Subject: Re: STWL 1.0, revision 6: please comment
From: Thorsten Glaser <tg@66h.42h.de>
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 15:09:20 +0000 (UTC)

Bernhard Fastenrath dixit:

> Spread the word license, STWL 1.0.

(ugh, format=flowed. Hard to read.)

>    3. You make an attempt to promote the use of this software by notifying

Restriction on use.

What about a wording such as "Licensor requests that you..." similar
to the one used by Carnegie-Mellon?

>    4. You agree to be of assistance at least twice if anybody requires your
> help in installing the software or understanding the software.

Same thing, but worse.

>    5. In case the licensee takes legal action alleging infringement of

First "you", here "licensee"?

> software patents the licensee holds, excluding countersuits, and concerning
> open source software as defined by the Open Source Initiative (OSI) this
> license is suspended for the duration of the validity of said patents.

- I'd put "excluding countersuits" between "(OSI)" and "this".
- no comment about the content

>    6. If any part of this license might be against the local or otherwise
> relevant law or become ineffective in any other way, the rest of the license
> loses its effect.

- "might be" is not good in legalese.
  "might be against" looks to me like German ;-)
- What about s/the rest.*effect/the license terminates/

> THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE <project name> PROJECT ``AS IS'' AND

I still think disclaimers in caps are hard to read.

> PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE FREEBSD PROJECT OR
                                                ^^^^^^^

> -- 
> www.citizens-initiative.org <http://www.citizens-initiative.org/>

The licence might be only enforcable if "click-through" or
"shrink-wrap"ped anyway, since it imposes restrictions on use.

bye,
//mirabile, who had a hard time writing English-sounding legalese too