Request for Open Source License Approval

[Seth David Schoen]

bruce at perens.com writes:

> I concur with Seth. Don't directly modify the GPL without asking FSF, it's
> copyrighted. Also, if you ask FSF, they are going to want you to not use the
> words "Open Source" in the title of the license, they strongly prefer "Free
> Software".

The FSF's record is generally one of concern for what people call FSF
projects, not for what they call their own projects.

> I think you should place your disclaimer right before the GPL, with a message
> to the effect of "You may use this program under the terms of the GNU General
> Public License, attached herein, as long as you preserve this disclaimer and
> the license in all copies of the program." As far as I can tell, direct
> modification of the GPL is not necessary.

The GPL says

	You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that
	in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
	part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
	parties under the terms of this License.

That means that distribution of the program is forbidden ("self-cancelling")
if additional terms extrinsic to the GPL are a distribution requirement.
(If you don't have authority to license derived works "as a whole at no
charge to all third parties under the term of" the GPL, then you may not
redistribute a work under the GPL.)  This is, for instance, why the old BSD
license with its advertising clause is considered incompatible with the GPL.

If the FSF gives permission to make a new license based on the GPL, this
is no longer a problem.

-- 
                    Seth David Schoen <schoen at loyalty.org>
      They said look at the light we're giving you,  /  And the darkness
      that we're saving you from.   -- Dar Williams, "The Great Unknown"
  http://ishmael.geecs.org/~sigma/  (personal)  http://www.loyalty.org/  (CAF)