On Fri, Dec 16, 2011, at 04:33 PM, Jeremy C. Reed wrote:
>  | This software is licensed for any purpose excepting the right to
>  | make publicly available derived works which depend exclusively
>  | upon non-free components.

> I believe these could be understood to conflict with:

> - ``The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).''
> How can it be used for any purpose if it can't depend on non-free 
> software implementation?  I this think is a strong argument.

Like the GPL, this license imposes a condition on the distribution 
of modifications, it doesn't restrict use.  If you're looking for
a free software principle it might conflict with, it is:

- ``The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others
(freedom 3)``

Of course, the GPL also conflicts with this freedom since one's
modifications might include linking with non-free software.  

The difference between the GPL and this license proposal is 
that the GPL requires that the "whole of the work, and all 
of its parts" be under the GPL.  While this license instead
requires that the modification be functional on a free island.


For example, if you made significant modifications to a "C" 
program such that it would now use the ::MessageBox() function, 
you're welcome to compile it (on Windows) and use it yourself.  

However, if you wish the privilege to distribute your derived 
work, it should be compilable and your changes should operate 
as you would intend using only free software.  Luckily, the 
MessageBox Win32 System call is implemented under Wine so 
there's no problem meeting the Free Island test.

This is a different approach than the GPL and I'm hopeful that 
we might have a fruitful discussion about its merits.  I'm not 
a lawyer so I'm sure there are lots and lots of details that 
are poorly constructed.  It matters little to talk about the 
details if the general direction doesn't stand up on examination.

Kind Regards,


License-discuss mailing list

Reply via email to