I think that there may have been a misunderstanding, caused by an ambiguity in the term "free software".
(Now there's a surprise.) Once it has been clarified, I think that there will be more agreement. So let's try. 1. Software is executables, source files, etc. 2. The copyright holder can license the software to third parties. 3. Licensed software is free, according to the Debian Guidelines, if: a) the license meets the Debian Free Software Guidelines. b) the software is available as unobfuscated source, and not encumbered by patents or the like. 4. The copyright holder can license software under both free and proprietary licenses, if he/she wishes to. So ABC Software can if they wish release the software they have written under a license that is Debian Free (call it DFL) and a proprietary license also (call it ABC-PL). Typically, the ABC-PL will cost money, and will allow creation of non-free derived works. So far, I think we have agreement. My concern is with the Debian Free License, and the non-dsicrimination guideline. Suppose ABC Software takes a DFL and from it creates a new license (call it ABC-DFL) by adding the clause:
If the licensee is ABC Software Inc then the licensee may freely incorporate this work into its proprietary software.
My question is this: Does this ABC-DFL license meet the Debian Free Software Guidelines? This is a question, of course, about the working of the non-discrimination guideline. Jonathan
