1. Your license grant only covers derivative works. Review clause two through four of the apache license.
2. You don't offer an explicit patent license. Is there a reason for this? 3. You didn't include any disclaimers or defensive termination clauses. Those are usually smart. 4. Your first clause strikes me as more cumbersome than you might realize. Is there a reason that making source available as per the GPL is not sufficient? 5. Even having read your email, I cannot see a reason for this license to exist. You don't get to determine which licenses allow relicensing under your terms, so that clause is moot (and might not apply to Apache v2), and your rules for which licenses your software can be relicensed under do not allow your software to be relicensed, since I'm not aware of any other license that requires distribution of source code like this. Even if you mean that relicensing under the GPL and AGPL *are* acceptable... What is the upside of your license? If I want derivative works to be licensed under the GPLv2+, can't I just say that? 6. Relicensing and compatibility are complicated issues due to many of the above factors, particularly patent licenses and defensive termination. You can't really just declare compatibility the way you did. If you really feel there's a reason for this license to exist, I would recommend hiring an attorney with a lot of experience in the space to get it right. On Sat, Oct 12, 2024, 07:39 PEPPÈ Santarsiero <santarsierope...@live.com> wrote: > > Dear Debian Foundation, > > I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to share insights > regarding the Lachesis Open License, a framework I developed that aims to > enhance the freedoms associated with software usage and distribution, > particularly in contexts that the GPL may not fully address. > > First and foremost, I want to express my sincere gratitude for the > invaluable work the Debian Foundation does in promoting and supporting free > software. I understand that you are all incredibly busy, and your > commitment to fostering an open-source ecosystem is truly commendable. > > The Lachesis Open License is inspired by the spirit of collaboration and > innovation that defines the open-source community. It aims to ensure that > software remains free—allowing for its use, modification, and > redistribution—while also addressing certain gaps in existing licenses, > notably in relation to the freedoms associated with contributions and > compatibility with previous projects. > > One of the core principles of the Lachesis License is the encouragement of > contributions from any derivative work, fostering a collaborative > environment that honors prior licenses. Unlike the GPL, which can pose > challenges in terms of re-licensing contributions back to original > projects, the Lachesis License explicitly allows for the integration of > contributions from various forks. This clarity ensures that contributors > can confidently share their enhancements without the fear of losing the > ability to contribute back to their original projects. > > For instance, under the Lachesis License, a developer who forks a project > can freely incorporate modifications and later contribute those > improvements back to the original repository without the restrictions > typically imposed by the GPL. In contrast, the GPL's terms can create > ambiguity around re-licensing, often complicating the process of merging > enhancements from forks back into the main project. > > Moreover, I believe it is crucial to emphasize that the Lachesis License > provides freedoms that are not fully encapsulated by the GPL. It ensures > that projects can retain their original licensing terms without imposing > undue restrictions that can stifle innovation and collaboration. The > freedom to modify and relicense under compatible terms is integral to a > thriving software ecosystem and ultimately promotes a broader culture of > openness. > > I understand the Debian Foundation’s stance on preferring to support > existing free licenses, and I appreciate the commitment to maintaining a > high standard for software freedom. However, I respectfully propose that > the Lachesis License deserves consideration as it aligns not only with the > Debian Free Software Guidelines but also expands upon them, enhancing > opportunities for cooperation among developers while upholding strong > copyleft principles. > > The Lachesis License guarantees that all modifications are accessible to > the community and fosters a responsible approach to user data, emphasizing > privacy and consent. These additional layers of consideration reflect a > modern interpretation of software freedom that can further encourage > collaboration without compromising individual freedoms. > > I hope you can see the merit in fostering a broader array of licenses that > promote software freedom. A license like Lachesis could serve as a valuable > tool for developers seeking a robust framework for collaboration, > innovation, and the retention of freedoms for their work and contributions. > > Thank you once again for your dedication and hard work. I am eager to > engage in further discussions about how we can collectively advance the > principles of software freedom and ensure that our community remains > vibrant and collaborative. > > Warm regards, > > Giuseppe Santarsiero > > > Il 11 ott 2024 19:43, Francesco Poli <invernom...@paranoici.org> ha > scritto: > > On Fri, 11 Oct 2024 15:06:15 +0200 Marc Haber wrote: > > > On Fri, Oct 11, 2024 at 07:40:09AM +0200, Michael Stehmann wrote: > > > Please do not develop new Free Software lincences. > > > > > > We still have more than 140. > > > > > > We need perhaps 3 to 5. > > > > > > Compliance checks are difficult enough now! > > > > > > So please do not develop new Free Software lincences! > > > > This. Absolutely. > > > > Please do not develop new Free Software lincences. > > Indeed. > > Dear Giuseppe, > please do everything in your power to avoid inventing a new license! > > If you want to release software under copyleft terms, please, please, > please use the GNU GPL license. > > If you prefer to release software under non-copyleft permissive terms, > please use the [Expat] license. > > [Expat]: <https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:Expat> > > The circumstances where you really need some other license are very > uncommon. > > Even more exceptional are the circumstances where you really have no > better options than writing your own custom license... > You'll have to present a really solid case to persuade most > debian-legal regulars that a new custom license is the best way forward. > > > To conclude: we need more Free Software, more Free Software > developers/maintainers, more Debian contributors, more time to devote > to Free Software, but, no, we definitely do _not_ need more Free > Software licenses! > > > -- > http://www.inventati.org/frx/ > There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory! > ..................................................... Francesco Poli . > GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE > > >
