Barry A. Warsaw wrote:
... Interesting article, but IBM's termination clause was different than the JPython one. I fought hard on para7 because IIRC, RMS complained that an earlier version /could/ have been used to arbitrarily terminate. I think the current JPython para7 is better because /you/ have to materially breach, which seems like a much higher threshold. But it still may not be perfect.
Yes, I was aware that it was a reactive termination, rather than arbitrary. That makes it quite acceptable, but it still isn't a desirable thing. Especially given some of the grey area in the license ("are we sure we aren't in breach of the license?"). Personally, I'd rather see a license without a termination clause. If it must be there, then I'd like to see it as tight as possible (see the IBM and Apple licenses: IIRC, they only kick in when the user initiates patent litigation against IBM/Apple; the termination cuts them off as an initial response to the suit). The other elements I raised actually caused me more anxiety than the termination. If CNRI finds it acceptable, I'd recommend they use an existing OSD license. They get immediate certfication and, more importantly, a builtin awareness in the open source community of what the license really means. Each time a new license arrives in the community, bunches of people have to go an figure it out; if the new license is the IBM Public License with a search/replace on the company and product name, then people go "oh. all righty. no problem." and move on to doing real stuff. Dang. I keep replying to this stuff. :-) I'm hoping that we wrap this up pending a new release. Cheers, -g -- Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/