On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 12:42 PM, Paul Tagliamonte <paul...@debian.org>wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 06:22:15PM +0100, Elmar Stellnberger wrote: > > Is it really a problem? If yes then I can add an exception for > > distributors like Debian. > > Perhaps you're interesting in reading our guidelines: > > http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines > > point 8 is "License Must Not Be Specific to Debian". > > > However what I want is being noticed somehow about changed versions > > of my programmes. > > That's OK. It just means you need to upload to non-free. > > > This is to collect new use cases and get updates quickly > > incorporated (Early versions of > > my program were heavily rewritten and patched as googeling has > > shown; though that time > > not even granted explicitly.). Being notified by third party users > > about their concerns and > > changes would yield major contribution to the future development. > > (There are no copyright > > issues though since the actual code added by me so far has been > > completely different from > > the diversions found out there; though it has been very useful in > > extracting new use cases.). > > > > o One may not change for the software (or use it in a commercial > product), > > > or be used *from* non-free software as a plugin (etc). The phrasing > > > in here is odd. > > > Well this is already the standard for the GPL-license: GPL programs > > as far as being > > compiled can not be incorporated into commercial software; you have > > to use L-GPL. > > Why not establish a similar standard for protecting intellectual > > property also for > > programs written in a script language? (i.e. this is the reason why > > I called it S-FSL). > > That's not true; commercial software *can be paid software*. So long as > can be free software* (sorry!) > the software is compatable (and the work on the whole is distributed as > GPL), this isn't a problem. > > Please, if you don't know how the GPL works, I have to strongly insist > on you not writing your own license. > > > If the phrasing is odd we will have to rework it; it is my intention > > to have a license > > clear to everyone; not only to lawyers. > > > > > >I strongly encourage you to not write your own license terms. Please > > >consider using a well-known and understood license. > > > > Well to me it is an issue under which license to publish. I do not > > want to burden > > my distributor unncessarily but actually want to retain as much > > rights as possible > > because writing, maintaining the software and supporting also casual > > users is a > > major effort. > > It's a lot more effort for the distributors to review this license and > attempt to figure out how it applies in different jursidictions, with > other licenses and how to properly comply. > > > > > > >Cheers, > > > Paul > > > > Many Thanks for your Commitment, > > Elmar > > Cheers, > Paul > > -- > .''`. Paul Tagliamonte <paul...@debian.org> > : :' : Proud Debian Developer > `. `'` 4096R / 8F04 9AD8 2C92 066C 7352 D28A 7B58 5B30 807C 2A87 > `- http://people.debian.org/~paultag > -- :wq
