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

Re: DFSG as Licence?

George Danchev <danchev@spnet.net> writes:

> On Sunday 11 June 2006 19:25, Måns Rullgård wrote:
>> Michelle Konzack <linux4michelle@freenet.de> writes:
>> > Hello *,
>> >
>> > Since I have read tonns of different licences I do not realy know
>> > what to do.  Since I am using Debian/main only (with the exception
>> > of libdvdcss2) since more then 7 years now I want to say, that my
>> > Software any Licence which comply with the DFSG.
>> >
>> > Question:
>> >
>> > Is there allready a licence which use the term DFSG as licence?
>> >
>> > I do not fully agree with the FSF and the GPL. v2.0 maybe ok,
>> > but I have complains against the new one.
>> If you do not like gpl3, use gpl2 without the "or later" option, if
>> that does what you want.  The FSF won't like you if you do, but nobody
>> is under any obligation to please them.  Personally, I'm allergic to
>> more than two paragraphs of legalese, and I don't want to release my
>> work under terms I do not fully understand, so I release my stuff
>> under the MIT license.  It gives a little more permission than the
>> GPL, but I don't really care if someone uses my code in a commercial
>> application.  
> GPL allows commercial applications, but what GPL does not allow is
> becoming a 'proprietary application' (non-free). E.g. you are not

OK, bad choice of words.  I don't much care if someone uses my code in
a proprietary application either.

> allowed to grab a GPL'ed source code, modify it and distribute the
> modified binaries only. In that case GPL force you to publish the
> your source modifications, which is perfectly in the spirit of free
> software ... e.g. what is give is what you get.

What I'm talking about is different, each on their own free, licenses
being deemed incompatible with each other.  Examples are the GPL, the
OpenSSL license, and the Open Software License.  I find it hard to
believe that most authors who choose to release under the GPL do so in
order to prevent their code being used in a program released under the
OSL.  Neither of these two licenses (GPL and OSL) allows for
proprieterization of code.  However, I see it as a loss to the free
software world as a whole, that the open source code is divided into
several islands, between which no code sharing is allowed.  This leads
to time and efforts being wasted in reimplementing perfectly good
code, only because the existing version has slightly different terms
of use and distribution.

How many cases of Foo is under GPL, Foo uses libcurl, libcurl can be
linked with OpenSSL, hence Foo is non-distributable have been
discussed on this list?  I have no figures, but it is a recurring
topic.  Does anyone seriously believe that the authors of Foo
intentionally created those situation?

Måns Rullgård

Reply to: