Subject: Re: ATT SOURCE CODE AGREEMENT Version 1.2C
From: Mark Wells <mark@pc-intouch.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 14:29:40 -0700 (PDT)

On 10 Sep 1999 bruce@perens.com wrote:

> 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.

But the OSD doesn't have any rules against 'unreasonable requirements'.
In theory, a license with unreasonable requirements could pass the OSD.
Now, if a license could pass the OSD even though the people who wrote the
OSD (i.e. you) say it's not Open Source, the OSD needs to be adjusted.

> > 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?

Patent licenses cover designs.  Software licenses cover implementations.

If the software uses patented technology, the license should include a
grant of permission to use *that particular implementation* of the
patented algorithm.

> 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.

I'm not just talking about this particular license.  I'm saying that
separating extraneous stuff (like web site requirements, trademarking,
certification, etc.) into a separate document appears to be a good general
rule for license design.  It keeps the license simple and readable.