On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 14:39:31 -0300 Carlos Laviola wrote: [...] > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 13:27:26 -0400 > Subject: Re: figlet license change from Artistic to Clarified Artistic > or Artistic 2.0? > To: Carlos Laviola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: Ian Chai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED], John > Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Christiaan Keet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [...] > Carlos Laviola scripsit: > > > Thanks for that, but I think I'd need permission from the other > > copyright holders -- in this case, everyone involved in this > > discussion -- for that change to happen. They contributed code under > > Artistic back then. > > Since none of us can possibly suffer a commercial loss, and since > FIGlet is not registered with the Copyright Office, there is no one > with standing to sue for statutory damages (actual damages being > obviously $0). Still, I agree that unanimous consent is a good thing, > where achievable.
I think it is *necessary* that each contributor agrees on a relicensing under a new license N... Excluding, of course, contributions released under a license L compatible with N (these contributions may be kept under L) or under a weak license W that explicitly permits conversion into N (these contributions may be relicensed without asking anything else to the contributor(s)). > > > There are also some issues with the default fonts, which have > > statements such as > > > > Shadow by Glenn Chappell 6/93 -- based on Standard & SmShadow > > Includes ISO Latin-1 > > figlet release 2.1 -- 12 Aug 1994 > > Permission is hereby given to modify this font, as long as the > > modifier's name is placed on a comment line. > > > > The "(...) as long as the modifier's name is placed on a comment > > line" is a lot like the advertisement clause on the older BSD-like > > licenses. > > Not at all. The old 4-clause BSD license required that any > *advertising* of any product incorporating licensed code had to > mention the name of the licensor as a source of the code. That is not > at all the same as saying that the *code itself* must mention the name > of anyone who changes it. Many free licenses, notably the GPL (clause > 2a) and the MPL (clause 3.3), require at least that much. The GPL does not require as much. GPLv2, clause 2a reads: | 2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion | of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and | distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 | above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions: | | a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices | stating that you changed the files and the date of any change. "stating that *you* changed the files" is weaker than requiring "stating that you changed the files and stating which *your name* is". Requiring that the modifier's name is placed in a comment line fails the Dissident Test. [...] > Both the Open Source Initiative and the Free Software Foundation have > analyzed the AFL and declared it conformant to their definitions of > "open source" and "free". The FSF also claims that the AFL is > incompatible with the GNU GPL, but I (and the author of the AFL) > believe this to be incorrect, and a failure to reflect on the > sublicenseability (that is, the right of a distributor of original or > modified works to replace the AFL with his own license, proprietary or > open) of the AFL. I have asked the AFL's author to make this point > clearer in AFL 2.2. It seems that a rather clear consensus about the AFL is being formed here at debian-legal: it doesn't comply with DFSG and it's GPL-incompatible. [...] > > Wouldn't you agree on choosing a more thoroughly analyzed license, > > such as the GPL, version 2, for FIGlet? > > Definitely not. Copyleft licenses are antithetical to the spirit of > FIGlet. If upstream authors don't like copyleft (nothing wrong in liking it, nor in disliking it: it's a matter of tastes...), I can suggest some simple non-copyleft DFSG-free license they could consider: Expat (a.k.a. MIT) license _______ http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt X11 (a.k.a. MIT) license _________ http://www.x.org/Downloads_terms.html 2-clause BSD license _ http://www.fsf.org/licenses/info/BSD_2Clause.html 3-clause BSD license _ http://www.fsf.org/licenses/info/BSD_3Clause.html -- Today is the tomorrow you worried about yesterday. ...................................................................... Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
pgpf03hbIO2Sc.pgp
Description: PGP signature
