Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Licenses that require people to provide more freedoms than the DFSG >> requires should never be non-free, even if those freedoms are only >> provided to certain people. Free software isn't about fairness or moral >> justification. It's about being able to modify software and pass those >> modifications on to someone else. > > How about a license which says "You may copy, modify, or distribute > this program, but only if you publish all your other works under the > terms of this very license." Is that free? It looks like your > definition includes it, but I find it abhorrent.
We believe that the freedom to choose the license of unrelated software is important, therefore a license that forbids that would be non-free. >> Why not? Which freedoms does it impact upon? > > The freedom to make and distribute modifications without paying the > author. Becoming part of a commons is not a payment. By that definition, all licenses that imposes any restrictions on the license of your modifications requires a payment. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
