[License-review] Approval Request: Free Public License 1.0.0
rick at linuxmafia.com
Thu Sep 3 22:13:24 UTC 2015
Quoting Thorsten Glaser (tg at mirbsd.de):
> I’ve got an idea.
> How about, re-using this concept (but rewriting the licence to
> that effect), the notices must be retained except in a derivate
> published under an OSI-approved licence¹.
> This ensures that all recipients will always have access to some
> copyright and licence note in the work, under OSD-conforming terms,
> without the perceived(?) burden to carry all notices on forever,
> as is with the other BSD-style licences whose notices accumulate.
I have a great deal of sympathy for the aim, here (as I do with the aim
of FPL 1.0.0), but it still creates a pitfall for downstream recipients
to omit mention of what year a copyright title arose and whom it then
vested in (i.e., what a copyright notice states) -- until that
copyright's runtime expires in various jurisdictions, which, as John
points out, might require geologic time thanks to Our Lords in
In fairness, there's never an absolute guarantee that a set of copyright
notices tell the full story anyway. Within, let's say, an instance you
download of a software work under a classic permissive licences, there
could be contributions from undisclosed copyright owners who don't
consent to the work's licence, and all that protects you from a tort
claim is estoppel by acquiescence (I think). And, of course, the
diligence of the maintainers of permissively licensed projects, such as
your worthy self, in preventing such a situation from arising.
Point is, though, that IMO there is great value in the notices, irksome
though their accumulation might be -- and even though recipients cannot
in the general case be completely sure all stakeholders have been
> That being said… we (“BSD camp”) believe that, when permissively
> licenced works are included in copylefted works, but distributed
> in a way that makes extracting the permissive part possible, that
> said part can be used under the permissive licence (and lots of
> authors of copyleft works accept that and only place their e.g.
> GPL notices in other files).
Yes, for whatever it's worth, I concur -- and I deplore undiplomatic
behaviour from downstream copyleft licensors (even though I have an
alibi ;-> .)
More information about the License-review