Re: Revision 4 of DFSG
Now for something different: 4.5. Example Licenses -- As examples, we consider the following licenses DFSG-free: * the Artistic License * the BSD License * the MIT/X Consortium License * the GNU General Public License (GPL) * the GNU Library General Public License (LGPL) * the Mozilla Public License (MPL) * the Q Public License (QPL) This list is a list of possibilities. Before the document would be released, the list would be modified to mention the licenses that truly do fit www.gnu.org has an RMS article about the evil BSD advertisment clause. IIRC, he referred to the XFree86 license as an truly free license, while the old BSD license with the advertisment clause was depreciated. His reasonsing was that one should avoid the terms BSD-like license and instead use XFree86 as an example, since some BSD licenses are evil. I guess the same reasoning holds for the X Consortium License (or how did they call this evil, new license for X11R6.4 ?). Perhaps we could mention this problem with the advertisment clause here, and add XFree86 to the list ? There were no problems with any XFree86 license, so it's reasonable to say that the XFree86 license is a good template for a free license. Gregor
Re: Revision 4 of DFSG
The XFree86 (I think it's also called the MIT license?) has been added. Since (so far) we still accept the advertising clause, the BSD license is still DFSG-free... On 21-Jan-99 Gregor Hoffleit wrote: Perhaps we could mention this problem with the advertisment clause here, and add XFree86 to the list ? There were no problems with any XFree86 license, so it's reasonable to say that the XFree86 license is a good template for a free license. -- = * http://benham.net/index.html * * * -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- ---* *Darren Benham * Version: 3.1 * * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * GCS d+(-) s:+ a29 C++$ UL++ P+++$ L++* * KC7YAQ * E? W+++$ N+(-) o? K- w+++$(--) O M-- V- PS-- * * Debian Developer * PE++ Y++ PGP++ t+ 5 X R+ !tv b DI+++ D++ * * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * G++G+++ e h+ r* y+* * * --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- ---* = pgpnN2QUSD1Cp.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Revision 4 of DFSG
On Tue, Jan 19, 1999 at 05:53:15PM -0800, Darren Benham wrote: Remember, if you don't want a new DFSG at all, you can always vote it down and argue against it when the proposal is made. In the mean time, lets see if we can atleast make this the best wording we can. Also, remember, I think the proposal needs to be worded so that the DFSG ballot has an option with AND without the deprecated clauses so now is not the time to try to get them removed... Please let me know what you think, then. FYI, also, the significant changes in this version: * Do we want the DFSG to cover documentation as well? ie, man pages and stuff? Presumably we don't want it to cover things like RFCs and the FHS though. (check the Application section) * The Introduction has been shortened a lot. * Is the Limitation of Liability really a restriction on use or distribution? This is just a layout thing, but it'd be nice to get it right. * Section 3.5, Restriction on Charges has been added to cover the Artistic License's `You may charge for distribution, but not the program itself.' I'm personally still uncertain about this clause, and what effect it would have on CD vendors and stuff. What do people think of the wording now? Does it still suck, or is it getting there, or...? Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. PGP encrypted mail preferred. ``Like the ski resort of girls looking for husbands and husbands looking for girls, the situation is not as symmetrical as it might seem.'' pgp2y1uFsVlES.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Revision 4 of DFSG
Anthony Towns wrote: * Is the Limitation of Liability really a restriction on use or distribution? This is just a layout thing, but it'd be nice to get it right. Neither! The limitation of liability in almost all licenses these days do not grant or deny any rights. The right to sue (i.e., the right to hold the other end liable) is usually dependant on local laws and a statement to the contrary in a license agreement typically would have no effect. Also note that in all fields of endeavour you don't have to be able to sue the author to use the software (although there's a large amount of letter- recycling between the phrases ;) -- Robert Woodcock - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unix and C are the ultimate computer viruses -- Richard Gabriel
Re: Revision 4 of DFSG
On 20-Jan-99 Robert Woodcock wrote: Anthony Towns wrote: * Is the Limitation of Liability really a restriction on use or distribution? This is just a layout thing, but it'd be nice to get it right. Neither! Also note that in all fields of endeavour you don't have to be able to sue the author to use the software (although there's a large amount of letter- recycling between the phrases ;) That was pretty much what we were thinking and are not fishing for other opinions. I think we can expect that part of the draft to be gone in the next version. -- = * http://benham.net/index.html * * * -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- ---* *Darren Benham * Version: 3.1 * * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * GCS d+(-) s:+ a29 C++$ UL++ P+++$ L++* * KC7YAQ * E? W+++$ N+(-) o? K- w+++$(--) O M-- V- PS-- * * Debian Developer * PE++ Y++ PGP++ t+ 5 X R+ !tv b DI+++ D++ * * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * G++G+++ e h+ r* y+* * * --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- ---* = pgpSspSIMAXBw.pgp Description: PGP signature
