On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 05:56:15PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: > > > The Real license not only has that restriction, but talks at length > > > about R&D use only, etc, etc. It fails that clause in many ways.
> > Take out the R&D and personal use grants. Does it still comply with > > the DFSG? Now add them back. How is it possible for more freedom to > > make the software DFSG-nonfree? > Because the freedom is distributed unevenly. DFSG states that there must > not be discrimination. If there is -- that is, if different people/groups > get different levels of freedom -- then it is not DFSG-free. > I think this is a Good Thing, too. I should be able to do one thing with > software if I do it in my spare time and another if I do it with my small > business. I can't bring myself to agree with this position. With almost *all* free software licenses, the copyright holder continues to enjoy preferential status; does this make them non-free? Licensed are judged to be free if they provide certain freedoms to all users. This doesn't require that they treat everyone equally in other respects. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
pgpYIn3oKmlT9.pgp
Description: PGP signature
