Re: R: Request for Evaluation of Lachesis Open License

Hi,

IMO, non-free:
  - fail with desert island/dissident tests
  - non-commercial constraints

My 2 cents

On 10/11/24 11:33, PEPPÈ Santarsiero wrote:
> 
> 
> This version include correction reported by Soren Stoutner from the 
> debian team.
> Thanks for considering my request.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *Da:* Soren Stoutner
> *Inviato:* Venerdì, 11 Ottobre, 2024 00:21
> *A:* [email protected]
> *Cc:* PEPPÈ Santarsiero
> *Oggetto:* Re: Request for Evaluation of Lachesis Open License
> 
> Giuseppe,
> 
> On Thursday, October 10, 2024 9:08:47 AM MST PEPPÈ Santarsiero wrote:
>  > Dear Debian Legal Team,
>  > I hope this message finds you well.
>  > I am writing to request the evaluation of the Lachesis Open License, 
> which I
>  > have recently drafted. I have just submitted this license for 
> evaluation to
>  > the Open Source Initiative (OSI) and would like to discuss any proposed
>  > modifications they may suggest. I believe the Lachesis Open License is
>  > compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines, and I am eager to
> ensure
>  > that it aligns with Debian's requirements as well. Thank you for your 
> time
>  > and consideration. I look forward to your feedback. Best regards,
> 
> This is an interesting license.  I have one question about wording, which
> might be a translation issue.  The license contains the following text:
> 
> "Any derivative work of this Software, regardless of the method of
> distribution (download, streaming, hosting on remote servers, or any other
> form of public availability), must be accompanied by the distribution of the
> complete source code.”
> 
> "However, if the licensee distributes such derivative works, they are 
> required
> to include the complete source code of those modifications”
> 
> I assume that what is intended is that those distributing the software must
> also make the source code available to those who want it.  However, as it is
> worded here, I think the effect would be that those distributing binary 
> files
> compiled from the source code would have to force everyone who downloaded
> those binaries to also download the entire source code, whether they 
> wanted it
> or not.  If the desire is simply to make the source code available, I think
> the following wording would be more accurate:
> 
> "Any derivative work of this Software, regardless of the method of
> distribution (download, streaming, hosting on remote servers, or any other
> form of public availability), must provide access to the complete source
> code.”
> 
> "However, if the licensee distributes such derivative works, they are 
> required
> to make available the complete source code of those modifications”
> 
> 
> --
> Soren Stoutner
> [email protected]