On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 10:46 PM, John Bowler<jbowler@...> wrote:
> From: Glenn Randers-Pehrson [mailto:glennrp@...]
>>A reference to the "libpng license" is added to each source
> So, just to be absolutely clear, the official name of the license (where
> "official" means what the copyright holder asserts the name should be) is
> now the "libpng" license - right?
Yes. If we were not allowed to call our license the "libpng license" that
would be somewhat weird.
> Therefore in the block to the right of the Wikipedia "libpng" page "License"
> should say "libpng" (not zlib/libpng).
It is possible that we will lose our OSI certification. We were using
the current license but without the anti-UCITA clause at the time we
were certified. As I recall the merger of the two licenses by OSI happened
after the certification. But my memory could be faulty and my archives of
the related correspondence are long gone.
> It is, of course, not unreasonable for someone to refer to the "zlib/libpng"
> license meaning "either the 'zlib license' or the 'libpng license'" and
> implying the common features of the two licenses.
Yes that would be reasonable and sensible but it is out of our control.
> I suggest that *iff* the license on the source is substantially revised then
> a different name should be used, so that "libpng license" consistently
> refers to the various versions of the current license that differ only in
> contributors and, maybe in the future, copyright holder. That the "libpng
> license" is the license *with* the UCITA text and should anyone want to
> refer to the earlier versions without it that person should come up with a
> new name.
The only substantial change I could foresee is if Group 42 came out of the
woodwork and blessed our switching to the zlib (a.k.a. zlib/libpng) license,
and the State of Maryland repealed UCITA or the copyright owner no
longer resided in Maryland. So the "different name" would be the
"zlib/libpng license". If we made a substantial change that I don't
foresee, then "libpng license v2.0" or something like that.
> This may seem somewhat restrictive, but it gives the lawyers a clear
> guarantee - the contributors might change (by addition), in extremis the
> copyright holder might change, but nothing else.
> BTW I assign any copyright I might have in my contributions to the overall
> copyright holder (i.e. currently Glenn), I have certainly received adequate
> compensation in all the things I have learnt on this list.