Andrew Donnellan <ajdlinux@gmail.com> asked:
On 9/13/07, Laurent Chretienneau <lchretienneau@openproj.org> wrote:
* License : (CPAL)
Seems like another MPL-based license. Any volunteers for reviewing it?
(I don't have time atm.)
Differences from the MPL, found with a wdiff:
3.6 Distribution of Executable Versions.
[...] If You distribute the Executable version under a different
license You must make it absolutely clear that any terms which differ
from this License are offered by You alone, not by the Initial
Developer, Original Developer or any Contributor. You hereby agree to
indemnify the Initial Developer, Original Developer and every
Contributor for any liability incurred by the Initial Developer,
Original Developer or such Contributor as a result of any such terms
You offer.
The term Original Developer is added here, but isn't in the Definitions.
Who is the Original Developer if not the Initial Developer? (see also
under clause 14 below.)
I don't think this is a problem in this case, but it seems worth noting
the confusion and possible non-copyright-holder enforcement capability.
6.1 New Versions. [...]
6.2 Effect of New Versions.
6.3 Derivative Works.
Socialtext replaces Netscape and CPAL replaces MPL in these. OK.
7. DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTY.
8. TERMINATION.
9. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY.
12. RESPONSIBILITY FOR CLAIMS.
The undefined term Original Developer is added again in these. OK.
13. MULTIPLE-LICENSED CODE.
CPAL replaces NPL here - NPL isn't MPL, so is this an editing error?
Now to the additional terms:
14. ADDITIONAL TERM: ATTRIBUTION
(a) As a modest attribution to the organizer of the development of the
Original Code ("Original Developer"), in the hope that its promotional
value may help justify the time, money and effort invested in writing
the Original Code, the Original Developer may include in Exhibit B
("Attribution Information") a requirement that each time an Executable
and Source Code or a Larger Work is launched or initially run (which
includes initiating a session), a prominent display of the Original
Developer's Attribution Information (as defined below) must occur on
the graphic user interface employed by the end user to access such
Covered Code (which may include display on a splash screen), if any.
Is this a requirement to display a splash screen?
Here the term Original Developer is specified as "the organizer of the
development of the Original Code" which sounds to me like it could be
the sponsor or project host, rather than the Initial Developer. Does
anyone know whether "organizer" has a non-obvious legal meaning?
The size of the graphic image should be consistent with the size of
the other elements of the Attribution Information. If the access by
the end user to the Executable and Source Code does not create a
graphic user interface for access to the Covered Code, this obligation
shall not apply. If the Original Code displays such Attribution
Information in a particular form (such as in the form of a splash
screen, notice at login, an "about" display, or dedicated attribution
area on user interface screens), continued use of such form for that
Attribution Information is one way of meeting this requirement for
notice.
(b) Attribution information may only include a copyright notice, a
brief phrase, graphic image and a URL ("Attribution Information") and
is subject to the Attribution Limits as defined below. [...snip!]
Despite the naming, I think this is a forced advert.
15. ADDITIONAL TERM: NETWORK USE.
The term "External Deployment" means the use, distribution, or
communication of the Original Code or Modifications in any way such
that the Original Code or Modifications may be used by anyone other
than You, whether those works are distributed or communicated to those
persons or made available as an application intended for use over a
network. As an express condition for the grants of license hereunder,
You must treat any External Deployment by You of the Original Code or
Modifications as a distribution under section 3.1 and make Source Code
available under Section 3.2.
I think this is essentially an Affero-like clause, but I don't think it
actually succeeds in requiring Source Code is made available to all
over-the-network users, as one can just put it on the 'same media' even
if that isn't entirely network-accessible. So, maybe not a problem.
EXHIBIT A. Common Public Attribution License Version 1.0. [...]
Seems similar to the MPL one, but my wdiff is a bit poor by this point
because of the amount of extra text in the ADDITIONAL CLAUSES.
So, in conclusion, I think this is unacceptable if the EXHIBIT B
ad-ware clause is used in bad ways and I'm worried by the new Original
Developer term.
Hope that helps,