On ven, 2008-03-21 at 10:09 +0100, Giancarlo Niccolai wrote: > > This clause makes the license a copyleft one. It is free, but this is a > > huge restriction compared to the original license. And this turns the > > license into yet another copyleft license that will be incompatible with > > other ones. > > > I see; you are talking of comma 4.5 in the specific? > > I actually added it after some talk with FSF about "requiring the > derivative work to be distributed copyleft too". In other words, the > aim of this comma is to prevent someone from adding a "frobotz" > statement which nitfols the blorbs, and then distribute an xFalcon as > a closed source product. Sure, this is the whole point of copyleft and it is a very good thing. But copyleft has its drawbacks, especially when it comes to license compatibility. This is why you should more seriously consider using an existing copyleft license. License proliferation is not a good thing; copyleft license proliferation is destructive. > >> 5. *Distribution of Embedding Works and Scripts*. > > > > I don’t think you can claim anything on the copyrights of scripts using > > your language, but this is definitely something you should ask your > > lawyer. > This license doesn't state there are copyright claims on the scripts; > actually it should do the opposite. If there is any point implicitly > or explicitly stating it, please point it out and it will be fixed. It does claim the copyright by asking to apply the license to it. > > If you really want to explicitly tell that you don’t need to follow the > > license for writing scripts, you should add a notice that this license > > and your copyright claims don’t apply to the said scripts, and this will > > be much better. > The point is that, as previously noted, the patentability of grammar > sets (i.e. artificial languages) has been recently debated. Including > the definition of the scripts in this license has the aim to prevent a > Big Guy to come in, add a frobotz statement and patent the resulting > language (or, as someone has pointed out, just patent the grammar > someone else wrote as-is). Or in other words, I did it to maintain > freedom of the grammar set this language define (it means, freedom for > everyone to use and extend it). No one can patent the grammar that you wrote, so this is completely useless. The only point of these clauses seem to claim the copyright on scripts using the language. -- .''`. : :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code. `. `' We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to `- our own. Resistance is futile.
Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=