On Tue, May 06, 2003 at 07:34:21PM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote: > >> Must modifications be under the ABC-DFL? If so, it's non-free > >> because to modify it you must agree that ABC can use your code in > >> their proprietary stuff. Is this what you're getting at?
What about a license like the GPL, without the source distribution requirement? It essentially would be a license that requires that your modifications (if you choose to distribute their source) be usable in their proprietary stuff, since you couldn't tack on a source distribution clause (which is what prevents GPL code from being used proprietarily). It'd be strange to consider this DFSG-unfree, as it's mostly[1] more permissive than the GPL. Of course, a license that limits this to a specific company would be extremely obnoxious, and certainly feels unfree, but what makes it different from the above? [1] Not entirely: not being able to readd the source distribution requirement is itself a restriction, so it'd be GPL-incompatible. -- Glenn Maynard
