Re: A new AL proposal

Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
>
>Ben Tilly wrote:
> > 4. The names of the contributers to this package may not be used to
> > endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific
> > prior written permission.
>
>Lawyers typically point out that this issue is not covered by copyright 
>law,
>and it isn't worth putting statements like this in licenses.  They are
>unenforceable through copyright law, and thus
>
I borrowed it from both the BSD and the GPL.  Even if it is
unenforcable, it is likely to discourage people from abusing
that.
>
> >                     Proffered Contract
> >               for Distribution, Modification
> >                    and Derivative Works
> >
> >                          Preamble
>
> > This contract is offered by the copyright holders for your convenience
>
>A copyright license is never a contract unless a person signs it, so it
>isn't good to call this a contract, and it may even invalidate the license
>(although I am not sure).
>
In the title I am not calling this a contract.  I am
calling this a "proffered contract" which means that this
is a possible contract that has "been offered for acceptance;
tender".  (Quoting from an online dictionary.)

The language in the preamble may need some cleaning up, but
unless there is a specific legal intention I truly mean to
have a copyright statement that contains the offer of a
contract which you may want to accept and follow.

The GPL does a similar thing, but the entire copyright
statement is the offer of a contract and the word contract
does not appear.
>
> > should you wish to modify or distribute a Standard Version or some
> > derivative of a Standard Version.
>
>
>
> >  You are under no obligation to accept it, however under Copyright law 
>you
> > will need permission to undertake the activities covered.
>
>This statement is ok; and it states what is true.  I think it's enough, and
>we don't need to say "contract".
>
I was trying to reword verbiage from the GPL and clear up the
structure.  I want it to be obvious that there is an offered
contract even to a layman (professional lawyers have had
trouble noticing that detail in the GPL) since that is key to
how it works.
>
> > 5) To distribute you must do at least ONE of the following:
>
>I would add an extra clause in 5:
>
>      e) Accompany your distribution with machine-readable source of the
>         Package with your modifications.  The modifications must be
>         presented in a way that is includable in the Original Version, and
>         you must include the full sources of the Original Version itself.
>
>         It is acceptable to either (1) include both the complete modified
>         sources of your modified version, as well as the full sources of 
>the
>         Original Version, both in electronically readable format or (2)
>         include your sources as electronic patches that can be 
>automatically
>         applied against the Original Version by some reasonable, 
>well-known,
>         automated method.

In that case clause b) should be cleaned up since that is what
b) is meant to do.  I additionally do want to insist that the
changes be publically maintained so that the developers can
readily obtain the changes in one place without having to
purchase a proprietary package.

> > 7) You may charge whatever you like for this Package, or the support of
> > this package.  Additionally you may aggregate this Package with other
> > packages of your choice.  However you may not advertise the Original
> > Version or any Standard Version as a product of your own.
>
>Again, this advertising clause is not really enforceable under copyright 
>law,
>so I don't see the point in having it.  This would be an issue for 
>trademark
>law.
>
This advertising clasue is part of a contract and under contract
law you most definitely *can* enforce it.  In fact if the
standard disclaimer in the initial part of the copyright is
unenforcable then it should be repeated in the contract which
is.
>
>With the addition of part e in section 5, I believe this is a free software
>license, incompatible with the GPL.  It's probably an open source license
>too.

I suspect that it is incompatible with the GPL when not used in
a dual-licensing situation with the GPL or a GPL-compatible
license.  As I stated before, compatibility with the GPL is not
something I consider important.

Looking through http://www.opensource.org/osd.html it very
definitely meets all 9 criteria.

>We'd need to run it by a lawyer to confirm that, though.

Definitely I think it needs examination by a lawyer.  Also key
is the need to verify that it really succeeds in being as aware
of dual-licensing as I intend it to be.  For instance would
something like my proposed statement that Larry Wall could
(after a specified period of public discussion with no remaining
objections from copyright holders) relicense Perl really fly?

Cheers,
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.