Is it possible to add Fair License to choosealicense?

[johnny608]

Fair License
This license appears to pass rule 1 and 2 in CONTRIBUTING.md, but i dont think it passes rule 3. (searching for fair license in github code search happens to be disputed)
Is this license possible to be added to choosealicense?

[mlinksva]

https://github.com/search?q=filename%3ALICENSE+%22provided+that+this+instrument+is+retained%22 is an approximation, gets 132 results.

It does otherwise qualify. If you'd like to make a PR to work out the other details, I'm happy to leave it open until it meets the usage threshold (which may be a long time).

[Aspie96]

I'd like to point out this license, while considered free, only mentions "use of the work".

Licenses with more detailed language are to be preferred.

[waldyrious]

@Aspie96 could you give an example of an interpretation of "use of the work" that would make the license non-free? Not that I'm disagreeing, just making sure I understand your reasoning.

[Aspie96]

(I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice).

I don't consider it nonfree.

I am just pointing out other licenses are a bit more clear about what they allow.

The word "use" is, in some cases, used to mean "run" a copy of a software (for which a license is not even required). What you need a license for is modify and distribute the software.

The license is considered FLOSS and that indicates that the intention behind the word "use" is to include any kind of use, in the boroadest sense. And indeed, it is known that was the intention of the author.

So I am not suggesting the license is nonfree (it is free as long as interpreted as intended), but other licenses are a lot clearer.

[lorib55xx]

Thank you I really don't know the difference unless you point it out. I think this is above my knowledge any comments are helpful. Thank you. I don't really understand the difference.

[lorib55xx]

How or why ended up here ??

[Aspie96]

I was just looking at issues on this repo.

[Aspie96]

I don't really understand the difference.

The difference between what?

Anyways, my comments are a bit off topic. But not completely.

I don't oppose to adding the Fair License if it ever qualifies. I provided my commits in case in the future it is discussed to add it among the suggested licenses (instead of just the list).

[waldyrious]

I realize I too should have been more explicit in my wording. I didn't mean to imply that I felt you considered the Fair License to be non-free. I was just trying to understand what, in your view, could be ambiguous about it in a way that could be problematic for its usage as a FLOSS license.

If I understand correctly, your concern is that its extreme conciseness could lead it to not be interpreted as intended, and therefore other licenses that leave less room for interpretation might be preferable, to ensure that legitimate use (including modification and distribution) of software would be less likely to be encumbered due to an incorrect perception of what the license allows.

That seems to be a reasonable concern, but I'd argue that these days, with well-known "FLOSS license stamps of approval" such as OSI's and FSF's, systematic representations of licenses' properties (like tldr-legal, Wikidata, and the Permissions/Conditions/Limitations encoding that choosealicense.com uses), and general reference material like Wikipedia, it would be quite unlikely that someone would initially misinterpret the license's intent and not be able to easily and quickly learn of the correct interpretation.

So I'd say it's not a concern that should weigh against inclusion of the license in choosealicense.com — on the contrary, doing so will precisely add to the resources that help ensure its correct interpretation.