Ross N. Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've had an idea for a new Free World Licence structure. > > First, I backtrack to non-contract structure. So it would have a > structure similar to the GPL. Second, I include a clause like this: > > You may not copy the Module onto a non-free platform. > However, as an exception, you may copy the Module onto a > non-free platform for the purpose of transmitting the > Module to a free platform or for browsing the source code, > provided that you do not execute the Module on the non-free > platform, and provided that you take reasonable steps to > ensure that the Module is not executed on the non-free > platform. > ... > So, for example, a company might sell a CD-ROM containing software > released under this licence. Anyone buying the CD-ROM would own > a legally obtained copy of the software - ON THE CD-ROM! But to use > it, they would have to copy the software into their computer > and this is the point when the clause kicks in. > > I'm not a lawyer, so this mechanism might not be sound, but if it is > sound, it seems to me that this structure could work. Its advantages are: > > * Does not require the invocation of a contract. > * No messy click wrap mechanisms. > * Allows distribution using free and non-free platforms. > * Allows non-free platform users to browse the source code.
A first impression is that this seems to me a much better idea than the previous version. At second thought, some modification is needed because a copy of the Module resides on a piece of hardware, not on a platform. I believe this is also at the heart of Tomasz Wegrzanowski's objections. The licence being a legal rather than technical mechanism, I think it is permissible to address the motives for making a copy (in fact the text above already does do): one could say "You may not copy the Module with the _purpose_ of making it available for execution on or compilation for execution on a non-free platform." One could add, as above, that having made the copy reasonable measures should be taken to prevent execution or compilation on non-free platforms; this would avoid weaseling defenses such as "Hey, when I copied the Module to my dual-platform machine it was with the intention to run it from the free platform only, but later I got to like it so much that I ran it from the other platform too, but without making new copies." An advantage of addressing the purpose of making a copy is that it automatically defeats all kinds of schemes intended to get to execute on a non-free platform without violating the copyright licence: if you have a copy that is running on a non-free platform, then this did not happen by accident, so without knowing the details one can safely conclude that at some point a copy was made with the purpose of making this execution possible. Another advantage is that it unambiguously puts distributors in the clear as long as they refrain from compiling or otherwise configuring the software specifically for non-free platforms. Some loopholes may still be found, but I think they are fairly minor. If a way can be found to directly execute a copy on a platform-independent medium without the need to compile or make a local copy (say directly from a mounted CD-ROM; this is more likely for scripts than for C-code), then the software might be legally used on a non-free platform in this manner. This is probably sufficiently inconvenient that the author of the software need not worry too much about it; it does however provide a good reason for forbidding compilation for (rather than on) non-free platforms. What still gives me most doubts is the probably quite common scenario of a public ftp/http server, and somebody downloading to a non-free platform. Since you want this type of distribution to be available for free platforms, and the server will not be able to tell the difference, the server operator (distributor) must remain cleared from any blame. But to blame the person downloading one must firstly construe this act as making a copy (I have been arguing previously that it is the server that is making the copy) and secondly arrange that he has a reasonable chance of knowing at that time that such copying is illegal. As for the first point I think one may regard this as the server broadcasting the information (since it will respond to any request), while the person downloading is creating a physical copy from that broadcast (much like recording a TV program on video); there must be lots of jurisprudence whether that constitutes a breach of copyright or not. As for the second point, just because copying copyrighted material is forbidden by default does not imply one has to assume downloading is illegal until one has proof of the contrary; since downloading is practically the only service provided by the server, one is entitled to think this is normally legal. Just as an experiment I tried to view a copyright notice before downloading a non-free package (netscape-base-407 4.07-1) from debian by http. I did get the opportunity (no obligation) to click on "copyright file"; interestingly that only showed a page telling "No such copyright file", but OK, I suppose the intention was there. By ftp I think this would be more difficult still. I don't like the idea of saying the download is illegal but the user will be forgiven if he opens up the file, reads the notice, and then destroys the copy before trying to compile it. But I guess there is no real choice if you want to allow distribution on the Internet, yet invoke copyright law to prevent execution on non-free platforms. Marc van Leeuwen
