On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 09:48:51AM -0700, justin bengtson wrote: > Definitions > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > 1. PROGRAM > This refers to the SOFTWARE and/or SOURCE CODE you may have received > with this license. released under this license
> 2. SOFTWARE > The compiled or runtime version of the PROGRAM. > > 3. SOURCE CODE > The preferred form of the PROGRAM used for modification. This is a cyclical definition. Replace PROGRAM with the definition (SOFTWARE|SOURCE CODE) and you start having a recursive definition. #1 and #3 need better definitions. > 4. DATA > Any information, files, or graphics required for usage of the PROGRAM that > were originally included with this license. graphics are files. Why not make it generic? Information or support files. > 5. DOCUMENTATION > Any operating instructions that were originally included with the PROGRAM. This is included in your definition of DATA. > > 6. You > Any and all licensees. Or users of PROGRAM (as stated later, users/copiers implicitly accept these terms). Also what is a licensee? > Unlike certain other software licenses, this license is not intended > to protect your freedom. It is intended to restrict your use of the PROGRAM. Is this really the purpose of the license? If so, why not just copy MS's EULA? I thought the real intention is to give credit where credit is due. Thus that should be stated, and you should analyze each part of the license to make sure it conforms and supports and exists solely to support that intention. > However, the world is not a perfect place. SOFTWARE and SOURCE CODE must be > protected if it is not to be taken advantage of. In the modern world, this is "these are" > refered to as "Intellectual Property Rights", something I do not believe in. These statements are contradictory. SOFTWARE and SOURCE CODE (Intellectual Property of the (C) holder). You wish to maintain credit for software. You are developing a license that gives a copyright holder the right to maintain that credit over his intellectual property. MS wants the right over their IP to revoke it from any user at any time, or to leverage supposed IP to restrict anyone else from doing anything even closely related to what their IP does. These are both IP rights, however they have different intentions. > I find it sad and reflective of human nature that we must set down terms of > sharing and usage for our work. If everyone could simply play nice and give > credit where credit is due, licenses such as this one would not exist. > Ultimately, human greed makes this neccesary. I would avoid putting your personal philosophy in the license. People may use your license because they like credit where credit is due, but disagree completely with the specifics of your personal philosophy. For instance, I disbelieve that you have seen enough of the world to really understand human nature. I suspect your experiences are limited to living in the American bubble. Whether this is right or wrong, good or bad, I won't say. I'm only pointing out that the above paragraph is based upon your experiences which may be vastly different from the users of this license. They will then have a corresponding vastly different understanding of human nature. Another instance, some people put IP in the public domain. We could argue that they are really the ones "playing nice" and sharing, while those selfish egotistical users of this license "need their props" (credit). > 1. DATA and DOCUMENTATION CLAUSE > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > DATA and DOCUMENTATION included with the PROGRAM are not the subject of this > license, but that does not prevent either from being distributed alongside the > PROGRAM under a different or non-existant license. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Note that you are forcing the user to have alternative licensed data. Perhaps they consider the graphics for their program as IP and want only to receive credit for it, but would otherwise want it redistributable. Finally, but most importantly, if you are serious about developing a license that will hold up in court to protect one's IP rights, you would have an IP-hip lawyer look at it. Otherwise, the lawyers of some potentially infriging company will take one look at the license, find a legal loophole and use the software to their hearts content. They may also use it regardless of a loophole, just to see if the copyright holder has enough financial resources to sue. Cory -- Cory Petkovsek Adapting Information Adaptable IT Consulting Technology to your (541) 914-8417 business [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.AdaptableIT.com _______________________________________________ EuG-LUG mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.efn.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/eug-lug
