request for approval of APOSSL

[Forrest J. Cavalier III]

[snip]
> 
> We seek to spread our ideas, meme like, through both non-commercial 
> and commercial channels.  We do not seek to restrict use of our 
> software by anyone, and for the most part our licence is bog-standard 
> OSS stuff, but we do have some weird demands on them should they do; 
> like a deal with Satan, only funny and positive not at all evil.
[snip]

"only funny and not evil" is matter of opinion.  

This is not a Free software license because clause 4 requires
promotion of derivatives.  I should be free to create a derivative
and keep it totally private, which is not allowed by clause 4.

I also think the OSI should not approve it. 

Your text explanation of the clause 4 and 5 is not going to be
part of the license.  Approval is based on what the license
says, not what you say it says.

In my interpretation, Clause 5 is a clear OSD conflict. "pronoic"
is not a word, it is (appears to be) a name.   Distinctions in
capitalization of "Pronoic" cannot be significant.  

Therefore, the phrase:

   Products derived from this software will always be "pronoic" 

can only have one interpretation: that "pronoic" is a name,
and that all derivatives must be named "pronoic."  

Then clause 5 goes on to say that "Pronoic" may not appear in
the name without prior written permission.  That's a conflict
with the OSD.

Your meme may be important to you, but I think you can
find better ways to propagate it than compelling behavior
with a license.

BTW, I am glad you looked through the archives.  (It would
be nice if everyone would follow that procedure before submitting.)
But the license-submission procedure appears on www.opensource.org,
and following it will streamline your submission.


--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3