Re: Freeware Public License (FPL)

[Roberto]

On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 07:21:34PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> Hi,
> rather than commenting on the several misconceptions and plain false
> statements included in the upstream author's answer, I will just
> recommend you to reply him something similar to the following:

That's an excellent advice, I'm sure that the intention of the author
was good, but it will be a waste of time writing lots of emails trying
to educate him about copyright laws, it seems much more productive a
simple mesage like that, I may use it too as a template when needed.

Re: Freeware Public License (FPL)

[Francesco Poli]

On Fri, 04 Nov 2016 13:25:17 +0100 Jörg Frings-Fürst wrote:

[...]
> I have ask the upstream author Paul E. Jones .
> Here are the answer:
[...]

Hi,
rather than commenting on the several misconceptions and plain false
statements included in the upstream author's answer, I will just
recommend you to reply him something similar to the following:


"
May I suggest you a simple action that would make everyone happy?

Instead of using your own custom-made license, please adopt the
Expat/MIT license [1]: it is short and simple and it basically does
exactly what you want, in a legally sound way; it is also well-known
and easily recognizable in the Free Software community; nobody will
probably annoy you again with licensing issues, if you adopt that
license!

Please consider switching to the Expat/MIT license: it would really
make everyone happy.

[1] http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt
""


I hope this helps.
Bye.


-- 
 http://www.inventati.org/frx/
 There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory!
. Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82  3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE


pgpKSrXGlbwn4.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Freeware Public License (FPL)

[Jörg Frings-Fürst]

Hello,

first thanks for your answers.

The files we talk about are utils/sha1.cc and utils/sha1.h from[1].

I have ask the upstream author Paul E. Jones .
Here are the answer:


[quote]
Jörg,

Sad that one would read into this more than is written.  Because it
doesn't say you can use the software to serve soup means I cannot use
it to serve soup?  No.  That's ridiculous.

I'm tell you that it means "free", entirely without any restrictions
whatsoever.

That should be painfully clear to anyone and to say otherwise is not
honest or being painfully difficult.  Either way, I don't really care
to deal with such people.

We'll break it down:

* "freeware" is in quotes since I appreciate it is not well-defined,
but it definitely means "free".  So, I go on to explain...
* "Permission to distribute in source and binary forms", meaning it can
be sent far and wide in any form
* "Including incorporating into other products", meaning it can be used
in anyone else's software (free or not, since there are no
restrictions) and, further, any developer knows that incorporating
software often means needing to change it
* "Without fee", meaning it is free.  It's just another way of ensuring
that the word "freeware" means it is free, not something for pay
* It then goes on to say it is provided as-is and without warranty <=
that's pretty much the only restriction. I don't warrant the software
for any particular purpose and will not accept responsibility for it
not working properly

Any additional assumptions, misconceptions, etc. are just that.  As I
said, people go nuts with all of these various licenses out
there.  It's either free or it's not.  The GPL is "free" in that there
is no cost, but not "free" in that you are absolutely encumbered by
that nasty license.

Software I publish with my license is truly free without any
restrictions whatsoever.  "Oh, but it doesn't say I can make soup with
it, so it's not free!"  To that, I can only say, "You can't depend on
your eyes when your imagination is out of focus." -- Mark Twain ("A
Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court", 1889).

I even considered putting a statement on it that said "public domain"
and one person told me that "public domain" doesn't mean it's free to
use.  So, I gave up with all the licensing nonsense and put together
this "FPL" to make fun of the "GPL" and to drive home the point that it
is free -- really free.  No long-winded legal crap to digest and
understand.

You're free (and I really mean free!) to share my comments with others,
archive it for prosperity, and make it absolutely and clearly
understood that the license text (and I'll quote it below) means it is
entirely and completely unencumbered from any use whatsoever, including
serving soup.

Regards,
Paul E. Jones 
[/quote] 



CU
Jörg



[1] 
https://sourceforge.net/projects/simutrans/files/simutrans/120-1-3/simulinux-i86-120-1-3.zip/download


-- 
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

Re: Freeware Public License (FPL)

[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)

[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)

[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)

[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 <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>   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)

[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)

[Ben Finney]

Jörg Frings-Fürst <deb...@jff-webhosting.net> 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)

[Jörg Frings-Fürst]

Hello,

a short question:  is this license DFSG compatible?

Many thanks

CU
Jörg

[quote]
Copyright (C) 1998, 2009
Paul E. Jones <pau...@packetizer.com>

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