Subject: Re: KLLSD License
From:Vieitez Parra, Ricardo Iván <>
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2010 15:12:50 -0300

 Tue, 6 Apr 2010 15:12:50 -0300
Well, I'll try to answer to all your questions.


This license is derived from all the three of MS-RL, the Apache
License and the BSD license.

The problem with the Apache License is that it's too extensive, and
it's an obstacle when getting to the public. Furthermore, it deals
with things such as specific filenames, so that the whole thing gets

The BSD license is great, and it's been broadly lawyered, too. But,
however it's too simple and it doesn't cover things such as patent
licensing that the Apache and the MS-RL do.

The MS-RL is very good on the other things, and is simpler to
understand than the Apache License, but it fails on the disclaimer.

This particular license puts strong emphasis in the total absence of
warranties and guarantees. Even if it's reasonably enough with what
this license says, from the legal point of view, the exhaustive
disclaimer found on the KLLSD makes it clear that the software is not
distributed but without warranties. This helps the understanding of
the average Joe.

Lastly, although depending on the project this may be seen as a
disadvantage, it protects the integrity of the original work, with its
clause that: "Modified works must say clearly that they are a modified
version AND clearly remark what the changes are." Certainly, this may
not fit every project, but which license does? None of the discussed
licenses go for this.


On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 2:35 AM, Bruce Perens <> wrote:
> Will Robertson wrote:
>> Forgive the question, but what advantages does this have over the Apache
>> License?
> Right. For a serious proposal, we would need:
> 1. Rationale: why this license is necessary.
> 2. Analysis of similar licenses that are already accepted by OSI and why
> they don't do the job.
> 3. Explanation of what license(s) you derived from, and what text you
> changed.
>   Thanks
>   Bruce