comments on 2.0 license proposal

[Eric Friedman <fr...@lmi.net>]

I'd like to suggest that the first section of the license contain a 
complete set of terms and definitions for the rest of the document.  
Some of these are already present ("License" "You," and so forth), but 
the ones that aren't seems most important -- "Work" and "Derivative 
work."

The first time "derivative works" appears is in 4.(a) and it is not 
defined;  it appears again in 4(b) chained to Work ("the Work and 
derivative works thereof"), but these terms are also not defined.

Then, in section 7, we get what looks like a definition of Derivative 
work, but I'm not sure that it extends to the earlier sections.

It also wasn't clear to me whether compiled object code of unmodified 
source counts as a derivative work or not.  Section 4 implies that it 
might be, but the definition in section 7 stipulates that you have 
modify the source to create a derivative work.  So, I'm not clear on 
what this license says about non-source distribution.

Eric Friedman

Re: comments on 2.0 license proposal

["Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@apache.org>]

> I'd like to suggest that the first section of the license contain a 
> complete set of terms and definitions for the rest of the document.  
> Some of these are already present ("License" "You," and so forth), but 
> the ones that aren't seems most important -- "Work" and "Derivative 
> work."

The Work is defined in section 1.

> The first time "derivative works" appears is in 4.(a) and it is not 
> defined;  it appears again in 4(b) chained to Work ("the Work and 
> derivative works thereof"), but these terms are also not defined.
>
> Then, in section 7, we get what looks like a definition of Derivative 
> work, but I'm not sure that it extends to the earlier sections.

Hmm, indeed this is confusing -- it stems from a recent change from
"Derived Work" to "Derivative Work".  A "derivative work" is defined
in US copyright law, but I am not sure about the laws of other 
countries.
That confusion is probably why the GPL uses "Derived Work".

> It also wasn't clear to me whether compiled object code of unmodified 
> source counts as a derivative work or not.  Section 4 implies that it 
> might be, but the definition in section 7 stipulates that you have 
> modify the source to create a derivative work.  So, I'm not clear on 
> what this license says about non-source distribution.

Yes, that is a derivative work, and we need to be more clear about that
if it isn't obvious from the text as is.

....Roy