Request For Approval: Iggy Wanna Licence

[Brendan Scott]

Dear Mr Perens

Thank you for the comments on the Iggy Wanna Licence (IWL) you have made in the following two posts:  
http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?17:mss:236:mnoaiekgfckojngkngna
http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?17:mss:237:200805:mnoaiekgfckojngkngna

In response to your query, Open Kernel Labs (OKL) is making a serious request for approval.  

You have raised an issue in respect of paragraph 1(c)(ii).  The relevant wording from the SleepyCat License is:
 
"Redistributions in any form must be accompanied by information on how to obtain complete source code for the DB software and any accompanying software that uses the DB software."

The corresponding wording in the IWL is:
"Redistributions in any form must be accompanied by information on how to obtain complete source code for:  (i) the Software; and (ii) all accompanying software that uses (or is intended to use) the Software whether directly or indirectly."  

The relevant difference is between:
(a) "any accompanying software that uses the DB software"; and
(b) "all accompanying software that uses (or is intended to use) the Software whether directly or indirectly."

OKL's intention was that redistributors should not be able to avoid the licence by interposing an interface layer.  Arguably, the GPL has a similar action in this respect.[1]   While it is the intention of OKL to use the licence for its kernel that should not affect whether or not the licence is OSD-compliant. 

In respect of your argument about browsers accessing a web server.  OKL does not believe that those browsers would be caught by the licence terms because the clause applies to "accompanying software" in the context of a redistribution.  In the example given the browsers would not be "accompanying software".  If they were caught, it is not clear why a violation of OSD#6 (No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor) would follow.  

You have commented on the rights of use under copyright law.  OKL does not intend that the licence be tied to the copyright law of a specific jurisdiction (eg US).


Brendan 


[1] As evidenced by Mr Torvald's "user programs that use kernel services by normal system calls" clarification in the Linux kernel's COPYING files.  See also the FSF's interpretation of "derivative work" under the GPL.