[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

A license needed for authentic/consistency purposes

This is posted to both docs and developer mailing lists
please each discuse the related license to your mailing list only
(in doc GFDL and alike, in dev GPL and alike)

I'm having problems with radical people in Debian who consider
GNU *Free* Documentation License (GFDL)
not free engough for them

I also have some data which can not be GPLed not GFDLed

so I need a better license, or at least a different one.

we (Muslims) have most of our books available on the net for
no charge (eg. www.al-islam.net), we have the idea of
Free software even before any other nation.
We call it الأمانة في النقل.
so I suggest titles like "Ethical Copying License" or "Honest Copying License"
the only restriction is to admit the favor of the original author.

Honest Copying Guidelines:
for a license to be considered Honestly free according to us it must
give the following rights to you (any user)
1. The right to run the software for any (legal) purpose.
2. The right to study how does it work, and to adopt it for your needs
3. The right to redistribute it (to help your neighbor with useful
software for example)
4. The right to develop it and release what you consider to be
enhancements to the public
5. The right to know to whom belong the favor (or who take moral responsibility)
for the consistency or quality of it. no one has the right to
distribute products that
give false impression of reliability or purity

those are same as FSF free software definition except the last one,
the last one is included as an obligation of GPL through term 2
"a. You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices
stating that you changed the files and the date of any change."

بحيث أن تعطيك (أنت المستخدم) الحقوق التالية:

   1. الحق بتشغيل البرنامج لأي غاية (مشروعة).
   2. الحق بدراسة كيف يعمل البرنامج وموائمته لاحتياجاتك.
   3. الحق بإعادة توزيع نسخ منه (لتتمكن من مساعدة جارك بالبرامج النافعة مثلاً).
   4. الحق بتطوير البرنامج وإصدار ما تعتبره تحسينات للعامة لتعم الفائدة.
   5. الحق بمعرفة لمن الفضل (أو على من تقع المسؤولية المعنوية) في
سلامة البرمجية أو اتقانها. فلا يحق لأحد توزيع البرمجية لتعطي ايحائاً
كاذباً للمستخدم أو المطورين الآخرين بأنها من مصدر موثوق حين لا تكون

هذه الحقوق (باستثناء الأخيرة) هي نفسها الواردة في تعريف مؤسسة
البرمجيات الحرة للبرمجيات الحرة، أما البند الأخير فهو متضمن إلزامياً
في رخضة رخصة التأميم العامة GPL (الإصدار الثاني) عبر البندر الثاني أ
الذي ينص "يجب إرفاق الملفات المعدلة بإشارة واضحة للتعديلات المنجزة
وتاريخ كل تعديل " كما أنه مضمون في رخصة "Artistic License" التي تعتبر
حرة. لكني أضفت هذا الشرط الأخير بشكل صريح للحفاظ على اتقان المنتج ومنع
وقوع كوارث كالتي حدثت مع Kerberos بسبب رخص شبيهات BSD التي تسمح بعمل
مشتقات مملوكة غير حرة وغير نقية أو متقنة.

I'm thinking of a license just like GPL but the this extra term:
* degrading authentication procedures IS NOT PERMITTED,
inauthentic (or impure or inconsistent) software as defined by the
original author or
according to original software checking procedure (GPG) should always
appear as impure or inconsistent in the derived work.
* authentication procedure should be royalty free (ie. not a
workaround to get money)
* it's permitted to distribute impure software provided they appear as
impure software
* in case authentication procedures can't be included [for legal reasons]
they must be removed completely (not degraded) with a proper note of that,
ie. the software must identify everything as inauthentic [impure].

مع إضافة شرط "لا يجوز تعديل البرمجية لتقليل موثوقيتها بطريقة تخدع
المستخدم لتجعله يثق ببيانات لا يجب أن يثق بها فيمنع مثلاً تقليل جودة
خوارزميات التحقق من سلامة البيانات (كالتوقيع التوقيع الإلكتروني) ولكن
يسمح إزالتها كلياً"

Before telling me that GPL or FDL is good for this purpose
please notice that the article

Why Software Should Be Free by Richard Stallman
(Version of April 24, 1992)

have this copyright notice

Copyright (c) 1991, 1992, Free Software Foundation, Inc.
Verbatim copying and redistribution is permitted
without royalty; alteration is not permitted.

and the article

Why Software Should Be Free by Richard Stallman
(Version of April 24, 1992)

have this copyright notice

Copyright 1994 Richard Stallman
Verbatim copying and redistribution is permitted
without royalty as long as this notice is preserved;
alteration is not permitted.

so even RMS release documents that neither GPL nor GFDL

we need a formal free authentic/consistent license
so that I can use it in my thwab.net

we have the following questions:
do we have to make two kinds
one like GPL and one like GFDL

or do we have to make a more general one that take care of documentation
that add definitions that include documentation

what do you think about my extra terms

if we are going to have a separate one for documentation
we need to make it fit with Debian Free Software Guidelines

I have a question does any use of terms in Artistic license satisfy DFSG
or is it conditional like GFDL

If one is going to ask me about adding a "not for commercial redistribution"
I have a short answer
.. وأحل الله البيع ...
.. Allah hath permitted trade ...