Here's my (non-lawyer... I Am Not A Lawyer and This Is Not Legal Advice :-)) read:
- the disclaimer of copyright on the individual files is quite clear to me, as someone who is in the habit of reading free software licenses and determining whether they are compatible with my project. - I consider the license on the library to be similarly clear and have no heartburn about using it in any of my projects, regardless of how they are licensed. To my eye, it's compatible with any copyleft, commercial or free license I've ever personally cared to use. - I can see where the confusion originates. Consider the clauses of the license: "1. Any copy or modification of this compilation in any form, except in object code form as part of an application software, must include the above copyright notice and this license." and "3. Wei Dai makes no warranty or representation that the operation of the software in this compilation will be error-free, and Wei Dai is under no obligation to provide any services, by way of maintenance, update, or otherwise. THE SOFTWARE AND ANY DOCUMENTATION ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" WITHOUT EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTY INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. IN NO EVENT WILL WEI DAI OR ANY OTHER CONTRIBUTOR BE LIABLE FOR DIRECT, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. 4. Users will not use Wei Dai or any other contributor's name in any publicity or advertising, without prior written consent in each case." strike me as essentially equivalent to the terms of the standard liberal, non-copyleft BSD license. It might make them less ambiguous if you were to make the language identical to BSD, since that's been so widely analyzed and accepted by lawyers who do that for a living. "2. Users of this software agree that any modification or extension they provide to Wei Dai will be considered public domain and not copyrighted unless it includes an explicit copyright notice." Is not something that's commonly found in free software licenses, in my experience. Rather, it's the kind of thing that project maintainers require you to agree to as a condition of having your code accepted for inclusion into the upstream project. Assuming I've correctly assessed this, it might be clearer if it were moved from the license into a contributor's agreement. "5. Export of this software from the United States may require a specific license from the United States Government. It is the responsibility of any person or organization contemplating export to obtain such a license before exporting." This clause strikes me as useless. I do not see how its inclusion in the license changes anything; if you're subject to the requirements the clause mentions, you or your organization need to obtain that license before exporting your software regardless of any statement your license makes. I don't see how this is more meaningful by putting it in the license than by putting it in the manual. "6. Certain parts of this software may be protected by patents. It is the users' responsibility to obtain the appropriate licenses before using those parts." My understanding of this clause is identical to my understanding of clause 5, unless Wei Dei (or whomever he transfers copyright to) is attempting to retain patent protections for portions of crypto++. I don't see any way a license between Wei Dei and a recipient of his software can have any binding impact on the recipient's rights to any patents a third party might assert. This seems better placed in the manual than the license, to my (again, admittedly non-legal) eye. "If this compilation is used in object code form in an application software, acknowledgement of the author is not required but would be appreciated. The contribution of any useful modifications or extensions to Wei Dai is not required but would also be appreciated." This seems as well placed in the manual as the license. I don't see any condition of use here. So, for my totally non-authoritative but carefully considered TL;DR summary response to this question: > I thought my explanation on the website was pretty clear, but apparently > not. Can anyone suggest any changes to the text that might make it clearer? > I think the license would have a clearer but equivalent meaning if you placed the compilation under the standard 3-clause BSD license, made clause 2 a condition of accepting contributions into the library (separate from the license) and moved the rest to the front matter of the manual. All that should go to say I have never considered the license to be unclear (unless you contradict any of the points I've made above...) but I can see why some reviewers might be challenged by it. Geoff -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the "Crypto++ Users" Google Group. To unsubscribe, send an email to [email protected]. More information about Crypto++ and this group is available at http://www.cryptopp.com.
