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

Re: GPL compatible license?

Summary: No, this isn't GPL compatible. It's not even free. Violates DFSG 1.

Martin Schulze wrote:

1. You may, without additional permission from the authors, distribute Elm or components of Elm, with or without additions developed by you or by others at no charge. You may also distribute Elm along with any other product for sale, provided that the cost of the bundled package is the same regardless of whether Elm is included, and provided that those interested only in Elm must be notified that it is a product freely available from the Elm Development Group.

Violates DFSG 1. As others have noted, this would not even allow charging for distribution per megabyte, by download time, etc.

Additionally, the notification requirement seems quite hard to satisfy. Since it's hard to determine who is interesting in only Elm, you'd have to notify everyone, leading to a situation which would really suck if a lot of software had this licence.

Perhaps we should adopt Kant's Categorical Impertative as a DFSG criterion :-)

2. You may, without additional permission from the authors, distribute copies of the Elm Documentation, with or without additions developed by you or by others at no charge or at a charge that covers the cost of
	   reproducing the copies, provided that the Elm copyright notice is

DFSG 1, again (at cost only).

3. Furthermore, if you distribute Elm software or parts of Elm, with or without additions developed by you or others, then you must either make available the source to all portions of the Elm system (exclusive of any additions made by you or by others) upon request, or instead you may notify anyone requesting source that it is freely available from the Elm Development Group.

What happenes if the Elm Development Group disappears is a good question.

This seems to require that I continue to handle questions regarding software I distribute forever; I don't think this is a free requirement.

Also, depending on what happens if the Elm Development Group vanishes, I may need to keep copies around forever, and distribute them forever. And my distribution of them forever must be for free (see clause 1, above).

If it weren't for the words "upon request", I don't think there would be any problem here, because I think it'd be implied that you'd only need the sources available as long as you're distributing, like in the GPL.

DFSG 1. (In this context, I'd take requiring indefinite handlinging of requests and/or storage of source to be a 'fee')

        4. In addition, you may not omit any of the copyright notices
on either the source files, the executable file, or the documentation, and

ok. (This is I think GPL compatable; it just says you can't remove the copyright notices.)

5. Also, you may not omit transmission of this License agreement with whatever portions of Elm that are distributed.

This is phrased weirdly, but I think it is intended to mean "you must include a copy of this license".

However, as written, it'd seem to prohibit me from setting up viewcvs with elm, because someone could view a file without receiving a copy of this license (unless this license is in full in every file, which I doubt).

I don't think this violates a specific point of the DFSG, however I don't think it's free.

        6. Lastly, any users of this software must be notified that it is
without warrantee or guarantee of any nature, express or implied, nor is there any fitness for use represented.

ok. GPL has a similar clause.

Software is a malleable thing - especially UNIX - and the authors can in no
way guarantee that using this program will not cause grievous damage to your
system.  Of course this isn't anticipated, but if it does happen, the authors
cannot be held liable for any damages either directly or indirectly caused
by this event.


Modification of the system is encouraged, providing that the portions of the system that are from the original still carry the appropriate copyright
notices and that the changed sections are clearly delimited as such.

OK, only because of DFSG 4. Patch files would seem to satisfy this.

authors requests copies of any changes made to ensure that the various versions
stay reasonably in sync with each other.  Please send all revisions to

Only a request, so ok.

Reply to: