Am 04.11.13 17:56, schrieb Paul Tagliamonte:
Control: tag -1 moreinfo
On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 05:31:40PM +0100, Elmar Stellnberger wrote:
The xchroot S-FSL v1.3.1 license would need some legal review. It was
especially designed for
distributions available free of charge like Debian. The license has been
revised thouroughly
and should not pose any restrictions concerning re-distribution by Debian
or any other free
distro. The author plans to publish more software under this or a
reworked version of the
S-FSL license.
This license will be considered non-free in Debian. Please re-upload
targeting non-free or change the license terms.
o It forces distribution of changes to third parties.
Is it really a problem? If yes then I can add an exception for
distributors like Debian.
However what I want is being noticed somehow about changed versions of
my programmes.
This is to collect new use cases and get updates quickly incorporated
(Early versions of
my program were heavily rewritten and patched as googeling has shown;
though that time
not even granted explicitly.). Being notified by third party users about
their concerns and
changes would yield major contribution to the future development. (There
are no copyright
issues though since the actual code added by me so far has been
completely different from
the diversions found out there; though it has been very useful in
extracting new use cases.).
o One may not change for the software (or use it in a commercial product),
or be used *from* non-free software as a plugin (etc). The phrasing
in here is odd.
Well this is already the standard for the GPL-license: GPL programs as
far as being
compiled can not be incorporated into commercial software; you have to
use L-GPL.
Why not establish a similar standard for protecting intellectual
property also for
programs written in a script language? (i.e. this is the reason why I
called it S-FSL).
If the phrasing is odd we will have to rework it; it is my intention to
have a license
clear to everyone; not only to lawyers.
I strongly encourage you to not write your own license terms. Please
consider using a well-known and understood license.
Well to me it is an issue under which license to publish. I do not want
to burden
my distributor unncessarily but actually want to retain as much rights
as possible
because writing, maintaining the software and supporting also casual
users is a
major effort.
Cheers,
Paul
Many Thanks for your Commitment,
Elmar
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org