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

Elmar Stellnberger estellnb at gmail.com
Thu Nov 7 20:06:17 UTC 2013


Am 07.11.2013 17:03, schrieb John Cowan:
> Elmar Stellnberger scripsit:
>
>>> Perhaps I am misunderstanding what you mean by "carry the name", but
>>> are you saying I am severely restricted in what name I can give to a
>>> derivative work?
>> Actually not. It gives a detailed naming convention which is
>> upstreamname-version-yoursuffix where yoursuffix needs to include at
>> least a unique shorthand of you that should point to the name of the
>> distribution, product or company. If you want to use a different
>> naming scheme you need to create a new 'branch' which may require
>> consent of the original authors or new copyright holders if 'free
>> branching' has not been specified along with the license string.
> That's fine if I am just creating a slight variant of your existing
> program.  But the ability to create derivative works goes far beyond that.
> For example, it allows me to copy chunks of code that have a particular
> purpose in your program and let me incorporate them into my program, which
> has a completely different purpose.  Requiring me to name my program with
> a variant of your name, when it is not substantively the same program
> at all, is productive of nothing but confusion: it benefits neither you
> nor me nor the poor users.
Well then you need a different 'branch'. I have just suggested to make 
free branching the standard option. Note that your new work as it 
requires S-FSL code to run will also clone your rights on it to the 
original authors of the parent branch.

>
>>>> /  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;/
> If you want to prevent free competition, you have to use a proprietary
> license, and the inclusion of this clause makes your license proprietary.
> The whole point of Open Source licenses is that anyone can reuse the
> code without anybody's permission, provided they meet the general terms
> of the license.  If you want to allow only negotiated agreements, there
> are far better ways than to create pseudo-Open-Source licenses.
Well; it would mean to forbid 'control over' branching, then. I will 
have to think about the consequences. Not sure if that is enforced by 
the OSD criteria #1-#10. Perhaps we could add a clause to the license 
that a branch needs to be 'sufficiently different' from the mainline 
work - whatever that should mean; otherwise the S-FSL naming scheme 
would fall completely.





More information about the License-review mailing list