Re: a Free Platform License?
On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 10:25 PM, Francesco Poli wrote:
>
> On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 16:11:29 +0000 Simon McVittie wrote:
> > The tl:dr version: just use the GPL, or the AGPL if you must.
>
> My summary is somewhat similar: please just use the GNU GPL,
> and nothing more restrictive than that (I don't think the
> GNU AfferoGPL v3 meets the DFSG, so please avoid that
> license, as well).
Francesco has made a compelling case against including
the Affero terms as part of the Free Platform License.
So, let's assume that the proposed license is derived
from the GPLv3 and doesn't not have restrictions on use;
I'll provide an revision of the proposed license text
later this week.
...
I suppose there are many grounds for dismissing this
license and I'm not sure where I stand. Here are the
reasons as I've been able to ascertain.
License Proliferation: I think that this license is
substantially different in its effects than existing
licenses and is written in a generic manner.
Conflicts with GPL: Unfortunate as it may be, it is
not a reason to reject the proposal. Lots of licenses
conflict with various GPL versions and there are known
techniques for handling these conflicts. By using GPLv3
text as a basis, it will be compatible with the bulk
of non-copyleft licenses.
Adoption Problems: I think you can't say this license
wouldn't be popular. I know many developers who dislike
when their work is used in combination with proprietary
platforms so much that they'd engage more if their work
were exclusive to free platforms; and I know still others
who would kill for an effective way to dual-license by
charging for compatibility with proprietary platforms.
Practical Problems: I think the license would provide a
very practical effect; it'd be far harder to make derived
works that rely upon specific platform features. That
said, this probably needs a bit more exploration.
DFSG/Discrimination: This sort of license would treat
platform software in the same manner that the GPL treats
proprietary libraries. So, I think if there are problems
here, the GPL shares those same issues.
Free Software Problems: I think this is a free software
license, and if it isn't, let's fix it.
Did I miss anything? I'd prefer to continue this very
helpful discussion if those on debian-legal would be
willing to continue to hear me out. In particular, I
don't understand the Practical Problems, so any thoughts
on this would be especially delightful.
Best,
Clark
Reply to: