Re: a Free Platform License?
I doubt it is possible to distribute any software for common x86 PCs in compliance with your proposed license. For instance, hypothetical FPL-licensed software cannot be distributed for Linux, because Linux relies on ACPI which is a part of the proprietary system BIOS. Linux also depends on a bootloader. Unfortunately, the bootloader depends on BIOS or EFI services, which are also proprietary software. Hypothetical FPL-licensed software on common x86 PCs will also execute x86 instructions, some of which are interpreted by updatable microcode in the CPU. Even if a traditional CPU with a fixed microcode escapes the free platform requriement, a CPU with the ability to update and upgrade its microcode must fall within the purview of a free platform license. Even when you make use of efforts to extend freedom as early in the boot process as possible (e.g., coreboot) the typical PC-based system will still require use of a proprietary VGA BIOS to initialize the video card; it appears that coreboot is also designed to be shipped with Intel's microcode updates though doubtless you could disable this if you didn't mind your CPU having whatever errata the microcode updates fix. (and you *want* these updates---for instance, I found that Intel used a microcode update to fix erratum AG37, the description of which makes it sound like it would make an implementation of 'memchr' that used the 'rep scas' instruction fail when =4GB of memory is being searched) Jeff -- 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/20111217145812.gb12...@unpythonic.net
Re: a Free Platform License?
Jeff, Thank you for thoughts on this. Pursuant to Ben's request, the discussion of this hypothetical license (well, a 2nd pass) has been moved to license-disc...@opensource.org http://www.mail-archive.com/license-discuss@opensource.org/msg07871.html Best, Clark -- 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/1324134427.14015.140661012844...@webmail.messagingengine.com
Re: a Free Platform License?
Clark: You should speak to FSF, and possibly to Richard Stallman himself about this idea. How to enforce such a license against porting software to Wine ? I do not know... Anyway: originally Free Software was very permissive (MIT-style), non-copyleft. Then came in the GPL. Now came the AGPL to enforce Free Software for Web / Cloud. Will Free Platform License be the next step ? It *is* clearly a stronger copyleft than both GPL and AGPL. And yes, I agree it will open a new window of dual-license companies. GPL-compatibility: It *is* possible to make it GPL-compatible, if Stallman releases GPLv4 with such forward-compatibility, like he did with GPLv3-AGPLv3 license bridge. GPLv4 (or v3.1?) can be a small revision against GPLv3 only adding ability to migrate to this new license. If you can convince Stallman, GPL-compatibility can be done. About Debian's DFSG: I'm not sure if such a license will violate DFSG5: No discrimination against persons or groups., but it might. and DFSG9 also. BETA-testing of software: Today, much of cross-platform Open Source Software is tested by Windows crowd. VirtualBox, LibreOffice, and more are examples of this... Linux-only versions (KVM and KOffice) enjoy from less testers. Speak to Free Software Foundation or to Software Freedom Law Center. -- -Alexey Eromenko Technologov -- 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/CAOJ6w=g2kvac8i8o-msgggvrc1ht1hfibkit-p99j7dxzm3...@mail.gmail.com
Re: a Free Platform License?
