Subject: Re: For Approval: Open-Realty License
From: "Ryan C. Bonham" <ryan@transparent-tech.com>
Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2005 11:28:13 -0400

Alex,

You worded Attribution Text section perfect. I will be submiting this
all for OSI approval later today, as well as updating our software and
website to use the new version of this license.

Thank you,

Ryan Bonham
Transparent Technologies
ryan@transparent-tech.com

Phone: (888) 418-8900
Help Desk: http://www.transparent-tech.com/esupport/



Alex Bligh wrote:

> Ryan,
>
> --On 04 June 2005 18:18 -0400 Ryan Bonham <ryan@transparent-tech.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>> 5. The outputted source, html or other technical equivalent, of
>> open-realty and any derivative works based on open-realty, must include
>> the following acknowledgment in a human readable format: "<PRODUCT> is
>> distributed by <OWNER> and is licensed under the Open-Realty License.
>> See
>> <LICENSE URL> for more information.".
>
>
> I'm not quite sure what the above means. Firstly, what is "outputted
> source"? Normally, source is something that is input, rather than output.
>
> Secondly, what does "based on open-realty" mean? If this is a template
> license, then surely it should be something like "based on <PRODUCT>".
>
> Thirdly, I am unsure of the intended effect. I know you've been round
> this
> loop a bit on the list, but I'm purposely not going back to discover the
> answer, because that's not what a recipient of the license will do. Does
> "Human Readable format" mean "Human readable in the HTML source" (i.e.
> enclosed within HTML comments is OK), or does it mean human readable
> in the
> HTML as displayed on a normal browser (in which case it is not)? Does a
> technical equivalent of HTML mean any markup language? Or anything web
> content can be encoded by? Given (say) Word and OpenOffice produce both,
> does that mean that if I write a word processor and use this license to
> distribute it, then any document produced by it must include the text you
> describe?
>
> Is what you are trying to say something like the following:
>
> <PRODUCT> is designed to produce computer files for distribution, and the
> original work may insert into such files text ("Attribution Text") which
> identifies them as having been produced by <PRODUCT>, <PRODUCT>'s
> distributor <OWNER>, and the terms of or a reference to this license.
> Whilst the files themselves are not subject to this license, your
> grant to
> use, distribute and modify this work is conditional upon your
> agreement not
> to make any modification to the work which might causes such Attribution
> Text to be removed, or its insertion to be modified in a manner which
> is like to make it materially less readable to those using the files
> in the manner in which they would customarily be used.
>
> (though you've already got the conditionality bit in the header)...
>
>> Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
>> modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are
>> met:
>
>
> That should probably be: Distribution (in source or binary form),
> Modification, and use, are each permitted provided that ....
>
>> THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY <OWNER> AND ITS CONTRIBUTORS ``AS IS'' AND
>> ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE
>> IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
>> PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL <OWNER> OR ITS CONTRIBUTORS BE
>> LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR
>> CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF
>> SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS
>> INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN
>> CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE)
>> ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF
>> THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
>
>
> Based on recently looking at this, given your license does not have
> a fixed jurisdiction, you may find that the total disclaimer of warranty
> and the total exclusion of all liability may be ineffective in certain
> jurisdictions (UK and similar). In such jurisdictions, each is likely
> to be struck in its entirety. The easiest way around this appears to
> be to disclaim warranty and exclude liability only to the maximum extent
> permitted by law, and possibly to insert an alternate liability /
> warranty
> provision in case that itself is not effective. See the work we've
> done on the OVPL (http://www.openvendor.org).
>
> Alex