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

Re: Non-Profit Open Software License 3.0



On 2008-03-28, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> wrote:
> This is a cryptographically signed message in MIME format.
>
> --------------ms030303010806020208040803
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> Sune Vuorela wrote:
>> On 2008-03-28, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> wrote:
>>> This is a cryptographically signed message in MIME format.
>>>
>>> --------------ms020306050406060103010602
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
>>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>>>
>>> Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>>>> It seems that the IETF Trust uses the "Non-Profit Open Software License
>>>> 3.0" to license code written as work-for-hire under the auspices of the
>>>> IETF (presumably this applies to efforts like the IETF Tools Team).
>>>>
>>>> The text of the license follows, as extracted from the PDF file linked
>>>> to from <http://trustee.ietf.org/licenses.html>.
>>>>
>>>> Comments are welcome as to whether this license is DFSG-compliant.
>>> At the least, 1(c) seems problematic:
>>>
>>>> 1) Grant of Copyright License. Licensor grants You a worldwide,
>>>> royalty-free, non-exclusive, sublicensable license, for the duration of
>>>> the copyright, to do the following:
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> c) to distribute or communicate copies of the Original Work and
>>>> Derivative Works to the public, with the proviso that copies of Original
>>>> Work or Derivative Works that You distribute or communicate shall be
>>>> licensed under this Non-Profit Open Software License or as provided in
>>>> section 17(d);
>> 
>> Isn't that just plain copyleft?
>
> Yes, but do you want your code to be copylefted into using this license
> instead of GPL or whatever?

That's just plain license incompabilities. Not a generic matter of
freeness.

(But having a license gplv2 compatible might be a good idea if they want
to cooperate with the open source world)

/Sune


Reply to: