[ Sorry if we're getting off-topic here. Martin will have to say if
this in inappropriate for the psst list. ]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Unfortunately, the DFSG / OSD are criteria that are to be applied in
> considering the freeness of particular licenses; this interpretation can
> sometimes be tricky. This makes it difficult (and perhaps impossible) to
> design a library license that says: you are allowed to use this library in
> programs that are DFSG-free (although perhaps this could be done away with
> by putting an arbitration organisation in charge of the interpretation);
> if this could be made, it would be my favourite license for libraries.
I think such a license is logically impossible. Consider the following
scenario:
� A library L under the hypothetical license, that allows use only in
free (but not necessarily copylefted) projects, i.e. Open Source(tm).
� An Open Source(tm) project P, using a standard MIT/BSD-like copyright.
This projects uses the library L, which is explicitly allowed by L's
license.
� A proprietary project C, binary only distribution, evil licensing,
etc. C is derived from P, which is explicitly allowed by P's license.
But hey! C is *not* open source, and it is using your library L! How
can that be? There are really only two alternatives here:
(i) Either you say that it is ok for C to use L. Then you effectively
license L under a non-copyleft license, like the LGPL, MIT or Mozilla
(although LGPL imposes some special restrictions on binary
distributions of C).
(ii) You want to forbid C to use L. That is effectively using a
copyleft license for P. Which is more or less equivalent to releasing
L under the plain copyleft GPL. Programs using L, such as P, would
then have to be distributed under a copyleft license. I.e. the
copyleft on L is imposed on all programs linked with L, in the same
way as the GPL requirements are imposed on all derived works.
/Niels