- Original message - From: Clark C. Evans c...@clarkevans.com To: license-disc...@opensource.org Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2011 13:38:20 -0500 Subject: a Free Island Public License? Please find for your amusement and hopeful commentary a different take on what it means to be Free Software. FREE ISLAND PUBLIC LICENSE This software is licensed for any purpose excepting the right to make publicly available derived works which depend exclusively upon non-free software. So long as this copyright and license are included in all substantial copies of this work you may: 1. Publicly copy and use verbatim copies of this work including public distribution and performance. 2. Privately deal with this work in any way you wish, including internal usage, copying, and modification of this work. You may also make publicly available via distribution or public performance any Derived Work only if the following conditions are met: 1. the preferred source code for the Derived Work must be made freely available under this license; 2. the Derived Work must pass the Free Island test. By Derived Work we mean a modified copy or adaptation of this work or a separate work such as a plug-in, protocol adapter, or wrapper which is designed to have intimate interactions with this work's operational details, or interfaces. A Derived Work passes the Free Island test if it could be prepared, modified, compiled, tested, installed, and operated in a manner advertised or expected using only commodity hardware, Free Software, this software, and the Derived Work itself. In particular, the Derived Work fails the test if it in any way depends upon remote network interaction or interfaces to works that do not have a Free Software implementation. By Free Software we mean any software which is readily available to the public without fee and this license, any license approved by the Open Source Initiative or any license considered free by the Free Software Foundation. A safe harbor for passing the Free Island test is if the Derived Work is fully usable as intended when compiled installed on a Debian virtual machine using software only from its 'free' distribution and KVM. If the Derived Work was created for interaction with other works, then it must be fully testable in conjunction with a Free Software alternative of this work as available on this virtual machine. THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY AUTHOR AND CONTRIBUTORS AS IS AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, AGAINST INFRINGEMENT, TITLE AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL AUTHOR OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. -- 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/1323030084.24974.140661007301...@webmail.messagingengine.com
Re: a Free Platform License?
* Hugo Roy h...@fsfe.org [29 18:13]: Le mardi 29 novembre 2011 à 17:38 +0100, Bernhard R. Link a écrit : Say I have a blog, that is created by some software. Assume that software contains AGPL code. Am I allowed to run a server that only serves my blog without paying for anything or anyone else? With AGPL the answer is no. Thus I consider it non-free. Yes, first because you have not modified the AGPL software. Of course. But who does not modify software? And why should I lose my rights to run the software just because I modified it? But even if you did modify it, and even if your blog supports the remote network interaction all you have to do is to offer to provide source code. So you agree that AGPL forbids me running only a blog, or what is that sentence supposed to say? 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/2030100105.ga20...@server.brlink.eu
Re: a Free Platform License?
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 04:05:01PM +0100, Hugo Roy wrote: I don't understand what is the restriction on running the software. The AGPL does not say anything about proxies and firewalls. You can have them, or not; it does not care AFAICS. The reason for there being an AGPL was thus: People started offering web services based on GPL software. RMS would have liked to obtain the source code. The GPL did not force the people to disclose their source code, because it only restricts distribution, not use. And the web services were only used, not distributed. Hence the AGPL restricts use by design. The above is not intended to convey my opinion on the AGPL, just to prove that it does in fact restrict use. Best regards, Mark Weyer -- 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/2030110035.GA1887@debian
Re: a Free Platform License?
* Hugo Roy h...@fsfe.org [29 08:35]: 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? I guess you need to rephrase that. I understood it as question why some DDs consider AGPL a non-free license. What did you mean? 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. Which is a restriction on running the software. The GPL has no restriction on running, it has only restrictions on distribution. What good is it that I am allowed to share modifications to software if I am not allowed to run 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/2029142653.ga15...@server.brlink.eu
Re: a Free Platform License?
Le mardi 29 novembre 2011 à 15:26 +0100, Bernhard R. Link a écrit : * Hugo Roy h...@fsfe.org [29 08:35]: 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? I guess you need to rephrase that. I understood it as question why some DDs consider AGPL a non-free license. What did you mean? I mean: can someone give me links or documents that explain the reasons and arguments put forward for accepting/refusing AGPL into debian's main? Actually Francesco provided some links since then: 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 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. Which is a restriction on running the software. The GPL has no restriction on running, it has only restrictions on distribution. What good is it that I am allowed to share modifications to software if I am not allowed to run it? I don't understand what is the restriction on running the software. The AGPL does not say anything about proxies and firewalls. You can have them, or not; it does not care AFAICS. -- 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/1322579101.20913.8.ca...@synclavier.lan
Re: a Free Platform License?
On Tuesday, November 29, 2011 8:25 AM, Hugo Roy h...@fsfe.org wrote: 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' l, definition as well. The GPL provides conditions for distribution, when those conditions are not met -- you can't distribute a modified copy. Hence, the GPL prevents distribution. 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!) Zeek does have the right to construct his derived work that combines the GPL and non-free work. 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. Since Zeek can't distribute John's work under the GPL or a compatible license, he doesn't meet the distribution criteria to be a distributable modification of Lisa's work. 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. Ok. So this is the crux of why GPL doesn't discriminate; since the GPL didn't provide the right of distribution to Zeek, there isn't any right lost, and hence no discrimination. 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. Oh, let's suppose John's license provides the rights to make derivative works then, provided that his library's license (say with an advertising clause) is incorporated. That's where the non-free comes from; not the GPL. Well, I think this is a terminology / perspective issue. ... So, according to this logic, the Free Platform License described (as derived from GPLv3, without Affero) would also not discriminate against platform users. Since those who would wish to distribute FPL licensed software for use specifically with a non-free platform have no previous rights to do so. Hence, there is no discrimination with this approach. Correct? Clark -- 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/1322580254.17618.140661005089...@webmail.messagingengine.com
Re: a Free Platform License?
On 24 November 2011 13:08, Clark C. Evans c...@clarkevans.com wrote: Free and open source software can be used without restriction on proprietary platforms, yet, the reverse isn't true. If a open source application is useful enough, it'll be ported to Windows or OSX. As a result, proprietary operating systems have all the goodness we provide -- plus proprietary stuff we don't. Here's the rub. When a free and open source application is ported to a proprietary platform with a higher user base, perhaps it brings higher value to that platform than it does to the free platform it was developed with. At the very least, a port neutralizes any relative advantage the free platform might have had. There is also value to the free and open source community in gateway apps, great open source apps that run on Windows or Mac in addition to the Linux/BSD world. These apps ease the transition from a proprietary environment to a free environment because it's a lot easier to switch from Firefox on Windows to Firefox on Debian than it would to switch from Internet Explorer, for instance. I like that KDE is so easily installable on Windows. Although the apps might be available on a closed platform, they generally aren't installed by default. One reason I use Linux is that most of the apps I use come installed by default or an easy install away. And it's very easy to keep the apps up-to-date, which still isn't possible in OS X or even Windows 8. My point is that the open platform still has advantages even though some of the same apps are available on closed platforms. Neither Windows nor OS X has all the goodness Linux has, nor are the additional proprietary apps available on those platforms necessarily goodness. By the way, the GCompris developer only distributes half the educational activities in his official Windows or Mac installers unless the user pays a fee: http://gcompris.net/Windows,38 I believe that is fully ok with the GPL since the source is freely available. Jeremy -- 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/caaajcmzuphttoxbs7ousk8g8am7vebe-v2ew9w0ilvrtfuu...@mail.gmail.com
Re: a Free Platform License?
Le mardi 29 novembre 2011 à 10:24 -0500, Clark C. Evans a écrit : On Tuesday, November 29, 2011 8:25 AM, Hugo Roy h...@fsfe.org wrote: 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' l, definition as well. The GPL provides conditions for distribution, when those conditions are not met -- you can't distribute a modified copy. Hence, the GPL prevents distribution. When the conditions are not met. But those conditions aren't targeting anyone specifically, or forbidding any group. These conditions are not discriminatory. (Please don't say they are discriminatory against people who don't want to comply with the license by releasing it as proprietary software, it doesn't make sense. It's like saying the law is discriminatory against people who don't respect it.) 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!) Zeek does have the right to construct his derived work that combines the GPL and non-free work. GPLv3 5. or the GPLv2 2. say the opposite. Or did I misunderstand what you mean by tightly integrating GPL and non-free software? 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. Since Zeek can't distribute John's work under the GPL or a compatible license, he doesn't meet the distribution criteria to be a distributable modification of Lisa's work. I don't understand. Zeek has a right to distribute Lisa's work, he also has a right to modify and distribute the modifications. It's Zeek who choses to use a non-free library and to make it work with Lisa's modified work. 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. Ok. So this is the crux of why GPL doesn't discriminate; since the GPL didn't provide the right of distribution to Zeek, there isn't any right lost, and hence no discrimination. The GPL didn't provide the right of distributing modifications of the non-free library. Zeek does not have such a right. But nonetheless, he decided to use it and integrate with a GPL work, which requires to respect some conditions that aren't met. 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. Oh, let's suppose John's license provides the rights to make derivative works then, provided that his library's license (say with an advertising clause) is incorporated. If it's compatible with the conditions of the GPL, why not. (But then I don't think the advertising clause would make this easy, quite the contrary). It's not new that copyleft licences create problems of compatibility. But to create a license with the purpose of being discriminatory is another matter (and I don't think the licence text you provided manages to achieve that; it's just creating another incompatible licence with conditions hard to respect that could indeed make life hard for a lot of people, including those you want to make life hard) -- 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/1322583042.20913.32.ca...@synclavier.lan
Re: a Free Platform License?
