Hi,
IMO, non-free:
- fail with desert island/dissident tests
- non-commercial constraints
My 2 cents
On 10/11/24 11:33, PEPPÈ Santarsiero wrote:
This version include correction reported by Soren Stoutner from the
debian team.
Thanks for considering my request.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Da:* Soren Stoutner
*Inviato:* Venerdì, 11 Ottobre, 2024 00:21
*A:* debian-legal@lists.debian.org
*Cc:* PEPPÈ Santarsiero
*Oggetto:* Re: Request for Evaluation of Lachesis Open License
Giuseppe,
On Thursday, October 10, 2024 9:08:47 AM MST PEPPÈ Santarsiero wrote:
> Dear Debian Legal Team,
> I hope this message finds you well.
> I am writing to request the evaluation of the Lachesis Open License,
which I
> have recently drafted. I have just submitted this license for
evaluation to
> the Open Source Initiative (OSI) and would like to discuss any proposed
> modifications they may suggest. I believe the Lachesis Open License is
> compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines, and I am eager to
ensure
> that it aligns with Debian's requirements as well. Thank you for your
time
> and consideration. I look forward to your feedback. Best regards,
This is an interesting license. I have one question about wording, which
might be a translation issue. The license contains the following text:
"Any derivative work of this Software, regardless of the method of
distribution (download, streaming, hosting on remote servers, or any other
form of public availability), must be accompanied by the distribution of the
complete source code.”
"However, if the licensee distributes such derivative works, they are
required
to include the complete source code of those modifications”
I assume that what is intended is that those distributing the software must
also make the source code available to those who want it. However, as it is
worded here, I think the effect would be that those distributing binary
files
compiled from the source code would have to force everyone who downloaded
those binaries to also download the entire source code, whether they
wanted it
or not. If the desire is simply to make the source code available, I think
the following wording would be more accurate:
"Any derivative work of this Software, regardless of the method of
distribution (download, streaming, hosting on remote servers, or any other
form of public availability), must provide access to the complete source
code.”
"However, if the licensee distributes such derivative works, they are
required
to make available the complete source code of those modifications”
--
Soren Stoutner
so...@debian.org
