[License-review] For Approval: Scripting Free Software License, Version 1.3.6 (S-FSL v1.3.6)

Elmar Stellnberger estellnb at gmail.com
Sun Nov 10 14:41:33 UTC 2013


> > 6. The license should be compatible with the usage of patents and
> > trademarks without unloading that burden to the end user.
>
> I don't think it is. "Branched versions can not [...] use patents 
> [...] in a new context unless explicit consent from the maintainers of 
> the parent branch is given."
> Should I understand that consent has not been given for patents, thus 
> the user cannot know if the maintainers have given it, or if the 
> context is new enough for the maintainers' liking, or if they can 
> branch on their own without being sued by the maintainers for patents?

   Well the things with patents is that if the owner of a patent wants 
to contribute his patent to S-FSL software then he needs to give the 
original authors usage rights on his patent. It does however not mean to 
contribute the patent to the community which would make it at best 
worthless for the patent owner. However code that is already being used 
by the community that contains a patent may still be maintained. It 
needs permission to use the same patent in 'another context'. The 
original authors may be restricted to give you. You can not simply write 
new code that involves patents held by the original authors, you need to 
ask for permission to do so.

>
>
> I sympathize with your desire to draft a license for your needs, but 
> I'd say license drafting is not easy, and has many traps. I strongly 
> suggest to consider using a known license. Depending how I interpret 
> your emails and license texts, it might come very close to GPL/AGPL, 
> or a goal comes close to BSD/MIT (to relicense easily), or it might be 
> very far from any open source license.

   Well. Actually I need something in between GPL and BSD. It should 
behave like GPL also for code not being compiled and then it should be 
possible to re-license like with BSD but only for a privileged group 
called the 'original authors'. It currently has no hippie spirit in it 
which makes it a bit sad, I must confess. I also see your argument that 
there are many exceptions which can be seen as restrictions or 
facilitations which make the license hard to apply. My mind is open for 
a new license as long as it will fulfill these needs.

>
> _______________________________________________
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at opensource.org
> http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review




More information about the License-review mailing list