Hello, I am the author of FilterProxy. Kenneth Schmidt pointed me to
this discussion, so I'll try to answer some issues raised. (poking
through archives here -- this is going to be long)
BTW, the "license" is the indented part at the top of my LICENSE file,
the rest is explanation. Don't take the non-indented stuff too
seriously.
==== Jules Bean [jules@jellybean.co.uk] wrote:
> The license is appalling, I'm afraid. I totally fails the DFSG.
The only part of the DFSG that it apparently fails is number 6. I
believe this is very much a matter of interpretation. The examples
given for "field of endeavor" are business and genetic research. If
"field of endeavor" is a kind of person, computer, or company, than my
license does not violate #6.
If, on the other hand, #6 means there shall be no usage restrictions,
then my license clearly violates it. The meaning of #6 is not clear.
If the debian project wishes software to have no usage restrictions,
then I think the DFSG should say so explicitly. "field of endeavor"
could be anything...
As stated in my license, FilterProxy is in the unfortunate position that
with no usage restrictions on itself, it could be used to enforce usage
restrictions. Which makes it kind of a contradiction. I totally agree
with both of the interpretations of #6 above.
My license is intended to accomplish 3 things:
1) Make copyright compliance of the filtered HTML the responsibility of
the person *running* it, not mine. (I don't want to be sued, and I
think this is reasonable -- see license for further justification)
2) Afford the HTML that gets filtered through FilterProxy as many of the
same protections that are afforded to the code of FilterProxy
itself (GPL). (namely, notification to the user that changes have
been made -- by requiring that the user know about them, and not
misrepresenting modified HTML as the original)
3) Explicitly disallow redistribution of modified HTML. While the
source is always readily available in this case, modifying it for
redistribution is out of the question, since the HTML may not have
been obtained under some kind of "open content" license. Personal
use, by anyone, anywhere, for any purpose, is fine.
Note that FilterProxy is capable of filtering more than HTML, I just use
it as an example above.
> It's also probably non-enforceable: it is restricting use, not
> copying. And that's not what copyright is for.
The "LICENSE" is properly not a part of the copyright. As it states in
the my LICENSE:
The GNU Public License does not cover usage, or content/data
generated by a program covered by it. From the GPL: "Activities
other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by
this License; they are outside its scope."
Copying is a separate activity from use. Copying is covered by the GPL.
Usage is covered by my LICENSE. Someone mentioned that the addition of
the line at the beginning of COPYING was a problem. I can remove this,
since the LICENSE really has nothing to do with copying...
> It would have to become a 'shrink-wrap' type license. No one is
> really sure if shrink-wrap licenses are enforceable, I don't think.
The non-enforcability of shrink-wrap licenses is a matter of debate, and
is immaterial to this discussion. If they are unenforceable, Microsoft,
and most other commercial software vendors would certainly like to hear
about it.
==== Chad Walstrom [chewie@wookimus.net] wrote:
> Trying to enforce EULA (a wonderful acronym given to us by the
> Micro$oft monster), is laughable. ;-) Making it difficult to remove
> end-user information is a much better solution. The people who
> install the software would have to work to remove the 'info' code.
The idea is that if the user is simply informed of the filtering, this
code is easy to remove. I do not want my efforts to be mangled into
something used to censor ideas. The license, while questionable in its
enforcability, makes the license apply to modified versions. The stuff
in my license about naughty words/porn was somewhat of a rant...maybe I
should remove it. ;)
==== Scott Dier [sdier@debian.org] wrote:
> So what, bend the DFSG for intrepretation? Christ, whats next? Pigs
> flying around?
Well, if you can...but what would flying pig taste like?
Seriously, I think section 6 is ambiguous in this regard. Would Debian
allow a software that, while free, prevented you from installing or
compiling modified versions of key software? For FilterProxy, What
about HTML documentation that is distributed under a Open Documentation
license? If FilterProxy touched the HTML, it could be violating the
license the documentation is distributed under.
==== Colin Watson [cjw44@flatline.org.uk] wrote:
> What next? "You may not use this gcc to compile censorware programs?"
> "You may not compile things I disapprove of against this glibc?" If you
> have any contact with the author, please try to make him understand.
I fear you have misinterpreted my license. You *may* use FilterProxy
(or some derivative) to implement censorware. (Note that you would have
to fork, since I wouldn't have anything to do with it) By my license,
however, the censorware cannot be applied without the knowledge and
consent of the users of the proxy. I think this is reasonable. The
intent of the license is that if someone *does* fork for the purpose of
censorware, it cannot be invisible, underhanded, dirty-tricks
censorware. The users have to know about it. It would be a simple
matter to add some Rewrite rules to s/shit/poop/, s/boob/breast/, etc if
one so desired. Note that doing this for your kids is fine too, since
they're not legal entities until they're 18.
I'll remove that little rant from my license, it's probably not
appropriate.
I hope that my software could be included in "main". However, if it is
determined that my license is incompatible with the DFSG, I would rather
FilterProxy be in non-free than remove the license. I spent about a
month racking my brain on this issue (I even badgered my lawyer
friends), and this is what I came up with. I don't think usage
requirements or shrink-wrap licenses are desirable, in general.
Having my efforts labeled as "non-free" is disheartening, but I'll get
over it. ;)
Ack that was long, sorry.
Cheers,
-- Bob
Bob McElrath (rsmcelrath@students.wisc.edu)
Univ. of Wisconsin at Madison, Department of Physics
Attachment:
pgp47ecWqXwyN.pgp
Description: PGP signature