[License-review] License submission for approval for Moritz30-Projects Open Source License Version 1

Carlo Piana carlo at piana.eu
Wed Jun 8 15:45:05 UTC 2016

Dear Matthias,

I think all appreciate your eagerness and good intentions. However, you
read as totally misguided to me, and I suggest you take the advice which
has very kindly given to you by Josh and Richard among others.

On 08/06/2016 17:19, Matthias Merkel wrote:
> 1. As far as I read doesn't the GPL require redistributors to link thw
> software's original homepage and what is more important it's source code.

*GPL licenses require to provide (or offer to provide) the complete
source code corresponding to the distributed, modified object code. So
does MPL.

As for linking the "original" homepage, I don't see the reason: the very
concept of "original" seems to lack meaning in the FOSS context. Usually
what is required is to preserve *reasonable* copyright attribution. To
preserve a link (where? in the interface) can be a limit to the
exploitation of the software and be against the OSD, as others have
pointed out. People would not be allowed to take snippets of code out of
the release just for a starter.

> 2. One goal of my license is to make a license that isn't to long and
> to complex.

You think you can do better than several hundred of the world best best
legal minds and copyright + copyleft experts working together to create
the likes of GPL and MPL, while achieving the same level of protection?
Does it occur to you that it might be a tad too optimistic and you might
be underestimating the effort it requires?

There is a well known trade-off between introducing copyleft and
complexity of the legal text. You cannot have both copyleft and very
simple and straightforward licenses. Copyleft means introducing
conditions and such conditions need to be clearly worded and hardened,
else they are very easily gamed; on the other hand, lack of clarity and
vagueness of terms of the license can scare people away from using the
software due to uncertainty as to their obligations. Despite common
sense, good lawyers don't like using many words when they can use less.

Simple and straightforward licenses are either non copyleft or gravely

All the best


>     ---- On Mi, 08 Jun 2016 15:38:27 +0200 *josh at postgresql.org *
>     wrote ----
>     Matthias,
>     So, first, you haven't shown that you have licensing needs which
>     are not
>     satisfied by existing licenses. It really seems like what you want is
>     the LGPL, or a similar license; why not just use that?
>     Using an existing license both means that you benefit from the legal
>     expertise of many other people, it also makes it easier for developers
>     and companies to use your code because they know what to expect from
>     that license. Even assuming that we accepted your license (which is
>     unlikely), it would be a barrier to adoption and contributions to your
>     software just because it would be strange and unexpected.
>     Second, you really need the help of a professional to write this; the
>     reason why real licenses are "wordy" is that certain language is
>     required for the licenses to be effective. Unfortunately, OSI does not
>     currently supply such help.
>     --Josh Berkus
>     _______________________________________________
>     License-review mailing list
>     License-review at opensource.org <mailto:License-review at opensource.org>
>     https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review
> _______________________________________________
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at opensource.org
> https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20160608/f1b07021/attachment.html>

More information about the License-review mailing list