Joe Smith writes: > "MJ Ray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Kevin B. McCarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> I would be interested to hear your opinions on the Geant4 Software > >> License, version 1.0 [1]. [...] > >> [1] http://geant4.web.cern.ch/geant4/license/LICENSE.html > > > > I think it is clearly GPL-incompatible (as you noted) for reasons > > similar to the old BSD licence and it might not follow the DFSG because > > of clauses 4 (automatic donation to upstream), clause 8 (no right to > > dispute unauthorised inclusion of your code) and maybe 5 (discrimination > > against fields of use) below. > > How exactly does automatic upstream licence violate the DFSG?
There are several perspectives on this. The clearest is that it is a violation of DFSG#3 (same terms as the license of the original software). One could make a case that it is a fee for redistribution or that it discriminates against fields of endeavor. Since the nature of the license-to-upstream is unclear, it is more of an issue. However, because the license-to-upstream is merely the default state, rather than a truly automatic state, I personally do not view it as a DFSG violation. > I think I see your point with number 8, but the idea of that clause > fits the spirit of Software freeness. the idea is to prevent a big > company from > suing the developers without any good reason in an attempt to extort > money from > the developers. That sort of clause does discorage that. It is also a > purely defensive clause. > Can you suggest a better wording? > > I don't think 5 is really a DFSG freeness problem, as attempting to patent > a derivitive work is questionable. With all likelyhood such a patent > would be invalidated in a court battle, so the clause only serves to prevent > the whole thing from happening. I see no feilds of endevor which require > software patents. My reading of section 5 was that it prohibits the inclusion of portions of the Geant4 software itself in a patent application. I do not believe this impairs the patent process -- if the patent depends so strongly on the base software, its novelty is dubious. Similarly, I think that including open source software in patent applications is not defensible as a DFSG#6 "field of endeavor". Michael Poole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
