Subject: Re: For Approval: Open Project Public License (OPPL)
From: Alex Rousskov <>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 18:21:08 -0700 (MST)

On Tue, 16 Mar 2004, Larry Masters wrote:

> Under section 5 the user would be able to use the editor if the
> editor was legally created or obtained. At least this is what I
> would think.

Agreed. My concern is not about the user of the editor, but about the
author of the editor. It seems odd to me that innocent actions of
unsuspecting author automatically "signify acceptance" of your
license. Again, the author and the editor have nothing to do with
Software, but the editor may "interact in some form" with your
Software, just because editors can edit any software.

In other words, by saying "interact with Software in any form" you are
subjecting the whole world to your license, and that seems wrong, even
for a viral license.

An editor interacts with Software. An ISP carrying Software bits over
the network interacts with Software. A web browser displaying Software
sources interacts with Software. A compiler compiling Software
interacts with Software. Revision control system interacts with
Software. Etc., etc. All these interactions should be out of your
license scope, I guess, but they seem to automatically "signify
acceptance" instead.

> May have to put this back on the drawing board. Basically what we
> are wanting to do with the license is "control" code created to work
> with the licensed software, control meaning that any software
> created to work with it must be released under the same license and
> source code made avaiable.

I understand the intent. IMHO, you need to define "created to work
with the licensed software" in a much more narrow sense than "any form
of interaction" for the license to be sane/certifiable. An editor is
"created to work with" any software sources and, hence, with your
Software. Same for debugger, compiler, etc. But all of them should be
outside of your license restrictions.

Does this clarify?


license-discuss archive is at