[License-review] License Committee Report - for board meeting of 2013-04-03

[Hadrien G.]

Le 28/03/2013 18:20, Gervase Markham a écrit :
> On 28/03/13 17:16, Hadrien G. wrote:
>> * Redistributions in any form must be accompanied by information on how
>> to obtain complete source code for the software, and any accompanying
>> work that is based on it. Source code must either be included in the
>> distribution, or be available for no more than the cost of its
>> distribution. For an executable file, complete source code means the
>> source code for all modules it contains, save for modules or files that
>> are typically provided with the operating system on which the executable
>> file runs.
> What is to prevent me from supplying the source code to you, as required
> by this clause, but under non-open-source terms, e.g. "you can look but
> not compile or modify"? There's nothing here which says "under the terms
> of this licence".
>
> Or is that a design feature?

This license should not use "under the terms of this license"-like 
wording by design, but you have indeed also pointed out an interesting flaw.

The aim of this license project is to propose a path towards source code 
disclosure in commercial software. I'm not hostile to commercial 
software being developed based on my work, and I know that selling 
software involves at the very least restricting its redistribution to 
those people who have paid for it. But in such a scenario, I want the 
source code of said software to be disclosed to every licensee. This 
way, users can know how the software they have bought work, while 
commercial developers still get financial credit from people who use 
their work.

Now, as you mentioned, extra license terms could also restrict possible 
usage of the source code to a ridiculous extent. So at the very least, I 
should add some kind of provision to ensure that all kinds of private 
use of the source code remain fully allowed. I'll work on that.

> Perhaps it would be wise to do license design using a) software which
> tracks changes, and b) on a site where you can also post your design
> goals? We seem to be re-inventing parts of the BSD Protection License
> and parts of the GPL here.
>
> Gerv

I can try to host the working drafts to GitHub, this way changes will be 
explained by versioned Git commits, and I could also add an extra file 
to explain the design goals of this license. Would that address all your 
issues on this front ?

Hadrien