On Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 08:44:55AM +0000, Colin Watson wrote: > Er, hang on. Isn't this similar to the restrictions in the NPL? > www.mozilla.org is giving me 502s, so I can't check directly, but in an > essay by Bruce Perens on the DFSG/OSD he says: > > An important feature of the NPL is that it contains special privileges > that apply to Netscape and nobody else. It gives Netscape the > privilege of re-licensing modifications that you've made to their > software. They can take those modifications private, improve them, and > refuse to give you the result.
No problem there. > To me, this looks like a fair summary of the UW licence too. The NPL is > a pain in many ways, and it's certainly GPL-incompatible, but > http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html acknowledges it as a > free software licence. Thus, simply allowing a privileged party to steal > your changes and make them proprietary is not sufficient to render a > licence non-DFSG-free. gnu's criteria are not the DFSG criteria. Which reminds me: I need to write up a proposal for the DFSG modification vote thingy.. -- Raul
