Re: Bug#460591: Falcon P.L. license (ITP:Bug#460591)
Giancarlo Niccolai <gc@niccolai.cc> wrote:
> MJ Ray wrote:
> > Anyway, this is the show-stopper. Contaminates other software. DFSG 9.
> > It's the parts of FPL sections 1, 2 and 5 about Scripts. Clear enough?
> >
> Yes, your position is now clear, thanks.
>
> Yet, I can't see why you say it contaminates more software. The license
> just applies to software that uses Falcon; scripts (falcon scripts) do
> it and embedding applications do it; of course, also derivative work do
> it. I can't see why requiring for them to be closed source and putting a
> notice or open source with FPLL or with another compatible open source
> license (as GPL or LGPL) would be more infringing than i.e. GPL itself.
The licence for Falcon (this software) is effectively asserting that it
can restrict the scripts (which is some other software). I can't see
why you think that doesn't contaminate other software, the scripts.
To be free software, the licence for Falcon must not apply to software
that uses Falcon *except* when it is embedded into or extending Falcon
in certain ways. I'm not even sure that Falcon's licence *can* restrict
the scripts it loads, because:-
"The interpreted program, to the interpreter, is just data; a free
software license like the GPL, based on copyright law, cannot limit
what data you use the interpreter on. You can run it on any data
(interpreted program), any way you like, and there are no requirements
about licensing that data to anyone."
Source: http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfInterpreterIsGPL
So, the GPL doesn't apply to scripts of a GPL'd interpreter, so FPLL is
different in this way.
> > [...4d...]
> >>> A new obnoxious advertising clause. Probably won't break DFSG, but
> >>> I don't like it for practical reasons.
> >>>
[...]
> Also, the "advertisement" is part of well known and accepted licenses,
[...]
Sure. As I wrote: it probably won't break DFSG but is obnoxious to many.
> Finally, if your thing is open source you don't need to put any notice
> anywhere [...]
Well, that's better than many. Thanks!
> > [...]
> > I didn't see it in the web page http://www.falconpl.org/?page_id=license
> > but that site has poor accessibility anyway. http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG1
> >
> That's because I gave you the direct link to the raw text of the
> license. They are always stuck together in distro files and on the pages
> from which the license is accessible. Also, I posted the link to the
> commentary here.
I suggest linking the FAQ from the Licence and the reverse.
[...]
> Thanks for the comments on the site; pitifully, we are short on hands,
> and what we have now is all that we can afford in term of effort. A
> person with your expertise would surely help.
Sorry. Most of my cooperatives are also short on hands and this has a
pretty tenuous link to my work (I use debian for work and strongly support
free software, so encouraging 100% free software for debian has eventual
benefits) so I can't really spend more time, unless the link becomes more
direct, like one of my cooperatives is commissioned to write a study or
bugfix a website or something.
Regards,
--
MJ Ray (slef)
Webmaster for hire, statistician and online shop builder for a small
worker cooperative http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ http://mjr.towers.org.uk/
(Notice http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html) tel:+44-844-4437-237
Reply to: