Re: BSD license + should
On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 3:40 AM Michael Banck wrote: > (please CC me on replies) Done. > |4. Every use of I'm not sure copyright restricts mere use of software so this clause might be unenforceable? > |should acknowledge the following publication: It sounds like license drafters should not use the word "should" because of its legal ambiguity :) https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/should https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/plain_language/articles/mandatory/ https://definitions.uslegal.com/s/shall/ > I am wondering whether this is DFSG-free as this fourth clause is a > should, not a must (and it is good academic practise to cite anyway)? It all rests on the interpretation of "should". I lean towards interpreting should as optional but I lean towards treating ambiguity as non-free :) > If not, can you suggest a rephrasing of this clause that would make it > DFSG-free, but be similar in spirit (i.e. nudge the user to cite the > package if they publish results based on its use)? No matter what the DFSG status is, I would suggest rewording and moving the clause to the software description or documentation, simply because people using the software aren't necessarily likely to be reading the license, especially users of redistributors like Debian. -- bye, pabs https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
Re: BSD license + should
Le Sun, Nov 24, 2019 at 08:37:37PM +0100, Michael Banck a écrit : > > |4. Every use of the source code or binary form of the software should > |acknowledge the following publication: > | > | MolSpin - Flexible and Extensible General Spin Dynamics Software > | Claus Nielsen & Ilia A. Solov'yov > | Note: The paper is submitted to Journal of Chemical Physics (Special > | issue on spin chemistry, 2019). > can you suggest a rephrasing of this clause that would make it > DFSG-free, but be similar in spirit (i.e. nudge the user to cite the > package if they publish results based on its use)? Hi Michael, in the Primer3 software, the authors use the following words: “We request but do not require that use of this software be cited in publications as” [...] https://primer3.org/manual.html For Primer3 it is not exactly in the license, but I think that I have seen similar cases where it was. Have a nice day, Charles -- Charles Plessy Debian Med packaging team, http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med Akano, Uruma, Okinawa, Japan
BSD license + should
(please CC me on replies) Hi, I came across the Molspin package [1], which has a standard BSD 3-clause license plus this following fourth clause[2,3]: |4. Every use of the source code or binary form of the software should |acknowledge the following publication: | | MolSpin - Flexible and Extensible General Spin Dynamics Software | Claus Nielsen & Ilia A. Solov'yov | Note: The paper is submitted to Journal of Chemical Physics (Special | issue on spin chemistry, 2019). I am wondering whether this is DFSG-free as this fourth clause is a should, not a must (and it is good academic practise to cite anyway)? If not, can you suggest a rephrasing of this clause that would make it DFSG-free, but be similar in spirit (i.e. nudge the user to cite the package if they publish results based on its use)? Michael [1] https://molspin.eu/ [2] https://molspin.eu/license [3] Above is the one included in the release file, the one on the website is very similar though, it just has a link to the publication instead of mentioning it directly
