[License-discuss] a Free Island Public License?

[Stephie King]

This definitely conflicts with the GPL, and may not qualify as open source.
It does remind me of the OSL 3.0 vaguely. I believe in the OSL 3.0 you can
specify proprietary use covered by patents that are not granted to anyone
with copies of the software. The GPL specifies open patent licensing.
Everyone with the software is issued the rights of the patent.

It almost seems like the "island" is a way to avoid patents, while
restricting usage. How do you intend to specify what is proprietary in
addendum to open source without a patent?  Is that the original purpose
here? Is it by the method the software is used or an actual piece of a
collection of programs that is proprietary? I think the language needs to
be more specific concerning other types of software IP, e.g. trademarks.


On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 12:03 PM, Jeremy C. Reed <reed at reedmedia.net> wrote:

> > > This software is licensed for any purpose excepting
> > > the right to make publicly available derived works
> > > which depend exclusively upon non-free components.
>
>
> On Fri, 16 Dec 2011, Chad Perrin wrote:
>
> > TL;DR Summary:
> >
> >     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.
>
>
> >  It appears to also satisfy the conditions of the FSF/GNU
> >     Four Freedoms
>
>
> I think it conflicts with the first freedom.
>
>
> > and the Debian Free Software Guidelines,
>
>
> I think it conflicts with description of the first point.
>
>
> >  but fail to
> >     satisfy the conditions of the Copyfree Standard Definition.  It
> >     appears to qualify as a copyleft license, but a somewhat atypical
> >     example of a copyleft license, in that its proliferation mechanism is
> >     not tied directly to proliferation of itself.
> _______________________________________________
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at opensource.org
> http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20111216/8d6410cc/attachment.html>