Re: RPSL and DFSG-compliance
Wow! I hadn't realized there was somebody from Real interested in
addressing this. If there's a prospect of seeing the RPSL evolve into
something Debian can consider free, that's likely to motivate a *lot*
more work from those here.
I should preface what I'm about to say with this: the DFSG do not
have exclusive requirements. There are many non-free licenses which
do not violate any points of the DFSG -- for example, a license which
allowed all those freedoms in the dfsg, but said users must pay $1
to the author before running the program would be non-free.
Similarly, a license which let you use the program as much as you
want, but claimed to demand $1 before letting you *terminate* the
program would be non-free.
Some things, like the right to use the software, are so obviously
necessary to freedom of software that they were never written down in
the DFSG. But maybe the RPSL won't turn out to have any problems like
that. I hope it won't. But I'd feel dishonest if I didn't start out
with this sort of sentence, and then found such problems.
Given that gloomy warning, let's dive in to some specific problems:
RPSL 1 says that nothing grants me permission to use the software.
That's not true. US copyright law doesn't restrict that, and the
contract of sale under which I bought a CD containing the software --
or downloaded it -- gives me that permission. If you take the word
"use" out of there, that problem goes away. Take a look at how the
GPL phrases a similar clause. In general, similarity makes analysis
much, much easier. This doesn't really tie back to any DFSG points,
it's just one of those points so obvious it isn't written. The
software has to be usable; also, if the license says things which are
blatantly not true, we can't be sure that the licensor has anything
like the same understanding of copyright law we have.
RPSL 1 also says that acceptance is indicated by clicking an "Accept"
button or downloading the software; that binds mirrors and all sorts
of other people who distribute Debian software blind to this license.
Given the bulk of section 1, this last part ("In addition...software")
really doesn't help Real at all, does it?
RPSL 1.7 defines "Externally Deploy" in ways that are going to matter
later. The easiest way to clean those up *may* be by fixing this
definition. If I put some data into a video file, wait a month, then
stream it out and watch it using Helix DNA, and having thus jogged my
memory I provide a service to somebody else, it looks like that counts
as External Deployment. That seems like *any* deployment, if I
interact with others or provide services to them, is External
Deployment. This definition isn't necessarily non-free, depending on
what's below. But we'll get to that later.
RPSL 1.5 and 1.11 define Personal Use. Because DFSG 6 prohibits
discrimination by endeavor, we can't use *anything* which is only
granted for personal use. Those grants, generous as they are and as
much as I do use them in my personal work, don't count for making the
software Free.
RPSL 2.1a *might* be non-free. It prohibits some sorts of
modifications -- not only those necessary to prevent fraud and
preserve copyright notices, but many others. It depends on whether
there are notices in the original code which refer to the license, and
which serve some functional purpose. If they're just in comments,
then this is a no-op -- I hope you wouldn't mind altering it, in that
case, since it isn't gaining you anything either. But if it prevents
some functional modifications from being made, then it's certainly
non-free.
RPSL 2.1d is going to be the Big Problem, isn't it? That's really the
teeth of the meta-copyleft in the RPSL, and I imagine it's very
important to Real that it continue in its effect. But I don't see any
way to call it Free. I expect several other debian-legal regulars to
jump in and disagree at this point, and maybe we'll convince each
other and can then get back to you.
But here's my draft of what's non-free about RPSL 2.1d:
> You must make Source Code of all Your Externally Deployed
> Modifications publicly available under the terms of this License,
> including the license grants set forth in Section 3 below, for as
> long as you Deploy the Covered Code or twelve (12) months from the
> date of initial Deployment, whichever is longer.
The timing is a problem. That means that I can have forsworn
computers entirely, and yet be obliged to lug around some vast lump of
code to distribute. What happens if a patent's granted on that? Then
I can't distribute it without breaking the law, but can't stop without
breaking the license. That doesn't even reach to the DFSG level.
Additionally, forced distribution for using modifications is itself
non-free. This can be drawn back to several points of the DFSG: the
unfortunately-fuzzy Discrimination clauses:
5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups: The license must not
discriminate against any person or group of persons.
6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor: The license must
not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific
field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program
from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic
research.
And there are lots of people who want to modify and use some software,
maybe N+1 steps removed from an end user who doesn't have the source,
who can't because of this. Note that DFSG 6 isn't talking about
restrictions on modification or distribution: it very clearly talks
about restrictions on making use of the program. And this is such a
restriction.
It becomes even more intense in 2.1e:
(e) if You Deploy Covered Code in object code, executable form only,
You must include a prominent notice, in the code itself as well as
in related documentation, stating that Source Code of the Covered
Code is available under the terms of this License with information
on how and where to obtain such Source Code. You must also include
the Object Code Notice set forth in Exhibit A in the "about" box
or other appropriate place where other copyright notices are
placed, including any packaging materials.
That's a very clear restriction on use. And I suspect that Real isn't
willing to compromise on that; if so, please let us know.
RPSL 3 is also problematic: the grant in 3b is far broader than the
license Real grants with the software, which violates DFSG 3 -- it's
not the same license under which I received the software.
RPSL 12.6 requires a fee for distribution, violating DFSG 1.
So. That's quite a list. And while it's great for us if Real fixes
the little DFSG-incompatibilities, 2.1d and 2.1e are the real big
problems. Can you say anything about those which might convince me
and others that they're Free?
-Brian
--
Brian Sniffen bts@alum.mit.edu
Reply to: