Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Walter Landry wrote: >> I haven't seen anyone seriously dispute my analysis in >> >> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/07/msg01705.html >> >> that there is a fee involved (you questioned whether it was an >> acceptable fee, not whether it was a fee at all). Matthew Palmer >> mentioned it again here >> >> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/07/msg01739.html >> >> and there was no response. I also mentioned it here >> >> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/08/msg00131.html >> >> Unless someone comes up with something now, the argument looks pretty >> clear. > > I strongly disagree that such clauses are non-free. > > Consider for a moment a license that said something like "You must > either distribute under this license with source, or under a proprietary > license without source.", (where the license is otherwise > BSD/MIT/X11-like, and with a definition for "proprietary" given > somewhere in the license). This would be a form of "copyleft", that > requires derived works to maintain the "right" for _everyone_ to make > proprietary derived works. I think such a license would still be Free, > albeit annoying. For someone who only cares about Free Software, the > additional permission is useless, and only serves to allow others to > take the work proprietary.
I have two interesting permissions with your license: 1) Distribute with source, passing this license along. 2) or under a proprietary license without source. I must have received the code under grant 1. So the Free path is for me to distribute under grant 1. If I received it under grant 2, well, then it's a proprietary license and we all agree I don't have free software. I have to pass along 2, but I have the right to take advantage of it if I like. It's a grant of permission I have, part of the license I have. > Now consider a similar license with one change: only the original > developer may release under a proprietary license. Such a change > reduces the number of people who can take the software proprietary. It > seems like if the case above is a Free license, then this one would be > as well, and would actually be preferable. This is not Free. It gives these grants: 1) Distribute with source, passing this license along. 2) or, if you're Bob, under a proprietary license without source. Now I have only one grant of permission. I have to pass along 2, but I don't get to take advantage of it at all. > Finally, it seems like this is covered by the DFSG FAQ > (http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html) point 12e, which says that > it is fine for some people to have more rights than others, as long as > everyone has a Free license. That "as long as" is important. It can be engaged in two ways. If I say "GPL except for to Bob, who gets Nothing! Nothing!" then that's not Free, because Bob doesn't have a Free license. If I say "BSD to teachers, GPL to everybody, and that pair must be passed along" then that's not Free. The QPL says "BSD to inria/cristal, copyleft/patch to everyone else, and that pair must be passed along" -- that "must", that added restriction, is the non-free part. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
