Bug#728716: RFS: xchroot/2.3.2-9 [ITP] -- Hi Debian!

[Elmar Stellnberger <estellnb@elstel.org>]

Am 04.11.13 17:56, schrieb Paul Tagliamonte:
> Control: tag -1 moreinfo
>
> On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 05:31:40PM +0100, Elmar Stellnberger wrote:
> >       The xchroot S-FSL v1.3.1 license would need some legal review. It was especially designed for
> >       distributions available free of charge like Debian. The license has been revised thouroughly
> >       and should not pose any restrictions concerning re-distribution by Debian or any other free
> >       distro. The author plans to publish more software under this or a reworked version of the
> >       S-FSL license.
> This license will be considered non-free in Debian. Please re-upload
> targeting non-free or change the license terms.
>
>   o It forces distribution of changes to third parties.
Is it really a problem? If yes then I can add an exception for 
distributors like Debian.
However what I want is being noticed somehow about changed versions of 
my programmes.
This is to collect new use cases and get updates quickly incorporated 
(Early versions of
my program were heavily rewritten and patched as googeling has shown; 
though that time
not even granted explicitly.). Being notified by third party users about 
their concerns and
changes would yield major contribution to the future development. (There 
are no copyright
issues though since the actual code added by me so far has been 
completely different from
the diversions found out there; though it has been very useful in 
extracting new use cases.).
>   o One may not change for the software (or use it in a commercial product),
>     or be used *from* non-free software as a plugin (etc). The phrasing
>     in here is odd.
Well this is already the standard for the GPL-license: GPL programs as 
far as being
compiled can not be incorporated into commercial software; you have to 
use L-GPL.
Why not establish a similar standard for protecting intellectual 
property also for
programs written in a script language? (i.e. this is the reason why I 
called it S-FSL).

If the phrasing is odd we will have to rework it; it is my intention to 
have a license
clear to everyone; not only to lawyers.
> I strongly encourage you to not write your own license terms. Please
> consider using a well-known and understood license.
Well to me it is an issue under which license to publish. I do not want 
to burden
my distributor unncessarily but actually want to retain as much rights 
as possible
because writing, maintaining the software and supporting also casual 
users is a
major effort.
> Cheers,
>    Paul

Many Thanks for your Commitment,
Elmar