Re: Falcon P.L. license (ITP:Bug#460591)
Giancarlo Niccolai <gc@falconpl.org> wrote: [...]
> The license is tightly based on Apache 2, with extra clarifications
> and permissions. [...]
Summary: I believe that any interpreter under this Falcon P.L. licence
will contaminate other software and so fail DFSG 9. Also, I think the
licence contains lawyerbombs (things relying on court rulings which
haven't been stated, maybe because they haven't occurred yet).
In general, I'm disappointed to see this licence proliferation.
I'm only going to look at differences with the Apache licence 2.0.
Terms marked [-...] are in Apache, terms marked {+...} are in Falcon.
I've tried to ignore the extensive punctuation and heading changes.
(Command for rc shell:
wdiff <{curl -s http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt} <{curl -s 'http://www.falconpl.org/?page_id=license' | dexml}
)
First changes are in the definitions (tightly?). I'm very
uncomfortable with these, as they affect the whole licence.
making modifications, including but not limited
to software source [-code, documentation ]
[-source,] {+code} and [-configuration files. ]
{+example code.}
This change seems OK - documentation is software here - but what
does this mean for configuration files?
New definitions:-
{+"Embedding Works" shall mean any work,}
{+whether in Source or Object form, that links}
{+(or binds by name) to the interface of the}
{+Work and Derivative Works.} {+"Scripts" shall mean}
{+any work, weather in Source or Object form,}
{+that is expressed through the grammar rules which}
{+are known by the Work.} {+"Users" shall}
{+mean any person that uses, directly or indirectly,}
{+all or any of the Work, the Derivative Works,}
{+the Embedding Works or the Scripts.}
Claiming any copyright over Scripts gives me the heebie-jeebies.
More importantly, that seems like an obvious failure of DFSG 9 by
contaminating other software.
Also, surely Users is a court-defined term? What is the effect of
trying to override that here?
Finally, it contains a homophone error ("weather" instead of "whether").
4(d) is very hard to read in wdiff. It appears to be a total
rewrite. Falcon version:-
# If the Source form of Scripts is not distributed nor made available
by any mean to the Users, a prominent notice about the fact that the
Scripts have been written in the Language must be presented in a place
which the Users are exposed to.
A new obnoxious advertising clause. Probably won't break DFSG, but I
don't like it for practical reasons.
On the plus side, we lose the NOTICE's potential for DFSG-busting from
the Apache 2.0 licence.
Other than that, it differs from Apache 2.0 in missing the How to
Apply appendix, which isn't serious, but seems a bit user-unfriendly.
Hope that helps,
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
Reply to: