as published by
>   the Free Software Foundation ("GNU GPL").

You should add "or any later version" after "version 2" here.

	Thanks

	Bruce