Re: Steelblue license
On Tue, 31 Oct 2000, Jeffry Smith wrote:
> The question is, does the below meet the DFSG? Particularly since it
> is:
It might. In fact, it seems a lot like the LGPL, except that it is
exceptionally vague on what restrictions it places on derivative works,
and it does not guarantee that the license is usable for future versions.
I cannot point to any of the DFSG guidelines that the license actually
violates. Clearly it permits free redistribution, it includes source
code, it doesn't discriminate against anybody, it allows distribution of
license, it's not specific to Debian, and it doesn't contaminate other
software.
The only two guidelines it might run afoul of are #3 and #4.
The problem with #3 is that it doesn't really specify *what* to do with
derived works. If you consider any derived work as a "modification" under
section 4, then it doesn't prohibit any particular modification or
distribution. It only requires that you *also* permit TCG to do whatever
they want with it. This has no problem with DFSG #3.
I do not think it has any problem with #4. The license does not clearly
specify whether you are permitted to distribute modified versions or only
the modifications themselves separate from the program (I believe it is
the former). I would like to have this clarified, but since either way is
DFSG-compliant then there is no problem.
The only possible remaining sticking point is whether the license
"explicitly permits distribution of software built from modified source
code." It doesn't say so in as many words, but I also believe it does
permit this.
> 1. revocable
But the license is not revocable just because they want to. It is only
revocable if you violate its terms, which is OK.
> 2. Requires you to give them the source (although it does say
> "please" at the site listed, so "requires" may be a bit harsh).
There is no prohibition on this in the DFSG.
> 3. Requires you to give them full rights to your mods (even sell
> them, from what I read).
Yes. But it does not require you to actually transfer ownership of your
modifications to them, merely that you grant them the right to use the
modifications in future versions. This is very close to what the (L)GPL
allows.
The only real danger is that they may decide to change the license to the
program at some future time, and you would not be able to object to
this. Again not DFSG-problematic because you can still use and distribute
the older version under the original license, but a potential nuisance
regardless.
> 4. Termination clause.
Pretty standard I think.
> 5. Governed under Maryland law (UCITA) (although it makes sense as a
> Maryland corp, but it is UCITA).
But none of the evilness of UCITA seems to be in use.
> 6. Up front, it states it governs "right to use" which may not be the
> same as "right to copy" (GPL only governs copying, as you have an
> automatic right to use under copyright)
I think this is just bad wording. The license clearly also covers
distribution as it spells out conditions under which you can use it.
> 7. Their "Copyright" clause, which claims all rights, both copyright
> and any other rights.
I don't see this as a problem, unless you are reading a different section
than I am. They are retaining ownership of the program - which is also
the case with every other license, except public domain.
Reply to: