'Dæmon License': an anti-viral license.

This license does not protect against GNOME-ization.

"Dragging in and hooking a software up to so many dependencies it becomes impossible to build / maintain and might as well be proprietary / closed-source because the code is effectively inaccessible"

or GNU-ization.

"Tying almost every aspect of a software to an external internet server (.deb / .rpm repository, CPAN, PIP) so that it fails in exactly the same way as a DRM / online activation scheme"

;)
 
One more step:

Copyright (c) [ YEAR ], [ COPYRIGHT HOLDER ]
All rights reserved.

Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification,
are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:

1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this
list of conditions and the following disclaimer.

2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice,
this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or
other materials provided with the distribution.

3. Derivative work cannot be distributed under terms and/or linked to work that
impose restrictions of how derivative work should be distributed, ever if
exceptions are granted to the present work.

4. If derivative work become distributed and/or linked to work under terms that
impose restrictions of how derivative work should be distributed, ever if
exceptions are granted to the present work, the present license is applied
instead to the derivative work and/or the linked work.

THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS" AND
ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE
DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR
ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES
(INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES;
LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON
ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT
(INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS
SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
Click to expand...

It does need some grammar review. ;)
 
Last edited:
Little steps.

Code: 
Copyright (c) [ YEAR ], [ COPYRIGHT HOLDER ]
All rights reserved.

Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:

1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice,
   this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.

2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
   notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
   documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.

3. Derivative work cannot be distributed under terms and/or linked to work
   that impose restrictions on how derivative work should be distributed,
   ever if those terms grant exceptions to the present work.

4. If derivative work become distributed and/or linked to work under terms
   that impose restrictions on how derivative work should be distributed,
   ever if those terms grant exceptions to the present work, those terms
   and conditions are void, and the derivative and/or linked work is under
   the present License.

THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS"
AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE
IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE
ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE
LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR
CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF
SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS
INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN
CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE)
ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
 
One more step.

Code: 
Copyright (c) [ YEAR ], [ COPYRIGHT HOLDER ]
All rights reserved.

Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:

    1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
       notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.

    2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
       notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
       documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.

    3. Source code of derivative works cannot be distributed and/or linked
       to works under terms that impose restrictions on how the source code
       of derivative works should be distributed, ever if those terms grant
       exceptions which cover works licensed under the present License.

    4. If the source code of derivative works become distributed and/or
       linked to works under terms that impose restrictions on how the
       source code of derivative works should be distributed, ever if those
       terms grant exceptions which cover works licensed under the present
       License, those terms and conditions are void, and the derivative
       and/or linked works are licensed under the present License.

THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS"
AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE
IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE
ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE
LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR
CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF
SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS
INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN
CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE)
ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
 
Rigoletto said:
Code: 
    3. ... terms that impose restrictions on...

    4. ... and the derivative and/or linked works are licensed under the present License.
Click to expand...
3 needs to say "that further impose restrictions".
4 the last phrase is unclear. It is written like it is refering to works of under another license being combined. It's written like it would try to override other licenses more aggressively than GPL and also not allowed, by an action not under control by the owner of the copyright and allowed under its license.

Allowing any use of binary, but limiting distribution of the source code when combined with other licenses is a good idea. This alone will conflict with GPL, where they cannot combine their license with this, because their license requires redistribution.
 
sidetone

"3" already fixed in here. I was finding the "4" text with somethig weird. I just need to think how to better express it, since, obviously, the forced re-license can just be over the code owned by the violator.

Thanks!
 
So, just a quick hack.

Code: 
Copyright (c) [ YEAR ], [ COPYRIGHT HOLDER ]
All rights reserved.

Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:

    1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
       notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.

    2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
       notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
       documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.

    3. The source code of derivative works cannot be distributed and/or
       linked to works under terms that further impose restrictions on how
       the source code of derivative works should be distributed, ever if
       those terms grant exceptions which cover works licensed under the
       present License.

    4. If the source code of derivative works become distributed and/or
       linked to works under terms that further impose restrictions on how
       the source code of derivative works should be distributed, ever if
       those terms grant exceptions which cover works licensed under the
       present License, those terms and conditions are void, and the
       derivative works and/or the linked works, if the former have the
       same copyright owner, are licensed under the present License.


THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS"
AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE
IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE
ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE
LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR
CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF
SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS
INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN
CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE)
ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
 
The last version for now.

Code: 
Copyright (c) [ YEAR ], [ COPYRIGHT HOLDER ]
All rights reserved.

Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:

    1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
       notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.

    2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
       notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
       documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.

    3. The source code of derivative works cannot be distributed under
       terms that further impose restrictions on how the source code of
       derivative works should be distributed, ever if those terms grant
       exceptions which cover works licensed under the present License.

    4. If the source code of derivative works become distributed under
       terms that further impose restrictions on how the source code of
       derivative works should be distributed, ever if those terms grant
       exceptions which cover works licensed under the present License,
       those terms and conditions are void, and the derivative works are
       licensed under the present License.


THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS"
AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE
IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE
ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE
LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR
CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF
SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS
INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN
CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE)
ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
 
Almost there:

Code: 
Copyright (c) [ YEAR ], [ COPYRIGHT HOLDER ]
All rights reserved.

Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:

    1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
       notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.

    2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
       notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
       documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.

    3. The source code of derivative works cannot be publicly distributed
       under terms that further impose restrictions on how the source code
       of derivative works should be distributed, ever if those terms grant
       exceptions which cover works licensed under the present License.

    4. If the source code of derivative works become publicly distributed
       under terms that further impose restrictions on how the source code
       of derivative works should be distributed, ever if those terms grant
       exceptions which cover works licensed under the present License,
       those terms and conditions are void, and the derivative works are
       licensed under the present License.


THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS"
AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE
IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE
ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE
LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR
CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF
SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS
INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN
CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE)
ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
 
For clauses 3 and 4 of that, what if software written by someone or an organization is leaked by someone not permitted to do that. It would force that code into this license.

What about combining the original BSD license (BSD 4Clause) with the Clear BSD License license? The Clear BSD license is compatible with the GPL, hence combining it with the advertising clause for Berkeley.
 
The advertising clause of the BSD 4Clause doesn't make it incompatible with GPL, this is a Stallman invention because he don't like it, and his opinion or feelings are completely irrelevant in a tribunal.

sidetone said:
For clauses 3 and 4 of that, what if software written by someone or an organization is leaked by someone not permitted to do that. It would force that code into this license.
Click to expand...

Not really if that was not intentional, specially if that was an illicit act.
 
He won't like a clause requiring a simple declaration, "GPL is a viral license". They would be free to use it, but that clause would really discourage it, and send a message if they did take it. It would be ironic. Perhaps this would cause unintended consequences, like them putting likewise statements in their clauses. Stating, it can't be used with GPL may be better.

In a way, considering how GPL absorbed everything, it seems that something like this would be needed. It even got GPL2 soon that allowed to take advantage of a BSD3 license.

A Clear BSD license may allow GPL, but at least it would get rid of one problem common with GPL, that wouldn't allow a company that owns the copyright to force others to give up contributions to absorb them, while not giving back code.

I think in some cases these dual licenses are incompatible, but the GPL wants to take advantage of them anyway. As if something has dual licenses, one says, you must force away all contributions, and the other says, you don't have to give up contributions. Of course, this applies to anything added under the premise of GPL, that wasn't added under the premise of a BSD license. For dual licensed code, it gives the assumption that the BSD licensed code wasn't written first, when it was, and that the premise is to use the GPL license. A clear separation is needed.

CDDL is incompatible with GPL, but it is not simplified.
 
rigoletto@ said:
The advertising clause of the BSD 4Clause doesn't make it incompatible with GPL, this is a Stallman invention because he don't like it, and his opinion or feelings are completely irrelevant in a tribunal.



Not really if that was not intentional, specially if that was an illicit act.
Click to expand...
The GPLv2 &3 explicitly denies further 'restrictions' to their license. The advertising clause imposes such a restriction.

Of course none of this has been tested in court anyway; it's sort of the purpose of the BSD license.
See this for an attempt to add a restriction: https://gist.github.com/schacon/12896
 
mark_j said:
The GPLv2 &3 explicitly denies further 'restrictions' to their license. The advertising clause imposes such a restriction.
Click to expand...

The advertising clause isn't a restriction but a requirement, it doesn't restrict the GPL license in any sense but just add up on it.

mark_j said:
See this for an attempt to add a restriction: https://gist.github.com/schacon/12896
Click to expand...

The problem of that license is one could just re-write the GPL license using other terms, name it differently and by pass that restriction.

mark_j said:
Of course none of this has been tested in court anyway; it's sort of the purpose of the BSD license.
Click to expand...

This is just relevant in a concrete case scenario since everything depends of the specific juridisction of the litigation. In jurisdictions where license matters fall into the scope of the 'case law' (US, UK, etc.) there are a lot to discuss including how the clauses play together with the local regulations[1]. On the other hand, jurisdictions where license matters fall into the scope of 'contract law' (China come to mind) the license is quite likely to be enforced as-is.

[1] one can imagine GPL would be severely capped in EU, specially in situations where there is a clear weight difference between the parts.
 
rigoletto@ said:
The advertising clause isn't a restriction but a requirement, it doesn't restrict the GPL license in any sense but just add up on it.
Click to expand...
This doesn't correlate with what I've read, or this:
www.smh.com.au

FSF raises doubts over two open source licences

www.smh.com.au www.smh.com.au

Specifically the FSF says:
"With regard to the XFree86 licence, Kuhn said: "...it is GPL incompatible for similar reasons that the old BSD license (with the advertising clause) was. We are working with the X community to address the problem."

PS Don't get me wrong, I applaud your efforts to produce a BSD-style, GPL incompatible license.
 
mark_j said:
This doesn't correlate with what I've read, or this:
www.smh.com.au

FSF raises doubts over two open source licences

www.smh.com.au www.smh.com.au

Specifically the FSF says:
"With regard to the XFree86 licence, Kuhn said: "...it is GPL incompatible for similar reasons that the old BSD license (with the advertising clause) was. We are working with the X community to address the problem."

PS Don't get me wrong, I applaud your efforts to produce a BSD-style, GPL incompatible license.
Click to expand...

This is still the Stallman (FSF) opinion and not an actual specialized and non-FSF/similar (read neutral) lawyer (I'm not too), yet this discussion will always fall into how the license would be interpreted in a specific jurisdiction, in a specific concrete case.
 
rigoletto@ said:
This is still the Stallman (FSF) opinion and not an actual specialized and non-FSF/similar (read neutral) lawyer (I'm not too), yet this discussion will always fall into how the license would be interpreted in a specific jurisdiction, in a specific concrete case.
Click to expand...
True, but I think it's a pretty safe bet that if the FSF (a licensing producer and defender) says it's incompatible, it is.
We both seem to agree though, that until it's tested in any court it's also just an opinion of lawyers. Ultimately, it's the judges' opinions that count. ;)
 
The problem is see with these clauses is they are too broad and also cover the creation of derived works by e.g. Netflix.

Why not just state something like: Licensing derived works under a "copyleft" license is not permitted?

rigoletto@ said:
Code: 
    3. The source code of derivative works cannot be publicly distributed
       under terms that further impose restrictions on how the source code
       of derivative works should be distributed, ever if those terms grant
       exceptions which cover works licensed under the present License.

    4. If the source code of derivative works become publicly distributed
       under terms that further impose restrictions on how the source code
       of derivative works should be distributed, ever if those terms grant
       exceptions which cover works licensed under the present License,
       those terms and conditions are void, and the derivative works are
       licensed under the present License.
Click to expand...
 
20-100-2fe said:
The FSF has changed their mind about the Apache license over the last 16 years, check out their web site.
Click to expand...
In relation to the GPL, as far as I can see they have not. They only like the license v2 because it's anti-patent, other than that, it's anti-gpl, which is against their obvious love of all things GPL.
 
20-100-2fe said:
The problem is see with these clauses is they are too broad and also cover the creation of derived works by e.g. Netflix.

Why not just state something like: Licensing derived works under a "copyleft" license is not permitted?
Click to expand...

Copyleft isn't a "real" (juridic) term, making room to interpretations.
 
Can something more restrictive in terms of license compatibility be used?

"This software may not be relicensed"

"This license is final and is not compatible with any other license"
 
kpedersen said:
Can something more restrictive in terms of license compatibility be used?

"This software may not be relicensed"

"This license is final and is not compatible with any other license"
Click to expand...

No one can re-license a software without owner approbation, and making it incompatible with everything is just like GPL, only worse. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top