Re: Idea for an alternative license

Matt Seitz <[email protected]> wrote:
> >From: Joerg Mayer ([email protected])
> >Date: Sun Feb 24 2002 - 05:38:27 EST
> 
> >On Sat, Feb 23, 2002 at 04:41:29PM -0800, Bob La Quey wrote:
> >> The CPL is a function of one variable Time. So we have CPL(T),
> >> where T is a period of time allowed before the source code MUST be revealed.
> >> CPL(T=0) = GPL
> >> CPL(T=infinity) = BSD.
> 
> >It fails to address the problems that are connected with code written under
> >NDA (like hw drivers and e.g. copyprotection). And how would you want to
> >make sure the source provided after 6-12 months matches the binary?
> 
> How about requiring the source to be distributed with the binary, and changing
> T from "time allowed before the source code MUST be revealed" to "time allowed
> before redistribution of the original and derived works is allowed"?  In other
> words, the license would require source code to accompany the object code.
> However, the license prohibits licensees from redistributing the source code,
> or distributing a work derived from the source code, for time T.  That would
> give the same assurance the GPL does regarding source availability, while still
> allowing the copyright holder a window during which only they are allowed to
> distribute the source or a work derived from the source.

Anything that requires the release of ALL the source will have some sort of problem
with NDAed material.  Having given this whole issue way too much thought, the
only scheme I think would work out is this:

A 3 part scheme, where
  Part 1:  All those that use "Current Source code" (code < 1 year old), must
           release code 'now' (time of release) (like the GPL)
  Part 2:  Those that use older code has a period of time (let's say a year)
           to release their code.  This puts some distance between the OS development
           and commercial development and gives the commercial guys some time to
recoup
           the investment. (like the MPL)
  Part 3:  After code is older than 2-3 years, it falls under a BSD license.  All
           those dealing with NDA must use this form.  


This allows you to pick what bin you fall into.  The only problem about this is that
it'll require a more nimble CVS as you want to minimize the problems that the 2
"trees"
might cause.  Not certain how bad this would be in actual practice.

-r