Simplified Artistic License
Robert Samuel White
webmaster at enetwizard.net
Fri Oct 4 16:07:32 UTC 2002
I just thought of a scenario that maybe my license doesn't address well,
as I think you were trying to point out, Nathan...
I actually did not even think of this possibility till just now...
My biggest concern is that people who use my software leave the comments
at the top of the file alone and properly document the changes that they
make. If they create a derivative work, I didn't consider that they
would be "stuck" with my license if I want that derivative work to also
address my two biggest concerns. I guess I just thought that my license
was simple to comply with and I did not consider that the other licenses
do not make the same conditions that are important to me.
This is a very serious issue that I did not think to address...
And I'm not sure how to address it...
I'm gonna have to think about it.
From: Nathan Kelley [mailto:phyax at runbox.com]
Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 9:46 AM
To: OSI License Discussion
Cc: Robert Samuel White
Subject: Re: Simplified Artistic License
To OSI License Discussion subscribers and Robert Samuel White,
I have read the Simplified Artistic License. Robert, it mostly complies
with the OSD, although I would look into three additional, minor points:
(1) The license should define "Derived" in the Definitions.
(2) The license should indicate that derivatives can be distributed
under the same terms as this original license (to clarify the license
against Item 3 of the Definition).
(3) The license should require that, when doing binary distributions,
referencing how/where to get the source code in addition to the fact
that changes have been made and by whom (to clarify against Item 2 of
Once those items have been cleared up, I would be willing to call it
OSD-compliant (even if it did not become certified).
Also, in response to the following discussion...
>> From: Robert Samuel White <webmaster at enetwizard.net>,
> From: David Johnson <david at usermode.org>,
>> - You may not charge any fees for the Package itself. However, you
>> distribute this Package in aggregate with other (possibly commercial)
>> programs as part of a larger (possibly commercial) software
>> provided that you do not advertise this Package as a product of your
> This has been commented on before, but I'm bringing it up again. The
> "no fees"
> clause in the AL is a no-op, is because it allows charging of fees for
> distribution and media. Your license does not. In the real world we
> live in,
> charging for the package itself is equivalent to charging a license
> fee, so
> it's not a huge deal that the AL denies it. But without the ability to
> for media or distribution services, your clause does indeed violate
> the OSD
> because it becomes impossible to sell the software without first
> it with other software. (I'm hoping my wording makes sense to others
David, note Item 1 of the Definition:
"1. Free Redistribution
The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away
the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution
containing programs from several different sources. The license shall
not require a royalty or other fee for such sale."
Regardless of how we interpret this item, what it _actually_ says is
that you can't stop anyone from aggregating the software with other
packages and then selling the medium on which those packages are
aggregated for a profit; it does not cover at all the selling the
software when it has not been aggregated. So in this context, Robert's
license actually conforms to the OSD.
Now, if the intent of the OSD was to say that you can't restrict anyone
from selling or giving away the package, regardless of the
circumstances, then the OSD needs to be changed, because that is
definitely _not_ what it says right now.
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
More information about the License-discuss