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

Re: Bug#639916: spread: license wackiness

Simon McVittie <smcv@debian.org> 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 |
Ben Finney

Reply to: