On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 11:59:53AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > 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.
At which point it becomes non-free. Or is it your belief that it should never be possible to turn a free license into a non-free one? The GPL contains a clause that explicitly allows for that to happen. > >>The point, in short, is that termination-clause licenses aren't free. > > > > Gah. Yes. Thank you. > > So we're agreed now? No. Saying (and I paraphrase) "Termination-cluses licenses aren't free because, in short, termination clause licenses aren't free" is not useful. Why? Relate this to specific hardship that they cause. Explain why this hardship is unacceptable. Describe how the DFSG demonstrates our opinion on this hardship. In short, justify your assertion. > > 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? What field of endeavour does a clause along the lines of "The copyright holder may terminate this license at any time" discriminate against? How does this field of endeavour fall under DFSG 6 without it being read in an extremely broad fashion? -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
