Re: Freeware Public License (FPL)

2016-10-29 Thread Ben Finney 
Charles Plessy  writes:

> Le Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 11:21:37AM +1100, Ben Finney a écrit :
> > Ian Jackson  writes:
> > 
> > > I'm afraid you'll have to go back to the authors/copyrightholders
> > > and get them to fix the licence for this particular program.

My main point is: When the copyright holders have granted license
conditions that have software-freedom issues because it's a custom
license tht hasn't stood the test of legal expertise and widespread
discussion before deployment: fix that, by (as copyright holders)
choosing a better *existing* license.

> > Preferably, convince the copyright holders that the reliable option
> > is an existing, well-understood, known free-software license such as
> > [examples].
>
> I think that [different examples are] much more in the spirit of [the
> copyright holder's existing choice].

Sure. My main point stands: To get this fixed, please convince the
copyright holders that they want an existing license that has been
widely vetted by legal experts and known to explicitly grant full
software freedom to all recipients.

-- 
 \ “Never do anything against conscience even if the state demands |
  `\ it.” —Albert Einstein |
_o__)  |
Ben Finney

Re: Freeware Public License (FPL)

2016-10-29 Thread Charles Plessy 
Le Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 11:21:37AM +1100, Ben Finney a écrit :
> Ian Jackson  writes:
> 
> > I'm afraid you'll have to go back to the authors/copyrightholders and
> > get them to fix the licence for this particular program.
> 
> Preferably, convince the copyright holders that the reliable option is
> an existing, well-understood, known free-software license such as Apache
> License 2.0 or GNU GPL v3.

Hi Ben,

I think that the GNU all-permissive license is much more in the spirit of the
FPL, provided that the lack of permission for modification was just an
oversight.

https://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/html_node/License-Notices-for-Other-Files.html

Copying and distribution of this file, with or without modification,
are permitted in any medium without royalty provided the copyright
notice and this notice are preserved.  This file is offered as-is,
without any warranty.


There is also the ISC license, that visually more similar, but has one more
explicit requirement, which is to keep the copyright notice.  Whether the users
of the FPL find this important or not, I do not know...

http://www.isc.org/downloads/software-support-policy/isc-license/

Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute this software for any
purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above
copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED “AS IS” AND ISC DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES WITH 
REGARD
TO THIS SOFTWARE INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND
FITNESS. IN NO EVENT SHALL ISC BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, 
OR
CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE,
DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER 
TORTIOUS
ACTION, ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS
SOFTWARE.

Have a nice Sunday,

-- 
Charles

Re: Freeware Public License (FPL)

2016-10-29 Thread Ben Finney 
Ian Jackson  writes:

> I'm afraid you'll have to go back to the authors/copyrightholders and
> get them to fix the licence for this particular program.

Preferably, convince the copyright holders that the reliable option is
an existing, well-understood, known free-software license such as Apache
License 2.0 or GNU GPL v3.

> That includes a statement by the licence author that they didn't mean
> to forbid modification. Unfortunately that's not good enough when
> other people have adopted the bad licence text.

Yes. This is a very common problem with license texts written without
legal expertise and thorough widespread vetting before deployment. Much
better for the copyright holders to choose license conditions that have
already survived those tests.

-- 
 \   “Theology is the effort to explain the unknowable in terms of |
  `\ the not worth knowing.” —Henry L. Mencken |
_o__)  |
Ben Finney

Re: Freeware Public License (FPL)

2016-10-29 Thread Ian Jackson 
Jörg Frings-Fürst writes ("Freeware Public License (FPL)"):
> a short question:  is this license DFSG compatible?

Sadly there isn't permission to modify.  I think this is probably
unintentional.

I'm afraid you'll have to go back to the authors/copyrightholders and
get them to fix the licence for this particular program.

This bad licence seems to be spreading like some kind of virus.
Searching for its name found some github repositories using it and
also this bug report

  https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=730758

That includes a statement by the licence author that they didn't mean
to forbid modification.  Unfortunately that's not good enough when
other people have adopted the bad licence text.

Ian.

-- 
Ian Jackson    These opinions are my own.

If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.

Re: Freeware Public License (FPL)

2016-10-29 Thread Eriberto Mota 
2016-10-29 18:11 GMT-02:00 Ben Finney :
>
> Because no other DFSG freedoms are granted, those remain reserved to the
> copyright holders.
>
> So a work under this license would be non-free.


I agree. I can't see rights for modify the source code. This and other
rights must be explicit in license text.

Reagrds,

Eriberto

Re: Freeware Public License (FPL)

2016-10-29 Thread Ben Finney 
Jörg Frings-Fürst  writes:

> a short question:  is this license DFSG compatible?

The DFSG does not apply to licen texts in isolation. It applies to works
for distribution in Debian. A particular license is only one aspect of
the work to consider.

> Freeware Public License (FPL)

Which work are we considering? Where can we see the work's complete
source code?

> This software is licensed as "freeware."

Note that “freeware” has an almost entirely unrelated meaning from
software freedom. It normally means “distributed for no fee”, which
is not an issue of software freedom.

> Permission to distribute this software in source and binary forms,
> including incorporation  into other products, is hereby granted
> without a fee.

This freedom (permission to redistribute) is necessary for software
freedom but is not sufficient; DFSG requires more than this (see the
DFSG for details).

Because no other DFSG freedoms are granted, those remain reserved to the
copyright holders.

So a work under this license would be non-free.

-- 
 \ “For a sentimentalist is simply one who desires to have the |
  `\luxury of an emotion without paying for it.” —Oscar Wilde, _De |
_o__) Profundis_, 1897 |
Ben Finney

Freeware Public License (FPL)

2016-10-29 Thread Jörg Frings-Fürst 
Hello,

a short question:  is this license DFSG compatible?

Many thanks

CU
Jörg

[quote]
Copyright (C) 1998, 2009
Paul E. Jones 

Freeware Public License (FPL)

This software is licensed as "freeware."  Permission to distribute
this software in source and binary forms, including incorporation 
into other products, is hereby granted without a fee.  THIS SOFTWARE 
IS PROVIDED 'AS IS' AND WITHOUT ANY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, 
INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY 
AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  THE AUTHOR SHALL NOT BE HELD 
LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGES RESULTING FROM THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EITHER 
DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, LOSS OF DATA 
OR DATA BEING RENDERED INACCURATE.
[/quote]


-- 
New:
GPG Fingerprint: 63E0 075F C8D4 3ABB 35AB  30EE 09F8 9F3C 8CA1 D25D
GPG key (long) : 09F89F3C8CA1D25D
GPG Key: 8CA1D25D
CAcert Key S/N : 0E:D4:56

Old pgp Key: BE581B6E (revoked since 2014-12-31).

Jörg Frings-Fürst
D-54470 Lieser

Threema: SYR8SJXB

IRC: j_...@freenode.net
 j_...@oftc.net

My wish list: 
 - Please send me a picture from the nature at your home.


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part