* Hugo Roy h...@fsfe.org [29 16:05]: Which is a restriction on running the software. The GPL has no restriction on running, it has only restrictions on distribution. What good is it that I am allowed to share modifications to software if I am not allowed to run it? I don't understand what is the restriction on running the software. Say I have a blog, that is created by some software. Assume that software contains AGPL code. Am I allowed to run a server that only serves my blog without paying for anything or anyone else? With AGPL the answer is no. Thus I consider it non-free. 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/2029163854.ga17...@server.brlink.eu
Re: a Free Platform License?
Le mardi 29 novembre 2011 à 17:38 +0100, Bernhard R. Link a écrit : Say I have a blog, that is created by some software. Assume that software contains AGPL code. Am I allowed to run a server that only serves my blog without paying for anything or anyone else? With AGPL the answer is no. Thus I consider it non-free. Yes, first because you have not modified the AGPL software. But even if you did modify it, and even if your blog supports the remote network interaction all you have to do is to offer to provide source code. For instance, see section 6 d) or e). -- 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/1322586788.20913.43.ca...@synclavier.lan
Re: a Free Platform License?
On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 10:25 PM, Francesco Poli wrote: 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). Francesco has made a compelling case against including the Affero terms as part of the Free Platform License. So, let's assume that the proposed license is derived from the GPLv3 and doesn't not have restrictions on use; I'll provide an revision of the proposed license text later this week. ... I suppose there are many grounds for dismissing this license and I'm not sure where I stand. Here are the reasons as I've been able to ascertain. License Proliferation: I think that this license is substantially different in its effects than existing licenses and is written in a generic manner. Conflicts with GPL: Unfortunate as it may be, it is not a reason to reject the proposal. Lots of licenses conflict with various GPL versions and there are known techniques for handling these conflicts. By using GPLv3 text as a basis, it will be compatible with the bulk of non-copyleft licenses. Adoption Problems: I think you can't say this license wouldn't be popular. I know many developers who dislike when their work is used in combination with proprietary platforms so much that they'd engage more if their work were exclusive to free platforms; and I know still others who would kill for an effective way to dual-license by charging for compatibility with proprietary platforms. Practical Problems: I think the license would provide a very practical effect; it'd be far harder to make derived works that rely upon specific platform features. That said, this probably needs a bit more exploration. DFSG/Discrimination: This sort of license would treat platform software in the same manner that the GPL treats proprietary libraries. So, I think if there are problems here, the GPL shares those same issues. Free Software Problems: I think this is a free software license, and if it isn't, let's fix it. Did I miss anything? I'd prefer to continue this very helpful discussion if those on debian-legal would be willing to continue to hear me out. In particular, I don't understand the Practical Problems, so any thoughts on this would be especially delightful. Best, Clark -- 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/1322621654.3906.140661005343...@webmail.messagingengine.com
Re: a Free Platform License?
Clark C. Evans c...@clarkevans.com writes: Free Software Problems: I think this is a free software license, and if it isn't, let's fix it. I think your desired effects for the license are not compatible with software freedom, as discussed earlier. Did I miss anything? I'd prefer to continue this very helpful discussion if those on debian-legal would be willing to continue to hear me out. I don't think this is the forum for hashing out a new license text. This is a forum for discussing the legal effects of *works* in Debian. So far, you only seem interested in writing a new license (which, even if it were free, is something we strongly discourage). That's not a good use of this forum. Please take it elsewhere. -- \ “My interest is in the future, as I am going to spend the rest | `\ of my life there.” —Charles F. Kettering | _o__) | Ben Finney -- 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/87mxbe42lj@benfinney.id.au
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
Re: a Free Platform License?
Clark C. Evans c...@clarkevans.com writes: If you could prepare the work you're interested in packaging, and the actual set of license terms, the discussion could get more concrete. I'm asking something fairly concrete here already: | 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)? Reducing this to an actual license text is quite a bit of effort -- especially if it weren't considered. Nevertheless, that burden is on whoever wants to present a work for consideration. You're not going to get a general ruling on general terms in the absence of an actual work with actual terms – partly because we don't do rulings here, and partly because the legal codes make it too difficult to talk in generalities. To improve signal-to-noise ratio, we far prefer discussion in this forum to be on *actual* works with *actual* license terms. -- \ “If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all | `\others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking | _o__) power called an idea” —Thomas Jefferson, 1813-08-13 | Ben Finney -- 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/87zkfj48f9@benfinney.id.au
Re: a Free Platform License?
Le vendredi 25 novembre 2011 à 12:04 -0500, Clark C. Evans a écrit : If you mean “restrict the recipient of the work so they are not permitted to use the work on proprietary platformsâ€, that is clearly a non-free restriction. I understand that it's traditional for Free Software to impose restrictions primarily as a condition of distribution; Exactly, they're conditions but not restrictions. And it really seems that what you're looking to impose with the license are restrictions that discriminate. I hardly see how such a licensed software could be free software. When you license with conditions (such as copyleft), you say: here's my copyrighted work, you're free to use and modify it as long as you do this and that. That is very different from: here's my copyrighted work, you're free to use and modify but only on such platforms. In the first case, the licensee is just required to do things, in the latter case, the licensee is forbidden to do things. It's a bit like a non-commercial restriction, or an academic-only restriction. And those are clearly considered non-free. It looks like what you're trying to do isn't a license with restrictions, but a license with a broader condition than the GPL's copyleft. I think it would be hard to come up with such a license that'd be effective (first because of the constraints of copyright law, second because the line between condition and restrictions would be very easily crossed). Personally, if I were addressing this in a vacuum, I'd release with a BSD style license having a one line clause that restricts usage to only free open platforms. This would accomplish my objective in a clear, if naive manner. However, I realize that this licensing approach is unacceptable to many here and hence wouldn't be accepted by Debian (would it be OK in non-free?). How would you define free open platforms then? And if that's in non-free, it means your program wouldn't be part of that free open platform. Which means your license would isolate your program of any growing community of other programs (because they couldn't be based on your program because it's not part of the free open platforms category). All that said, I did write exactly what I meant: | 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? People can install a free system library on a proprietary platform and then software licensed as such (gplv3 minus system library exception) could link to it, but installed on a proprietary platform, which fails at doing what you're trying to do. In the end, I am really not sure a license is what's needed to make free software operating systems grow (and I am also not sure yet another license is needed at all. Copyleft is already essential to achieve that). Best regards 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/1322272756.25627.29.ca...@synclavier.lan
Re: a Free Platform License?
On Saturday, November 26, 2011 2:59 AM, Hugo Roy h...@fsfe.org wrote: Le vendredi 25 novembre 2011 à 12:04 -0500, Clark C. Evans a écrit : I understand that it's traditional for Free Software to impose restrictions primarily as a condition of distribution; Exactly, they're conditions but not restrictions. And it really seems that what you're looking to impose with the license are restrictions that discriminate. I hardly see how such a licensed software could be free software. If a condition isn't satisfiable, there's no difference. For example, the GPL restricts the distribution of derived works that would include proprietary (non-free) components. | 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. 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. For a C language program that must be linked to msvcrt.dll, the distribution condition is pretty much fatal. It'd require users compile their own copy of the program for private use. For interpreted languages, such as Python or Ruby, this sort of license may be less effective since the typical package files are platform independent. If a platform installer was created, for example one that included a runtime engine compiled for a given platform, it'd be restricted. Overall, I think the added encumbrance to distribution might be sufficient to provide an effective discrimination while still remaining free software. People can install a free system library on a proprietary platform and then software licensed as such (GPLv3 minus system library exception) could link to it, but installed on a proprietary platform, which fails at doing what you're trying to do. I'm not sure what case you're outlining here. In the end, I am really not sure a license is what's needed to make free software operating systems grow (and I am also not sure yet another license is needed at all. Copyleft is already essential to achieve that). Thank you for your time Hugo. Best, Clark -- 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/1322293962.19350.140661003759...@webmail.messagingengine.com
Re: a Free Platform License?
