lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1998]   [Jul]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: FreeGPL license proposal (was Re: Linus Speaks About KDE-Bashing)
PLEASE!

On Mon, 13 Jul 1998, Jon M. Taylor wrote:

[snip rant about gpl]
> (keeps the code freely distributable and modifiable for all time) and
> BSD (doesn't impose restrictions on the use of the software) licenses?
> A license that is clear, unambigous, small, simple and easy to
[snip]

Umm.. All the ambiguity in the GPL is because it keeps the software free,
it prevents bozos from taking it from the community.

If you dont want that, I've got a *REAL* simple licence for you.
Lets call is 'Public Domain'.


> (Don't say "why don't you just use the BSD license", either. The
> BSD license doesn't preserve unto eternity the freeness of the source,
> which is vitally important and is the one really good and necessary part
> of the GPL.)

Then use the damn GPL.

> Here's a first stab at it, in english rather than formal legalese:
>
> * The only language in the license will deal with allowable and
> non-allowable behavior. No preambles full of philosophical meanderings,
> no "this is what we mean by this", etc. If the license requires these
> sorts of things be present, it is too complex or badly worded.

It's not required. It make's it easier to understand and fun to read! :)
The philosphical part isn't the legally binding part. You can safely
ignore it and pay attention to the restrictions and allowances.

> * A liability or usefulness disclaimer a la GPL.
>
> * You can make whatever use you want with the binaries and/or the source.
> The license will specifically not have anything to say about
> "dependencies", "system libraries", linking, commercial vs.
> non-commercial use, etc.

Okay, give me your app and I'll completely propritarize it. Then sell it
for hundreds of dollars and refuse to give out the source.

> * You are NOT required to distribute the sources with binaries (or
> binaries with sources), nor are you required to provide pointers to
> where people can obtain the latest versions of either the source or
> the binaries, nor are you required to provide documentation or
> explanatory material beyond the text of the license.

Umm What do you require then??!? I thought you wanted to keep software
free? This goes against that goal. Make up your mind.

> * The original author(s) retain(s) copyright and his/her name(s) must
> remain attached to any binaries and displayed in the same manner as the
> other copyrights of the rest of the software are (if there are laws
> about this, they'd have to be followed too or instead of this provision)

Oh, whoopiedo!

> * You cannot put any restrictions on modification or redistribution of
> the source or binaries (with one exception, see below).

Yes I can, I just make it require a propritary LIB that I sell for
hundreds of dollars and dont let you distribute. I also dont provide the
source and I dont tell you where do get it. So unless you can find the
source, to propritrise your app all I need to do is make a binary only
version and stick a call verify_propritary_secret_lib(); at the top and
it's useless without my $1,500 lib.

> * Source and/or binaries do not "infect" in the GPL sense, and can be
> freely mixed with non-FreeGPLed source and/or binaries, but the
> copyright, modifiability and redistributability of the source and/or
> binaries must remain. This would mean that you are allowed to chop up
> FreeGPLed sources and mix them in with nonfree sources, but if you rip
> out, say, five FreeGPLed source blocks and stick them in random places
> in your code, each block must have a copyright and license notification
> attached to it. The only exception to this would be that if you mix
> FreeGPLed and nonfree sources, you are allowed to restrict the modification
> and redistribution of the resulting binary due to the impossibility of
> separating out the different code blocks when they are compiled. This
> exception does not in any way detract from the freeness of the origianl
> source, which is all that really matters anyway.

Whoopie fucking do. You can not have your cake and eat it too.. All you
perserve is the copyright notices. All of your attemts at keeping freeness
just amount to arm waving, it would be so easy to take away the freeness.

> That's it. Clear, simple, unambiguous (It's even simpler than the
> above, because half the above describes what WON'T be present in the text
> of the license!).
and completely ineffective!

>It preserves copyright, preserves redistributability,
> preserves the freedom of the source, allows people to use the source and
> binaries however they want provided they properly credit the authors, and
> doesn't play any "infection" games or try to impose a certain moral
> viewpoint on people beyond that which is implied by the text of the
> license itself.

No it doesn't.

> What do you all think? I think it is good engineering - it

You are wrong. "I've ignored the complexity of the issues, so they dont
exist" is not sound engineering.

> follows the KISS principle as closely as possible, which the GPL does NOT.

You'de have to be stupid to think such a weak licence preserves freedom.

> It is a very libertarian license - have only the minimal amount of rules
> necessary to keep the system coherent, functional and true to its
> principles. If I get enough people saying they like it, the next step is
> to present it to the public via Slashdot.org, setup a mailing list, etc.

The simplest licence that keeps the principles of your above stuff is
this:

---
You may do whatever you please with this, as long as you keep my name in
it.
---

Simple. But I dont think it's what we want.

Sell your snake oil elseware.


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:43    [W:0.110 / U:0.352 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site