Re: Bug#460591: Falcon P.L. license (ITP:Bug#460591)
MJ Ray wrote:
> 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
>
I buy 100% your point; I understand I misused the term "script" to
intend an application made of Falcon and other things on one side and
the grammar that made up the scripts on the other. In the new version of
the license I have prepared, this is clarified as the only thing covered
by copyright/left are the things that are licensed with FPLL (the engine
and the modules we/others want to release that way). The term
"Applications of the work" is now solely the engine in the act of
*running* things, and it's made clear that this definition does not
include the *things* you run. Sorry for the former "wordings" that
wasn't what I wanted it to be.
Moreover, the term "publicly perform" in the copyleft grants anyone the
right to run applications of Falcon the way it likes. So, in accordance
to the above statement:
1) Data (scripts) is free from copyright/left.
2) you can run the copylefted thing on any data, any way you like.
Please, notice that this is more than what GPL actually allows, as GPL
states also that portions of generated code that are coming from the
application (i.e. bytecode middle layers) are covered by GPL; that's the
reason for exceptions in GNU compilers. FPLL frees them (pre-compiled
scripts) too. That was one of the things that required me to write FPLL:
some of my target markets are quite sensible to this aspect, and FPLL
clears the grey area of compiled scripts.
I'll also reshape a bit the commentary to better specify this fact, and
make cross link so that they are always accessible together.
In the meanwhile we're finishing the setup for dual licensing with GPL
in our new version, so it will be clear under every aspect that "Lo,
this is Free Software!" :-)
Thank you for your help,
Giancarlo Niccolai.
Reply to: