Subject: For Approval: Fair License
From: James William Pye <flaw@rhid.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 17:37:45 -0700

Greetings,

This license appears to be well within OSD, but before(if) it is accepted, I would like
feedback on some of my concerns with this license, but I will prepare the requested
sections before expressing those concerns:

. Tell us which existing OSI-approved license is most similar
. to your license. Explain why that license will not suffice
. for your needs. If your proposed license is derived from a
. license we have already approved, describe exactly what
. you have changed. This document is not part of the
. license; it is solely to help the license-discuss
. understand and review your license.

The license is similar to the BSD license.
The BSD license seems to imply a requirement of, what I call, Due Credit. Although,
I wanted an explicit specification of Due Credit within my license. I also thought it
more appropriate to use terms such as 'works' instead of 'source' to not be specific
as to what was covered by the license within the license(Would this matter in a trial?).
The Fair License is mainly a generalized BSD license(terminology-wise) with an explicit
requirement of Due Credit by the retention and notification of the instrument.


. Explain how software distributed under your license can be
. used in conjunction with software distributed under other
. open source licenses.

Simply by retaining the license with the works that are covered by the license.


. Which license do you think will take
. precedence for derivative or combined works?

I assume this is heavily dependent on the other license and perhaps even the works in
question, but I am sure most other licenses would take precedence considering Fair's
easy nature.

. Is there any software license that is entirely
. incompatible with your proposed license?

Not that I know of.

---------------

Concerns and Questions:

The FL itself does not specifically mention the copyright notice, but I felt it implied
the retention of the notice by specifying the retention of the 'instrument', which I
thought *may* be enough of an implication to require the inclusion of the notice if
it were included with the definitions, license, and disclaimer within the same file/document.
Is this '*may*' definite, or is it questionable?

Similarly, should I specify the consistency of 'This Instrument'? I refer to it multiple
times assuming that it is understood to consist of the definitions, license, and disclaimer(and,
potentially, the copyright notice). Can I rely on that assumption?

Also, should I include the creator(contributor, I suppose in the BSD license) with the
owner in the disclaimer? I believe there is a legal distinction, no?

(A couple of side questions :)

Do disclaimers carry much weight in a trial against the copyright owner? I assume the
purpose is to establish some prima facie evidence(right term for this context?), but
I don't know. :)

Paranoia: Is this a good thing? A lot of agreements/licenses(Not specifically any Open
Source licenses) seem extraordinarily paranoid about everything down to, seemingly frivolous,
definitions of various words. Is this normally an attempt to obfuscate the instrument?


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Utilization is defined as Any usage, transmission, distribution,
publication, or mutation of the works, regardless of form.

Due Credit is defined as The mere acknowledgment of the affinity
between the owner and the works thereof.


Utilization of the works protected by this instrument is
permitted provided that the copyright owner receives Due Credit
by meeting the following requirement:

This instrument must be retained with the works, regardless of
form; so that any entity that exercises direct or indirect
utilization of the works be notified of and understand all the
information specified within this instrument and be required to
accept and understand the terms of this license.

THE WORKS ARE PROVIDED BY THE OWNER "AS IS"; THUS ANY EXPRESSED
OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES OR LIABILITIES FOR DAMAGES CAUSED BY THE
WORKS ARE WHOLLY DISCLAIMED.

[2004, Fair License: rhid.com/fair]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFAE0fP0vOcgFBBI0ARAgacAKCoD4j9qmk3/51jVjtkGfUuzQbudgCghaaG
b15RbApH9iRGzfZOQHBUrZE=
=upw5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

As you can probably tell, I'm not a lawyer; :)
but when I get in the right frame of mind, I find law(even copyright law!) very interesting.
Any pointers, resources, or criticisms(constructive :P) are very welcome.

Regards,
			James William Pye
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3