Subject: Re: Simplified Artistic License (A Proposed Compromise)
From: Russell Nelson <nelson@crynwr.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 16:24:47 -0400 (EDT)

Robert Samuel White writes:
 > I can understand your point of view, I just wonder if you can see mine?

Of course.  Do you understand that I see your point of view, and that
I'm trying to help you achieve your goal?

 > I am an artist.  I develop software, and that's what I love doing.  I
 > also love offering it to others, but I want to maintain some semblance
 > of artistic control over my software.

 > More than that, for me, I don't care whether or not people post their
 > changes anywhere.  I just care that they prominently indicate that the
 > file was changed from its original version.  And I don't want others
 > using my name or the name of my software to endorse their products.

Then use the Academic Free License.  It *specifically* denies anybody
the right to use your trademarks.  Please read through the AFL and
tell me what parts are objectionable to you, and what's missing that's
objectionable to you.

http://opensource.org/licenses/academic.html

You may, if you wish, separately from the AFL, allow someone to use a
certification mark if you like the changes that they have made.

-- 
-russ nelson              http://russnelson.com |
Crynwr sells support for free software  | PGPok | businesses persuade
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | governments coerce
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  | +1 315 268 9201 FAX   |
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3