Subject: More comments on the MiscKit license (long long)

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1993 14:30:04 -0500

Below I include some final thoughts on the MiscKit license,
before Don locks it up, in no particular order.  Mostly these
are directed to Don, but others might be interested in some
of them as well. (Probably not, but, who knows?) 

[email-masked] said:
> I would prefer partial kit distribution be allowed.

Ah, but you are forgetting the founding principle of the
MiscKit:
      Ash ghatk durbatulu^k, ash ghatk gimbatul, ash ghatk
      thrakatulu^k agh burzum-ishi krimpatul!

      [One kit to rule them all, one kit to find them, one
      kit to bring them all and in the darkness bind them.]
	-- paraphrased from "The Fellowship of the Ring",
                                         J. R. R. Tolkien

The Kit isn't that big.  Yet.  But this is something to
keep in mind.  Maybe when the Kit hits 4MB, we should bring
this up again. :-)

A suggestion: I have come to the opinion that the
MiscKit license is way too big and daunting.  This was in
my mind when I recommended to Don to split the explanatory
material away from the license itself.  Now, I suggest
going a bit further: everything from just above the line
"This is the end of the formal MiscKit License Agreement."
to the end of version 0.3 of the license should be removed
from the license, and put in a separate document.  This
separate document could be distributed with the MiscKit,
or the administrator could retain it, using it to answer
questions when they arise.  As a description of a philosophy,
rather than specific requirements, it doesn't belong with
the license itself, I would argue.  Perhaps a file
LICENSENOTES.rtf in the distribution would be appropriate.
Anything point that _requires_ the explanatory material
isn't stated well in the license itself.

Putting the administrators telephone number and US mail
address in the license may be a good idea, but won't it
necessitate a new version of the license anytime that the
administrator decides to move?  Remember that older versions
of the MiscKit don't disappear when a new one is released,
and perhaps even continue to be distributed, so multiple
conflicting addresses may be the result (if Don decides to
move a few times in the next couple years).

Trivial: Don't indent the three paragraphs in the top part
of the license.  There's already vertical whitespace.

[email-masked] wrote:
> Again, are these restrictions on media format necessary and
> desirable?  [...] Also, the license could then avoid
> arbitrarily defining what constitutes "mass media" today [...]

I have also made this (second) comment to Don, but could think
of no alternative that satisfied his reasons for including it,
nor a good argument against having it there in the first place.
Fortunately, Joe has put his finger right on the essence of the
answer for me:

> [...] if someone violates these restrictions, is this really
> a battle MiscKit administrators and owners would care to fight
> to the finish?

It seems to me that the more restrictions that are present in
the license, the more likely it is that someone will choose
to violate one or more of them (but that's not a linear
relation, I think :-)).  It requires effort to fight violations;
shall we state a restriction we are not prepared to defend?
Don makes his arguments for this restriction, but he also uses
the words "the MiscKit should be"; "should" is not stating a
requirement, it is making a suggestion.  And what is this
"These restrictions apply to...official MiscKit distribution"
at the top of point 3?  So if I create an unofficial version
of the MiscKit (and satisfy point 2), I am exempt from these
"requirements"?  Finally in point 3d, "any other electronic
means" is a very broad statement, which might be argued to
nullify points a,b,c: certainly a CD or floppy is "electronic
means" in that I must use an electronic device to make use
of the media; a floppy disk is useless without a floppy drive,
and a floppy drive has no use with out a floppy disk.  From
a physical point of view, electricity and magnetism 2 sides
of the same coin (as it were). Etc., etc.....  Eliminate
section 3 would be my suggestion.

Another note, something that just occured to me: one purported
goal of the license is to 'promote' the MiscKit, to 'get it known'.
But I think point 3b may quelch some enterprises that may do just
that; hence more apparent contradictions in the license and its
philosophy.  About Don's point regarding "gullible folk": But
Don!  That's the American Way. :-)  Saving "gullible folk" from
themselves is a noble gesture, but....

[email-masked] wrote:
> On mandating an uncompressed redistribution [...]
> One would think that the people buying the distribution would
> determine how the distributor handles such issues.  I say leave
> this to the distributor.  I think it's up to them to determine
> what people want (it's in their interest, after all).

Another good point.  A market economy will take care of this,
(simplistically), in the absence of a monopoly, and in the
presence of obtainable information about the various products.

In point 9: "When approval is requested, failure to respond
within two weeks of such a request constitutes a "YES" vote."
This should be in the charter, not the license.

Joe also said:
> 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.

The GNU license requires more than simply including the license,
but that's not important.  This is a good suggestion.

Otherwise, looks like things are shaping up.

Christopher Kane
[email-masked]