[License-discuss] a Free Island Public License?

[Jeremy C. Reed]

On Fri, 16 Dec 2011, Chad Perrin wrote:

> > >     My take would be that this satisfies the conditions of the Open
> > >     Source Definition, though I may have overlooked something in my first
> > >     reading.
> > 
> > I think it conflicts with criterion #9.
> 
> I think that's true only to the extent that other copyleft licenses do,
> as well.  If you have some differing insight, please share.  I'd like to
> know what I missed.
> 
> 
> > >
> > >  It appears to also satisfy the conditions of the FSF/GNU
> > >     Four Freedoms
> > 
> > I think it conflicts with the first freedom.
> 
> I think that, too, is true only to the extent that other copyleft
> licenses do.  Again, I'd like to know what prompts you to think
> otherwise.
> 
> 
> > >
> > > and the Debian Free Software Guidelines,
> > 
> > I think it conflicts with description of the first point.
> 
> See my above two responses to your disagreement with my estimation of the
> license's compliance with various standards.  I'm curious about your
> points of disagreement.


Two vague sentences from the license include:

 This software is licensed for any purpose excepting the right to
 make publicly available derived works which depend exclusively
 upon non-free components.
 
 In particular, the Derived Work fails this test if it depends upon
 proprietary software, remote services or hardware to provide
 features that do not have a corresponding Free Software implementation.

I believe these could be understood to conflict with:

- ``The license must not place restrictions on other software that is 
distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license 
must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium 
must be open-source software.''

While I know this is about distribution, it can be said that it is 
distributed with its dependencies. The license in question doesn't 
override others licenses, but if used it implies about its 
dependencies which I'd suggest could be distributed together. This 
argument is weak.

- ``The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).''

How can it be used for any purpose if it can't depend on non-free 
software implementation?  I this think is a strong argument.

- ``The license of a Debian component may not restrict any party from 
selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate 
software distribution containing programs from several different 
sources. The license may not require a royalty or other fee for such 
sale.''

This is about distribution collections. Maybe this one isn't a good 
enough argument but it similar to the point above.