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

Re: Geant4 Software License, version 1.0

Joe Smith <unknown_kev_cat@hotmail.com>
> How exactly does automatic upstream licence violate the DFSG?

This is how I think it *might* (as written previously, I'm unsure):
1. what is meant by entering into a separate written license agreement?
2. is it the same licence if it's the original+total donation upstream?

> 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?

Even assuming that your mindreading about the idea is correct, the effect
is to allow the Licensors to take any Licensee's copyright or trademark
material, include it without permission or even against prohibition and
the Licensee could not enforce their choice of licence (even if DFSG-free)
without termination.

I can't see how to draft 'you cannot ever take us to court over this' in
an acceptable way.  It seems like an attempt to make one's own laws.

> I don't think 5 is really a DFSG freeness problem, as attempting to patent
> a derivitive work is questionable. [...]

However, it is not limited to patenting derivative works.  It forbids
inclusion in any patent application.  I'm unsure of the effect of that,
whether it discriminates against creating patentable (non-software)

Hope that explains,
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct

Reply to: