Subject: Re: ATT SOURCE CODE AGREEMENT Version 1.2C
From: bruce@perens.com
Date: 10 Sep 1999 20:26:49 -0000

From: <mark@pc-intouch.com>
> That's irritating.  It means that someone can write a license that says
> that if you use their software you have to eat toasted moose droppings for
> breakfast, and it can still qualify as OSD-compliant.

Nobody is going to consider a license with an unreasonable requirement like
that as Open Source. In this case the requirement is not particularly
obnoxious, unlike your example.

> That is, if you're writing a software license, it should be a
> *software* license, not a linking-to-our-web-site license, a trademark
> license, a certification policy, or a toasted-moose-droppings license.

How about a patent license?

I agree that they could easily have separated how they want _their_ web
site treated into another document. There is, however, justfication for the
privilege they want you to grant them regarding your own web site where you
post modifications.

	Thanks

	Bruce