Re: software licensing

[Daniel Martin at cush <dtm12@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu>]

Derek Noonburg <derekn@aimnet.com> writes:

> Ok, here's a rewritten draft of my Reasonable Software License.  As
> before, I'm interested in any comments, especially where something is
> unclear or ambiguous.
> 
> Also, I'd like to make sure this license meets the DFSG.  I'm pretty
> sure it does (I wrote it with the DFSG in mind), but if you disagree,
> please let me know.

I think this has one of the same problems that early draft versions of 
the NPL did.  Namely, I can't give a modified version (say the
modification is somehow useful only to JHU students) to my friend
without making it publicly available.  Also, what if I live in some
country in which internet access is difficult and/or expensive, and I
wish to make a modified xpdf which I wish to install on all my
neighbors' machines?

Also, what if I want only a few people to test a particular
modification before releasing it to the world?  Your current license
wouldn't necessarily allow me to simply email patch files to friends
of mine without putting the patch file on a web page/ftp site for all
the world to look at.

I'd propose the following change:
3. Modifications to the package and modified versions of the package
   may be distributed only if:
...
   d. the source code modifications (patch files) or modified source
      code are made publicly available in freely accessible electronic
      form, e.g., on a web or ftp site, OR the modified source code or 
      source modifications are distributed with the package OR any
      binary (i.e. compiled) version is accompanied with a written
      offer to provide the source code modifications (patch files) or
      modified source on demand for no more than the cost of the
      physical duplication of the source code modifications or
      modified source.  (Note that binaries must also be accompanied
      by the files listed in 2(a)).

This will cause most people to exhibit the behavior you expected when
you wrote the RSL, but will allow people in bizarre circumstances to
enjoy the freedoms one expects from free software.  Whether or not
something is DFSG free often comes down to these bizarre cases.

Hrmm.  That clause become much longer and more convoluted than I
intended when I started writing it.  I hope someone can shorten it -
part of the problem is that we don't want to accidentally introduce
loopholes that allow people to sell modified versions of the software
without allowing the buyers to turn around and send those
modifications upstream.

And of course RSL code can't be linked to GPL code, but that's the
case with much free software.  It's the nature of the GPL.