On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 06:22:15PM +0100, Elmar Stellnberger wrote: > Is it really a problem? If yes then I can add an exception for > distributors like Debian.
Perhaps you're interesting in reading our guidelines: http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines point 8 is "License Must Not Be Specific to Debian". > However what I want is being noticed somehow about changed versions > of my programmes. That's OK. It just means you need to upload to non-free. > This is to collect new use cases and get updates quickly > incorporated (Early versions of > my program were heavily rewritten and patched as googeling has > shown; though that time > not even granted explicitly.). Being notified by third party users > about their concerns and > changes would yield major contribution to the future development. > (There are no copyright > issues though since the actual code added by me so far has been > completely different from > the diversions found out there; though it has been very useful in > extracting new use cases.). > > o One may not change for the software (or use it in a commercial product), > > or be used *from* non-free software as a plugin (etc). The phrasing > > in here is odd. > Well this is already the standard for the GPL-license: GPL programs > as far as being > compiled can not be incorporated into commercial software; you have > to use L-GPL. > Why not establish a similar standard for protecting intellectual > property also for > programs written in a script language? (i.e. this is the reason why > I called it S-FSL). That's not true; commercial software *can be paid software*. So long as the software is compatable (and the work on the whole is distributed as GPL), this isn't a problem. Please, if you don't know how the GPL works, I have to strongly insist on you not writing your own license. > If the phrasing is odd we will have to rework it; it is my intention > to have a license > clear to everyone; not only to lawyers. > > > >I strongly encourage you to not write your own license terms. Please > >consider using a well-known and understood license. > > Well to me it is an issue under which license to publish. I do not > want to burden > my distributor unncessarily but actually want to retain as much > rights as possible > because writing, maintaining the software and supporting also casual > users is a > major effort. It's a lot more effort for the distributors to review this license and attempt to figure out how it applies in different jursidictions, with other licenses and how to properly comply. > > > >Cheers, > > Paul > > Many Thanks for your Commitment, > Elmar Cheers, Paul -- .''`. Paul Tagliamonte <paul...@debian.org> : :' : Proud Debian Developer `. `'` 4096R / 8F04 9AD8 2C92 066C 7352 D28A 7B58 5B30 807C 2A87 `- http://people.debian.org/~paultag
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
