Still no new license -- but draft text available

Grant Griffin g2 at seebelow.org
Sat Aug 19 06:07:04 EDT 2000


Tim Peters wrote:

> [Grant Griffin]
> > ...
> > If that's a hint, I guess I'll have to just say that I've already
> > got too many irons in the fire.  So I mainly just try to "educate"
> > the public a little when the opportunity presents itself.  However,
> > one small effort I've made in this way is the "Wide Open License"
> > (WOL), which you'll find at
> > http://www.dspguru.com/wol.htm.
>
> [Pat McCann]
> > Looks good.  I don't have time to read the whole page just now, but I
> > will.  I'm suprised you didn't mention it before.
>
> Grant and Python are both subversive.
>

<deep blush>  Thanks, Tim.

(Am I that transparent?)

> > Excellent name!  I wish I'd thought of that first.
>
> I don't think it's trademarked yet -- go ahead and claim that you did
> <wink>.  It is a great name!

Hey, that's a good idea!  (See http://www.dspguru.com/wol.htm.)

<snip>

Per the license FAQ concept, I almost think that having a license FAQ is a
better idea than having a verbose license, in order  to combine the best of both
worlds (brevity and verbosity).  IANAL, but AFAIK, something officially
"published" along with a license can be binding to an extent--or at least it's
something to present in court <egad> about the intent of the license.  (Of
course, the plot thickens when some WOL software author claims that he didn't
intend the explanatory stuff, just the license text.  But we'll leave stuff like
that to lawyers to lose sleep over. ;-)

Continuing in that vein, here's some entry criteria I would like to suggest for
any WOL-like license:

1) It should be clearly "not copylefted".  (Those who want copyleft already have
the GPL; the WOL should be the converse.)
2) The language should be clear and explicit enough that non-lawyers (and even
lawyers) can easily understand it (or at least _think_ they do. ;-)
3) It should be as brief as possible.  This is partly to contribute towards 2),
and it's partly plain old-fashioned salesmanship: nobody wants to clutter their
beloved source code with a bunch of legal gunge.  Also, if you take the premise
(unproven, I guess) that one plug in the legal dyke causes at least two more
holes, then less must be more.

> Alas, to eliminate the need for FAQs seems to require answering them clearly
> in the license itself, and that means more words, and that makes the license
> more imposing on first sight.  And there is *nothing* people won't question!
> For example, the WOL gives the user "permission to use, copy, modify,
> distribute and sell this software" (so glad it *explicitly* says "sell"!),
> but doesn't explicitly say they can, e.g., sell a modification:  yes, they
> can modify, and they can sell, but are those exclusive or do they "stack"?
> You think that's a stupid question?  I do.  But it is in fact a question
> asked about the CWI license (which had very similar phrasing) by more than
> one *lawyer*.

(Just think: lawyers get _paid_ to argue.  And we do it here on Usenet *for
free*!)

> Add to that that the WOL appears to be as "bare" a license as CWI's, and
> more lawyers will question whether it's revocable at-will.  Don't know about
> anybody else, but I'd be willing to chip in some real bux to get a WOL-like
> license that 10 lawyers don't have 10 conflicting opinions about.

Cool!  I'd kick in some bux for that too (seriously)...but is it even
statistically possible?

(and-what-about-the-eleventh?-<wink>)-ly y'rs,

=g2
--
_____________________________________________________________________

Grant R. Griffin                                       g2 at dspguru.com
Publisher of dspGuru                           http://www.dspguru.com
Iowegian International Corporation       http://www.iowegian.com





More information about the Python-list mailing list