[Fwd: Re: For Approval: The Azure License]

[Luis Villa]

It seems like it'd be terrific to require a statement of motive for
the license (and perhaps description of the community the license is
intended to serve?) as part of the license-review discussion. I admit
I'm disinclined to spend my own time reviewing a license unless the
author can communicate first why a new, different license is needed
(and indeed it would be better for them if they did this, since we'd
be well positioned to tell them if they meet that goal, or if there
are different/better ways to meet it.)

Luis

On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 7:31 PM, Bruce Perens<bruce at perens.com> wrote:
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject:        Re: For Approval: The Azure License
> Date:   Tue, 07 Jul 2009 16:27:29 -0700
> From:   Bruce Perens <bruce at perens.com>
> To:     Kenneth Ballenegger <seoxys at gmail.com>
> References:     <967A0676-A09B-49B4-89CE-6A5D0BF03053 at gmail.com>
>
>
>
>   The Azure License
>
>   Copyright (c) {year} {copyright holders,
>   including link}
>
>   Permission is hereby granted, free of charge
>
>   /, to
>   any person obtaining a copy of this software and
>   associated documentation files
>   (the "Software"),
>   /
>
> This makes it ambiguous whether or not a license exists if you haven't
> received the documentation files.
> I suggest you simply delete the part above.
>
>
>   to deal in the Software without restriction,
>   including without limitation the rights to
>   use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute,
>   sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software,
>   and to permit persons to whom the Software is
>   furnished to do so, subject to the following
>   conditions:
>
>   Attribution to the copyright holder(s), by name
>   and by hyperlink, /shall/ be given
>    in the about box, credits document and/or
>    documentation of any derivative work
>   using a substantial portion of the Software.
>
> This is unclear because you're writing in the indirect mode, which is almost
> always a bad idea./
> Who/ is it who will give attribution? It's the party that receives the
> license, but you never say so.
> Start this paragraph with *"You must"* and go from there.
>
>   The name of the copyright holder(s) may not be
>   used to endorse or promote produc ts derived
>   from the Software without specific prior written
>   permission.
>
> This will get by, but I prefer "You must not use the name" ...
>
>
>   The above copyright notice and this permission
>   notice shall be included in all c opies or
>   substantial portions of the Software.
>
>   THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT
>   WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLI ED,
>   INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES
>   OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
>   PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL
>   THE AUTHORS OR COPYR IGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR
>   ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN
>   AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING
>   FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WIT H THE SOFTWARE
>   OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
>
>   http://seoxys.com/azure-license/
>
>
>
>