SOS license

[Alex Nicolaou]

Brian Behlendorf wrote:

> > 3. permissive in allowing patch distribution under other license terms
> 
> An author can *always* distribute patches under a license of their
> own choosing, at least by my reading of fair use.  Also, it looks like
> even if people modify the software for personal use, they have to publicly
> post their patches.

Hmm, if this is true then maybe some of the GPL is not enforcible. The
GPL reads: "2c)  If the modified program normally reads commands
interactively when run, you must cause it, when started running for such
interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an
announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a notice that
there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide a warranty) and
that users may redistribute the program under these conditions". So, if
I start with gdb, which prints such a notice, and publish a patch under
terms that indicate that every end user must pay for the patched
version, I have generated a useless patch. Either the user isn't allowed
to modify the program with my patch under the terms of the license,
because my patch changes the start-up banner of gdb to indicate that it
is non-free, or the user isn't allowed to apply my patch since they
cannot do so and still follow my license that says that all users must
pay me for the patch. So while you are technically correct that the
author can *distribute* such a patch, it cannot be used without
violating the GPL's terms. I think this is exactly what is intended by
the GPL, and if a loophole was found that allowed someone to distribute
"for money only" patches to GPL'ed software, the license should be fixed
and a new version published. After all, it is the license's purpose and
intent to "guarantee your freedom to share and change free software--to
make sure the software is free for all its users". (Quotes from the GPL
version 2, at http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html)

It is true that my intent is that even if the software is modified for
personal or internal use the patches must either be published or
returned to the copyright holder. I don't see a problem with that, but
I'd be interested in having it explained to me if there is an issue.

> > 4. explicit about how the "official" version of the software is
> > distributed
> 
> That's not a copyright issue, it's a trademark issue, though the
> copyright license can tie the use of that trademark to rights granted by
> the license.

I just want the license to be clear about it ... I'm tired of the debate
over whether free software really has owners or not. The fact is that
the free software development community has norms about how things are
done, and I wanted to incorporate the norm into the license so that it
isn't up for debate. At the same time, I didn't want to stop others from
ignoring the norm, but simply restrict how they can do so in order that
people can see that they are using a forked version of the software.

alex