From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jan 24 19:14:46 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3763216A4CE for ; Sat, 24 Jan 2004 19:14:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.cybcon.com (mail.cybcon.com [216.190.188.5]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7207D43D1D for ; Sat, 24 Jan 2004 19:14:44 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from wwoods@cybcon.com) Received: from yogi.cybcon.com (IDENT:wwoods@yogi.cybcon.com [216.190.188.13]) by mail.cybcon.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i0P3ETS15424; Sat, 24 Jan 2004 19:14:29 -0800 Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 19:14:29 -0800 (PST) From: Bill Woods To: "Cordula's Web" In-Reply-To: <20040125014550.E790A40822@fw.farid-hajji.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-CyberConnectics-MailScanner2-Information: Spam/Virus Scanned at CyberConnectics X-CyberConnectics-MailScanner2: Found to be clean X-CyberConnectics-MailScanner2-SpamCheck: cc: stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: New Open Source License: Single Supplier Open Source License X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 03:14:46 -0000 On Sun, 25 Jan 2004, Cordula's Web wrote: And this has what do do with FreeBSD Stable ? > [This is OT for stable@ and wine-devel@, but let's contribute anyway...] > > > # Users have freely available access to source code, documentation just like the GPL. > > Access to source coce, documentation etc... is also possible under the > BSD license. Under the [L]GPL, it is mandatory. > > > # Users may use, modify, and install the software on as many computers as they want within their organization. > > Right. The number of computers should never matter. > > > # Any changes made by the user and others get contributed back into the base product > > This is the main difference between BSD and GPL, and you're using > the GPL model here. This is exacly what would prevent commercial > vendors from adopting this license. But, okay. > > > # The developer's right to control who provides services using the product is protected. > > That's a tough one. As long as the developer is _actively_ maintaining > a product, that seems reasonable. But it happens frequently, that many > developers loose interest in supporting a product. Locking the community > out would be counter-productive, to say the least. > > > # The developer's right to control who can distribute the software is protected. > > That's even uglier. Neighter the GPL nor the BSD license would be _that_ > restrictive. And see below, in case the developer drops maintenance. > > > # The developer has complete control over the product forking. > > Same as above. > > > # The developer and all contributors retain copyright of their individual works. > > That is already the case with [L]GPL and BSD licenses. What's new here? > > > # The software is always downloaded from the same place by the end user even if it's used as part of a larger product, protecting the quality of the software. > > See above. > > I'd suggest to add a clause of mandatory maintainership, that would > void the exclusive right of the developer/author to maintain and > distribute his/her work, if the originator fails to update his/her > product after some (yet-to-be-specified) time. Orphaned products could > then automatically fall under the BSD license (or GPL, or anything > less restrictive as what you're suggesting). > > > Please feel free to contact me on or off list about this announcement. > > What are you trying to achieve with this, which can't already be > achieved through BSD or [L]GPL licensing schemes? > > > Richard Schilling > >