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

Re: Choosing a License: GNU APL? AFL 3.0?



On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 17:51:44 +0000 Sean B. Palmer wrote:

> On Dec 30, 2007 4:59 PM, Francesco Poli <frx@firenze.linux.it> wrote:
> 
> > Please don't take offense for this, but I think that your needs are
> > not so critical that they cannot be bent a little to be satisfied by
> > an existing license.
> 
> Well several licenses have parts of what I need, but there's no
> license which has all of what I need. I've found that the CDDL comes
> closest on the OSI's "popular licenses" list:

The CDDL is a poor license choice: see
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/12/msg00032.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/09/msg00056.html

Remember: IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP.

> 
> A = Allows short statement of application
> B = Preserves copyright statements and notices
> C = Allows distribution without full license text

I am not able to see C as a reasonable requirement: including the full
license text when redistributing is something that should be done anyway
as a matter of clarity (so that recipients know their rights, even when
they don't have an Internet connection).
Hence, mandating it as a condition for the permission to reditribute
does not seem to be a bad thing.

Please reconsider your requirements: I would recommend you to drop C
entirely.

> D = License is or may be fixed to exclude later versions

D is a very agreeable requirement, from my point of view.  I tend to
keep an eye on this feature, when I analyze licenses.

> 
>                            | A | B | C | D |
> ---------------------------+---+---+---+---+
[...]
>               Modified BSD | Y | N | N | Y |
[...]
>                        MIT | Y | N | N | Y |

Are we sure that B is N for the 3-clause BSD license and for the
Expat/MIT license?
If I understand requirement B correctly, I would say that B is Y for
these two licenses.

[...]
> But that column C failure is a shame.

No, it's a feature, I would say!  ;-)

[...]
> > Please do _not_ reply to my personal e-mail address
> 
> Whoops, sorry. I just hit "Reply to all" in my email client; "Reply"
> would have sent it to you personally only. My email client is Google
> Mail, so you might want to complain to its maintainer.

No, I might want to complain to the users of that privacy bomb:
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/001398.php
http://www.epic.org/privacy/gmail/faq.html
http://www.gmail-is-too-creepy.com/
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/blog/2006/google

:-(

-- 
 http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/testing_workstation_install.html
 Need to read a Debian testing installation walk-through?
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12  31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4

Attachment: pgp9wEJ3egkXs.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: