[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Help with the Bloom Public License

I would like to help Charles Bloom make the Bloom Public License (BPL)
DFSG compliant. It's available at: http://www.cbloom.com/bpl.txt

The version modified May 14, 2002 seems to have problems with it.

Item 2 asks that the distributor "MUST notify" "the recipient". I'm
guessing that a license file is not good enough? If so, is there a way to
make it mean that and still keep it DFSG compliant?

Item 5 states that "BPL code may not be sold in any form." If item 3A
(regarding GPL usage of the code) is clarified could item 5 be left?

Item 6 seems to be an advertising clause. I forget the history with
advertising clauses, but it at least seems undesirable.

Item 8 forbidding the sale of code and forbidding distribution fees looks
like it needs to be removed

Item 9 requiring the "author" to be "notified" about commercial use may be
a problem.

Item 10 is a no warranty clause. In some EULA's I see today, there's a
provision addressing the possibility of the need or an automatic warranty
in some jurisdictions. Is that kind of provision needed?
     Drew Daniels
PS: Please CC me.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:47:55 -0800
From: Charles Bloom <cbloom@cbloom.com>
To: Drew Scott Daniels <umdanie8@cc.UManitoba.CA>
Subject: Re: PPM, BPL...

At 04:40 PM 1/28/2003 -0600, you wrote:
>I've been following the PPM algorithm for a few years now. Of all the PPM
>algorithms I've looked at I believe PPMZ(2) to be one of the best. I would
>like to encourage it's use and development, but the BPL causes some
>problems and has some ambiguities. For one thing, the GPL allows for code
>to be sold and your license claims that it works with the GPL and says
>that your code cannot be sold.

Well, I was meaning to explicitly allow any use that's legal under GPL.
Personally, I think GPL is much too limitting because it requires users to
also use the GPL.  I'm trying to allow all GPL uses, plus some more.

>I'd like to see the BPL become compatible with the Debian Free Software
>Guidelines (DFSG) defined in
>If you're willing to have the source code and binaries for PPMZ2 become
>part of Debian, I can talk to the debian-legal about what the minimum
>license changes that would be required.
>If you don't want to make PPMZ2 DFSG compatible, then I'll be disappointed,
>but I'll understand.

It looks like DFSG requires users to make their code available (right?), so
I would be fine with that.

Charles Bloom    cbloom@cbloom.com    www.cbloom.com

Reply to: