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

Kyle Mitchell kyle at kemitchell.com
Fri Sep 28 18:17:18 UTC 2018


On 2018-09-28 09:09, Bruce Perens wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 12:10 PM Kyle Mitchell <kyle at kemitchell.com> wrote:
> > On 2018-09-26 17:09, Smith, McCoy wrote:
> > > I dislike the term “crayon license” as it seems fairly
> > > pejorative
>
> It's taken from a Monty Python sketch and sure, it's pejorative. Over the
> 20 year history of Open Source we have learned the value of legal
> practitioners, perhaps you shouldn't complain :-)

Perhaps "amateur license", and _then_ mention Monty Python?

I'm all for good lawyers lawyering goodly, and appreciate
being appreciated.  But I've also learned the value that
savvy non-legal practitioners bring.

> > There is an apparent schism with FSF on that point,
> > evident in OSI approval and FSF rejection of at least
> > Plan 9, RPL, and Open Watcom.
>
> The Three Freedoms don't call for a freedom from terms compelling
> redistribution of "private" modifications. Nor does Freedom Zero, which was
> added after drafting of the OSD. So, here the FSF is operating on policy
> not stated in the Four Freedoms. And it would be a totally wrong decision
> to implement protection of so-called "private" modifications in the cloud
> era, where the original redistribution terms that FSF so heavily leaned
> upon are obsolete and "private" works are performed for the general public.

To their credit, they've mentioned it directly in What is
free software?:

  You should also have the freedom to make modifications and
  use them privately in your own work or play, without even
  mentioning that they exist.  If you do publish your
  changes, you should not be required to notify anyone in
  particular, or in any particular way.

I'm not sure when that change first appeared, but I've taken
to calling it Freedom 4, and explaining it as the freedom to
exercise Freedom 1 without exercising Freedom 3.

As far as I can tell, the FSF position that "private
changes" has to extend to sharing changes "within your
organization" is still scattered around pages on fsf.org.

-- 
Kyle Mitchell, attorney // Oakland // (510) 712 - 0933



More information about the License-review mailing list