Damyan Ivanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> asked for comments on: > * 0. Definitions > > o 0.1. IBPP > 'IBPP' is primarily a set of programming interfaces, > initially written in the C++ language, which makes it easier to develop > any other programming work which need to communicate and work with > Firebird, a SQL-based database engine and server, and possibly other > similar engines and servers. Further in this document we also name > 'IBPP' the source code itself which implements those interfaces and any > associated files whatever their nature. > > o 0.2. TIP > 'TIP' is the company T.I.P. Group S.A., a legal entity, > registered in the Kingdom of Belgium under the enterprise identification > number 0.429.942.927. Contact information: http://www.tipgroup.com.
Most of the two above should be in README and AUTHORS, in my opinion. > o 0.3. Authors > 'Authors' is the college of private persons or legal > entities, including TIP, who at least once contributed to IBPP. College? What law is this drafted for? > * 1. Copyrights > > The very initial version of IBPP (0.9) was released in the year > 2000 by TIP. Through this initial contribution, TIP holds a Copyright > (c) 2000 on that original version of IBPP. > > In addition, each and every private person or legal entity, > including TIP, who since contributed or contribute to IBPP hold a shared > Copyright (c) <year of contribution> with TIP on that portion of code > they contribute, wether the contribution is made by modification or > addition to the source code or associated files. Spelling error s/wether/whether/ already. First of many. > * 2. Rights > > Without damage of the duties exposed at article 3., the Authors Confusing wording: lawyerbomb? > hereby grant the following permissions, free of charge, to any private > person or legal entity (hereafter "You"): Permission not granted to public legal entities (UK = plcs, royal charter corporations IIRC). Breaks DFSG 5 (No Discrimination Against Persons) or 6 (No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavour). > o 2.1. Right to Use > To use (edit when required, compile and link) the IBPP > source code as part of a larger programming work which effectively makes > use of some or all of the functionnalities offered by IBPP. Restriction on use: we might not agree that something is effectively making use. Lawyerbomb, possibly breaking DFSG 3 (Derived Works). > o 2.2. Right to Modify > To develop modifications or additions which enhance or fix IBPP. Restriction on modification: we might not agree that something is an enhancement. Lawyerbomb, possibly breaking DFSG 3 (Derived Works). > o 2.3. Right to Publish > To publish the IBPP source code along with your own source > code which uses it. No permission to copy alone? Might not be free software at all (doesn't give freedom 2) but can be made so trivially. > * 3. Duties > > o 3.1. Duty to give modifications back to IBPP Authors > Any modification or addition done to IBPP will be submitted > to the Authors, so that those modifications or additions can be > reviewed, possibly modified or fixed, and eventually merged in a new > version of IBPP, if the modification is found by the Authors to be of > interest to the IBPP users community. Forced donation upstream of work. I regard this as a payment or royalty on derived works, breaking DFSG 1 (Free Redistribution). I know others disagree, but I don't understand their reasoning. > o 3.2. Duty to play by the rules when publishing the IBPP > source code > When You publish the IBPP source code with your own source > code which uses it, You must also publish this license.txt file and You > must not remove any of the licensing and copyright texts located near > the beginning of the IBPP source code files. No-op in many (all?) copyright laws. > o 3.3. Duty to free IBPP Authors from any responsability > When You use IBPP in your programming works, You implicitely > agree to free the Authors from any and all responsability. You fully > endorse IBPP and assume all consequences of using it in your programming > works. This goes to the extent that, should the IBPP code be found to > infringe on the copyright or patent of any third-party entity, you > assume the entire responsability regarding your own programming works > which use IBPP. You always a least have the final solution not to use > IBPP anymore in your programming works. Not sure about the accuracy of this claim of "the final solution". > * 4. New versions of this License > > TIP is the only entity who can publish new versions of this > license and attach such new license versions to any future version of > IBPP. Though if doing so, TIP cannot remove any right previously granted Confusing first sentence: does future version include derived works? > by this version 1.0 of the license, nor can TIP add duties restricting > those previous rights further. New rights and / or duties might though > be added if the nature of IBPP (article 0.1) evolve in the future or if > components of a different nature are added to IBPP. A new license > version might also be required if some words of this version needed to > be corrected or changed to make things even more clear and precise. > > * 5. Disclaimer of Warranty > > IBPP IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR > IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, > FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL > THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR > OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, > ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR > OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE. Should not be capitalised, in my opinion. Could it be merged with 3.3? > Retrieved from http://www.editthis.info/ibpp/index.php/License In conclusion, I think any software under this licence alone is not free software, not having freedom 2 and breaking DFSGs 1, 3, 5 and/or 6. If the Authors are willing to drop the payment clause 3.1, it may be worth switching to a more widely-used licence with broadly similar effect, such as a BSD-style or MIT/Expat one (if non-copyleft and clause 4 is harmless). CC'd to Bug#334489, flamerobin's WNPP bug, which you say may be under a similar licence. Hope that helps, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
