Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
>
>In general, I think this new license is bit more convoluted then it needs
>to
>be. I proposal generally the following measures. I am editing it up
>today,
>and I will post a version of my proposal tommorrow.
I am waiting for this before trying to draw up any proposals
for RFCs.
>First, in a couple of different places, it unnecessarily makes restatements
>of what is already true about copyright law anyway. For example, saying
>"distribution outside your company or organization" isn't actually
>necessary, and is in a way, problematic. First, "distribution" is already
>defined by copyright law, so we don't have to be that specific---copies
>made
>inside a single organization aren't distribution. Plus, what if it is an
>individual who is redistributing the software? We likely want to cover all
>different types of distribution.
Unnecessary, but meant for people who didn't know that about
copyright law. You will find a lot of that in the GPL if you
go looking as well.
>As another example, there is no need to say: "To redistribute, modify, or
>derive from the Package you must satisfy all copyright and license
>obligations on it." That's already true, by nature of the fact that's a
>copyrighted work.
Ditto, see above.
>Second, I think many of the goals can be reached with much simpler
>language. Chris' point is valid; non-lawyers should be able to read this
>license and be able to understand it.
My tendancy is to be verbose..I think having more people put
input would be a good thing.
>I will modify Ben's version, and will post my draft today or tommorrow
>morning.
>
I am looking forward to seeing it.
Ben
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.
