Re: software licensing
Sorry, I didn't expect this to be so long, but i may as well send it now:
"Derek B. Noonburg" <derekn@aimnet.com> writes:
> (1) clearly meets the DFSG,
:)
> (2) gives me the exclusive right to do commercial licensing, and
I assume by this you mean "proprietary" or "binary only release" licensing?
Free software does not preclude commercialization, and licenses which prohibit
commercial use immediately fail the DFSG.
> (3) is clear, concise, and unambiguous. I think the GPL is pretty close to
> what I want (on #1 and #2), but it's simply way too confusing and ambiguous.
How many times have you heard someone try to explain something in your field
in "layman's" terms only to say something vaguely right but in fact far more
ambiguous and unclear than the technical terms? The reason scientists,
programmers, lawyers, and people in every other specialized field invent
technical jargon is because that jargon typically _is_ the clearest most
unambiguous way to express ideas in their field.
> I see the same questions over and over on the Linux newsgroups (the gnu
> newsgroups are even worse).
I fear you could state the golden rule, and people on newsgroups would you to
clarify exactly what you mean. If you follow for long enough you'll notice
it's generally the same people over and over spreading FUD (fear, uncertainty,
doubt) even after they've been rebutted and their misconceptions explained.
Even on the Gnu newsgroups the reasonable newbie questions typically get
answered quickly succinctly and without argument, and the asker goes on about
his business.
> I see the same questions over and over on the Linux newsgroups (the gnu
> newsgroups are even worse). The GPL was presumably written by/for lawyers;
> I'd rather make my license clear to hackers and users.
It sounds to me that what you want to do is write a foreward explaining what
some acceptable and unacceptable uses under the license are, and explaining
that you are amenable to selling separate non-copyleft licenses as well. That
makes it clear to users who don't understand the GPL, while preserving
language "written for lawyers", since after all the license is a contract.
I'm afraid if you write your own license with the expectation that it preserve
your rights to the extent the GPL does that you'll write something that sounds
good to a layman, but leaves ambiguities and loopholes. This is especially
relevant if you want to require license fees for proprietary uses, since those
users have the most incentive to try to find a loophole in the license.
That said, I don't actually see any real problems with your license that
others haven't mentioned (the "must publish" problem). But I'm not a lawyer
and I'm worried there are aspects I've missed. Rereading the GPL I notice lots
of little details lost in your version, such as the ability to ship without
source if you include a written offer to ship it later for example.
Incidentally, it can trivially be made GPL compatible by adding a clause
allowing the user to optionally redistribute it or a derived work under the
GPL. This however creates a possibility that someone could fork a GPL'd branch
which would become more popular than the main branch. Whether this is
acceptable is up to you.
Note that either way, you are the original author and can sell separate
licenses, but only as long as no substantive changes are contribute by other
people. If major changes are contributed by others you have to either do what
the FSF does, and ask them to sign disclaimers granting you the right to
license their code, or do the NPL thing of requiring that they grant you a
such a right as part of the license.
greg
Reply to: