[snip] > > We seek to spread our ideas, meme like, through both non-commercial > and commercial channels. We do not seek to restrict use of our > software by anyone, and for the most part our licence is bog-standard > OSS stuff, but we do have some weird demands on them should they do; > like a deal with Satan, only funny and positive not at all evil. [snip]
"only funny and not evil" is matter of opinion. This is not a Free software license because clause 4 requires promotion of derivatives. I should be free to create a derivative and keep it totally private, which is not allowed by clause 4. I also think the OSI should not approve it. Your text explanation of the clause 4 and 5 is not going to be part of the license. Approval is based on what the license says, not what you say it says. In my interpretation, Clause 5 is a clear OSD conflict. "pronoic" is not a word, it is (appears to be) a name. Distinctions in capitalization of "Pronoic" cannot be significant. Therefore, the phrase: Products derived from this software will always be "pronoic" can only have one interpretation: that "pronoic" is a name, and that all derivatives must be named "pronoic." Then clause 5 goes on to say that "Pronoic" may not appear in the name without prior written permission. That's a conflict with the OSD. Your meme may be important to you, but I think you can find better ways to propagate it than compelling behavior with a license. BTW, I am glad you looked through the archives. (It would be nice if everyone would follow that procedure before submitting.) But the license-submission procedure appears on www.opensource.org, and following it will streamline your submission. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3