On 09/01/2012 09:40 PM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
On Sat, Sep 01, 2012 at 08:53:16PM -0400, Richard Fontana wrote:
> I think it will be a good idea to add an exception to this license
> that allows linking the software with ANY of the licenses considered
> as free software license by the FSF/OSI while at the same time forbids
> to link the software with any proprietary license.
I assume there will be some explanatory text making sure that it's
understand that the permission has to come from both directions?
(i.e., it might not be OK to statically link against code with a more
restrictive license, even if it meets the criteria above).
Also, if you're going to forbid "link the software with any
proprietary license", it would be nice to include an explicit
definition of whether link encompasses a shared library link where the
proprietary object is not distributed alongside the copyleft-licensed
software, or an RPC call across the network, or when a propietary
program sends data down a pipe to a copyleft-licensed program....
- Ted
What about the divergence between the FSF and OSI at this point in what
are termed free licenses? If memory serves, there are different lists
of licenses at these locations:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html
http://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical
OSI merely lists licenses while the FSF page gives guidance as to
compatibility and also recommending that certain licenses OSI lists not
be used in any project. If we use FSF/OSI as a term, we would perhaps
need to establish a list of licenses that are common to both lists for
general purpose. I would prefer that we instead refer to just one so
that varying definitions of free need not be resolved.
Stephen Michael Kellat