Re: License Approval Process
> >The only other reason I can think of to get OSI approval for your >license is for advertising purposes. In that case, I guess you'll >just have to wait until somebody from the OSI speaks up. I'm no >expert, but, personally, I don't think it's worth the trouble. So you >can't put ``open source'' on your ads. Just say ``source code >available'' instead. Big deal. > >Ian > I'm not certain this is the case. I recall something a few months ago suggesting the application for a trademark on open source was rejected. Can anyone confirm this? If so it would certainly explain the lack of certifications. Rob
Re: Get ready....
There is distinction between the copyright of the license and the linkage between the license and a piece of intellectual property. Most licenses say something to the effect that in order to use the IP protected you must accept the terms of the license without modification. This term protects the IP from modification of the license terms. If I were to take a license that is copyrighted by Microsoft, and modify all instances of Microsoft to my company, my company could be sued by MS for copyright infringement. So far, this is a trivial point, particularly since license 'borrowing' is epidemic in the commercial software industry. But how will you feel after spending 10s of hours or more reviewing and tweaking a license to see it published with a copyright mycompany hung on the end of it? Rob Edgeworth Center for Precision Metrology University of NC at Charlotte -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Wednesday, April 14, 1999 4:14 PM Subject: Re: Get ready >From: "Rob Edgeworth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> I think it is important to establish right off the bat that any open source >> license is public domain (or better yet GPL'd). > >Of course you must prohibit modification of the instance of a license that >is actually used to protect someone's copyright, or it isn't of any use in >protecting the copyright. It's OK for a _prototype_ license to be modified, >though, and then instantiated as a real software license that can not be >further modified. Whether this is allowed or not is up to the license >author. > >I doubt this does anything positive for us, though. It sounds as if it would >only encourage the proliferation of more license variations. > >Note that the GPL isn't under the GPL. I don't really have a problem with >that, because I think most modifications of the GPL would diminish it. > > Thanks > > Bruce >
Re: Get ready....
I would agree with Mark on all points. An important consequence of the reuse of license concept is the need for the licenses themselves to be without encumbrances. I think it is important to establish right off the bat that any open source license is public domain (or better yet GPL'd). Otherwise we may see the day that Company A gets an injunction against publication of Organization B's software because some of the license was cribbed from Company A. Rob Edgeworth Center for Precision Metrology University of NC at Charlotte -Original Message- From: Mark Rafn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Wednesday, April 14, 1999 3:39 PM Subject: Re: Get ready >> At 06:41 PM 4/14/99 +, Russell Nelson wrote: >> >As is right, fitting and proper, they are going to anonymize the >> >license. I've requested that it be rendered in postscript form (as >> >opposed to some grotty proprietary word processing format), so if you >> >can't render postscript (using ghostview or gv), work on it. > >On Wed, 14 Apr 1999, Derek J. Balling wrote: >> Not to pick nits, but why not request it in HTML format? Something every >> platform out there can use with minimal effort. > >May I recommend ASCII text (in addition to whatever other formats you >like)? It's almost certainly going to end up as a textfile called LICENSE >in the distribution anyway. More importatly, it allows easy listing of >changes between various versions of the license. > >On an unrelated note, I assume their lawyers generated this license from >scratch. Why not use the open-source model for licenses as well? Take a >well-liked license (I'd recommend Perl's Artistic License, but there are >many others) and change what you must in order to fit your specific >requirements. > >Publishing diffs off of an already-reviewed license would make it much >easier to give feedback, and would allow people to concentrate on >intentional changes in the contract rather than having to nitpick every >single paragraph. Also, it would encourage others to use this approach >when _they_ want to give something to the community, and we can eventually >spend less time bickering about license-of-the-week and more time creating >and using the software. > >I'm of the opinion that license interoperability among different packages >is nearly as important as technical interoperabity. One way to achieve >this is to standardize licenses like we [try to] standardize protocols. >-- >Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]<http://www.halcyon.com/dagon/> !G > >
