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:* [email protected]
*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
[email protected]

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

Hello,

I have reservation about clauses 10 and 14.

Clause 10 seems to restrict the use of software, even the clause is well-intentioned.

There are many well-intentioned ideas to restrict one or more of the
four freedoms, but they are patronizing. The person who distributes
software under a Free Software Licence must not be the guardian of the licensees. Freedom (esp. of use) means the right to do even bad things.

And clause 14 seems to be not clear enough. Who is the "involved
public"? And what means "available for use in a usable format"?

To encourage someone (clause 5) may be nice, but declares neither an
obligation nor a right. So the meaning of that clause seems to be unclear.

Just my 2 cents

Regards
Michael

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