I fully support and agree to advices given by Valentino. * Valentino Giudice <[email protected]> [2022-03-06 18:35]: > This is the most advisable path for writing a new free license: > - DON'T. Actually, I don't. Really really don't. We have enough > license proliferation already. > > If you decide that there is an absolute need for a new free license, > which outweighs the cost (which is unlikely), then: > - Make sure you have a good understanding of copyright and patent law, > and that which you are trying to achieve is legally possible, and that > you fully understand what the side effects are. > - Make sure you have read and understood, in full (not summaries), all > existing free licenses (well, at least the known ones). > - Make sure you fully understand what "free software" means to > adjacent communities (the GNU/FSF and Debian, the latter being a bit > stricter). Also make sure you fully understand what "open source" > means (to OSI and to Debian, which uses the two terms as synonyms): > this is to avoid splitting the free software community, since > disagreements about what licenses are "FLOSS" currently only lie on > the very boundary of software freedom, and belong to licenses which > are rarely used. > - Make sure that you truly know what you are trying to achieve would > be uncontroversially considered "free" and that there is no existing > free license that can achieve that already. > - Wonder whether the thing you are trying to achieve is one we need at all. > - Write the license **with legal council**. Don't assume you can write > a good license without the help from lawyers: you probably can't even > if you are a lawyer yourself. > - Consult with the community, get feedback and truly learn from it, > then repeat until you have a stable text. Make sure that the literal > text of the license, its intention and how a developer and a court of > law are likely to parse it align. > > Anything else would lead to a license which is useless. > > > We( me and other developers involved) are using the term Free Acces > > Technology to refer to works released under this license. > > That's a very weird definition. > It's very weird to define a class of *things* by the fact that they > are all released under one specific license. > There is a misconception (which I don't know where it comes from) that > free software is software under the GPL. > This is false: free software can be released under any free software > licenses, the GPL is just one of them. The vast majority of free > software licenses are non-copyleft, too. > I'm not saying you have this misconception, to be clear. But why would > you define "Free Acces Technology" not based on abstract ideas and > principles, but rather based on one very specific license?
Jean Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns: https://www.fsf.org/campaigns In support of Richard M. Stallman https://stallmansupport.org/ _______________________________________________ libreplanet-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss
