Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, 2004-07-13 at 18:49, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > >> The patent non-policy should not be used as a precedent. It's there >> until the software patent issue goes away in one direction or another >> -- the current situation is not tenable for the years to come. It's >> not something anybody should be proud of or enjoy doing, but it's the >> only way to have *any* software right now. > > Sigh. Yes. But the difference between the two makes no practical > difference whatsoever to our users at present, so what's the point?
It makes a huge difference. They can get access to much more software if we ship stuff with a termination clause. Of course, they can also get access to much more software if we ship non-modifiable software, and that makes no practical difference to most of our users at present, either. The point, in short, is that termination-clause licenses aren't free. In the very specific terms of the DFSG, they discriminate against whatever endeavor allows termination, or in the case of arbitrary-termination clauses against whomever the licensor doesn't like. Licenses which terminate for non-compliance are different, since they can't move you from a compliant to a non-compliant state, but only from a non-compliant state to a non-compliant state. -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
