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

Re: ITP:Bug#460591 - Falcon P.L. license

Hash: SHA1

Walter Landry wrote:
> Giancarlo Niccolai <gc@falconpl.org> wrote:
>> I am working now at this. However, I have a notice in every file
>> stating that the file is released under the terms described in the
>> "LICENSE" file that must come bound with the sources. I think that
>> changing the content of that file, instead of changing the contents of
>> each source (there are several hundreds) may be enough. Can you
>> confirm this or is putting a more descriptive license statement in
>> each source a requirement?
> I opened up a random file in the 0.8.8 release, and I found
> /*
>    FALCON - The Falcon Programming Language
>    FILE: indirect.cpp
>    $Id: indirect.cpp,v 1.6 2007/03/04 17:39:03 jonnymind Exp $
>    Indirect function calling and symbol access.
>    -------------------------------------------------------------------
>    Author: Giancarlo Niccolai
>    Begin: gio apr 13 2006
>    Last modified because:
>    -------------------------------------------------------------------
>    (C) Copyright 2004: the FALCON developers (see list in AUTHORS file)
>    See LICENSE file for licensing details.
>    In order to use this file in its compiled form, this source or
>    part of it you have to read, understand and accept the conditions
>    that are stated in the LICENSE file that comes boundled with this
>    package.
> */
> This is not quite accurate, since you do not have to accept the GPL to
> use the code.  You only have to accept it if you make copies.  The
> current wording makes your intent unclear.  If you just had
>   "See LICENSE file for licensing details."
> then that would be fine.  If the file ever gets separated from the
> LICENSE file, it may be difficult to figure out its license.  But that
> is not critical for you.
> Cheers,
> Walter Landry
> walter@geodynamics.org

Ok, I understand.

It seems that there is the need to touch the header of all the files,
so I can't just re-distribute version 0.8.8 changing its license as I
wanted. Also, it would be a bit confusing, as other distros are
distributing 0.8.8 with the previous licensing scheme.

Luckily, we have just completed the review of features that we planned
for release 0.8.10; in other words, our official 0.8.10 release is
nearly ready, except for stress test, packaging and documentation
updates. We may have it shaped up in a week or so. The structure of
the package was not planned to change, so it's just a change on the
sources, while the packaging (i.e. /debian stuff) can stay the same.
As we're releasing, I'll take the occasion to stuff the new license
plates in the source headers. We're not writing scripting languages
for nothing, after all :-))

So I'll be back with a dual licensed package in a week or so.

About the FPLL license, I have a tentative 1.1 version, which my
lawyers have been reviewing since today. I have changed the too wide
and generic "script" term into:

    * "Applications of the Work" shall mean any work, whether in
      Source or Object form, that is expressed through the grammar
      rules which are known by the Work and that require the Work to
      perform its execution.

So, you can write scripts in the Falcon language, but if you don't run
them with a "work" covered by this license, the license does not
extends to them. Also, I have removed references to the old "script"
without changing it in to the new term in the copyright-copyleft
statement. In other words, "Applications of the work" do not appare in
the copyleft.

Finally, point 5 is simplified and cites explicitly "Applications of
the Work" instead of the generic term "Scripts". So, point 5 requiring
closed sources scripted apps to carry a notice is to be applied only
if those scripts are run with an interpreter covered by the license.

Oh, and I copied the "how to apply" appendix from Apache 2 :-)

The complete reviewed text is here:


Thanks to everyone here for the precious reviews and suggestions. If
someone has further comments on this new version of the license, they
will be welcome.

Giancarlo Niccolai.
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org


Reply to: