Subject: MiscKit License, Thread II

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1993 17:27:04 -0500

[Yes, the saga continues... :-)]

Whew! That's a license-and-a-half there, Don.  A few observations
to start the discussion going, and hopefully bring it to a quick
resolution:

* There should be a version number on the license, so that when we
talk about it, we can be specific.  For want of a version number on
the license included in the e-mail message "MiscKit License and
Charter" of "Mon, 27 Sep 1993 15:25:19 -0600" by Don Yacktman
([email-masked]), I will dub it version 0.1 (since it is
the "First draft").

* Version 0.1 of the MiscKit license is a mixture of what I would
call "license" material and "explanatory" material.  I suggest
spliting the current license into two (or three) parts: the license
itself, a section "How does this license apply to the software
developer" or "What this license means to the software developer"
or some title like that, and perhaps a third section outlining the
goals of the license (version 0.1 already has this at the bottom).

License material: What a developer can or cannot do.
Example: Section 1 of version 0.1 of the license reads:
  1. Any copy made of this software or modified versions of this
     software must include this copyright and licence notice in full.
     Software built using the MiscKit does not have this restriction;
     this restriction applies only to the MiscKit source code and
     development tools.
What an "only licensing information" version might say:
  1. Any copy made of this software or modified versions of this
     software must include this copyright and licence notice in full.

Permission to use the software in the MiscKit "for any purpose" is
given at the top of the license; the list of items need only state
restrictions on this statement.

* "...CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE USE OR INABILITY TO
USE THIS DOCUMENT. The parties...".  Oops, that was an error in the
example license I originally sent out: "THIS DOCUMENT" should read
"THIS SOFTWARE".  My brain must have skipped a track.

* I don't think modified versions of the software should be allowed
to be distributed.  Created and used?  Sure, but not distributed.
Too confusing.  The phrase "verbatim copies" is often seen in licenses
that adopt this restriction.

* I don't agree with section 3.  I just plain don't like it.  The
only purpose for it I can see is to promote the MiscKit.  Is this
a worthy goal?  Well, maybe, maybe not.  Opinions anyone?

* Sections 2 and 4a of version 0.1 seem to be in disagreement: it is
unclear whether or not modified versions can be distributed.  Or,
why must modified version be "plainly marked as such" if they cannot
be distributed?

* Section 4c: I suggest saying "pay no more than U.S. $15 to cover
costs of media, shipping, and handling."

* I don't think section 7 belongs in the _license_.

Well, I think that's enough for now... :-)

Christopher J. Kane
[email-masked]

---

From: Scott Anguish <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1993 23:53:12 -0400

Christopher J. Kane
[email-masked]

said

>a worthy goal?  Well, maybe, maybe not.  Opinions anyone?

	The people who are contributing to the MiscKit should get credit in any  
derivative works.  By crediting the MiscKit we are all getting credit.

	If promoting the MiscKit is not a worthy goal, is the whole project worthy
at all?

	I think so.

--
- Scott Anguish -
[email-masked] (NextMail)
[email-masked] (comp.sys.next.announce submissions)