[freeroleplay] Re: Should We Use FDL?
- From: Bryce Harrington <bryce@xxxxxxxx>
- To: <freeroleplay@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 08:55:26 -0800 (PST)
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003, Samuel Penn wrote:
> Actually, the other bit I don't like about the GPL and varients is
> the bit that says 'this version or the license, or any later one'.
> In theory, a later version of the license could come along which I
> disagree with, and a 'user' could apply that one.
>
> If you don't think it'd happen, consider the issue about whether
> running a server is 'distribution'. Currently, you can take GPL'd
> server code, modify it, and run it from a website without giving
> the changes back to the community, since you've never 'distributed'
> the software to anyone.
>
> There are mutterings about changing this, so that providing a
> service with GPL'd software means you have to release the source
> code. I disagree with this, so in future my code could get licensed
> under terms I don't like, without my consent.
I believe the GPL allows you to specify a specific version of it for a
work (i.e., leave out the 'this version or any later one' clause). It
would be sensible to investigate this option before determining to
create a new one.
> Something similar could happen with the FDL (it already has clauses
> which some of us disagree with, so there's no reason to assume it
> won't get more at some point in the future).
>
> Anyway, how difficult would it be to modify one of the existing
> licenses? Is there a big enough bonus for going with a well
> recognised one which would make this a non-option?
I helped with the creation of the Mozilla Public License years ago.
Creating a new license is hard and not worth doing, especially if you're
not a lawyer. These days, creating a new license also instantly earns
distrust, since there've been a few companies that have created "open"
licenses with loopholes (intentional or otherwise) that benefit them.
Also note that some licenses, such as the GPL, have clauses specifically
disallowing modification of the license. IOW, the GPL is not GPL'd. ;-)
Bryce
Other related posts:
