| 1 |
>>>>> On Mon, 03 Nov 2014, Matthias Maier wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> You have chosen to relicense your fork of the codebase under a custom |
| 4 |
> license that you labeled "SCIM license". |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
> A quick peek at the license [2] reveals quite a cumbersome number of |
| 7 |
> issues (forced contact, contact possibility, redistribution in form of |
| 8 |
> tarballs and patches). Such a license usually prevents any meaningful |
| 9 |
> number of external contributions and packaging. Not to mention that |
| 10 |
> layman's licenses are almost always fundamentally flawed. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
AFAICS, this is identical to the vim license, but with clause |
| 13 |
II) 2) e) removed. (Which makes the sentence "must be distributed in |
| 14 |
one of the following five ways" flawed, because now there are only |
| 15 |
four ways a) to d) left.) |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> Why not using an FSF-approved, OSI-approved, and/or DFSG compatible |
| 18 |
> license instead? I'm sure that there is something available that fits |
| 19 |
> your taste. (You can e.g. license under "GPL 2 or later" and ask for a |
| 20 |
> special (non binding) courtesy to inform you of changes/patches.) |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
The vim license is approved by the FSF: |
| 23 |
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#Vim |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Most likely it will remain a free software license even after removal |
| 26 |
of above-mentioned clause, but certainly it is no longer GPL |
| 27 |
compatible. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Otherwise, I agree that using one of the existing free software |
| 30 |
licenses would be much preferred. License proliferation is a real |
| 31 |
problem. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Ulrich |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
> [2] https://github.com/andmarti1424/scim/blob/master/LICENSE |
Archives