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

Elmar Stellnberger estellnb at gmail.com
Tue Nov 19 14:22:09 UTC 2013


   If I were you I would do the following.
Use something that is similar to S-FSL in the beginning.
Then as soon as there is a community about it make
all copyright holders or the extended circle of the
original authors devolve their right to an association
which holds the (copy)rights of your software and
acts in the interest of the community (You could f.i.
organize that association democratically.).

Thorsten,
I hope that we have not seriously misunderstood us
in what S-FSL (or any better license with similar intent)
is meant to perform.

Elmar



Am 19.11.2013 14:10, schrieb Elmar Stellnberger:
>   I accept your position but do not think it is justifiable with the 
> OSD criteria. Perhaps with some additional criteria like the Debian 
> desert island test but not even that.
>   Concerning your BSD project I do really consider it a pity that you 
> are not open for new concepts regarding the licensing of your project. 
> BSD has lost a lot by giving the right to re-license in the hand of 
> unacquainted people. If just Apple needed to pay for re-licensing the 
> BSD project had a huge sponsor. Just think of how far BSD could 
> already be progressed if you and other core developers would not have 
> given up their right to re-license. I would personally consider any 
> kind of contribution by Apple or any other company who is making use 
> of your stuff as as a necessity in regards to fairness with developers 
> and the BSD community. Simply leeching out of a project without having 
> to give anything back is not fair at all and the reason why so many 
> developers have turned away from BSD. The simply feel how unfair it is 
> and have thus prefered to work under GPL of what I call the 
> 'communist' license. It simply forbids re-licensing (or only allows it 
> by having to ask even the simplest contributor which is in practice 
> impossible). Simply forbidding to re-license because most people think 
> it will be unfair to the community is however hostile to any kind of 
> business usage of your material which is in my mind not good either. 
> Just mind to admit the idea of working under a similar license as 
> S-FSL. The BSD core developers could fund their work more easily and 
> the whole community would profit. Concerning me and my decision about 
> licensing I do not want to work unpaid for industry needs only. If I 
> work for free I would like to ensure that the right people can profit 
> from it and that means the choice of a 'non-supressive' license. i.e. 
> you can` t force me to choose 'communism' and you can`t force me into 
> being leeched out by business people without gaining own revenue 
> either. It is a matter of fairness and I hope you will understand me.
>
> Elmar Stellnberger
>
>
> Am 18.11.2013 19:31, schrieb Thorsten Glaser:
>> Elmar Stellnberger dixit:
>>
>>> I would recommend getting your license
>>> OSI[1] approved,
>>> So he thinks the license is or could be OSI compliant. Otherwise
>>> he would not need to write that.
>> I think you misread that: he didn’t suggest it because he thought
>> your licence would fit, since it clearly doesn’t (as is) but as a
>> generic first step, because an OSI approved licence is, in almost
>> all cases, also DFSG free (no surprise given history). This isn’t
>> unambiguous, especially to people who aren’t English native spea‐
>> kers, but I think my reading is the most sound one. (Also, Debian
>> is not an entity – in Debian, every developer talks for himself –
>> so something paultag wrote has no bearing on something written by
>> algernon, unless they explicitly refer each other.
>>
>> Anyway, your stated goals are contrary to Open Source, which is a
>> reason I haven’t replied any more either (you seem to want to not
>> fix the real problems but pile bad wording on top of bad wording,
>> and lose people in discussion, too). I suggest you either use one
>> of the existing proper OSS licences or, frankly, go away. (I am a
>> BSD developer, so I’m entitled to be rude like that.) Considering
>> all this discussion, I’d personally not touch your software, even
>> if your licence *were* OSI approved. There is precedent e.g. with
>> J�rg Schilling wrt. upstream having their… own… idea about licen‐
>> cing.
>>
>> bye,
>> //mirabilos
>




More information about the License-review mailing list