On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 11:56:47 -0800 (PST) Walter Landry wrote: > "Clark C. Evans" <cce@clarkevans.com> wrote: > > Raoul, > > > > This looks like a non-symmetric copyleft-like attempt: > > > >> then you thereby grant Internet2, its contributors, and its members > > > > for that reason, I don't think it's free > > I am not so sure. It is not required to give them back the changes. > It is just the default. It seems like, if you modify a file, you > could add a copyright notice like > > Modifications Copyright (c) 2012, J. Random > see license.mit for terms > > then the modifications would be under the MIT license. Why? Just because the license states "without contemporaneously requiring end users to enter into a separate written license agreement for such enhancements"? I am under the impression that the actual possibility of publicly distributing enhancements under the Expat/MIT license will depend on how "requiring end users to enter into a separate written license agreement" is interpreted. Perhaps it could be interpreted as "forcing end users to sign an agreement written on dead-tree paper". If this is the case, then I *don't* think that just attaching a copyright notice for enhancements with the Expat/MIT permission notice would qualify as "requiring end users to enter into a separate written license agreement"... In summary, I don't like this bwctl license at all. It smells non-free, at least one clause looks like a lawyer-bomb, and it seeks to create a significantly asymmetrical relation between copyright holders and recipients... I would recommend trying to persuade upstream to switch to a well-known and widely-used Free Software license, such as the 3-clause BSD license: http://www.debian.org/misc/bsd.license -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt New GnuPG key, see the transition document! ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE
Attachment:
pgpMk3tCStJjc.pgp
Description: PGP signature