Re: [IBPP-DISCUSS] IBPP license 1.0
Olivier Mascia <om-lists@tipgroup.com>
> First, thanks for your time spent around these questions. [...]
Thanks for considering the responses.
> College, as used here (probably very mistakenly in english), means an =20=
> implied 'group', a 'collection' of multiple people. The idea is that =20
> 'Authors' is defined such it automatically includes all the persons =20
> (individuals, companies, other kind of legal / public / whatever =20
> bodies) who at least once contributed to IBPP. The idea is very =20
> simple, harder is to find the right minimalist words to express it.
I would recommend 'group' but I am not sure that I understand the aim.
[...]
> Le 20 mars 06 =E0 03:39, MJ Ray a =E9crit :
> > You'd be surprised. Some people print this stuff on t-shirts. Dropping
> > that and "programming" would solve this.
>
> So that would become:
> 2.1. Right to Use
> To use (edit when required, compile and link) the IBPP source code as =20=
> part of a larger work.
Actually, I suggest 'To use (including edit when required, ...)...' and
maybe 'another work' or 'a different work' instead of 'a larger work'.
> >>>> * 3. Duties
> >>>>
> >>>> o 3.1. Duty to give modifications back to IBPP Authors
[...]
> If that gets dropped, there will obviously be some new duty to take =20
> its place. Something along the lines that if people modify the code =20
> or enhance it, they *cannot* misrepresent it as being the original =20
> IBPP code, and instead clearly state they have deliberately modified =20
> it. I suppose this would not be an issue for various definitions of =20
> free software.
That would be good. I think this is quite common for free software
licences: blame and fame where they are due.
[Disclaimer]
> > Why should it be capitalised?
>
> I really don't insist on it. (I don't care in fact).
> It is just that so many licenses, contracts, legally binding texts do =20=
> so...
If you can find any legal basis for this, there are many people who would
love to read it, because it looks like a lawyer lemming effect, all
following each other blindly into the abyss.
> I was always told that some points in legally binding texts were =20
> capitalized to make them easier to read, or at least easier to spot, =20
> so that people can't pretend they couldn't see it and read it. But =20
> you just offer the counter-argument...
It seems so obvious to me that all-capitals is harder to read. Much
of the time, we read partly by using the shapes of words and all-caps
makes that more difficult. The problems of all-caps is mentioned in
many style guides, such as
http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/Writing/c.html#capitalization
- if you deliberately make your warranty details hard to read, I think
you may be reducing its effectiveness.
> I wonder when a Court will agree to proceed on a claim that someone =20
> got injured because the use of some software *had* a license. ;-)
I don't understand. I think your defence will be strengthened by the
disclaimer, but it seems you are putting yourself at needless risk.
[...]
> Now it is very different for programs which happen to use IBPP code. =20
> What we are seeking is that Debian (or any other distribution) won't =20
> refuse program X or Y on the sole fact that the source code of that =20
> program X or Y has some files which comes from IBPP.
While the source-demand requirement is there, I would object to the
inclusion of programs X and Y if they contain files under the IBPP
licence. (I am only advisory, not the decision-maker. See
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/08/msg00120.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/02/msg00009.html or
http://www.fr.debian.org/legal/licenses/ for more about how we fit in.)
> To the best of my knowledge, someone who want to publish a work under
> the GPL license can do so, IBPP clearly gives them the right to use
> IBPP. IBPP does not want to be concerned in any way by whatever
> license those programs (using IBPP) are distributed under, so does
> not want to pollute the licensing of the larger work [...]
The licence of IBPP appears to contain restrictions not present in the
GPL, so I'm not sure that your licence achieves this. A work combining
both GPL'd and IBPP-licensed source code may not be distributable,
because one cannot simultaneously satisfy the source-demand clause and
the GPL's no further restrictions clause.
Hope that explains,
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
Reply to: