Subject: Re: For Approval: Panda3D Public License Version 1.0
From: "Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M." <>
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 22:12:25 -0500

Although we are discussing the specific terms of a particular license, of
course, my comments are not meant to constitute or substitute for legal

The Panda3D license makes a much better license template than the APSL; even
in revised form, the APSL is wordy and less than clear at times. I think
your lawyer did a good job.

I think this license will warrant OSD approval; I have a couple suggestions,

Clause 1 appears to be your mutual assent clause. Good. I would suggest,
however, that the last sentence couple sentences be clearly written in the
conjunctive or disjunctive (I suspect the drafter meant to use the

Clause 6 (the treaded anti-advertising clause) is understandable, but is it
really needed? If there is no implied or explicit right to use a Disney
trademark or service mark anyway, why is the clause necessary? The
anti-advertising clauses have been a source of discontent with free software
folks, but I do not think the OSD strictly applies.

(Minor point here) Clause 7 is informative, but it says nothing about the
relations between licensor and licensee; hence, I am not sure it warrants
the prominence of an entire clause of the body of the license.

Clause 8 is unclear after the first sentence, which is probably all that is
needed. Sublicensing?

I feel obligated to mention that using approved OSI licenses as useful
templates in drafting makes good sense, but as touchstones does not.


Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.
Author: Open Source Software Law
Best points of contact:

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Cowan" <>
To: "Jesse Schell" <>
Cc: <>
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 10:51 PM
Subject: Re: For Approval: Panda3D Public License Version 1.0

: Jesse Schell scripsit:
: > I believe the license was loosely based on the Apple Public Source
: > License.  The lawyer who drafted the Panda3D license left the company
: > some time ago, and I haven't been able to reach him. Obviously, the
: > Apple license itself wouldn't suffice, since it explicitly names Apple,
: > where the Panda3D license names Disney instead.
: If you globally replace "Apple" with "Disney", the result will be
: trivially Open Source and will be no problem.  It's possible that Apple
: might object, but not very likely.
: > 4. [...]
: > An electronic copy of the source code for all modifications
: > made to the Software are to be forwarded to Licensor at
: > within 90 days of the date of the
: > modifications.
: Clauses like this are unreasonably burdensome on the makers of distros,
: who typically have to make hundreds of patches to get everything
: working together.  Having to send hundreds of copies of source code
: to different locations every time there is a new release is just too
: hard.
: The license should be changed to require that the licensor be notified
: of the location from which modifications can be downloaded.  In that
: way, there is only a single transmission required from the licensee,
: not a whole series of them.
: If this problem is fixed, I see no problems with OSI approval.  IANAL,
: TINLA, IANA OSI board member either.
: -- 
: You let them out again, Old Man Willow!                 John Cowan
: What you be a-thinking of?  You should not be waking!
: Eat earth!  Dig deep!  Drink water!  Go to sleep!
: Bombadil is talking.
: --
: license-discuss archive is at

license-discuss archive is at