Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > b. If modifications to the SE are released under this > > > license, a non-exclusive right is granted to the holder of the > > > copyright of the unmodified SE to distribute your > > > modification in future versions of the SE provided such > > > versions remain available under these terms in addition to any > > > other license. > > > > I recall that we recently discussed whether such clauses are > > sufficiently discriminating to fail the implicit "with no > > consideration to the author" test of the DFSG. It eludes me what we > > concluded, however. > > I personally consider that non-DFSG-free, under the theory that in > general, "your modifications" have pecuniary value, and you are > compelled to license your valuable modifications to the copyright holder > under terms other than those under which you are licensing them to the > community.
What stops you from licensing your valuable modifications under a BSD-like licence so that everyone has them under the same terms? > Therefore, I see no fundamental difference between this clause and one > which insists that all modifiers pay a license fee to the copyright > holder. Both cash and copyrightable modifications have pecuniary value. > > Consequently, in my view, this clause fails the "freely modifiable" > requirement of the FSF's definition of "Free Software". Would you feel the same way about a licence that said that all modifications must be public-domain or BSD-licensed? What about a copyleft licence that grants the DFSG-freedoms but gives additional permissions to Jehova's Witnesses (who happen to come to mind as they turned up at my door as I was typing this)? Edmund
