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

[Thorsten Glaser]

Rick Moen dixit:

>Nothing in FPL 1.0.0 strikes me as OSD-problematic, at a quick glance.
>And I'll even call it innovative, to my eyes.
>
>
>Nonetheless, I'd like to register my view that a key aim and component
>of your licence is very unwise: the omission of copyright notice,
>omission of the requirement to retain the permission notice, and omission
>of the requirement to retain the copyright notice in all copies.
[…]

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.

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). This is tricky, on the other hand,
and, with what you seem to believe is the original goal of the
FPL authors, not a problem.

Food for thought.

Enjoy,
//mirabilos
-- 
„Cool, /usr/share/doc/mksh/examples/uhr.gz ist ja ein Grund,
mksh auf jedem System zu installieren.“
	-- XTaran auf der OpenRheinRuhr, ganz begeistert
(EN: “[…]uhr.gz is a reason to install mksh on every system.”)