Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> 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. > > Shipping non-modifiable sofware would clearly be in breach of the DFSG > and would be an obvious reduction in the amount of functionality we > provide. There's a practical difference. Shipping software with > termination clauses would make little to no practical difference since > the same thing can happen to the users anyway. The freedom obtained from > not having termination clauses is not a useful freedom. The freedom > obtained from having modifiable software is a useful freedom.
But a termination-clause license can turn into a no-modifications license with no notice. >>The point, in short, is that termination-clause licenses aren't free. > > Gah. Yes. Thank you. So we're agreed now? >>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. > > Just like the GPL discriminates against the endeavor of shipping > non-free derivations. Yes, clauses that say "If you engage in activity > X, your license may be terminated" when activity X is a perfectly > reasonable activity are probably non-free. "The licensor reserves the > right to terminate this license" is less obvious, and I'm not convinced > that they're against the DFSG. Your reference to the GPL is a ridiculously broad reading of discrimination against an endeavor. Can you construct this argument on a serious basis, instead of this? -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
