Re: Is `ilisp' DFSG free?
> Please advise. I am not subscribed, so Cc.
>
> Is this licence (from ilisp 5.10.1) DFSG free?
>
>
> COPYING -- TERMS AND LICENSING AGREEMENT FOR ILISP
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
[cut]
> ILISP if freely redistributable. Eventually it may become part of GNU
> Emacs and it will in that case comply with the GPL.
>
> For the time being we adopt the following licensing agreement.
[cut]
They say above `freely redistributable' but then say `we adopt
the following licensing agreement', so that sentence becomes
somewhat irrelevant (they don't talk much about redistribution in
the license itself).
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> GENERAL LICENSE AGREEMENT AND LACK OF WARRANTY
[cut `no-warranty' text]
> Use and copying of this software and the preparation of derivative
> works based on this software are permitted
`copying' doesn't mean `redistribution', does it?
> , so long as the following
> conditions are met:
[cut]
> o No fees or compensation are charged for use, copies, or
> access to this software. You may charge a nominal
> distribution fee for the physical act of transferring a
> copy, but you may not charge for the program itself.
This is not strictly DFSG-compliant. The Artistic license gets
away with by stating that the clause is not enforced by the
copyright holder.
> o Any work distributed or published that in whole or in part
> contains or is a derivative of this software or any part
> thereof is subject to the terms of this agreement. The
> aggregation of another unrelated program with this software
> or its derivative on a volume of storage or distribution
> medium does not bring the other program under the scope
> of these terms.
Is the above permission to re-distribute?
> o Permission is granted to manufacturers and distributors of
> lisp compilers and interpreters to include this software
> with their distribution.
Why is the above specified if everyone is allowed to redistribute
it? If only `manufacturers and distributors of lisp compilers
and interpreters' are allowed to redistribute it, then it
discriminates and is non-free.
I find it unclear, and if it were me packaging it, it'd go in
non-free. The no-sell clause is enough to put it into non-free,
and the unclear permission on who is allowed to redistribute it
might mean we're not allowed to include it even in non-free
(surely not their intent, but perhaps the letter of their
license).
IANAL, my two-cents only, grain of salt, etc.
--
Peter Galbraith, research scientist <GalbraithP@dfo-mpo.gc.ca>
Maurice Lamontagne Institute, Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada
P.O. Box 1000, Mont-Joli Qc, G5H 3Z4 Canada. 418-775-0852 FAX: 775-0546
6623'rd GNU/Linux user at the Counter - http://counter.li.org/
Reply to: