Re: [MaraDNS list] AlphaDNS...

Quoting Bradley D. Thornton ([email protected]):

> That was a good read, Rick.

Glad to help.

> at the risk of being flamed for going off-topic on Sam's list, I've
> got some points you might be able to address for me :)

We can't continue much on the topic, as this has nothing to do with
MaraDNS.  Also, I steer entirely away from licence advocacy, anyway:
Each coder is entitled to decide whatever terms he/she will use for
works, and logically that should be whatever terms best suit the coder's
needs.  My comments tend to be attempts to explain law and licence
mechanics, in cases where they are unclear.

> 1.) This was pretty much the nail in the coffin that turned my stomach
> (and thinking) around on the GPL: http://www.topology.org/linux/gpl.html

Licence advocacy.  ;->

> [...] it is simply the notion that the GPL v7 could effectively close
> source any and all GPL'd software that kept that little line, "or any
> later verion of the GPL" (paraphrased, of course.

That is actually not the case.  Think about the licence mechanics:  Any
attempt to introduce a restrictive v7 licence would immediately lead to
persistent (and dominant) forks under the earlier, less restrictive
version.  

> 3.) Here's what I'm leaning towards now, as I note that the original (4
> clause?) BSD licenses are not considered free by the FSF:

If you don't mind another mild correction, FSF never asserted any BSD
licence variant was non-free.  They asserted that the 'advbertising
clause' in the original U.C. Regents licence text produced long-term
practical effects they described as 'obnoxious'.  For example, all
commercial advertising literature for BSDi's BSD OS (if memory serves)
had to include a huge list in very small type of all contributor names.

[snip two modifications of Artistic License 1.0]

Hmm.  Larry's (Larry Wall's) Artistic License 1.0 had some very serious
legal problems on account of vague wording, leading (among other things) 
to adverse U.S. Court of Appeals decision Jacobsen v. Katzer.
Artistic License 2.0 fixed those problems.  



[things most important to you:]

> A.)	I want my name on it. no matter where the software ends up.

Retaining copyright notices (in the _source code_ of any redistribution or
derivative works) is a hard requirement of copyright law itself.  You
don't even need any particular licence for that.

On the other hand, if you also want to require that your name be
displayed at runtime, or in product advertising for any commercial
products based on the work, that's a different matter.  The latter was
what the 4-clause BSD licence's advertising clause required.  The
former?  Hmm, well some Web 2.0 firms have been using a class of
licences derisively described as 'badgeware' licensing, but wary
observers consider them a bit sleazy and problematic in various ways.
We shouldn't get into that.

[snip B, C, D, and E]

The major licence best suited for your requirements is probably Artistic
License 2.0.   http://www.perlfoundation.org/artistic_license_2_0

> Of course, I'm not going to call my license a "Modified Artistic
> License". I'll call it "The Bradley License", or "The Watson License"
> after my dad, or, "The Alveda License", after my mom.

Your decision, but, in general, adopting a one-off licence is usually a
bad idea for adoption of your software by other coders and possibly even
by users:  Between two codebases, one with a familiar and acceptable
licence and one with an unfamiliar licence, the former has inherent
appeal.

If you want to learn more about licensing, I can recommend this one by
OSI's founding chief counsel, Larry Rosen:
http://www.rosenlaw.com/oslbook.htm