On 15944 March 1977, calumlikesapplepie wrote:
I thought this might happen: the license is unconventional, and I wasn't sure it would fly. I cc'ed debian-legal in this response: I'm pretty surethe license is DFSG-free, but IANAL, and they can confirm in a way I can't.
I'm curious to read other opinions.
To be fair, the software probably predates the GPL v1, and certainly theThe reason is the license. As usual, people should NOT write their own. They are bound to fail.v2.
That may be.
I disagree. It requires you to inform them, yes, but only if you "sell it----------------- License: words-license This is a free program, which means it is proper to copy it and pass it on to your friends. Consider it a developmental item for which there is no charge. However, just for form, it is Copyrighted(c). Permission is hereby freely given for any and all use of programand data. You can sell it as your own, but at least tell me. . This version is distributed without obligation, but the developer would appreciate comments and suggestions. . All parts of the WORDS system, source code and data files, are made freely available to anyone who wishes to use them, for whatever purpose. -----------------This is not free. Going though it, it allows to copy/distribute stuff,then it allows any kind of usage and selling. And then the first mistake, it requires you to inform them. Thats repeated in a lessstrict statement. And then it tells again that its available to anyoneto use it for whatever purpose.as your own". AFAIK, that is equivalent to saying "Inform me if youdistribute this without crediting me". That's a less strict version of the acceptable "Keep this copyright notice", since as long as we keep it,we don't need to inform anyone.
It still fails and stays non-free, as its not a simple "Keep this (C)" line. Also, that it "only" asks you to do so when you sell it, makes no difference for the inclusion into main.
Further, the next sentence says that it is distributed "withoutobligation": since you aren't obligated to do anything, it's explicitly inthe clear for the Dissident Test and the Desert Island Test.
Thats at minimum a contradiction inside the license.
I interpret the fact that it lets you use the source code for "whatever purpose" to mean that you can modify, compile, and distribute it. After all, source code doesn't have much of a use on its own, and a modificationIn all of that they miss something important - you are not allowed to modify.is a use. Supporting this idea is the fact that the WTFPL is considered GPLcompatible by the FSF. This is, in many ways, a more formal version ofthat.
No is not, the big difference for the WTFPL is that it actually lists all the neccessary rights, including allowing modification. The above does not.
So two mistakes, must tell them and no right to modify -> non-free.
Even if one goes down on the requirement to notify them, the right to modify stays missing.
That's... difficult. The original author has been dead for a decade, and (AFAIK) the digital preservation efforts whose source I am using is not explicitly authorized by their heir. Upstream appears to be interpreting the license to mean that modification is OK, since they have done quite a bit of it: additionally, comments throughout the source code and originalBest would be if upstream changes to a well-known free license andadds a polite hint that feedback would be nice, but not required. Thenit can go into main.website strongly indicate that the source was intended to be modified.
I hope this logic makes sense, and that it would hold up 'in court'.
Upstream often has a different opinion than we do. What kind of comments?
-- bye, Joerg