I believe this is off-topic for this list, in that an open-source license is not being presented for approval. I am making this information available for that subset of recipients here who find interest in overall efforts to create models / frameworks for open-source development and distribution. And I am interested in feedback from that community. I am happy to move further discussion to another list, and I'm willing to have discussions in private e-mail absent a more-public alternative. BACKGROUND I have been working to arrive at a model for open-source distribution and development for software and specifications that were initially developed by the AIIM Document Management Alliance, a trade-association, membership-based coalition (http://www.aiim.org/dma). Draft 0.03 of the model now being discussed is available for inspection and review at http://www.infonuovo.com/DMAware/dmaware003.htm. APPROACH TO DIFFERENTIATION I am bringing this to the attention of this list because of the differentiation among degrees of open-source license I am looking at: 1. Simple Open-Source Licenses, ones which do not require that derivative works be distributed under the same license (i.e., honor OSD 1.7 item 3 and let that be it except for any notice, acknowledgment, and separability requirements). 2. General Open-Source Licenses, ones which broadly require that derivative works be distributed under the same license (e.g., the GPL). 3. Open-Source Library/Component Licenses that limit the kinds of works that must be distributed under the same license, whether or not other works would be found to be derivative works under copyright law. (I put the LGLP in this category.) My general approach is to recommend acceptance of all Open-Source Certified works for the DMAware clearinghouse, but to encourage form #1, especially for the initial material to be "rolled-over" to open source from the work of the Document Management Alliance. I must confess that while form #3 is intriguing for me, I find it to be the most problematic. My measure of success here is that there be an easy practical statement for what constitutes a derivative subject to the requirement of distribution under the same license, so that users of libraries and components can easily and confidently avoid infringement, being free to make broad application of the library or component. Absent such clarity, I for one would rely on form #1 rather than a specimen license in category #3. The web page provides more rationale and puts this inside of a model for distribution, archiving, and development. -- Dennis ------------------ Dennis E. Hamilton InfoNuovo mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] tel. +1-206-779-9430 (gsm) fax. +1-425-793-0283 http://www.infonuovo.com
