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

Re: [Flamerobin-devel] License, again



Hi, Milan,

[Yet another cross-post to debian-legal, whose comments are needed at
the lower part of this mail. Thanks]

milanb@kms.co.yu wrote:
> Quoting Damyan Ivanov <divanov@creditreform.bg>:
> Yes. If possible, I intend to convince everyone to dual license FR under
> GPL and someting else.

How? If IBPPL1.0 is incompatible with GPL? Whatever licenses are
chosen for FR they all must be compatible with the licensing of IBPP,
right? If IBPPLx.y is made GPL-compatible, theh this is no problem of
course. I for one don't run for GPL for FR, neither IBPP. I'd welcome
GPL, as well as any other license that satisfies Debian Free Software
Guidelines.

>> Even if we agree IBPPL1.0 is not compatible with GPL, what about
>> (modified)BSD/Expat? I can't see any gotchas in combining those with
>> IBPPL1.0
> 
> Do you mean: if IBPP is licensed under BSD/Expat license? Well, then
> there is no problem. BSD license is not "viral", it only requires that
> license text is included in code. It puts no restrictions on embedding
> it in larger work and relicensing that.
> 
> Or you meant for us to release FR under BSD/expat? That one is out of
> the question.
The later. (This is just to clarify what I meant. Not that I insist on
FR being licensed under Expat or something)

>>> Authors. MPL/IDPL say that modifications must be given to anyone you
>>> provide with executable version, while GPL says that modifications
>>> must be
>>> given to the public.
>>
>> You provide changes to the GPL-ed code to the public and changes to
>> IBPP to its authors. What's wrong with this?
> 
> FR would not have a single license. Parts of it's code would be licensed
> under IBPP license, and it wouldn't be included in "main".

I am not sure I understand you completely.

There is ongoing effort to mage IBPP's license suitable for including
IBPP sources and programs using them in Debian/main.

If these efforts give some result, FR's license is still a problem
(being IDPL). That's why I try to discuss FR's licensing at the same
time as IBPP's licensing - to move two tasks in parallel and save a
couple of months.

>>> I also understand and respect Nando's wishes about commercial use of
>>> parts
>>> or entire FR, and I somewhat even agree on that. So, the solution that
>>> would suit us is:
>>>
>>> 1. IBPP changing the about mentioned constraint
>>
>> And FR stays IDPL? Still problematic for inclusion in Debian.
> 
> No, I've re-read IDPL again, and it does have problems.
> 
>> What is the difference with (modified)BSD/Expat-like license plus the
>> requirement to publish changes (if this desired)?
> 
> Here's what we want, but IANAL so I can't make a license out of it:
> 
> 1. allow anyone to download, copy and redistribute FR source as it is.
> 2. if someone makes modifications for his own use, he is not obligated
> to publish them
> 3. if someone makes modifications and makes executable version
> available, he must make the modifications available to the same person
> he made executable version available to.
> 4. no warranty
> 
> IDPL is close to that, but it has problems. Mostly the Californian
> courts, US regulations (not needed at all IMO), and some other problems
> already noted by Debian team.

Alright. Please, folks on debian-legal, can you see any problem
including software with such licensing in Debian? Can you recommend a
license that satisfies the above points and is DFSG-free? To me it
seems like Expat plus point 3 above (but I can't legal-speek-phrase it).



Thanks in advance,
dam
-- 
Damyan Ivanov                              Creditreform Bulgaria
divanov@creditreform.bg              http://www.creditreform.bg/
phone: +359(2)928-2611, 929-3993            fax: +359(2)920-0994
mob. +359(88)856-6067               dam@jabber.minus273.org/Gaim

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Reply to: