Still no new license -- but draft text available

[Tim Peters]

[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.

> 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!

> Just curious: The license requires the license to appear in the source
> of derivatives.  Please explain why that doesn't make it apply to the
> derivative. (Say I just changed some code.) If the WOL and my
> closed-source licenses both appear in the source, which takes
> precedence?  How does anyone know which license applies to what code?  I
> have some (unsatisfying) answers, but am curious to hear yours.  (I
> don't recall you answering a similar question about Python a couple
> weeks ago. Sorry if you did.)

Indeed, this was a FAQ about Python's CWI license, and it's never been clear
to me under which theory the license is *not* infectious this way.  It's
even a FAQ about the CNRI Open Source License, despite that the COSL for
1.6b1 explicitly says that the only software it covers is Python 1.6b1 as
was available from such-and-such a web address on such-and-such a date.

When people asked about the CWI license for Python, Guido would just say
"no, it only applies to Python", and that was almost always enough for them.
Whether or not it made legal sense, he was very arguably speaking for the
copyright holder at the time, and that's enough assurance for most.  Pity he
can't do that anymore, because the bottom line is that people didn't
particularly trust the CWI license, they trusted Guido.

As a WOL kinda guy myself (for most projects, most of the time), I think
we're inclined to say as little as possible, to create the atmosphere of
open invitation we intend.  The haggling over the Python license, though,
has been slowly changing my mind, to that it really can be better for both
sides to put more in the license.  Not more restrictions, but to explicitly
spell out more of the rights you *intend* to give to the user, and whether
or not 9 lawyers out of 10 agree that the user had those rights whether or
not they're spelled out.  Like, indeed, that the license applies *only* to
the software it came with.  We're working on a FAQ for the COSL, and I think
several of the questions there would also be WOL FAQs.

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*.

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.

>> ...
>> Not only is the idea of carrying "openness" to its logical
>> conclusion appealing, but--in contrast to the freedom thing--it's
>> even 100.0% truthful. <pinch me!>

> Well, 99.94%, at least, using the open-source community's
> definition of "open".
> 100% if it means "readable".

I'm not sure a readable license is legal <wink>.

although-10-pages-of-dense-"you-have-the-right-to-xxx"-clauses-
    may-make-up-for-that-ly y'rs  - tim