I'm looking for a license that discriminates against proprietary platforms. I'm open to any specific effects that may do this, subject, of course, to what is consistent with Debian's values. I'm pretty sure that the above stated intention is not compatible with software freedom. By design, copyleft discriminates against proprietary software. It just happens that the GPL has an exception for system libraries so that it doesn't discriminate against platforms (a specific kind of proprietary software). Just because this exception exists in the GPL doesn't mean that it is necessary requirement for being considered free software. Is it? 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. I don't understand how discriminating against a given software component licensed in a particular way would necessarily entail discriminating against a field-of-use, group of users, etc. They seem quite orthogonal concerns to me. If you could prepare the work you're interested in packaging, and the actual set of license terms, the discussion could get more concrete. I'm asking something fairly concrete here already: | 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)? Reducing this to an actual license text is quite a bit of effort -- especially if it weren't considered. Best, Clark -- 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/1322293968.19352.140661003757...@webmail.messagingengine.com
a Free Platform License?
I'm looking for a software license, which Debian would support, that actively encourages use of free platforms; and consequently restricts proprietary platforms. While GNU/Linux is the dominant server operating system, it lags on the desktop. Many of my colleagues who were just a few years ago running GNU/Linux on their laptop have switched over to OSX for pragmatic reasons: to avoid hardware device issues and to be compatible with applications that the business folk use. Why don't laptop vendors support GNU/Linux operating systems? Why do business apps still only work on OSX or Windows? I think the issue isn't one of software quality, or effort, or tech people just not getting design. I think the difficulty is how we license our software. Free and open source software can be used without restriction on proprietary platforms, yet, the reverse isn't true. If a open source application is useful enough, it'll be ported to Windows or OSX. As a result, proprietary operating systems have all the goodness we provide -- plus proprietary stuff we don't. A platform's primary value isn't intrinsic. Instead, it is proportional to the platform's user base, which has a virtuous cycle with the applications and services that are available for this platform. Here's the rub. When a free and open source application is ported to a proprietary platform with a higher user base, perhaps it brings higher value to that platform than it does to the free platform it was developed with. At the very least, a port neutralizes any relative advantage the free platform might have had. I think historically this was a very fine trade-off since there was much free software to be written and the best way to get new users was to write software that operates on the platforms they were using. However, is this the right approach going forward? ... 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) [1]? Perhaps more importantly, would a license such as this actually promote free platforms in a manner that could be somewhat enforceable? I'm thinking for example of a Python or Ruby application. Would a Windows specific installer be permitted? Thank you kindly for your thoughts. Best, Clark [1] I'd like to thank RMS for his very helpful feedback. -- 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/1322158134.30046.140661003219...@webmail.messagingengine.com
Re: a Free Platform License?
Clark C. Evans c...@clarkevans.com writes: I'm looking for a software license, which Debian would support, that actively encourages use of free platforms; and consequently restricts proprietary platforms. It's not clear from the rest of your message what you mean by “restrict proprietary platforms”. Your message is unclear on the specific effects you want from a license. If you mean “restrict the recipient of the work so they are not permitted to use the work on proprietary platforms”, that is clearly a non-free restriction. -- \ “When I turned two I was really anxious, because I'd doubled my | `\ age in a year. I thought, if this keeps up, by the time I'm six | _o__) I'll be ninety.” —Steven Wright | Ben Finney -- 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/87y5v55eup@benfinney.id.au
