<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Ellmar, all,<br>
<br>
I remain quite puzzled by the main feature of the license, namely,
the right of *some* copyright holders in the initial work to
decide on the licensing of the *other* follow-on developers who
are also copyright holders. Isn't it a sort of discrimination,
therefore against #5? <br>
<br>
I know that the same practical effect would be achieved by
assigning the code to a single project, but that it's always an
option for any forker, not a legal effect of the license. Here you
give up your rights on your copyright as a condition of the very
license, which does quite limit the rights of some versus the
rights of others.<br>
<br>
My initial and non meditated reaction is that this license should
be rejected as long as Section 7 is concerned.<br>
<br>
A remark on the need to retain the ability of relicense or to
"make business" (AKA proprietary exploit) with the software.
That's achieved with a liberal, non copyleft license. But
restricting others from doing something that the initial
developers can do, siphoning in the formers' code and copyright,
that does not seem acceptable.<br>
<br>
Or am I mistaken on the working of the condition? <br>
<br>
<br>
Carlo<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 26/09/2018 09:57, Elmar Stellnberger wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:dad62e18-ea60-90ab-64a0-f871d40a6b0f@elstel.org">Full
Name: Convertible Free Software License Version 1.1
<br>
Short Identifier: C-FSL v1.1
<br>
URL: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.elstel.org/license/C-FSL-v1.1.txt">https://www.elstel.org/license/C-FSL-v1.1.txt</a>
<br>
<br>
Rationale and Distinguish:
<br>
While the BSD license allows the whole world to re-license and
while re-licensing is virtually impossible with GPL since every
contributor would need to consent the C-FSL license goes a
practical intermediate way restricting the right to re-license to
a group called the original authors. That way open source
developers are not excluded from making business with others who
want to base a proprietary product on the given piece of open
source software.
<br>
<br>
Proliferation Category & Legal Review:
<br>
Other/Miscellaneous
<br>
A lawyer from the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency, USA) has
already checked C-FSL for its proliferation properties. He has
found the license to be compatible with other open source
licenses. He decided that C-FSL can be used together with the CC0
license in the FDtool (functional dependency mining tool) project.
<br>
<br>
list of software which uses C-FSL v1.1.:
<br>
qcoan: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.elstel.org/coan">https://www.elstel.org/coan</a>
<br>
xchroot, confinedrv, bundsteg, debcheckroot, dbschemacmd: also
found at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.elstel.org">www.elstel.org</a>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
License-review mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:License-review@lists.opensource.org">License-review@lists.opensource.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org">http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>