AW: AW: AW: For Approval: German Free Software License

[Michael Sparks]

On Mon, 29 Nov 2004, Axel Metzger wrote:

> Hello Michael, hello list,
>
> Michael Sparks wrote:
>
> >> Sorry, but I do not believe that we will come to a common point by
> >writing
> >> e-mails to the list.
> >
> >Without talking, nothing changes.
>
> I think you got me wrong. I understand the point that some think that the new
> version clause in section 9 is not wishful. There is no further need to
> explain this to me.

My point about the clause is as long as it exists there is no point in
looking at the rest of the license from my perspective. If you are going
to forward it as is to the board I fully expect them to reject it because
as I understand Open Source (having used, worked, and developed open
source and free software systems for nearly a decade now) that single
unfortunate sentance precludes it becoming open source.

The license simply put says "you will abide by any further terms and
conditions that we decide". That really isn't open source.


>
> I do not see that it is stated yet in the OSI Definition. I know that some of
> you have another opinion. But I do not think we should use our time to make
> arguments about this question. To me it is not very important to have the
> same opinion about the question whether this can be found in the OSI
> definition or not. We will see if the license board will require the GFSL
> people to change the clause and what they will propose. We will then see if
> the GFSL will accept this.
>
> >In this case there is a blocking "bug" which is specifically this line:
> >  "The new version of the License becomes binding for you as soon as you
> >   become aware of its publication."
> >There may be others.
>
> What other "bugs" do you see?

My point about the clause is as long as it exists there is no point in
looking at the rest of the license from my perspective. If you are going
to forward it as is to the board I fully expect them to reject it because
as I understand Open Source (having used, worked, and developed open
source and free software systems for nearly a decade now) that single
unfortunate sentance precludes it becoming open source.

The license simply put says "you will abide by any further terms and
conditions that we decide". That really isn't open source. (Indeed it goes
beyond many proprietary licenses)

Furthermore if they DO accept it (Microsoft *have* released code under an
OSI certified license afterall, so pigs do fly) as OSD compliant, then I
would not personally use any code under this license.

If you are willing to strike the clause (or something creative :), then
I could take a look for further bugs.  I'm not a lawyer though - I can't
guarantee to find any :)

If you're not willing (or able?) to strike the clause, then I see very
little point in spending time on it since IMO that unfortunate sentance is
a major problem - because based on my understanding of processes it
*should* be rejected. If that makes sense to you? Unless you're thinking
of damage limitation - reducing the number of times you go back and forth?

> Best regards

likewise :),


Michael.
--
Again: I'm not a lawyer, this isn't legal advice!