Mark Rafn wrote: [ ... ]
I understand the motivation for 2d, but I do not believe it is compatible with an open-source license. I should not have to give you the right to sell my work as a condition of modifying the software.
Authors have a range of expectations, some of which conflict with the interests and freedoms that some users might want. The RPI SCOREC wants people making changes to cede ownership of those changes back to RPI.
The intent of my proposed license (ENRL) is based on an expectation that other people should ask the author before reselling the software (for a fixed period of time, which expires). I think that specific, targetted prohibitions are less onerous than proactive expectations-- "don't do this" versus "I expect you to do that".
Also, the proposed license does not have a copyright statement or date, although it seems that most licenses follow the block format of:
1 Copyright - title of license - date - author/owner name - specify jurisdiction
2 License
- introduction of parties
- identification of materials under the scope of the license
- set of fairly common clauses
= terms from BSD license, MIT, GPL, others
- [optional] philosophical meta-rambling about why the license exists3 Disclaimer
- no warranty, we aren't obligated to fix it or recompense you for lost
resources, "If this code breaks, you get to keep both pieces", etc
- don't sue us if the code doesn't work, even if you really want to
- no really, we're not liable no matter what term you apply before "damages"4 Miscellanea
- termination clauses, "even if one part gets struck down, the rest of
the license should still apply", trademark listings, etc
- regional clauses like the following from the APSL:"Where You are located in the province of Quebec, Canada, the following clause applies: The parties hereby confirm that they have requested that this License and all related documents be drafted in English. Les parties ont exig� que le pr�sent contrat et tous les documents connexes soient r�dig�s en anglais."
...and everything else that seems to extend the length of these documents. Is there a good taxonomy of commonly duplicated license terms-- the section marked "=" above...?
-- -Chuck
-- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
