On Wed, 2003-10-22 at 15:46, Adam Majer wrote:
> It can be found at:
>
> http://people.debian.org/~adamm/LICENSE
Verdict: Non-free, violates DFSG 1. Details follow, after some
introductory notes.
First off, please always paste full license text to -legal. This helps
people like me who often read mail offline; it makes sure that our
archives can be understood at a later date (URLs go 404 compliant
routinely); etc.
Second, I'm going to admit I don't much care for that preamble. It
rambles on for quite a while about the evils of the GPL, and seems
somehow under the impression that proprietary software is better than
GPL works. For example, the sentence starting "Given that the inclusion
of a few lines of 'GPL-tainted' work into a larger body of work will
result in restricted distribution....," after talling about how great it
is that the BSD-licenced software was put into proprietary code is,
well, misguided. If any of that proprietary code were included, the
situation would be far worse.
Third, the goals of this license seem contradictory! To quote:
For the above reasons, we put forth this "BSD Protection
License": A license designed to retain the freedom granted by
the BSD license to use licensed works in a wide variety of
settings, both non-commercial and commercial, while protecting
the work from having future contributors restrict that freedom.
Right...
Dodging the whole snippets quagmire[1], let's see how the terms come
out. I'm including the entire terms of this license for the benefit of
the archive.
> BSD PROTECTION LICENSE
> TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION, AND MODIFICATION
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 0. Definitions.
> a) "Program", below, refers to any program or work distributed under
> the terms of this license.
> b) A "work based on the Program", below, refers to either the Program
> or any derivative work under copyright law.
> c) "Modification", below, refers to the act of creating derivative works.
> d) "You", below, refers to each licensee.
>
> 1. Scope.
> This license governs the copying, distribution, and modification of the
> Program. Other activities are outside the scope of this license; The
> act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the
> Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the
> Program.
ok, looks ironically familiar, considering the preamble.
>
> 2. Verbatim copies.
> You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program as you
> receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and
> appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice; keep
> intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of
> any warranty; and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this
> License along with the Program.
again, pretty normal.
>
> 3. Modification and redistribution under closed license.
> You may modify your copy or copies of the Program, and distribute
> the resulting derivative works, provided that you meet the
> following conditions:
> a) The copyright notice and disclaimer on the Program must be reproduced
> and included in the source code, documentation, and/or other materials
> provided in a manner in which such notices are normally distributed.
> b) The derivative work must be clearly identified as such, in order that
> it may not be confused with the original work.
> c) The license under which the derivative work is distributed must
> expressly prohibit the distribution of further derivative works.
3, due to (c) clearly does not give us a free option. So we may not take
this method; let's see if there is another.
NITPICK: I suggest adding in an "or" here, between (3) and (4).
>
> 4. Modification and redistribution under open license.
> You may modify your copy or copies of the Program, and distribute
> the resulting derivative works, provided that you meet the
> following conditions:
> a) The copyright notice and disclaimer on the Program must be reproduced
> and included in the source code, documentation, and/or other materials
> provided in a manner in which such notices are normally distributed.
> b) You must clearly indicate the nature and date of any changes made
> to the Program. The full details need not necessarily be included in
> the individual modified files, provided that each modified file is
> clearly marked as such and instructions are included on where the
> full details of the modifications may be found.
> c) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole
> or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part
> thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
> parties under the terms of this License.
This seems to be the intended free option.
Unfortunately, it isn't. The problem is "in whole or in part contains."
One such work, were Debian to distrubute software under this license,
would be Debian. That also applies to any other distribution. DFSG 1
clearly doesn't allow that.
>
> 5. Implied acceptance.
> You may not copy or distribute the Program or any derivative works except
> as expressly provided under this license. Consequently, any such action
> will be taken as implied acceptance of the terms of this license.
Gak! That sounds horrible. Could you possibly just swipe the paragraph
from the GPL, which is worded much more nicely?
>
> 6. NO WARRANTY.
> THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES,
> INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY
> AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL
> THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MAY MODIFY AND/OR
> REDISTRIBUTE THE PROGRAM AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT,
> INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES
> ARISING OUT OF THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE PROGRAM (INCLUDING, BUT
> NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF
> USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND
> ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR
> TORT, EVEN IF SUCH HOLDER OR OTHER PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE
> POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.
1. If we're going to disallow non-free "snippets", then I think at
some point we've got to say "no" to license preambles (unless
they are free, of course). But that is a debate for another
thread, please.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part