GPL (and other license) compatibility?

[AllenJB]

Has anyone reviewed this license with regards to compatibility with the GPL (and other) license? This license places additional restrictions on the software. How would that affect this?

[Daniel15]

As far as I know, in order to be GPL compatible, a license either needs to have fewer restrictions than GPL (eg. MIT, BSD), or explicitly allow relicensing (eg. the Apache license). Being GPL compatible means that you can relicense and redistribute code under the GPL, which is problematic for licenses with additional limitations/restrictions on use.

Basically, it comes down to this: If it were possible for this license to be compatible with other licenses, someone could bypass this license's restrictions by relicensing the code under another license, which is obviously problematic :)

[nateberkopec]

This license is not GPL-compatible, because it restricts FSF's freedom 0, the freedom to use the software for any purpose. This freedom is protected in section 2 of GPL v3:

You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not convey, without conditions so long as your license otherwise remains in force.

I do not believe the intention of this license is to fit the traditional FSF definition of free software, so I think this issue can be closed with, "No."

[Aspie96]

The license fits no reasonable definition of free software at all.
I have nothing against non-free software, to be clear.

[paulyc]

It can't ever be GPL-compatible sure, but one could make a copyleft version of it, similar to Creative Commons Share Alike. This is no different than a license that doesn't allow, say, commercial use. Both are restrictions on the manner in which someone may use the work. The term "Commercial use" may be more clearly defined in the law than "doing no harm", but, in the end, either way it's up to a judge or panel of judges to determine on a case-by-case basis what is or isn't commercial use or doing harm. So it's up to the license to define that as precisely as possible in a manner that Federal judges can understand.

As for whether it can't fit "any definition" of free software, I disagree, maybe based on what FSF says but they aren't the sole arbiter of the terms usage like some Académie française. Maybe not a common definition, but someone's definition, sure. I can't say these aren't free as in freedom guns just because I can't legally go around shooting people with them. No freedom is entirely without limit; one person's freedom is another person's oppression.

[Aspie96]

but one could make a copyleft version of it,

That has nothing to do with wether it's free or not.
And nor does GPL-compatibility. GPL is incompatible even with itself due to different versions.

Free Software can be used for any purpose by anyone. If it can't, it's not free.

The term "Commercial use"

All free software is usable for commercial use.

either way it's up to a judge or panel of judges to determine on a case-by-case basis what is or isn't commercial use or doing harm.

It is still not free, regardless of wether it gets enforced or not.

Please see the JSON license:

https://www.json.org/license.html

It is NOT considered Free by the community because it poses restriction on use.
Please search "json license ibm free" on Google and find out more (it's a pretty interesting story):

https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ACYBGNRTE77h8dRyXP40rqZ3Tk1fCQQOCQ%3A1576166735995&ei=T2XyXfqvPML0kwW-tYTIBg&q=json+license+ibm+free&oq=json+license+ibm+free&gs_l=psy-ab.3..33i160.20169.20900..21140...2.0..0.202.864.0j5j1......0....1..gws-wiz.......33i22i29i30.n0T9F9YD9KA&ved=0ahUKEwi6k5_TvrDmAhVC-qQKHb4aAWkQ4dUDCAs&uact=5

In short, free licenses have to allow evil. If they don't, they are not free and do not contribute to the free software community.

Doesn't mean I have anything against it. Just it's not free.

As for whether it can't fit "any definition" of free software, I disagree, maybe based on what FSF says but they aren't the sole arbiter of the terms usage like some Académie française. Maybe not a common definition, but someone's definition, sure.

I agree with that point. Technically, you can define literally any word however you like.
Nevertheless, that is not what the free software community means by "free" and leads to confusion, so it's better to use another word.
I suggest "usage restricted".

I can't say these aren't free as in freedom guns just because I can't legally go around shooting people with them.

Nor can you legally kill anybody in any other way. The issue here is freedom being restricted by the software author. If it does, why would you call it "free"? Not even Creative Commons does, even though they do provide usage restricted licenses, but recognizing they are not free.

No freedom is entirely without limit; one person's freedom is another person's oppression.

Actually, all free softare licenses are "without limit" when it comes to usage and some are without limit altogether (licenses equivalent to public domain but technically not waivers: copyright is retained, but limitless freedom is granted). Of course, there is a catch: laws will apply.

I don't understand why one would change the definition of terms that are already in wide use, instead of creating new terms. It doesn't help.

[Aspie96]

Extra: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/programs-must-not-limit-freedom-to-run.html

[decentral1se]

FYI there are work group channels going on about this on various different licenses, so if you're interested in making this happen I would guess you should apply 🌞 Please see https://ethicalsource.dev/apply/.

[enderger]

Honestly, I personally think that some distinction must be drawn between free as in anarchy vs free as in democracy. Democracies have laws which are agreed upon in some capacity to benefit the people, while anarchies have no laws. While there is the requirement by many licenses to propagate, little protection is given to prevent misuse (e.g. patent trolls and “embrace extend extinguish”).