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

Re: C-FSL: a new license for software from elstel.org

Hi Jonathon,

Am 2016-01-21 um 22:33 schrieb jonathon:
> On 21/01/2016 21:49, Elmar Stellnberger wrote:
>> a broader public I have once more designed a completely new license from scratch:
> What problem are you trying with this license, that other licenses don't
> solve?

I have various issues about current licenses. Just see at what makes this license pretty much different from other established licenses. Let us discuss this in detail when the license should be fit for approval.

Am 2016-01-21 um 22:33 schrieb jonathon:

3. It is your obligation that the changed version of your sources will
be available to the public for free.

Discrimination against fields of endeavour.

There are licenses like the vim license which force developers to ship their patches proactively to the upstream developers and thus possibly to the public. If the vim license does not discriminate against a certain field of endeavour this license will not do so either.

opensource.org says the following about it:

The license must not place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be open-source software.

Do you really mean paragraph three here?

5. When applying changes to the source code you need to leave your name,
your email address and the date of your modifications so that other
people may contact you.

Fails the Desert Island Test

That statement should not really fail the desert island test as you can write down your email address even on a desert island. After joining the 'main land' you can publish your work and your email will be functional on the main land.

I just say that anyone who modifies it will have to leave his contact address. I make no statement about the time frame in which somebody is expected to answer. Likely for full compliance with the desert island test however I will need to give the possibility for snail mail too as not everyone may have temporary or permanent access to the internet.- thx for the hint :) (* point 1 *)

This should be similar to the following statement in GPL
a) The work must carry prominent notices stating that you modified it, and giving a relevant date.

I do personally believe there could be some problem with the desert island test regarding the following statement though:

"It is your obligation that the changed version of your sources will be available to the public for free."

I could add that it will only apply if you have no undue hinderence in making it publicly available; i.e. you are currently not on a desert island. (* point 2 *)



Reply to: