I'm going to copy this (and bounce the last mail here) to debian-legal. Again, I'd like to stress how much I really dislike the idea of another license written for fun. Thanks for your work, Paul On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 10:13:33PM +0100, Elmar Stellnberger wrote: > > S-FSL v1.3.3 uploaded at http://www.elstel.org/license/ > > Having clearly considered your critics I have published a reworked > edition > of S-FSL which should more strictly adhere to the terms of OSS-software. > As you can understand and as I have already partially described there are > still issues to me which discourage me from using an existing license like > f.i. GPL or BSD. > > The new license is posted here for public review. > > >>We could possibly allow any distribution to distribute patches without > >>notifying the > >>"original authors" as far as the term "distribution" can be defined > >>clearly and > >>doubtlessly (i.e. to only apply this restriction to individuals and > >>organizations who > >>do not distribute their software for free to the public; if that would > >>help us). > >That will not be possible, due to DFSG#3 (derived works): "The license > >must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be > >distributed under the same terms as the license of the original > >software." > > > >Which means that whoever gets the software through Debian MUST be able > >to redistribute it under the very same terms Debian did. > > > >Furthermore, there are many distributions derived from Debian, asking > >all of them to send you patches whenever they make the tiniest > >modification (even to packaging!) is not going to work, neither for you, > >nor for Debian, nor for any of the distributions based on it. > Now nothing that can be called a 'public distribution' needs to send out > patches. The patches as well as the patched programs do automatically > become subject to the same license. > >I would strongly suggest you reconsider your license, or at least this > >requirement, as it will never, ever work as you expect it to: people > >will just not use your software, because requiring them to send patches > >back no matter what is so huge a pain in the backside that noone in > >their right mind will do it. It's a much smaller effort to find an > >alternative (like schroot, in this case) or roll your own. > > > >Furthermore, there's this part of the license: > > > > "If you want to develop a separate branch of this program you need to > > ask the original authors for permission." > > > >That goes against DFSG#4, which permits the author to require > >distribution under a different name, but still requires the license to > >allow distributing patched versions. The quoted paragraph prevents that, > >so much so, that it's far too strict even for non-free: if we ever want > >to do a non-maintainer upload for whatever reason, it's not possible, > >because that may very well mean "develop a separate branch", and thus > >require asking for permission. > now the term separate branch is clearly defined. It means publishing under > a different name(ing convention). > > > > >Furthermore, the quoted paragraph also has a loophole: it only requires > >one to ask the original authors for permission, it does not say that > >the permission needs to be granted too. In a strict reading of the text, > >just asking for permission and not waiting for an answer is ok. Even > >better, asking, but receiving a negative answer is still ok, because one > >asked. > that loophole has been eliminated; thx. > > > > >Going further: > > > > "Distribution of the program by third parties must be done free of > > charge apart from fees for the physical reproduction of the data > > medium" > > > >This goes against DFSG#1: "The license of a Debian component may not > >restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a > >component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from > >several different sources. The license may not require a royalty or > >other fee for such sale." > > > >While this part may be okay for non-free, it definitely is a no-go for > >main. The exceptions given do not matter. > 'exception' can now be any software or additional service as long as > xchroot is not distributed outside of a distribution; > that should suffice. > > > > >The way distribution is defined is also a bit odd: "The term > >distribution describes shipping of a given set of software and its > >documentation with adherent materials." > > > >So if I strip away parts of the software (like documentation), and > >publish that, does that count as distribution? Strictly reading the > >license: no, because adherent materials are not shipped with it. > replaced by and/or; forgetting about docs should no more matter > > > > "Availablity free of charge or costs includes tools, software and > > manuals needed to download or obtain the distribution in a finally > > usable state as well as the possibility to verify the integrity of the > > download securely but not general connectivity to the internet." > > > >This part is also quite vague. Lets imagine the following scenario: > >there's Joe Average user, installing GNU/Linux for the first time. He > >has absolutely no idea how to do it, so he buys a book about the topic. > >To install additional software, such as those covered by this license, > >he uses tools and techniques described in the manual, for which he paid > >for. In this case, the distribution is not allowed to let Joe Average > >install programs covered by this license, because he needed a paid-for > >manual to install the distribution and the software covered by the > >license in question. > Thanks for that hint. My intention was that a technically experienced user > should be able to do it. For OS/2 Warp 4.5 doing the updates without > purchasing docs was even impossible for a technical expert user before > http://www.elstel.org/OS2Warp/InstallUpdate.html. That is the only issue > I want to prevent. > :: replaced by the term 'averagely experienced technical user' > > >>> That's not true; commercial software *can be paid software*. So > >>> long as > >>> > >>> > >>>can be free software* (sorry!) > >>> > >>> the software is compatable (and the work on the whole is > >>> distributed as > >>> GPL), this isn't a problem. > >>> > >>> Please, if you don't know how the GPL works, I have to strongly insist > >>> on you not writing your own license. > >>> > >> Oops there we have an error! (Well I clearly know how it works with GPL.) > >>Commercial software does not need to be paid software. Well, to me a > >>similar restriction like for GPL could be very handy: having to put > >>all of the > >>software under any OSS-compliant license as soon as an S-FSL program > >>is incorporated (That would also limit possible interference with other > >>licenses). > >>Would that be acceptible? > >I'm not exactly sure I understand what you mean here. If you mean that > >any program or distribution that incorporates an S-FSL licensed program > >will need to comply with the S-FSL license terms aswell, that will not > >work. First of all, the S-FSL is not compatible with the GPL, so you > >can't "link" it or integrate it with anything that is GPL'd. > >Furthermore, DFSG#9: a license must not contaminate other, unrelated > >software. > no just compliance with any OSS-license like f.i. GPL so that S-FSL is > 'compatible' to other licenses; see for S-FSL v1.3.3 > > -- .''`. Paul Tagliamonte <paultag@debian.org> : :' : Proud Debian Developer `. `'` 4096R / 8F04 9AD8 2C92 066C 7352 D28A 7B58 5B30 807C 2A87 `- http://people.debian.org/~paultag
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature