Re: Idea for an alternative license

Roger Fujii wrote:

>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
>
I like this idea and the logistics of implementing it are not that 
complicated.  

Patches for category 1 would be just like any other "Open Source License"

For category 2 the time to release of source code could be a factor of 
how old the tree used is at the time of of the binary. For example if I 
create a commercial product based on a tree that is six months old when 
I start selling the binary, then the source code would have to be 
released six months later. Merging code from these releases would be a 
problem of course but if the innovation was significant then someone 
would go through the effort of creating a patch.  Wine went through this 
with Corel.  The method for releasing the source code is another 
question of course.

As far as I can see worring about patches from category three is next to 
pointless as the source code most likely will never be released.

I have no ideas as far as the legalities involved but I can't see them 
being much different from those for other copyleft licenses.

Just my 2 bits worth


Tony Lambregts