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

Elmar Stellnberger estellnb at elstel.org
Thu Nov 7 17:25:44 UTC 2013


In Reply to Engel Nyst:
>>/  5. By granting a group of developers to work on a new 'branch' other
/>>/  people can acquire similar responsibility and rights to work on an
/>>/  affiliated project. Free branching may be specified in addition to the
/>>/  license terms: "This program is licensed under S-FSL v1.3.x and may be
/>>/  branched for free.".
/>
> Regarding 4) and 5), I think that copyright control to the extent you
> want, even if it were possible, contradicts free redistribution (OSD
> #1), derived works (OSD #3) and distribution of license (OSD #7), at
> least. (likely more)

Concerning issues #1, #3 and #7:

| 1. Free Redistribution

| The license shall 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 shall
| not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.

It does at least not forbid any part from selling or giving away the 
software. There are just different rules for public and non public 
distributors. Yes, the license is compatible and can be shipped with 
several different sources. The license does not require any fee for the 
sale, distribution or any additional service. It just forbids to charge 
for the software itself as f.i. the Perl Artistic License does.
4. Does not seem to be affected as it is not about distribution
5. You do not need to develop a separate branch if you do not want to. 
This is just an additional option if you prefer another naming scheme. 
However #4 says that there may be such naming conventions.

| 3. Derived Works

| The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must
| allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the
| original software.

Yes, it allows derived works. Yes, they will be S-FSL, too; i.e. the 
same terms will apply.

| 7. Distribution of License

| The rights attached to the program must apply to all to whom the
| program is redistributed without the need for execution of an additional
|  license by those parties.

All rights attached with the program are again applicable without any 
discrimination to people or groups of persons. Who would need an 
additional license?

Please argue in detail! What point of the license does contradict which 
OSD criterium? Why do you think so? Give reasons.

> If a new branch has to be "affiliated", in the sense that special
> permission has to be given for someone to fork the software, it's not
> open source.
>
> Please note, free as in free distribution or free software means free of
> the need to come back to someone and ask for more permissions. Free from
> the need to ask for (another) permission at all, in order to exercise a
> set of rights. The license should give those permissions already. Your
> goals and license seem to confuse it with an "I may allow you free of
> charge, but I keep control over whether I allow you to in the first
> place". That's not an open source license.

No, to me it does not. It is not in the OSI criteria and I have already 
explained on what I believe matters for open source. The 
drop-to-the-community and forget it approach may be something to dispose 
unused software; yet it just points to certain quality issues and should 
not be considered a virtue.




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20131107/cada5c81/attachment.html>


More information about the License-review mailing list