I apologize for my slow reply to the very sensible comments below. These all make sense to me, and I have discussed them with the other key members of the Panda3D team at Disney, and there is general agreement that these seem like reasonable suggestions (at least to the software developers). Unfortunately, the lawyer who originally helped draft the license has left the company, and it is taking some time to get a new Disney lawyer to adopt this project. As soon as we can get a lawyer to help us either change the license appropriately, or explain of why Disney would prefer not to, we will post again.
I appreciate your patience in this matter, and the detailed feedback the members of this list have provided. -Jesse Schell, Professor of Entertainment Technology www.etc.cmu.edu ----- Original Message Follows ----- Subject: Re: For Approval: Panda3D Public License Version 1.0 From: "Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 22:12:25 -0500 Although we are discussing the specific terms of a particular license, of course, my comments are not meant to constitute or substitute for legal advice. The Panda3D license makes a much better license template than the APSL; even in revised form, the APSL is wordy and less than clear at times. I think your lawyer did a good job. I think this license will warrant OSD approval; I have a couple suggestions, however. Clause 1 appears to be your mutual assent clause. Good. I would suggest, however, that the last sentence couple sentences be clearly written in the conjunctive or disjunctive (I suspect the drafter meant to use the disjunctive). Clause 6 (the treaded anti-advertising clause) is understandable, but is it really needed? If there is no implied or explicit right to use a Disney trademark or service mark anyway, why is the clause necessary? The anti-advertising clauses have been a source of discontent with free software folks, but I do not think the OSD strictly applies. (Minor point here) Clause 7 is informative, but it says nothing about the relations between licensor and licensee; hence, I am not sure it warrants the prominence of an entire clause of the body of the license. Clause 8 is unclear after the first sentence, which is probably all that is needed. Sublicensing? I feel obligated to mention that using approved OSI licenses as useful templates in drafting makes good sense, but as touchstones does not. Rod Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. Author: Open Source Software Law Best points of contact: Blog: http://opensource.cyberspaces.org e-mail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] voice:202-361-0797 fax:202-521-9317 -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3