Scripting Free Software License v1.3.6 (S-FSL)

Scripting Free Software License, Version 1.3.6 (S-FSL v1.3.6) :: see for the attachement Link to previous public discussions: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=+728716 http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2013-November/000679.html Please heed that potential discussion about OSD or OSS compliance should refer to the new license and not point to elder discussion. The license has been reworked now two times towards practical issues, consistency and OSD compliance. At least the following programs are currently at stake to be licensed under S-FSL: http://www.elstel.org/xchroot http://www.elstel.org/qemu: confinedrv http://www.elstel.org/bundsteg http://www.elstel.org/coan/ The following improvements towards v1.3.5 have been incorporated into v1.3.6: * explicit handling of compiled works :: 'automatic derivation process' * defining where to find or how to create the necessary changelogs * the possibility to branch any time you want (more competition, desert island test) * more precise rules for branches * better naming scheme: suffixing only once (no *-deb-3-ub-7 but only *-ub-7) * explicitly allows shipment of derived works as opposed to original+patches * rules for usage of patents and trademarks * paragraphs are numbered Motivation for a new license: S-FSL v1.3.x: Motivation for a new license / a revised version of it 1. The license should not only protect itself but any reference given to the authors such as concerning their web presence. It should also protect to some extent against re-publishing the software at another site with higher page rank possibly at cost just with the intention to draw off traffic from the original site (like f.i. already done with OpenOffice). It is the right of the user at least to know about the primary upstream page in the web. 2. Concerning the incorporation into paid, proprietary or commercial software the license should offer a comparable level of protection to intellectual property rights as GPL does even for scripts and software not being compiled (You actually have to use L-GPL when incorporating your compiled sources into any such product. However GPL does not seem to give any such protection for code distributed and executed as source or by just in time compilation). The license should still be compatible with compiled. 3. Note that S-FSL requires some minimal provisions by the distributor regarded by the author as de-facto standard and fair use conditions: a free core distribution or proactive distribution of patches, updates including security updates and fixes to broken functionality to anyone who got the core distribution, no undue obstacle in obtaining them, secure checksums to verify the downloads. Things quite common in the open source sector but not with some proprietary systems: Downloaders of Windows can not verify their downloads with publicly trusted tools; in order to update OS/2 Warp 4 some 'mean tricks' i.e. insider knowledge was necessary before I have published that on my personal blog at elstel.org. 4. The license has especially been designed for people who want to release their shareware under an OSS-compliant version for the first time experimenting to get input from a broader public community. As the original authors retain full property rights of their software even after incorporating patches (compare it in this point with the SRC M3 license) they may re-publish it under a different license like BSD or GPL at any time. It has been designed for the original authors to retain a maximum of intellectual property rights especially and also for those who are reluctant to make their software public domain in the first place. 5. By granting a group of developers to work on a new 'branch' other people can acquire similar responsibility and rights to work on an affiliated project. 6. The license should be compatible with the usage of patents and trademarks without unloading that burden to the end user. 7. The license should set a framework to facilitate contributions. 8. Distribution of programs under S-FSL should be facilitated and encouraged. Note that there seems to be no other license which would even rudimentarily fulfill these requirements. Many Thanks for Your Input and Contribution, Yours Sincerely, Elmar Stellnberger