Thanks for bringing your questions here, and for paying attention to the
serious issue of licensing.
Dererk <dererk@debian.org.ar> writes:
> I was asked to verify that the license below does meet DFSG, before
> releasing the software itself, so I would like you to take a look at
> this text and tell me what your opinions are, before getting rejected
> on the NEW queue :-)
Releasing the software can happen, before submitting it for the Debian
NEW queue. That would allow a better examination of the work.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> This license grants you the right to use, modify, and redistribute
> XXXXXXXXXX ("the software").
Is the name a secret somehow? Can we see the actual license text without
modification?
> In this license, the term "GPL" designates one or more official,
> numbered versions of the GNU General Public License as published by
> the Free Software Foundation. It specifically excludes drafts or
> working verions of licenses, or licenses with similar or identical
> names that are published by entities other than the Free Software
> Foundation.
This seems superfluous and overly verbose. Why not use the recommended
wording from the GPL:
This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
(at your option) any later version.
The “GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software
Foundation” seems to cover what you spend a paragraph on above, no?
> You may use, modify, and redistribute the software under any one of
> the following conditions (at your option):
>
> 1. You may use, modify, and redistribute the software under the
> terms of the GPL version 2 as distributed here:
>
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.txt
>
> 2. You may use, modify, and redistribute the software under the
> terms of the GPL version 3, as found in the file COPYING and
> distributed here:
>
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.txt
>
> 3. You may use, modify, and redistributed the software under any
> version of the GPL greater than 3.
Please include the complete license terms in the work. It's not a legal
requirement, but it is helpful to include the actual license text *in*
the work, rather than a URL which at some point in the future could be
unavailable or return a different text.
If you want to discuss both GPLv2 and GPLv3, you could simply include
them as files in the work (‘LICENSE.GPL-2’ and ‘LICENSE.GPL-3’, for
example). This allows any recipient to know that you and they, at
different points in time, are looking at exactly the same license terms.
Then, the above three sections are equivalent to the recommended text
From GPLv2:
This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
(at your option) any later version.
I would recommend you simplify and normalise the license text by making
that replacement.
> 4. You may use, modify, and redistribute the software under a
> modified version of the GPL version 3 (or, at your option, a
> modified version of any higher-numbered version of the GPL)
The GPL explicitly forbids modification of the license terms:
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
So I think it's misleading to refer to “modified versions of the GPL”,
since modified versions aren't the GPL any more. If you want to permit
an action in a license text, it would be best to be clear on what action
it is you're permitting.
> modified version of the GPL version 3 (or, at your option, a
> modified version of any higher-numbered version of the GPL) that
> places additional restrictions on advertising and labeling of the
> software
How could any such restrictions be compatible with GPL §7 and §10
regarding limits on additional restrictions? It seems you're wanting to
refer to a set of license terms that isn't even in the spirit of the GPL
any more.
Perhaps you would be best avoiding use of GPL in this section at all,
and describe explicitly just what kind of license you're allowing.
While I can see that you're trying to allow freedom, and I agree that
the explicit permission to all freedoms of the GPL version 2 or greater
makes the work DFSG-free, I think the wording is unclear, overly
verbose, insufficiently explicit, and needs to be simplified, as
detailed above.
I hope that helps, and thanks again for bringing this to our attention.
--
\ “You are welcome to visit the cemetery where famous Russian and |
`\ Soviet composers, artists, and writers are buried daily except |
_o__) Thursday.” —Russian orthodox monastery, Moscow |
Ben Finney
Attachment:
pgpE4xS_D5k0O.pgp
Description: PGP signature