Bug#728716: RFS: xchroot/2.3.2-9 [ITP] -- Hi Debian!
On Nov 4, 2013, at 4:16 PM, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
> 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.
+1.
>
> 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.
From S-FSL v.1.3.3 [http://www.elstel.org/license/S-FSL-v1.3.3.txt]:
"The program may be distributed by a third party given that the program is distributed in its original state completely without any kind of modifications or patches. If you need to re-distribute a patched version of this program you need to distribute the patches separately from the original so that the pristine version can be restored at any time."
As Paul wrote, this seems incompatible with DFSG #3 - and possibly #4 as well.
"As far as you are not a public distributor you are oblidged to send a copy of your patches to the original authors referred to herein as the authors of the first version of the program as being listed in the changelog or program header whenever you publish or exchange your patches with other people."
This fails the 'Desert Island' test in the DFSG FAQ #9(a). Also, 'public distributor' is not properly defined in this part of the license.
"Modifications applied to this program may not affect the name, original version, copyright or any reference given to the authors such as their email addresses or their web presence and/or page in any part of the program or any files attached to the program. [...] If you want to develop a separate branch of this program the original authors need to give you permission. Developing a separate branch means not to use the naming convention proposed in the preceding paragraph."
If one were to redistribute the program under a different name that would require permission from the original authors? That seems not compatible with DFSG #3.
"Distribution of the program by third parties must be done free of charge apart from fees for the physical reproduction of the data medium."
Seems incompatible with DFSG #1.
Reply to: