Re: a Free Platform License?
The tl:dr version: just use the GPL, or the AGPL if you must. I don't think whether your license is DFSG-compliant is the important issue here; I think the important issue is that your proposed license is not well-understood, has practical problems, and is contributing to license proliferation. (Thoughts on DFSG compliance later.) By being a copyleft license with more restrictions than the GPL, I believe your proposed license is non-GPL-compatible. This isn't necessarily a barrier to DFSG compliance, but it's a major practical problem. You can't use GPL'd libraries in a non-GPL-compatible but copyleft work, and libraries under weak-copyleft licenses like the LGPL - particularly version 2, less so for version 3 - can give you subtle licensing interactions that are difficult to disentangle. I for one would be reluctant to contribute significantly to a package under the license you propose; I'm already somewhat concerned about the AGPL, which raises some interesting practical problems (particularly if parts of an AGPL webapp are re-used in something that isn't a webapp). On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 at 10:00:05 -0500, Clark C. Evans wrote: The work in question is a complete medical informatics system. It is written in Python, requires PostgreSQL and is typically deployed on FreeBSD. Suppose you'd licensed this under the (A?)GPL. I don't know much about medical informatics, but it seems to me that the options for a potential user of this software (a medical practitioner?), in increasing order of Free-ness, would be: (A) pay for a proprietary medical informatics system and run it on a proprietary (or perhaps even Free) OS; (B) fork your system (since presumably you're not making much effort to be portable to Windows or Mac OS X), or a competing Free system if there is one, and port it to Windows or Mac OS X; (C) run your system, or a competing Free system, on a Free OS. The only thing you seem to be trying to prevent is that someone does option (B) using your system. If a proprietary OS doesn't have some sort of benefit to them (perhaps just familiarity, perhaps they need to run something else on that computer that requires a proprietary OS, or perhaps there's some misguided government/regulatory requirement that they use a proprietary OS), they'd do (C) regardless of your license, rather than going to the considerable effort involved in (B). Is your system really sufficiently far ahead of its proprietary competitors that you think a medical practitioner with such a strong preference or requirement for a proprietary OS would prefer (C) over (A)? (Of course, if you have Free competitors with a more normal license, the second choice for a user with a proprietary OS is easy - use the competing Free system instead.) Some interesting corner cases for you to think about: * If your software is ported to run on Wine, an LGPL implementation of the Windows API, is that a free platform? (How could it not be, given that its license is the same as glibc?) If it turns out the same binaries run correctly on a Windows machine, have you achieved anything by using this license, apart from annoying your users? * If your software is ported to run on GNUstep on Darwin, is that a free platform? If it turns out the same binaries run correctly on Mac OS X, have you achieved anything by using this license? * If I run your software in a FreeBSD or Linux virtual machine (e.g. VMWare or VirtualBox) on a Windows host, is that allowed? Why/why not? * A PC running your software has a non-free BIOS, and runs FreeBSD with binary-only drivers (nVidia!). Is that allowed? Why/why not? What if the binary-only drivers are needed to boot (network card firmware)? Since I promised I'd mention DFSG-compliance-or-not: some debian-legal regulars disagree with the ftpmasters' decision to allow AGPL software into Debian. I personally think the AGPL is a Free license, but one with significant practical problems. S -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/2028161129.gb28...@reptile.pseudorandom.co.uk
Re: a Free Platform License?
(on the Free platform license, I agree with you) Le lundi 28 novembre 2011 à 16:11 +, Simon McVittie a écrit : I for one would be reluctant to contribute significantly to a package under the license you propose; I'm already somewhat concerned about the AGPL, which raises some interesting practical problems (particularly if parts of an AGPL webapp are re-used in something that isn't a webapp). It is stipulated in the AGPL that the specific requirement under section 13 apply only if the version of the program supports such interaction (typically a webapp user interaction) so if it's not a webapp I don't think it is the case; then it makes no difference if it's GPLv3 or AGPLv3. Since I promised I'd mention DFSG-compliance-or-not: some debian-legal regulars disagree with the ftpmasters' decision to allow AGPL software into Debian. I personally think the AGPL is a Free license, but one with significant practical problems. I'm quite new on this list, can you point us to the rationale behind the debate? Thanks, Hugo -- Hugo Roy im: h...@jabber.fsfe.org 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 debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1322497855.24301.5.ca...@synclavier.lan
Re: a Free Platform License?
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 10:00:05AM -0500, Clark C. Evans wrote: To improve signal-to-noise ratio, we far prefer discussion in this forum to be on *actual* works with *actual* license terms. ... The System Libraries of an executable work include anything, other than the work as a whole, that (a) is included in the normal form of packaging a Major Component, but which is not part of that Major Component, and (b) serves only to enable use of the work with that Major Component, or to implement a Standard Interface for which an implementation is available to the public in source code form. A Major Component, in this context, means a major essential component (kernel, window system, and so on) of the specific operating system (if any) on which the executable work runs, or a compiler used to produce the work, or an object code interpreter used to run it. This definition of Major Component may include non-free binary blob in non-free kernel modules. For example, ethernel device driver, HDD RAID driver, 3D Video driver, ... The Corresponding Source for a work in object code form means all the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable work) run the object code and to modify the work, including scripts to control those activities. This *additionally includes* the work's System Libraries, or general-purpose tools or generally available free programs which are used unmodified in performing those activities but which are not part of the work. For example, Corresponding Source includes interface definition files associated with source files for the work, and the source code for shared libraries and dynamically linked subprograms that the work is specifically designed to require, such as by intimate data communication or control flow between those subprograms and other parts of the work. The Corresponding Source also includes the source code for all major components of the specific operating system which the executable work runs, is compiled on, or interpreted with. This includes any processor, storage, network, or display software required by the application for its operation. Are you sure if a user uses PC with non-free NVIDIA driver as a major component, you request this? If this is your intention ... Or you allow them as long as they use GNU/Linux. Hmmm,,, I do not know why major components here uses lower case. This case differentiation trick is typical lawyer thing which is always tricky. The Corresponding Source need not include anything that users can regenerate automatically from other parts of the Corresponding Source. The Corresponding Source for a work in source code form is that same work. I did not read much in detail but just a simple observation on Major. Osamu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/2028163502.ga22...@goofy.lan
Re: a Free Platform License?
On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 16:11:29 + Simon McVittie wrote: The tl:dr version: just use the GPL, or the AGPL if you must. My summary is somewhat similar: please just use the GNU GPL, and nothing more restrictive than that (I don't think the GNU AfferoGPL v3 meets the DFSG, so please avoid that license, as well). I don't think whether your license is DFSG-compliant is the important issue here; At least, not the only important issue... I think the important issue is that your proposed license is not well-understood, has practical problems, and is contributing to license proliferation. (Thoughts on DFSG compliance later.) I agree that the proposed license has all these flaws. By being a copyleft license with more restrictions than the GPL, I believe your proposed license is non-GPL-compatible. So do I. [...] I for one would be reluctant to contribute significantly to a package under the license you propose; I would also try hard to stay as away as possible from such a license. I'm already somewhat concerned about the AGPL, which raises some interesting practical problems (particularly if parts of an AGPL webapp are re-used in something that isn't a webapp). I personally have major concerns about the GNU AfferoGPL v3, see below. [...] Since I promised I'd mention DFSG-compliance-or-not: some debian-legal regulars disagree with the ftpmasters' decision to allow AGPL software into Debian. Hello everybody! I am one of those debian-legal regulars! If someone is interested in the details, please take a look at http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/11/msg00233.html http://bugs.debian.org/495721#28 I personally think the AGPL is a Free license, but one with significant practical problems. I definitely see significant practical problems in the GNU AfferoGPL v3, but I also see some terms that fail to comply with the DFSG. -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt New GnuPG key, see the transition document! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgpPhnKd8Earb.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: a Free Platform License?
On Tuesday, November 29, 2011 1:35 AM, Osamu Aoki os...@debian.org wrote: This definition of Major Component may include non-free binary blob in non-free kernel modules. For example, ethernel device driver, HDD RAID driver, 3D Video driver, ... If the work requires a particular non-free system library or driver or binary blob for its operation, then distribution would be restricted. However, everything needed to build convey binary distribution from preferred sources is free and if the final work operates on an entirely free platform, then the distribution criteria would be met. Are you sure if a user uses PC with non-free NVIDIA driver as a major component, you request this? If this is your intention ... Or you allow them as long as they use GNU/Linux. For a free software license, how the user chooses to operate the work, on what hardware and on what platform isn't a concern. On Monday, November 28, 2011 4:11 PM, Simon McVittie s...@debian.org wrote: By being a copyleft license with more restrictions than the GPL, I believe your proposed license is non-GPL-compatible. This isn't necessarily a barrier to DFSG compliance, but it's a major practical problem. Yes, I agree it's a practical problem. I also think your comments are accurate. I'm not sure I agree with your conclusion, I need a bit more time to digest your thoughtful analysis. Some interesting corner cases for you to think about: * If your software is ported to run on Wine, an LGPL implementation of the Windows API, is that a free platform? (How could it not be, given that its license is the same as glibc?) If it turns out the same binaries run correctly on a Windows machine, have you achieved anything by using this license, apart from annoying your users? * If your software is ported to run on GNUstep on Darwin, is that a free platform? If it turns out the same binaries run correctly on Mac OS X, have you achieved anything by using this license? Yes. Quite a bit actually. We've ensured that any derived works will build and operate on a free platform and won't require a proprietary operating system for these purposes. Even so, would this be practical? You couldn't just get away with packaging the software in a emulated environment, you'd have to ensure that it operates there as you expect; otherwise, you'd be in violation. Imagine a bug report comes in for a specific version of a platform due to a defect in the system library. To develop an application-level work-around for this bug, you'd first have to ensure that your emulation environment also has this defect. I guess to be absolutely clear about this, the license should define the idea of preferred platform and require that this platform be free software. * If I run your software in a FreeBSD or Linux virtual machine (e.g. VMWare or VirtualBox) on a Windows host, is that allowed? Why/why not? * A PC running your software has a non-free BIOS, and runs FreeBSD with binary-only drivers (nVidia!). Is that allowed? Why/why not? What if the binary-only drivers are needed to boot (network card firmware)? How a user wishes to use a copy of the work in the privacy of their own organization is not the subject of the license. I think the virtual hardware emulation layer may be a great way to think about it. Perhaps the best test for compliance of a distribution is if you can build and deploy the work in an emulated environment (say KVM) running only free software. (out-of-sequence) I don't think whether your license is DFSG-compliant is the important issue here; I do. If Debian, on general principle is opposed to any license that would discriminate based upon platform, then this determination effectively eliminates further discussion. So far in this thread, there have been several comments that lead me to believe that even if this license may be considered free software, it would not be DFSG compliant. On November 24, David Prévot taf...@debian.org wrote: If you're looking for a license that discriminate against [a] group of persons [DGSG5], such as proprietary platforms users, that's not going happen in Debian. On November 26, Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au wrote: Discriminate against proprietary platforms seems to necessarily entail discriminating against a field of use for the work, which violates an essential freedom for the recipient of the work. On November 26, Hugo Roy h...@fsfe.org wrote: This license should prevent distributions which specifically target a proprietary platform. 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. I think the origin for this line thinking resides with DFSG/OSI non-discrimination clauses and has very little do to with RMS's definition of free software. For example, let's consider a case to which the GPL license is found
Re: a Free Platform License?
* Hugo Roy h...@fsfe.org [28 17:31]: Since I promised I'd mention DFSG-compliance-or-not: some debian-legal regulars disagree with the ftpmasters' decision to allow AGPL software into Debian. I personally think the AGPL is a Free license, but one with significant practical problems. I'm quite new on this list, can you point us to the rationale behind the debate? The question is what does Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, if you modify the Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version by providing access to the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge, through some standard or customary means of facilitating copying of software. mean? Either it means you are restricted how you run your computer. But forbidding firewalls or proxies filtering out unwanted things (like including any access to the source code of the application) is hopefully clearly absolutely non-free. (Even most commercial EULAs are more free than that). Or it does not restrict how you run your computer then this is a severe limitation on modification not having any positive effect to justify it. Bernhard R. Link -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/2028214824.ga16...@server.brlink.eu
Re: a Free Platform License?
