Re: a Free Platform License?
On Saturday, November 26, 2011 2:59 AM, "Hugo Roy" <hugo@fsfe.org>
wrote:
> Le vendredi 25 novembre 2011 à 12:04 -0500, Clark C. Evans a écrit :
> > I understand that it's traditional for Free Software to impose
> > restrictions primarily as a condition of distribution;
>
> Exactly, they're conditions but not restrictions. And it really seems
> that what you're looking to impose with the license are restrictions
> that discriminate. I hardly see how such a licensed software could be
> free software.
If a condition isn't satisfiable, there's no difference.
For example, the GPL restricts the distribution of derived
works that would include proprietary (non-free) components.
> > | Would Debian consider a "Free Platform License" (FPL) derived
> > | from the AGPLv3, but with the "System Library" exception
> > | removed (as well as the GNU specific prologue)?
>
> How's removing the exception effective in what you are
> trying to achieve?
This license should prevent distributions which specifically
target a proprietary platform. While it would not directly
prevent usage of the software on a proprietary platform -- it
could hinder it in a practical manner.
Consider this license would include "System Libraries" as part
of the "Corresponding Source" (rather than excepting it). In
this case, those who package the software are creating a
modified version. As such, the system libraries it is packaged
to use must also be licensed under this or a compatible
license. The Debian distribution would meet these conditions,
proprietary platform distributions won't.
For a "C" language program that must be linked to msvcrt.dll,
the distribution condition is pretty much fatal. It'd require
users compile their own copy of the program for private use.
For interpreted languages, such as Python or Ruby, this sort
of license may be less effective since the typical package
files are platform independent. If a platform installer was
created, for example one that included a runtime engine
compiled for a given platform, it'd be restricted.
Overall, I think the added encumbrance to distribution
might be sufficient to provide an effective discrimination
while still remaining free software.
> People can install a free system library on a proprietary
> platform and then software licensed as such (GPLv3 minus
> system library exception) could link to it, but installed
> on a proprietary platform, which fails at doing what you're
> trying to do.
I'm not sure what case you're outlining here.
> In the end, I am really not sure a license is what's needed
> to make free software operating systems grow (and I am also
> not sure yet another license is needed at all. Copyleft is
> already essential to achieve that).
Thank you for your time Hugo.
Best,
Clark
Reply to: