Simple Public License, Please Review

[Justin Wells]

On Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 11:38:34PM -0400, Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote:

> OK, I now understand what you are trying to do. I am concerned that these
> holes you want to knock in your copyleft may turn out to be extraordinarily
> large. A "consultant" or a "contractor" are terms with no legal significance
> in your license. Of course, it may be too burdensome to define the terms in
> your license. I recommend inserting a statement permitting individuals to
> seek a contractor or consultant license from you.

I can't name consultants or contractors directly anyway since that would
violate the OSD's rule about not discriminating against fields of 
endeavour. Instead I have to provide a license which is amenable to 
that kind of use without discriminating against anybody.

Currently it's written like this:

  You may create a derivative work based on our software by combining a 
  complete unmodified copy of our software, or a compiled version it, with 
  your own separate source materials. You may license the work directly to 
  third party end users. Subject to your license, recipients may use the 
  work on one or more computers, and may create backup copies of it, but may 
  not otherwise copy, distribute, lend, sublicense, or adapt it.

Though perhaps it can be narrowed even further. 

This clause has a lot in common with the LGPL, since to begin with
you must only be linking or including my software, not making
alterations to it. So it should be at least as strong as the LGPL. 

Where it goes further than the LGPL is in the limitations it imposes 
on you once you meet the exceptions criteria. The LGPL allows you to 
do pretty much anything at that point, whereas this license is still
fairly restrictive.

I am considering tightening up the exception criteria like this:

  third party end users with whom you have an existing business 
  relationship.

or some other similar language.


[ use of "unmodified" ]

> This is not clear. You cannot use a term in two distinct ways in the same
> contract. Courts may pick one of the emanings for you, if you face legal
> challenges to your license. I would stick with the meaning provided in
> section 2.

OK. I will rewrite the sections to use different phrasing. 

Justin