Slashdot Mirror
The Free Software Foundation Releases New Comments About Licenses (fsf.org)
"We recently published a number of updates to our licensing materials," the Free Software Foundation announced Thursday, adding that "While we generally post individual announcements for these types of important changes, there were so many in such a short span that we needed to combine them all in one place."
We added the Commons Clause to our list of nonfree licenses. Not a stand-alone license in and of itself, it is meant to be added to an existing free license to prevent using the work commercially, rendering the work nonfree. It's particularly nasty given that the name, and the fact that it is attached to pre-existing free licenses, may make it seem as if the work is still free software.
If a previously existing project that was under a free license adds the Commons Clause, users should work to fork that program and continue using it under the free license. If it isn't worth forking, users should simply avoid the package. We are glad to see that in the case of Redis modules using the Commons Clause, people are stepping up to maintain free versions.
There's also a new addition to their GNU Licenses FAQ which explains what the GNU GPL says about translating code into another programming language. ("If the original program carries a free license, that license gives permission to translate it. How you can use and license the translated program is determined by that license. If the original program is licensed under certain versions of the GNU GPL, the translated program must be covered by the same versions of the GNU GPL...") And they've also clarified how to handle projects that combine code under multiple compatible licenses.
The FSF has also updated a document commenting on various licenses, clarifying that the Fraunhofer FDK AAC free software license "is incompatible with any version of the GNU GPL. It has a special danger in the form of a term expressly stating it does not grant you any patent licenses, with an enticement to buy some.
"Because of this, and because the license author is a known patent aggressor, we encourage you to be careful about using or redistributing any software under this license..."
If a previously existing project that was under a free license adds the Commons Clause, users should work to fork that program and continue using it under the free license. If it isn't worth forking, users should simply avoid the package. We are glad to see that in the case of Redis modules using the Commons Clause, people are stepping up to maintain free versions.
There's also a new addition to their GNU Licenses FAQ which explains what the GNU GPL says about translating code into another programming language. ("If the original program carries a free license, that license gives permission to translate it. How you can use and license the translated program is determined by that license. If the original program is licensed under certain versions of the GNU GPL, the translated program must be covered by the same versions of the GNU GPL...") And they've also clarified how to handle projects that combine code under multiple compatible licenses.
The FSF has also updated a document commenting on various licenses, clarifying that the Fraunhofer FDK AAC free software license "is incompatible with any version of the GNU GPL. It has a special danger in the form of a term expressly stating it does not grant you any patent licenses, with an enticement to buy some.
"Because of this, and because the license author is a known patent aggressor, we encourage you to be careful about using or redistributing any software under this license..."
If you really want your code to be free, abandon licenses altogether. All you're doing is increasing the probability that some lawyer will get a new Porsche. Instead, say that you're giving the code away, no restrictions, no rights reserved, no credit required, period — and then have the stones to stick to your word.
Trying to avoid legal entanglements by simply ignoring the fact that we actually have a legal system is terrible, terrible advice. No one cares about "your stones" - they want stronger guarantees than that.
If you want your software to remain legally protected and as free as possible for all types of use, use an MIT or BSD style permissive license. If you wish your software to remain open source only, use GPL. And like AC said, there's Creative Commons Zero for an unconditional giveaway. By not choosing a license, you're simply choosing legal ambiguity.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.