Brian M. Hunt (bmh@canada.com)
Fri, 21 Jan 2000 13:16:14 -0400 (AST)
> > > One concern as I read the license is that it requires the
> > > document to include the full license in its text, not provide
> > > just the reference paragraph and a pointer to the license. As
> >
> > This should be added as an option for ppl who don't want a license
> > longer than the document, ala GPL :
> I agree -- Any comments anyone?
This requirements are moving from a license agreement towards a statute.
Leaving this open to interpretation has led me to believe that what is
being desired here is not in fact a license for 'distribution of an entity
and the rights accompanying that entity', but rather a 'distinction under
which applicable law would protect said entity' in the same way as the
license does. Except under said distinction, distribution of license is
no longer required.
Somewhat like a mirror (as in anathema) of copyright laws. As in,
include:
Copyright (C) "year-year" "owner"
or
Registered Copyright (R) "year-year" "owner"
and you have the full power of copyright and registered copyright law,
respectively, at your side, should you choose to take advantage of them
(and you uphold the requirements of copyright law, as in defending your
copyright against "ubiquitity", I believe the word is).
I would speculate that this is what is desired here; the inclusion of
"necessary" information, such as a keyword/keysymbol, origin and perhaps
year. (That is largely speculative; I am unsure what information would be
appropriate, without further investigation.)
> > > How does one use such a license for a 1 page short
> > > document (or even a man page)? As I see it, one could
> > > either put it in the public domain, use a short alternate
> > > license, or just include the reference paragraph?
> > A short reference paragraph (cf GPL example)
> If the license is changed to add it as an option, right?
If the license changes, then you'd have to specify a revision (date,
generally) with the entity (doc, man page, image, etc.). If no revision
is given, then, if I recall correctly, the original specification is the
only one that would hold up in a court of law in cases of dispute where
revision is an issue.
> > > Richard, some guidelines for using this document,
> > > including pitfalls, what to watch out for, etc., would
> > > be nice. Some clear-cut examples of what is NOT allowed
> > > would also make it easier for non-attorneys.... Such
> > > a document would clearly be OUTSIDE of the license.
> > A commented reading ?
> That, examples, and common pitfalls (what NOT to do)
> would be most appreciated me thinks.
The question we must all ask ourselves is the particular situation in
which this will protect the freedom of evolution of an entity. (BTW, I
apologize for using entity so often, but it is the most general
appropriate term, just above a "work", depending on what the license
applies to. In most cases it applies to a "work", but work connotates an
author or set of authors, of which a particular entity may have many, or
none known, and the license should still apply.)
There are a distinct set of questions (this is not thorough):
1.) what does the license protect the author from and what does it provide
eg. liability, ownership, rights to changes
2.) what does the license protect the work from and what does it provide
eg. segregation, binary-only distribution, freedom to evolve
3.) what does the license provide to the end user
eg. freedom of: use, white-box/black-box study, change
4.) what rights are passed on
eg. the right to change the license!, the right to change the
functionality from that of the original author, etc.
There are more considerations, which I simply don't have time to go into
at the moment. Hope that proves interesting.
Regards,
Brian
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Fri Jan 21 2000 - 13:22:30 EST