[License-review] Approval Request: Free Public License 1.0.0

[Rick Moen]

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
Hollywood.

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
disclosed.

> 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  ;->  .)