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

Re: Geant4 Software License, version 1.0

"MJ Ray" <mjr@phonecoop.coop> wrote in message [🔎] 1152102443.090537.1506.nullmailer@klnet.towers.org.uk">news:[🔎] 1152102443.090537.1506.nullmailer@klnet.towers.org.uk...
Kevin B. McCarty <kmccarty@Princeton.EDU>
I would be interested to hear your opinions on the Geant4 Software
License, version 1.0 [1]. [...]
[1] http://geant4.web.cern.ch/geant4/license/LICENSE.html

I think it is clearly GPL-incompatible (as you noted) for reasons
similar to the old BSD licence and it might not follow the DFSG because
of clauses 4 (automatic donation to upstream), clause 8 (no right to
dispute unauthorised inclusion of your code) and maybe 5 (discrimination
against fields of use) below.

How exactly does automatic upstream licence violate the DFSG?

I think I see your point with number 8, but the idea of that clause
fits the spirit of Software freeness. the idea is to prevent a big company from suing the developers without any good reason in an attempt to extort money from the developers. That sort of clause does discorage that. It is also a purely defensive clause.
Can you suggest a better wording?

I don't think 5 is really a DFSG freeness problem, as attempting to patent
a derivitive work is questionable. With all likelyhood such a patent
would be invalidated in a court battle, so the clause only serves to prevent
the whole thing from happening. I see no feilds of endevor which require
software patents.

Reply to: