Educational Community License question

[Jules]

Whoops, sorry forgot to ask one more question :)

After going through the ECL, i noticed an ambiguity in the language 
of the current License, specifically:

"Permission to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, and 
sublicense this Original Work and its documentation, with or without 
modification, for any purpose, and without fee or royalty to the 
copyright holder(s) is hereby granted, provided that you include the 
following on ALL copies of the Original Work or portions thereof, 
including modifications or derivatives, that you make:

The full text of the Educational Community License in a location 
viewable to users of the redistributed or derivative work. 

Any pre-existing intellectual property disclaimers, notices, or terms 
and conditions."  <----ambiguity here: this line read in the context 
of the "Permissions" para above doesn't require the user to do 
anything, e.g. "...,that you make:  Any pre-existing intellectual 
property disclaimers, notices, or terms and conditions." 
Huh? Make what? :) -->


Is it possible for the OSI Board or whoever is maintaining this 
license to amend this to:

""Permission to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, and 
sublicense this Original Work and its documentation, with or without 
modification, for any purpose, and without fee or royalty to the 
copyright holder(s) is hereby granted, provided that you include the 
following on ALL copies of the Original Work or portions thereof, 
including modifications or derivatives, that you make:

The full text of the Educational Community License in a location 
viewable to users of the redistributed or derivative work. 

Any pre-existing intellectual property disclaimers, notices, or terms 
and conditions IN A LOCATION VIEWABLE TO USERS OF THE REDISTRIBUTED 
OR DERIVATIVE WORK."  (additions in CAPS, words similar to previous 
paragraph)


Basically is it possible to add on the words found in the preceding 
paragraph to the next paragraph to make it more sensible & clear?   

Or do i have to submit an application for a new license with just the 
new words added?  (seems like a waste of everyone's time to me :) )

Thanks,
Julian


From:           	Russell Nelson <nelson at crynwr.com>
Date sent:      	Tue, 1 Nov 2005 10:52:46 -0500
To:             	license-discuss at opensource.org
Subject:        	Re: Educational Community License question

> Jules writes:
>  > I interpreted that line to mean only to what was printed
>  immediately > following, without any modification allowed. > I
>  thought the OSI intended to have the whole thing as listed in the >
>  webpage in as verbatim and any change would have rendered the license
>  > invalid and thus not capable of applying the OSI License
>  Mark/Graphic > on the documentation.  Looks like my assumption was
>  incorrect. :)
> 
> Your assumption is correct.  You cannot change a single word of a
> license without losing approval.
> 
> You claim copyright when you say "Copyright...".  You give up some of
> your copyright rights when you say "Licensed...".  You can give up the
> same or different rights if you say "Also Licensed...."  You should
> ALWAYS list all licenses that apply.  The ECL happens to require that
> you do so.  It's not a necessary term to have in a license, but
> obviously some lawyers like to state the obvious just in case it's not
> as obvious as one would obviously think.
> 
>  > So, I guess i can insert my customized notices between these two >
>  lines: > "Copyright (c) <year> <copyright holders>" > and > "Licensed
>  under the Educational Community License version 1.0" > and not be in
>  contravention to the OSI license, yes?
> 
> Yes, that is what you should do.
> 
>  > Can anyone from the Board or Management of the Open Source
>  Initiative > confirm this is indeed ok by the OSI? 
> 
> I'm not stating an official position that has been voted on by the OSI
> board even though I'm a member of the board.  I do think that I'm
> restating things on the OSI website that the board has already voted
> on.  I'm also giving legal advice even though I'm not a lawyer.  I can
> do that because ... I'm not a lawyer.  Lawyers can't ethically give
> legal advice to the public.  You are well advised to get legal advice
> from a lawyer, just as you should get programming advice from a
> programmer.  I don't know what you should get from a programming
> lawyer or a legal programmer.
> 
> -- 
> --my blog is at     blog.russnelson.com         | 
> Crynwr sells support for free software  | PGPok | There ought to be a
> law 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-323-1241       | against calling
> for more Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  |     Sheepdog          |
> regulations!
> 
> 


"Slavish adherence to tradition is a sign that one has nothing better 
else to think 
about."
- Natasha Kerensky