Re: licence for Truecrypt
> but UNACCEPTABLY protects integrity of the
> author's source (DFSG 4) due to attempting to
> enforce a super-trademark in III.1.a
The PHP License 3.0 and the Apache License 1.0 (which
are both approved as free software license by the FSF,
and as open source license by the OSI) require exactly
the same thing:
'5. Products derived from this software may not be
called "Apache", nor may "Apache" appear in their
'4. Products derived from this software may not be
called "PHP", nor may "PHP" appear in their name'
I think Debian does distribute PHP and Apache.
You may also want to read the OSI definition of Open
Source, which says:
"4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code
The license may require derived works to carry a
different name or version number from the original
>From these facts, I would judge (1) that you are not
qualified to tell whether a license adheres to the
Debian Free Software Guidelines or (2) that licenses
of some prominent software packages distributed by
Debian do not adhere to the Debian Free Software
> MIGHT discriminate against private use (DFSG 6) with
> the public availability requirement of III.1.d
Could you specify coditions under which you think the
license would discriminate against private use? The
license states that you can keep your changes private
(i.e., you can disregard terms of the section
III.1.d). From the license:
"3. You are not obligated to comply with Section
III.1.d. if at least one of the following conditions
a. Your product/modifications (as defined in Section
III.1.) are not distributed (i.e., your
product/modifications are available only to you).
b. Your product/modifications (as defined in Section
III.1.) are distributed and used only internally
within the organization and only by members/employees
of the organization for which you created the
product/modifications and of which you were a
member/employee when you created the
product/modifications. (Here the word "organization"
means a non-commercial or commercial organization, or
a government agency.)"
> No, by 'private use' I mean use which is private,
> as in not public, not necessarily by a single
The license clearly and explicitly allows private use
and modifications both by individuals and legal
entitites comprising more than one individual (Section
> MIGHT discriminate against commerce (DFSG 6) with
> the AS THIS PRODUCT IS FREE in IV.1
Actually, the GPL says the same in Section 11:
"11. BECAUSE THE PROGRAM IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE,
THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM"
> In summary: this licence looks non-free but it's
My summary: Nobody has presented any facts that would
indicate that the license in question might be
> [Claim that V.2 is equal to GPL s5]
Well, the OP wrote:
"I don't think V.2 will stick in the US for plain use
of the software"
V.2 of the license says:
"Any use, reproduction, distribution, or modification
of this product or any of its parts constitutes
recipient's acceptance of this agreement."
I tried to show the OP that he was wrong. The GPL uses
the same approach (it does not matter that it does not
mention 'use'). Anyway, I can give you even more
precise precedents. We can find equal terms in the
following licenses, which are explicitly governed by
the US law:
IBM Public License Version 1.0 (approved as free
software license by FSF and as open source license by
"ANY USE, REPRODUCTION OR DISTRIBUTION OF THE PROGRAM
CONSTITUTES RECIPIENT'S ACCEPTANCE OF THIS AGREEMENT."
NASA OPEN SOURCE AGREEMENT VERSION 1.3 (approved as
open source by the OSI) says:
"ANYONE WHO USES, REPRODUCES, DISTRIBUTES, MODIFIES OR
REDISTRIBUTES THE SUBJECT SOFTWARE, AS DEFINED HEREIN,
OR ANY PART THEREOF, IS, BY THAT ACTION, ACCEPTING IN
FULL THE RESPONSIBILITIES AND OBLIGATIONS CONTAINED IN
THIS AGREEMENT." 
> Maybe it isn't proved to the contrary, but
> that's a side effect of being unclear.
Sorry, but this is beginning to appear like FUD to me.
No facts stated (just fear, uncertainty, and doubt).
Every license I know is somewhat unclear (or vague) in
many places. Take for, example, the GPL:
"If identifiable sections of that work are not derived
from the Program, and can be reasonably considered
independent and separate works in themselves"
This is (to use Michaels' terminology) a "lawyerbomb".
How can the licensee be sure that he knows what is
sufficient to be considered as "reasonably independent
and separate work" under the GPL? And I could go on.
No license can be 100% perfectly clear. Licenses need
to be as general and concise as possible. The
by-prodcut of this is that they are not absolutely_
clear everytime and everywhere. In such cases, the
recipient should contact the authors of the license
for clarification of his situation. That's common and
recommended practise in the real world.
> Please, try not to start every other paragraph
> with "You are wrong."
If I think someone is wrong, I may (and often will)
say it. We have freedom of speech. I also think it's
not very polite to tell adult people how they should
> That's true, but you don't get to stake the moral
> high ground *after* replying at the same level.
I wasn't at the same level. I just stated my opinion
on how things work in the real world. In contrast, the
other poster had directly insulted the person who
wrote the license. I think there's a difference.
> Hope that explains
Yes, it did explain certain things to me. But I would
say something not very nice about Debian if I revealed
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around