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

Am 04.11.13 18:43, schrieb Paul Tagliamonte:

On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 12:42 PM, Paul Tagliamonte <paultag@debian.org> wrote:

On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 06:22:15PM +0100, Elmar Stellnberger wrote:
> Is it really a problem? If yes then I can add an exception for
> distributors like Debian.

Perhaps you're interesting in reading our guidelines:

http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines

point 8 is "License Must Not Be Specific to Debian".

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).

> However what I want is being noticed somehow about changed versions
> of my programmes.

That's OK. It just means you need to upload to non-free.

I hope that will not pose an unnecessary restriction to the re-distribution as
the program may f.i. also be especially useful under the rescue-console.

> 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).

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?

> 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.

It's a lot more effort for the distributors to review this license and
attempt to figure out how it applies in different jursidictions, with
other licenses and how to properly comply.

> >
> >Cheers,
> > Paul
>
> Many Thanks for your Commitment,
> Elmar

Cheers,
Paul

--
.''`. Paul Tagliamonte <paultag@debian.org>
: :' : Proud Debian Developer
`. `'` 4096R / 8F04 9AD8 2C92 066C 7352 D28A 7B58 5B30 807C 2A87
`- http://people.debian.org/~paultag

--
:wq

Cheers and Thx for Your Contribution,
Elmar