[License-review] For Approval: Scripting Free Software License, Version 1.3.5 (S-FSL v1.3.5)

[Richard Fontana]

On Tue, 05 Nov 2013 21:37:54 +0100
Elmar Stellnberger <estellnb at gmail.com> wrote:

 
> Any derived work must carry the name of the distributor, vendor
> or the product in its name (or a unique shorthand for it) preceded by
> the original unchanged name of the software and its version at the
> beginning. 

Perhaps I am misunderstanding what you mean by "carry the name", but
are you saying I am severely restricted in what name I can give to a
derivative work?

> Modifications applied to this program may not affect the
> name, original version, copyright, license or any reference given to
> the authors such as their email addresses or their web presence and/or
> page in any part of the program or any files attached to the program
> apart from updates to these references made by the respective authors
> themselves.

This is a little unclear but I assume you mean 'preserve all copyright,
license and attribution notices'. 

> You as a distributor need to let your contributors add
> their names, their email and modifications with date to the changelog.

What if there's no changelog? And does this mean if a contributor says
to me 'add my name etc. to the changelog' and I refuse, you
can terminate my license?

> You must not charge for the programs under S-FSL themselves but you
> may require a reasonable charge for the physical reproduction of the
> data.

This goes against a bedrock principle of free software/open source that
a distributor should not be limited to charging 'reasonable' or no fees
as to what is distributed.

> If you
> have some work in progress you are obliged to send out bundled patches
> once at least every month. 

That is (from the perspective of open source) an unreasonable
requirement.

> This is to assert the availability and
> recognition of patches at least by the original authors; a condition
> which must be held even if you agree not to actively 'send' or
> 'forward' your patches. 

I don't understand this sentence, particularly given what it follows.

> By distributing patches you do also consent
> that the original authors may incorporate your patches into future
> versions of this program. The patched parts of the program and the
> patches themselves will also become subject to this licensing and may
> even be used for free in other programs or in the same program under
> different licensing as soon as you choose to publish any kind of
> patch;
> i.e. you need to be ready to share your full intellectual property
> rights with the original authors whenever you choose to exchange,
> distribute or publish any kind of patch to this program.

"Share your full intellectual property rights" could mean co-ownership
of patents and trademarks as well as copyrights... I assume what you
have in mind is a privileged copyright license for the original authors
(which I think is bad policy but has precedent in some open source
licenses). "Ready to share your full intellectual property rights" is
at best unclear though, even with this sentence:

> Sharing your
> intellectual property means that both parties - you and the original
> authors - obtain the full set of rights about your modifications which
> were initially only associated with you.  

[...]

> If you want to develop a separate branch of this program the original
> authors need to consent as long as the software may be subject to
> further development by them; if not that should be indicated by them
> denominating either new copyright holders with the same right as the
> original authors or by publishing under a different license.

I basically don't understand this sentence, but to the extent I can
make something out of it it is inconsistent with open source. 

> Universal consent to 'free'
> i.e. any branching may be specified additionally at any time by the
> distributed application. 

I don't understand this sentence.

> Branched versions do however
> need to forward and share patches including the property rights on
> patches with their parent branch. Branched versions can not re-publish
> under a different license or use patches as their own intellectual
> property unless explicit consent from the maintainers of the parent
> branch is given.

What does it mean to 'use patches as their own intellectual property'?

> Security updates and updates against broken functionality
> must also be available to the public rather than just to a paying
> customer stock as long as they pertain to software that can either be
> downloaded or compiled from sources by the public and which pertain to
> the distribution. 

I am not sure I understand the second half of this sentence.
 
In general I would recommend rewriting the license to make it clearer,
but the current form does not seem to be an open source license.

- RF