Copy: [email protected] (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?PEPP=C8?= Santarsiero)

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
[email protected]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEJKVN2yNUZnlcqOI+wufLJ66wtgMFAmcIU38ACgkQwufLJ66w tgM0Xw//S3ssbd/pa38coNuPr6SWqIbLDbFGA8/al+C8hLSn/eFp1DOpyuIVv+N4 6fVjuIG4GYDOLxhR028CVN16mYXvrOVqVKopTZOJ3soxQyPwsa+SaTZAb6SjO2og 6Qam8fPkfXyScCQq5ND6ZM7Ji9vzmdxHAe3exwiZTHjsrKVt3zeIzSbfoETQoaCW Mf7Qm1DWk2mDsR8a3Czb4VyjVTLS5ieDddYyhChko3JylrvX6VLwvZe3MgR137Op XvN2sU0bd1P9K5EroxHR9bBQBbmc5Oj0aR8a3OAlHMUXou0E5qdY9lKDp6ycHYm+ Z4jya6v1pAjWPxBfxgH6MMRWJLiP1yHv5C7WJ07PbINjRbtWAUJHmBaH6DNhan+m g3mN0anBCq2d3DTOqIe4rsxflk6zrr3Ly2UNaJvyHB1U32gQzIjN8cFfPRywtVhR UqBSXbJVm7Gi9fLhWKq7xqPl9fel2HfoAm+lukfJivwKGwZREHEID8CucRrUdUeJ 1mb/3NbL+KPvbSpa6cy72BFsXMLnaimYxstUlqptb3s0iZiuTJ4WMYtJ1CBi+zzR eovz/3Tc5M4pi4AJ6DQPSCO0ddMGFioaspZriDKmI5z+0wX3v5N2D+0y60Gl8liu uzt9FeqDTTVwmuo0lwUm6XvpKaHTHfhqHaAGVz59C0AcYi5apXM=
=hF/P
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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!

Kind regards
Michael

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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.

Greetings
Marc

-- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Marc Haber | "I don't trust Computers. They | Mailadresse im Header Leimen, Germany | lose things." Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 6224 1600402 Nordisch by Nature | How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 6224 1600421

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEEygERR5zS79/7gjklPhwn4R9pv/4FAmcJY8gACgkQPhwn4R9p v/7zDw//QAF/bBqHLBiM0uSCwJS5a++I1RDqM+sQCRN35XvW+FrEPS2Q2hJHY3kk vVHGeEhemZDzqT/qYpnPqZB0nTEKeQuPKQsq8L2G1jAayh3cg6rZyRJpfE7u4c5i zaqSeEUAUl7uzxrruyym8VlIovG4kVKMo0mpiOZSU4mQNXPzlpvNyKGG1+3E/WKD gN+D/u2kL06o1fR+VCQjcaBdsK6uuYJcaMmCFOlTWgPvGh3ofx4EU11jfXkM+C5o mKksGkL3hCWz+XhZXplLEWq5ZJuUZ9bw++gy5JzMfW3A7aFMNzFoQnwAm0d4qfi0 6zMnIqmafq+Fx9boML94JejK7cPzB3XEyS7lsAR424ttmcnlr2pHEB+RQe+ucRSs 7XbCHWRK7c5vaXTKiDMlKblw+VxZ8JKlbA6DSbqsqQEylBsqtLdVScbFbtpwpjkW mGzu7onaRnnB/0abRHzwhK55rLB9fN0pOQUURzBMF9WtRZeWQWWtLfzyf4ijkJyX RMesCY9LQ9F6BRXnfYPLQelHiecsM0ZYWCKorl8qDvQGd1R/37ykyUCs+N8CSgNM mQkp7smKypaj2xhnpLLISkejeZZz3p5Iqu369TVDs7IIHvTkpqYB7P8s60afBtQi DGXUV1EwDPLjN94eG25C56P5tj9Eda4Q

* PEPP� Santarsiero:

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.

Do you expect this license to be compatible with the GPL version 3?
The GPL version 3 does *not* enforce copyleft, it actually encourages
in some cases to restrict further distribution and modification.
Quoting from the GPL:

| Those thus making or running the covered works for you must do so
| exclusively on your behalf, under your direction and control, on
| terms that prohibit them from making any copies of your copyrighted
| material outside their relationship with you.

If a work under the Lachesis Open License does not contain a source
code distribution mechanism for itself, does the license create an
obligation to create one if the work is used in certain ways (say, if
it is used in hosting/streaming)? This would be far more problematic
than the AGPL situation because there, the network-based source code distribution obligation only kicks in after making modifications, so
in practice it is possible to be compliant even if the AGPL-covered
work does not help with source code distribution. I do not see a
similar condition in the Lachesis Open License. This could
effectively create a restriction on field of use.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)