Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This should be considered as a restriction on the grant of rights to > distribute the program. If you had rights to distribute the program > binary-only for other reasons separate from the license (say, a different > license), and this license took those rights away, this would *not* be a > free requirement. >
Right, but that is circular reasoning. Why is this a bad thing, *IF IT IS A MINOR REQUIREMENT*? > For instance, consider a GPL-licensed work where the copyright holder offers > licenses to use the program without source for a fee. I should certainly > be able to use the proprietary license from the copyright holder for one > project and the GPL for another. If the GPL contained such a requirement > and it wasn't a restriction on the grant of rights, but rather an *actual* > consideration, this would be impossible. Get the picture? I had to read this four times, and I still don't understand your example. I think you are talking about cases where a restriction in the license interferes with some other license? In that case, I point you back to the GPL clause which allows you to distribute binary and make the source code available. IANAL, but even if I have a separate license that says I can distribute the binary without posting source, I still can't undo the fact that in the past I have already distributed the binary under the GPL option. However, I can certainly use the newly-obtained license for disributions in the future. Generalizing, if the restriction does not interfere with the normal free-software rights, I do not see the problem. Also, note that the new license is surely non-free. I don't think we should overly concern ourselves with how free licenses mix with non-free ones, because a non-free license can go so far as saying stuff like "You will not redistribute a GPL program. Ever.". We can't defend against that. By the way, I think a big part of my frustration with these discussions is the use of the word "free". When I say "free", please take it as "the requirement Debian makes of software", or often, "the requirement Debian *should* make of software". Lex
