[fsfc-discuss] New license proposal: DGPL

[Andrés G. Aragoneses]

Hello. I write here because it's the only mailing-list I've found that
may be related to what I want to talk about: FSF licenses.

Along the recent years in which I've been involved in FLOSS, I've
noticed a lack of a free software license that, combined with the
dual-license method, could allow an ISV to release their software as
open source but at the same time benefit from customers that want to
stay in the propietary world. One could think of this as the typical
scenario where the dual license GPL+Propietary is used, but this only
works for libraries. If we are talking about tools for developers, the
ISV's cannot release their programs as GPL because everybody (free
software developers and propietary software developers) would be able to
use them freely. That's why, IMO, many open-source-friendly companies in
the end are releasing proprietary products (even when they truly
manifest using free software and supporting it; but the most they
usually do is free proprietary licenses to free-software developers).

So a new license that removes (or reduces) one of the freedoms of free
software, but with the aim of extending the free software community,
could be done. A one that states that the execution of the program is
only allowed when the result of its execution is or helps the creation
of free software. This is a similar strategy to the purpose of the AGPL,
and I would call it DGPL with the D as in Developer.

To illustrate better the modifications that I would advocate in the GPL
to get a new DGPL, I'm attaching a hand-made diff over the text of the GPL.

I'm specially concerned with one corner case this license could allow,
but in which proprietary software companies could fall in order to avoid
the restriction of the DGPL while still releasing proprietary software.
For example:

- CompanyA creates a VCS software under the DGPL software called VCSA.
- CompanyB creates a BSD software and uses VCSA for its development (as
BSD license is open source, there would be no problem), called SW1.
- CompanyB releases a software called SW2 based on a version of SW1, but
relicensing it to proprietary (as BSD allows this).
- Result: CompanyB avoided the DGPL.

So, we must be very clear in what kind of software the DGPL would be
compatible with: not any license that allows relicensing.


I would like to receive feedback on this. Is feasible that FSF creates a
license like this? What concerns do you have about the diff attached? I
currently know some companies that would be interested in adopting this
kind of licenses in order to release their products as open source but
still not loosing their proprietary customers.

Thanks in advance,

    Andrés G. Aragoneses
    Novell, Inc.

-- 

-This License explicitly affirms your unlimited permission to run the 
unmodified Program.
+This License explicitly affirms your unlimited permission to run the 
unmodified Program except in the case in which its use involves the creation of 
software (based or not based on the Program).
-The output from running a covered work is covered by this License only if the 
output, given its content, constitutes a covered work.
+The output from running a covered work is covered by this License only if the 
output, given its content, constitutes a covered work; in case it doesn't 
constitue a covered work, but the result is a software program, it must be 
covered by this License or a compatible one as well.
-This License acknowledges your rights of fair use or other equivalent, as 
provided by copyright law.

-You may convey covered works to others for the sole purpose of having them 
make modifications exclusively for you, or provide you with facilities for 
running those works, provided that you comply with the terms of this License in 
conveying all material for which you do not control copyright.
+You may convey covered works to others for the sole purpose of having them 
make modifications exclusively for you, or provide you with facilities for 
running those works, provided that you comply with the terms of this License in 
conveying all material for which you do not control copyright, and all material 
which is generated from the result of running the Program.

-9. Acceptance Not Required for Having Copies.
+9. Acceptance Not Required for Having Copies, but Needed for Running Them

-You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run a copy 
of the Program. 
+You are not required to accept this License in order to receive a copy of the 
Program.

..

-However, nothing other than this License grants you permission to propagate or 
modify any covered work.
+However, nothing other than this License grants you permission to propagate, 
run or modify any covered work.

-Therefore, by modifying or propagating a covered work, you indicate your 
acceptance of this License to do so.
+Therefore, by running, modifying or propagating a covered work, you indicate 
your acceptance of this License to do so.




Moving forward the DGPL proposal we are:

- Encouraging software companies (dedicated to provide tools for developers) on 
making the source of their products open, without the risk of loosing current 
clients (maybe via a dual license approach: DGPL, or license fee for non open 
source users).
- Encouraging software companies that select DGPL tools to open source their 
products in order to stop paying for the tools.