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

Copying/modification/distribution/sale combos and setting terms on use

Branden Robinson wrote:
> Any other opinions on the above license from my fellow debian-legal geeks?

I have two points to raise.

The license under consideration contains the following language:
> Use, copying, modification, merging, publishing, distribution
> and/or sale of this software, source and/or binary files and
> associated documentation files (the "Software") and of derivative
> works based upon this Software are permitted, as long as the
> following conditions are met:

1. <[🔎] 87of8uo9m2.fsf@becket.becket.net> has got me wondering if we really
   should specify that we want to combine

      copying, modification, distribution, sale

   into any arbitrary combination (e.g., copying+modification,
   sale+distribution, copying+modification+distribution+sale).  After all,
   if the UWash lawyers were right about how clauses like these are
   understood and we need to clarify modification+distribution, why do we
   not want clear specification on any other desirable combination of these

2. According to http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/apsl.html (FSF's critique of
   the Apple Public Source License or APSL):

      At a fundamental level, the APSL makes a claim that, if it became
      accepted, would stretch copyright powers in a dangerous way: it claims
      to be able to set conditions for simply *running* the software. As I
      understand it, copyright law in the US does not permit this, except
      when encryption or a license manager is used to enforce the
      conditions. It would be terribly ironic if a failed attempt at making
      a free software license resulted in an extension of the effective
      range of copyright power.

   and yet this license claims to set terms on "use" outside of any mention
   of encryption or a license manager.  Please note I don't particularly
   care if the latest APSL still makes the same claim as the one the FSF
   reviewed, it's the ability to set conditions on "simply *running* the
   software" that makes me wonder.


Reply to: