Le samedi 26 novembre 2011 à 02:52 -0500, Clark C. Evans a écrit : > For example, the GPL restricts the distribution of derived > works that would include proprietary (non-free) components.
Well, that's not what the GPL actually says. > > > | Would Debian consider a "Free Platform License" (FPL) derived > > > | from the AGPLv3, but with the "System Library" exception > > > | removed (as well as the GNU specific prologue)? > > > > How's removing the exception effective in what you are > > trying to achieve? > > This license should prevent distributions which specifically > target a proprietary platform. While it would not directly > prevent usage of the software on a proprietary platform -- it > could hinder it in a practical manner. No, you don't want to prevent distributions, that would be like taking away the freedom to distribute copies to specific people. That would not be free. > Consider this license would include "System Libraries" as part > of the "Corresponding Source" (rather than excepting it). In > this case, those who package the software are creating a > modified version. As such, the system libraries it is packaged > to use must also be licensed under this or a compatible > license. The Debian distribution would meet these conditions, > proprietary platform distributions won't. So you want the definition of Corresponding Source to include System Libraries. IMHO the effect isn't that you have a Free Platform License, but you have a YOUR-LICENSE-compatible-only Platform license. If the system library is free and included in Debian but it's under a license that's not compatible with YOUR-LICENSE, you can't include it in the corresponding source of your work: because you couldn't comply with both licenses while distributing. Your license would be incompatible with the GPL also btw, because you add a further restriction. > Overall, I think the added encumbrance to distribution might be > sufficient to provide an effective discrimination while still remaining > free software. Maybe that's possible. But I am really not sure it would be worth it, including for the reason you pointed out, that it wouldn't be efficient in a lot of cases, and I am sure there'd be technical ways to get around it (for instance, does all C program on Windows absolutely have to link to that proprietary dll file? Isn't it possible to have a free software library to do that?) But really, the most important thing is that you're trying to have new license that would be it seems incompatible with many, many other free software licenses. You would really be isolating your program from anything. I am not sure that's what you're trying to achieve. -- Hugo Roy im: [email protected] French Coordinator mobile: +33.6 0874 1341 The Free Software Foundation Europe works to create general understanding and support for software freedom in politics, law, business and society. Become a Fellow http://www.fsfe.org/join La Free Software Foundation Europe œuvre à la compréhension et au soutien de la liberté logicielle en politique, en droit, en économie et en société. Rejoignez la Fellowship http://www.fsfe.org/join -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