Le lundi 28 novembre 2011 à 16:19 -0500, Clark C. Evans a écrit : On November 26, Hugo Roy h...@fsfe.org wrote: This license should prevent distributions which specifically target a proprietary platform. 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. I think the origin for this line thinking resides with DFSG/OSI non-discrimination clauses and has very little do to with RMS's definition of free software. I am talking of the freedom to distribute copies of the program. If you restrict that freedom to specific people that is clearly not free software, and that is totally consistent with RMS' definition as well. 1. Lisa is a Free Software developer who releases her data visualization toolkit, Super Visual, under the GPL license. 2. John is a Proprietary developer from the planet Atlantis who publishes a closed source, but *freely redistributable* data processing library for Underwater Basket Weaving. Of course not. They don't have copyright laws in Atlantis! :) 3. Zeek is an Atlantian, weaver software programmer who creates a novel program he calls Deepwater Basket, tightly integrating Lisa's GPL data visualization tool with Jon's non-free, tightly integrating looks like it's a derivative work. I don't think this is possible. Both would have to be under GPL terms. (That's not a discrimination!) but freely-distributable processing library that everyone, I mean everyone uses. Zeek wants to share like Lisa, so he puts his work under the GPL. He can't put his work under the GPL… and this is true to anybody. He cannot publish his modifications because he cannot put John's non-free under the GPL. 4. Samantha is also a basket weaver, a very important activity on the planet Atlantis, and she really wants to refine her underwater techniques and hence is very interested in obtaining a copy of Zeek's Deepwater Basket. Hence, we have to conclude that by preventing distribution of this Deepwater Basket software, the GPL license is a non-free license in disguise that viciously discriminates against a field of endeavor, Underwater Basket Weaving, and especially those unfortunate souls on the planet Atlantis. The GPL isn't preventing distribution. If the GPL was preventing distribution, it would mean in the first place that Zeek has a legal right to distribute a work of authorship. This right comes from copyright (in the US), but in this precise example it would be a either: * a violation of copyright (John's copyright) if you pretend it's under GPL (or GPL-compatible license) * a violation of the GNU GPL (Lisa's copyright) if you distribute with the non-free library There are no discrimination by the GPL: nobody is allowed to get this program, because Zeek has no right under John's license to publish any derivative work. That's where the non-free comes from; not the GPL. -- Hugo Roy im: h...@jabber.fsfe.org 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 debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1322551553.24301.33.ca...@synclavier.lan
Re: a Free Platform License?
Le lundi 28 novembre 2011 à 22:48 +0100, Bernhard R. Link a écrit : Either it means you are restricted how you run your computer. But forbidding firewalls or proxies filtering out unwanted things (like including any access to the source code of the application) is hopefully clearly absolutely non-free. (Even most commercial EULAs are more free than that). I don't get the link between AGPL and restrictions on firewalls and proxies. As soon as your version of the software provides for remote network interaction, you must offer a way for them to get the source code (in a way consistent with the rest of the license, which is exactly the same as the GPL). It doesn't care if the interaction is behind firewalls etc., it doesn't care either about access to the source code, it can be behind firewalls or whatever. Or it does not restrict how you run your computer then this is a severe limitation on modification not having any positive effect to justify it. Why does it limit modification? You can make any modification you like, it just means you'll have to publish them. And yes, there is a positive effect to justify it: the software is used by a lot of other people! they are entitled to those modifications, like just any other copylefted program. Anyway, what I am looking for is more specific: Since I promised I'd mention DFSG-compliance-or-not: some debian-legal regulars disagree with the ftpmasters' decision to allow AGPL software into Debian. I personally think the AGPL is a Free license, but one with significant practical problems. I'm quite new on this list, can you point us to the rationale behind the debate? Thanks, -- Hugo Roy im: h...@jabber.fsfe.org 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 debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1322552094.24301.41.ca...@synclavier.lan
