[License-review] For Approval: Convertible Free Software License, Version 1.1 (C-FSL v1.1)

Wed Sep 26 10:30:25 UTC 2018

Thanks, Elmar,

your points are worthy, but I must take strong exception. See
inline--pardon me if brevity can be exchanged for roughness, I just mean
to counter arguments, not to disqualify them.

On 26/09/2018 12:10, Elmar Stellnberger wrote:
> I don`t see it as a discrimination if it is not the whole world who can
> re-license under a proprietary license. In a fact it is more just if
> those who have contributed the most to a software project have the
> responsibility to decide about re-licensing. Just consider what has
> happened to FreeBSD by Apple. Apple is using the BSD/Darwin kernel but
> did never give any contribution back to the FreeBSD project. To me this
> is an uprageing fact and the cause why BSD has never grown as popular as
> Linux has.

You assume that those putting up themselves as "Original" have brought a
higher impact on the project. That's entirely preposterous.

I also use BSD/Darwin as an example why copyleft shall be preferred over
liberal licenses. But you can't have the cake and eat it. If you want
the project to remain in the open, use copyleft, if you don't care, you
don't care. But if you care and you want to give yourself the right to
withdraw it from the commons, while others can't, that's an issue!

> 
>   Besides this the author always has the right to publish his work under
> another license (guaranteed by copyright law) at any time. This is not a
> discrimination either.

That's immaterial. Under this license, I can of course use my copyright
as I want, but that goes for any single contribution for any license.
This is not the point where I claim discrimination. Discrimination is
that I can take your code and license under the terms I want, and you
can't with mine. That's discriminatory.

> 
>> 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,
> 
>   If the same effect can be achieved in another way then it can not be
> seen as a undue discrimination or as a discrimination per se.

I said, that's an option. As I can use my copyright as I want, I can
decide to assign it or not. Here it is tantamount to have it assigned,
even if it's not technically "contributed" (I can fork off and start an
independent project).

> 
>   I don`t believe it is an infringement of an Open Source software if
> somebody can not re-license under a proprietary license so it should not
> apply with regards to OSS compliance.

Again, this is not the point. The point is that some can and some other
cannot on specular grounds.

> 
>   Last but not least I see paragraph #5 the way that it applies to
> discrimination against special groups of people with regards to equality
> or certain fields of endeavor. This is not the case - or can all people
> except the original author be seen as a special group?
> 

Under all possible definitions, the "Original contributors" ARE a
special group of people, they call themselves out. All other copyright
holders are ANOTHER group of people. Yes indeed. All those who are not
original developers and who have also contributed their copyright in the
code and whose copyright is treated as less important on licensing
grounds. Not by their common, democratic decision, but out of the very
licensing.

The language of OSD is not against race or ethnicity or political
beliefs or numerosity. It's against a person or a group of persons. Here
we have two.

Best

Carlo

> 
> On 9/26/18 11:22 AM, Carlo Piana wrote:
>> Ellmar, all,
>>
>> 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?
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> My initial and non meditated reaction is that this license should be
>> rejected as long as Section 7 is concerned.
>>
>> 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.
> 
> The group of original authors can be extended any time if someone gives
> a major contribution to a project under C-FSL. The only issue about it
> is that if someone is planning a major contribution he must communicate
> to do so before in order to make her/him accepted as original author.
> 
>>
>> Or am I mistaken on the working of the condition?
>>
>>
>> Carlo
>>
>>
>>
>> On 26/09/2018 09:57, Elmar Stellnberger wrote:
>>> Full Name: Convertible Free Software License Version 1.1
>>> Short Identifier: C-FSL v1.1
>>> URL: https://www.elstel.org/license/C-FSL-v1.1.txt
>>>
>>> Rationale and Distinguish:
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Proliferation Category & Legal Review:
>>> Other/Miscellaneous
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> list of software which uses C-FSL v1.1.:
>>> qcoan: https://www.elstel.org/coan
>>> xchroot, confinedrv, bundsteg, debcheckroot, dbschemacmd: also found
>>> at www.elstel.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> License-review mailing list
>>> License-review at lists.opensource.org
>>> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> License-review mailing list
>> License-review at lists.opensource.org
>> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
>>
>>