>If I don't get any more feedback on the charter and license
>before Friday, they will become version 1.0, so speak now
>or forever hold your peace!
you forced me to do it... look at the MiscKit license! :-)
I have a variety of comments. If I am too late in the process, or somehow going against the grain of the MiscKit purpose, just let me know. I am sending this e-mail only to avoid opening a can of worms unnecessarily.
As you know, I did not become a member of the MiscKit mailing list until a few weeks ago. I may have missed some definitive discussions about these topics. Nevertheless, here's my 2 cents.
My comments fall into four categories: typos and diction, possible simplification, less restriction, and more restriction.
1. Typos and diction:
I noticed two typos, "conatining" should be "containing", and "peice" should be "piece". On diction, the term "Indian Giver" is very derogatory (and unfair, I believe) to the American Indian community. Perhaps, its usage could be avoided (and see #2, just below).
2. Possible Simplification:
Re: 5bcd
I think the license could be simplified somewhat by adopting the dual copyright approach to submissions. As I understand it, when someone submits <something> to the public domain, two identical "version"s of that <something> now exist, one with the original copyright holder's copyright and one in the public domain. Typically, the original is moribund and the PD version takes over. However, in theory (and in some practical cases, e.g., JOVE or Josh's Own Version of Emacs), the original author retains a copyrighted version of the material to do with whatever s/he would like. This dualism avoids any confusion of excluding one party or the other from having "the" official copyright.
In the case of MiscKit, a copyright would be donated by the author to MiscKit. Both the author and MiscKit would then have copyrighted versions of identical material for their own purposes. In this way, the backpedaling ("Indian Giver") problem is avoided. For example, when I submit an article to NeXT Review, they get certain copyright (i.e., exclusive publication rights for some number of months, and the copyright to reprint), but I retain all my original copyrights (excepting any violation of their temporary exclusive publishing privilege).
I believe the license could be simplified by adopting this dual copyright model. For instance, the support issue by author could be dropped (it has no bearing on MiscKit's copyright). Also, the whole issue of backpedaling could be dropped, except perhaps to mention that the author loses any right over the MiscKit copyright, even if s/he had a change of heart and wanted to reclaim it. In this case, the author would still retain the original copyright to do with whatever s/he wished, but would have lost ownership and control over the MiscKit copyright'ed version.
3. Less Restriction:
I may have missed important stuff on this topic, but these are my tastes, for what it's worth...
Re: 3a
Is the administrator's permission requirement really desirable? The problems I see:
It's a hassle (no matter how seemingly minor) for all involved and adds a "big brother" feel to the license.
If the reason really is "to make sure that the latest version of the MiscKit is being distributed", then perhaps *that* should be term 3a instead. (Also, see just below.)
Re: 3a: "latest version being distributed"
Is this 'restriction' really desirable? I can imagine (especially with GNU stuff) *choosing* to distribute an older version for compatibility, robustness, confidence, patch-stability reasons. Older versions are not necessarily worse than later versions.
Re: 3bc
Again, are these restrictions on media format necessary and desirable? Distributors and users probably deserve the credit of the doubt to choose themselves. Also, if someone violates these restrictions, is this really a battle MiscKit administrators and owners would care to fight to the finish? Removing these restrictions could simplify the license, increase karma (what's this guy talking about anyway :-), and avoid sour grapes, so to speak.
Also, the license could then avoid arbitrarily defining what constitutes "mass media" today, when technology is changing very rapidly. Arbitrary definitions have short, unpleasant lives in these cases. (Otherwise, we could go bureaucratic and define a "Consumer Storage Index (CSI)" and relate the "mass storage" to the yearly increase in the CSI! :-) Frankly, I think such arbitrary stuff is best left to Congress (I hope no Congress-people are on this list :-).
Re: 2
I would prefer partial kit distribution be allowed. This restriction is purportedly due to section 6, "collection copyright", but, the way I read the license, would really be due to sections 5bcd (though I don't see the explicit connection). (I.e., having a collection copyright (section 6) does not restrict you from creating yet other collections, even partial ones.) Smaller objects should still be distributed with the MiscKit license and under the MiscKit terms, though.
4. More Restriction:
Re: 2
Perhaps this 'marking' could simply be a requirement to include the MiscKit License Agreement with any and all distributions. This is the approach GNU takes. This approach would ensure the 'marking' were comprehensive and not just superficial.
Re: 9
Perhaps any changes to the license should be restricted in some way to maintain the community "free"dom to use. Otherwise, the MiscKit license could go proprietary without warning! (I know, it couldn't happen... but truth is often stranger than fiction, heh? 1/2 :-) For example, if MiscKit came under exorbitantly expensive legal fire from some *EVIL* entity (e.g., Microsoft(tm) :-), the rights to the MiscKit could be lost without recourse. The *EVIL* entity would now *own* the MiscKit and could change the license. Why tempt fate? (:-)
Also, this safety restriction could avoid contributors having second thoughts about contributing to a library which has an uncertain future. GNU takes this approach, and I think it's a wise one (even though the GNU license is too restrictive for my tastes).
<<< Depressing mode on :-( >>>
(Hmm, I guess this issue is related to the dual copyright approach which I recommend above. Otherwise, the authors would also get sued by *EVIL* entity and would lose rights that way (since MiscKit never really owned any individual copyrights anyhow.) As long as Congress does not eradicate the "legal" (counterproductive, illegitimate) morass of software patents, hostile lawsuits must not be taken for granted. (Actually, I'm not sure anything could avoid disaster in the face of a lawsuit, but (I think) it's worth the words to avoid the possibility if at all possible.)
<<< Depressing mode off :-) >>>
Harumph (:-). "Nuf said by me for the moment.
Don, if you would like to post this to the list or otherwise open to public discussion, feel free! I kept it private since it may open a can of worms you would like to avoid, and I may have missed messages where these issues were covered already. In any case, I hope my comments are helpful!
