* Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [030902 22:45]: > On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 03:32:42PM -0400, Brian T. Sniffen wrote: > > >> This sort of rationale is usually bogus. > > >> > > >> In its ultimate form, the MIT/X11 license is "non-free" because it > > >> discriminates against people trying to sell the software. > > > > > > Thats one of the reason why we put software that is "for non-commercial > > > use only" into non-free. Your point was? > > > > You appear confused: "for non-commercial use" does not restrict the > > distribution, but rather the use of the software. For example, if I > > had a copy of Emacs with a license "for non-commercial use only," I > > could not use it to write programs for pay. > > I'm not sure the use vs. distribution distinction is relevant (unless > making an argument that they can't make the restriction at all due to > scope of copyright law, which is rarely done). > > More generally, that rationale is bogus because it applies to almost *all* > restrictions in any license. The GPL discriminates against proprietary > software authors.
No, it does not. (It makes it impossible for propietary software authors to enrich their software with the copyleft software. But when this is discrimination, so is giving away free t-shirts, as there are people who do not like clothes). Hochachtungsvoll, Bernhard R. Link -- Sendmail is like emacs: A nice operating system, but missing an editor and a MTA.
