[clfswm-devel] CLFSWM licence change?

[Stayvoid]

Hello!

> No one suggested Clear BSD so far.
> No one talked about this.
I've posted those because the "BSD" term is ambiguous.

> I don't know the inner details of the X11 license, they claim it's
> similar to MIT, I haven't checked.  It seems more complex than need
> be.
There is no such thing as the "MIT license."
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#X11License
"This license is sometimes called the MIT license, but that term is
misleading, since MIT has used many licenses for software."
How can you talk about something that you haven't checked?

> Simplicity is rarely a bad thing.  I see no legal tricks which can be
> pulled on me if I use or publish MIT code.
Please read this article:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.en.html
"We update the GPL to protect its copyleft from being undermined by
legal or technological developments. The most recent version protects
users from three recent threats:
	•	Tivoization: Some companies have created various different kinds of
devices that run GPLed software, and then rigged the hardware so that
they can change the software that's running, but you cannot. If a
device can run arbitrary software, it's a general-purpose computer,
and its owner should control what it does. When a device thwarts you
from doing that, we call that tivoization.
	•	Laws prohibiting free software: Legislation like the Digital
Millennium Copyright Act and the European Union Copyright Directive
make it a crime to write or share software that can break DRM (Digital
Restrictions Mismanagement; see below). These laws should not
interfere with the rights the GPL grants you.
	•	Discriminatory patent deals: Microsoft has recently started telling
people that they will not sue free software users for patent
infringement—as long as you get the software from a vendor that's
paying Microsoft for the privilege. Ultimately, Microsoft is trying to
collect royalties for the use of free software, which interferes with
users' freedom. No company should be able to do this."

> The GPLv3 is in fact the
> one trying to pull legal tricks on companies which have distributed
> software under the GPLv2 or later.
Could you provide an example?
"In addition to clarifying the rules about licenses that are already
GPL-compatible, GPLv3 is also newly compatible with a few other
licenses. The Apache License 2.0 is a prime example."
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.en.html
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3-compatibility.png
"Arrows pointing from one license to another indicate that the first
license is compatible with the second. This is true even if you follow
multiple arrows to get from one license to the other; so, for example,
the ISC license is compatible with GPLv3. GPLv2 is compatible with
GPLv3 if the program allows you to choose "any later version" of the
GPL, which is the case for most software released under this license."

> The GPL *currently* grants you some rights which are presumably
> included in the long license.  The 'or later' clause makes such
> statement void though.  The FSF can make incompatible changes.
"GPLv2 is compatible with GPLv3 if the program allows you to choose
"any later version" of the GPL, which is the case for most software
released under this license."
"We update the GPL to protect its copyleft from being undermined by
legal or technological developments."
This may happen with the third version.
That's why it's important to use the “any later version” part.

> The license holds in the way a judge will interpret it, not in the
> way we interpret it.
That's why the "complexity" of the GNU GPL is better then the
simplicity of the other licenses.
That simplicity is ambiguous.

> RMS states that the interpretation of a
> judge also suprised him a bit.
That's why we have the third version. Because it does the job even better.

> The 'or later' clause seems to be, from a legal point of
> view, the most jarheaded option I've ever seen.
RMS: "The GNU licenses are the only ones that give developers the option
of NOT accepting future versions.  Other licenses that have versions
generally automatically include future versions."
You will have an ability to choose the third version if you are
unhappy with the fourth version.
"The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions
of the GNU General Public License from time to time. Such new versions
will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in
detail to address new problems or concerns.
Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program
specifies that a certain numbered version of the GNU General Public
License “or any later version” applies to it, you have the option of
following the terms and conditions either of that numbered version or
of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the
Program does not specify a version number of the GNU General Public
License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free
Software Foundation."
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html (14. Revised Versions of this License.)


Kind regards.