[License-review] For Approval: Scripting Free Software License, Version 1.3.5 (S-FSL v1.3.5)

[Thorsten Glaser]

(Note: this is not (just) an OSD review but a general one.)

Elmar Stellnberger dixit:

> people to the authors web page so that the ability to remove any such reference
> would have been a pitfall to the developers and publishers. It should also

This is non-free: the GNU FDL is a common example of where to find
invariant sections and why they’re inherently incompatible with OSS
(think someone wanting to put an excerpt of the Emacs manual on a
coffee mug, they can’t do that w/o adding the manifesto etc. too).

| The program may be distributed by a third party given that the program
| is distributed in its original state completely without any kind of
| modifications or patches. If you need to re-distribute a patched
| version of this program you need to distribute the patches separately
| from the original so that the pristine version can be restored at any

What about binaries?

Even so, this is borderline.

| time. Any derived work must carry the name of the distributor, vendor
| or the product in its name (or a unique shorthand for it) preceded by
| the original unchanged name of the software and its version at the

This will explode, cf. the 4-clause BSD licences. (We currently carry
118 advertising clauses in MirBSD.) This is not non-free but doesn’t
scale well and is deprecated even by its inventors.

| the authors such as their email addresses or their web presence and/or
| page in any part of the program or any files attached to the program
| apart from updates to these references made by the respective authors
| themselves.

See above. (Also, would you want your name to be kept with a derived
work you disagree with?)

| You as a distributor need to let your contributors add their names,
| their email and modifications with date to the changelog.

The requirement to carry a changelog is undue burden to downstream.
Not everyone does that (usually, we just keep stuff in CVS).

Not sure whether this is a stopping point, though.

| You may only extend or modify this program given that you do also
| consent with the following terms. As far as you are not a public
| distributor

The term “public distributor” is not defined. Also, this makes the
licence special to some groups in a way.

| you are obliged to send a copy of your patches to the original authors

This so totally fails the “desert island test” and possibly the
dissident one as well. This is, IMHO, also ground for rejection
(not necessarily by OSI).

| referred to herein as the authors of the first version of the program

Why’s got the first one a special position (instead of, say,
chaining upstreams)?

| publish or exchange your patches with other people. If you have some

If my patches are not distributed as part of your program but separately
(as you require above) you cannot claim anything on them.

| If you have some work in progress you are obliged to send out bundled
| patches once at least every month. This is to assert the availability
| and recognition of patches at least by the original authors; a
| condition which must be held even if you agree not to actively 'send'
| or 'forward' your patches.

I fail to find words to comment at this (politely). See above.

| By distributing patches you do also consent that the original authors
| may incorporate your patches into future versions of this program. The
| patched parts of the program and the patches themselves will also
| become subject to this licensing and may even be used for free in
| other programs or in the same program under different licensing as
| soon as you choose to publish any kind of patch; i.e. you need to be

This is very ouch-y, and I’m unsure whether this works in a simple
software licence, as opposed to, say, a Contributor Licence Agreement.

| If you want to develop a separate branch of this program the original
| authors need to consent as long as the software may be subject to
| further development by them

Erm, *what*? (Also, this doesn’t read like a well-written licence.
I suspect you might want to consult a lawyer.)

I’m a bit scared at your licence having a version of 1.3.5 (even
using multiple dots), too, to be honest.

What’s “f.i.”?


In short, I wouldn’t touch any piece of work under this licence
with a ten metric-foot pole.

bye,
//mirabilos
-- 
I believe no one can invent an algorithm. One just happens to hit upon it
when God enlightens him. Or only God invents algorithms, we merely copy them.
If you don't believe in God, just consider God as Nature if you won't deny
existence.		-- Coywolf Qi Hunt