Still no new license -- but draft text available

[Pat McCann]

"Tim Peters" <tim_one at email.msn.com> writes:

> [Grant Griffin]
> > [ ref to WOL ]
> [Pat McCann]
> > 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!

Not my style.  I claim "Way Open License".  More appealing to the
youngsters, you know.   Darn - same initialism.  While I'm at it I 
might as well claim "Open Source License" and "OSL".  Someone else just
came up with "Open Compatibility License" (which looks incompatible).

> 
> > 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...
> 
> 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.

That identifies the work being licensed OK, but remember that the IP in
all parts of that work and any parts of it in derivatives is still owned 
by CNRI & CWI and still covered by their licenses.  We're hoping that
law allows us to slap our own license on our derivative which covers
only our additions.  Our license better not give rights on the
derivative than the orginal licenses did not, or we might be party to 
an infringement. (In some cases you can avoid this, I think.)  The terms
of our license(which may be more restrictive than the originals) simply
don't apply to the original parts (that's our licensee's, if any, problem). 

> Like, indeed, that the license applies *only* to the software it came with.

What does that mean?  I'm afraid that it has to be viral to an extent or
in some sense, or a deriver/re-licensor can just write a license that
nullifies yours, opening you back up to liability and warranty suits
again (worst case).  Your license is only with the persons who accept it.

> 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!

That's especially true of Plaintiff's Counsel.

Sheeple seem to have no problem with those 10,000 word EULAs covering
most ISPs, web sites, and commercial programs. Or the 3,000 word GPL.
As you indicated, trust is a big factor.  Benefit:risk ratio is another.