[License-discuss] a Free Island Public License?

Stephie King stephie.maths at gmail.com
Fri Dec 16 23:42:54 UTC 2011

Again, it should mention license recognition terms for the nonfree
software. In a collection, how is it determined which is nonfree? Must some
IP rights be obtained? How would I know which is nonfree? This becomes
arguable with free proprietary software available having free open source
components. Is this an all-in-one solution? I could make free open source
software proprietary to my business, and not place restrictions on use.
Placing restrictions on the use is conflicting with open source unless
there are IP rights or a separate nonfree license, as far as I know. It's
tricky because commercial software can be open source, and that is what the
Island appears to represent in some cases. There is more ground to be
covered with it. I still think it's a bit redundant if there are separate
components already having nonfree restrictions.

On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 6:17 PM, Stephie King <stephie.maths at gmail.com>wrote:

> Wouldn't it just be redundant to say you can't use or depend on nonfree
> components in a derived work of its open source components?
> I think the better term for the license would be the "Nonfree Island".
> Where, one could obtain all the open source code components and use them
> surrounding their own proprietary works, but not the original nonfree
> works. Makes sense to me.
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 5:33 PM, Jeremy C. Reed <reed at reedmedia.net>wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 Dec 2011, Chad Perrin wrote:
>> > > >     My take would be that this satisfies the conditions of the Open
>> > > >     Source Definition, though I may have overlooked something in my
>> first
>> > > >     reading.
>> > >
>> > > I think it conflicts with criterion #9.
>> >
>> > I think that's true only to the extent that other copyleft licenses do,
>> > as well.  If you have some differing insight, please share.  I'd like to
>> > know what I missed.
>> >
>> >
>> > > >
>> > > >  It appears to also satisfy the conditions of the FSF/GNU
>> > > >     Four Freedoms
>> > >
>> > > I think it conflicts with the first freedom.
>> >
>> > I think that, too, is true only to the extent that other copyleft
>> > licenses do.  Again, I'd like to know what prompts you to think
>> > otherwise.
>> >
>> >
>> > > >
>> > > > and the Debian Free Software Guidelines,
>> > >
>> > > I think it conflicts with description of the first point.
>> >
>> > See my above two responses to your disagreement with my estimation of
>> the
>> > license's compliance with various standards.  I'm curious about your
>> > points of disagreement.
>> Two vague sentences from the license include:
>>  This software is licensed for any purpose excepting the right to
>>  make publicly available derived works which depend exclusively
>>  upon non-free components.
>>  In particular, the Derived Work fails this test if it depends upon
>>  proprietary software, remote services or hardware to provide
>>  features that do not have a corresponding Free Software implementation.
>> I believe these could be understood to conflict with:
>> - ``The license must not place restrictions on other software that is
>> distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license
>> must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium
>> must be open-source software.''
>> While I know this is about distribution, it can be said that it is
>> distributed with its dependencies. The license in question doesn't
>> override others licenses, but if used it implies about its
>> dependencies which I'd suggest could be distributed together. This
>> argument is weak.
>> - ``The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).''
>> How can it be used for any purpose if it can't depend on non-free
>> software implementation?  I this think is a strong argument.
>> - ``The license of a Debian component may not restrict any party from
>> selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate
>> software distribution containing programs from several different
>> sources. The license may not require a royalty or other fee for such
>> sale.''
>> This is about distribution collections. Maybe this one isn't a good
>> enough argument but it similar to the point above.
>> _______________________________________________
>> License-discuss mailing list
>> License-discuss at opensource.org
>> http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20111216/74e6533a/attachment.html>

More information about the License-discuss mailing list