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

Re: Is `ilisp' DFSG free?

>  Please advise.  I am not subscribed, so Cc.
>  Is this licence (from ilisp 5.10.1) DFSG free?
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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.

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).

> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
[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:
> 	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

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: