Re: Bug#639916: spread: license wackiness
Simon McVittie <email@example.com> writes:
> On Mon, 05 Sep 2011 at 07:32:33 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > * Ken Arromdee:
> > > Unlike the original BSD 4 clause license this adds "or software
> > > that uses this software".
> > Is it really that much different in effect from the Affero GPL? It
> > may be a bit more far-reaching, but compliance is so much easier.
> The AGPL requires you to provide (an opportunity to download)
> Corresponding Source in the webapp itself, but this license
> "contaminates" web pages that merely *refer to* the webapp; I think
> that's considerably more onerous.
Which highlights another problem with this license's wording: the
nefarious word “use”.
It's wholly unclear what set of actions “use this software” is intended
to refer to; it certainly isn't consistently applied in license texts.
So without enumeration of the actions permitted or forbidden, it's
impossible to know whether the work is free software.
\ “Some forms of reality are so horrible we refuse to face them, |
`\ unless we are trapped into it by comedy. To label any subject |
_o__) unsuitable for comedy is to admit defeat.” —Peter Sellers |