On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 11:50:26AM -0500, Tom Callaway wrote: > On 02/27/2017 10:58 AM, David Labsky wrote: > > Hello Fedora Legal, > > > > Would software under the following license be okay for inclusion in Fedora? Should I pursue the author to relicence? > > > >> DO WHATEVER PUBLIC LICENSE* > >> TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION > >> > >> 0. You can do whatever you want to with the work. > >> 1. You cannot stop anybody from doing whatever they want to with the work. > >> 2. You cannot revoke anybody elses DO WHATEVER PUBLIC LICENSE in the work. > >> > >> This program is free software. It comes without any warranty, to > >> the extent permitted by applicable law. You can redistribute it > >> and/or modify it under the terms of the DO WHATEVER PUBLIC LICENSE > > Clause 2 seems like it conflicts with clauses 0 and 1. Sublicensing > should fall under "whatever you want". > > Additionally, I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that I'm not sure that > "do whatever you want to do" has an established legal definition. That > said, we do permit the WTFPL, which has a similarly poorly worded > clause, but it does not have the conflict I point out above. > > Richard, setting aside the concept of "please stop writing your own > ultra permissive licenses", what do you think? I see this as a badly drafted attempt to have a simple copyleft license that no one except the original copyright holder can enforce (which might mean it isn't really copyleft I guess). Nevertheless from a Fedora perspective I think it should be considered a free software, GPL-incompatible license. Richard _______________________________________________ legal mailing list -- legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
