[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: custom license (package: bwctl)



On Sat, 4 Feb 2012 09:23:29 +0900 Charles Plessy wrote:

> Le Fri, Feb 03, 2012 at 05:16:26PM +0100, Raoul Borenius a écrit :
[...]
> Dear Raoul,
> 
> these terms have been discussed earlier on this list, and many commenters
> quiestionned its freeness.

Thank you for searching the archives, Charles: I hadn't found the time
to do so yesterday...

> Nevertheless, our archive contains works
> distributed under very similar terms.
> 
> http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/a/apbs/apbs_1.2.1b-1/copyright

This is worrying, IMHO.
Even though the terms wsdl2python is distributed under are not
identical to the clause currently under discussion, I think their
effects are similar (but not identical).

I think a serious bug should be filed against source package apbs.
Any volunteers?

> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2009/08/msg00028.html
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2009/09/msg00001.html
> 
> This license allows to make derivatives under any terms, very similarly to the
> BSD license.  It makes it impossible to publish derivatives under no terms at
> all.  This restriction is much weaker than copyleft licenses, which forbid this
> as they also forbid to redistribute derivatives under non-copyleft terms.
> 
> Thefore, while the validity of this concept of default license may be
> questionable, I do not think that it is non-free.

I personally disagree: I think this clause is non-free.
As I said [1] in one of the above cited threads:

[...]
| [The clause] says that, when you distribute enhanced source (without doing a
| special action), you will automatically grant the *original authors* and
| contributors *more* rights than those you received from them.
[...]

[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2009/09/msg00010.html

Josselin Mouette seemed to agree [2] on the violation of DFSG#3,
even though with slightly different conclusions [3] on the effects of
the clause.

[2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2009/09/msg00012.html
[3] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2009/09/msg00015.html


I reiterate the recommendation (for Raoul or any other volunteer) to
get in touch with upstream and to try and persuade them to switch to a
well-known and widely-used Free Software license, such as the 3-clause
BSD license: http://www.debian.org/misc/bsd.license


-- 
 http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt
 New GnuPG key, see the transition document!
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82  3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE

Attachment: pgppDMyWbfN_2.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: