On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 13:36:40 +0200 Michelle Konzack wrote: [...] > I was thinking to use the term: > > Licence: This software is under any Licence which complay > with the Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG). > [...] > What do you think about it?
There are some major problems with such a "mutant" license. First of all, and most importantly, who is going to decide whether a particular license complies with the DFSG? For the purpose of inclusion of a work into Debian, this task is accomplished by the packager, possibly with the help of debian-legal as an advisory group, and ultimately by the ftp-masters (whose decisions could be overruled by the Debian Project as a whole via GR)[1]. [1] anyone more knowledgeable than me about Debian Constitution and Debian Policy is encouraged to correct me, if I'm wrong... But who is going to decide whether a particular license complies with DFSG for the purpose of complying with your "mutant" license? What if I do something with your work and you sue me for copyright infringement? I claim that I was doing something allowed by license XYZ which I think "complies with the DFSG". You claim that license XYZ "does not comply with the DFSG". A court has to decide who is right and who is wrong, but no court is used to determine whether a license "complies with the DFSG". Second, it's not very clear what "complying with the DFSG" means for a *license*. The DFSG are guidelines to determine if a *work* is or isn't Free Software (according to Debian standards). The license plays an important role in making a work Free, but it's not the only thing to be taken into account (availability of source code, actively enforced patents, and other details are to be considered too). Third, your "mutant" license is a contorted way to more or less effectively release a work under in a all-permissive manner. Let's see why: the DFSG never pose upper limits to granted permissions, they only pose lower limits. Hence a license permissive enough "complies with the DFSG" for sure. I, as a licensee, would obviously choose the most permissive license I can, among a set of proposed ones. I could for example choose the Expat license[2] (or even some more permissive one): it definitely "complies with the DFSG" (I think there are no reasonable doubts about it). See? At the end of the day, the result of your "mutant" license is basically the same as having released the work under the Expat license[2]. [2] http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt So, to summarize, I recommend you against adopting your proposed "mutant" license. I suggest you instead release your works in a clearly DFSG-free manner by adopting a suitable license. If you want to be (almost) all-permissive, a good choice is the Expat license: it's simple, short, and compatible with everything else. HTH, IANAL, IANADD. -- But it is also tradition that times *must* and always do change, my friend. -- from _Coming to America_ ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
pgptwX5oJNwhz.pgp
Description: PGP signature
