Re: Werken Public License

[Bruce Perens <bruce@va.debian.org>]

From: Tommi Virtanen <tv@debian.org>
> So, is anyone official willing to spend the few minutes
> to write an email to them, to warn them of misusing
> the Open Source trademark/whatever, or should I do it
> as a "concerned individual"? I am not be able to write
> it as nicely as some of you..

Whoever writes them should please forward my analysis, appended here.

	Thanks

	Bruce

> "You may not redistribute it with other software which is not free."

This is incompatible with the OSD:

	9. License Must Not Contaminate Other Software.

	The license must not place restrictions on other software that
	is distributed along with the licensed software. For example,
	the license must not insist that all other programs distributed
	on the same medium must be open-source software.

>      * We will continue to distribute bake in source form under the WPL.

I think this is meant to be a promise regarding future versions, but the
language is not specific enough that they could be held to it.

>      * We reserve the right to offer bake under additional different
>        licenses.

It's their right for any code they hold the copyright to, whatever license they
use, but what about modifications?

>      * Any changes or patches received and included will be covered under
>        the same licenses as bake itself.
        
Not quite the right language. Do they intend to have the right to issue
modifications under "additional different licenses"? If so, they need to say
it the way the NPL says it.

In addition, they should, if they can, use one of the existing licenses like
the GPL, the LGPL, the X11 license, the MPL, etc. rather than produce their
own. There are too many licenses that are incompatible with each other already,
producing yet another one doesn't really help free software.

	Thanks

	Bruce Perens
	Primary Author, Open Source Definition and DFSG