Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 09:55:26PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote: > > This is where I disagree. Requiring modifiers to license changes as > > free for everyone to make proprietary is not free. I don't know of > > any other licenses in main that have that requirement. > > So you're saying, I think, that any viral (GPL-ish "must be available under > these terms"/"may not add restrictions") license that does not require source > distribution (and therefore prohibits requiring it) is non-free.
Not exactly that. Rather, any license that says that if you distribute source, you have a viral license, but if you don't distribute source, then you can license the result however you like. However, I just realized that I didn't read your initial email closely. The license you described (GPL but no one has to release sources) is essentially the same as what was just discussed on this list (Subject: A short license check). That, I agree, is free. So I am not actually disagreeing with you anymore on that point. > I'm not sure I agree, though this is tangental to the DFSG#5 > argument here. > > Do you also disagree with my general argument that this type of requirement > doesn't fail DFSG#5, or do you not have an opinion on that? I ask because > disagreeing with this particular example doesn't imply disagreement with > the DFSG#5 counterargument, so I just want to be clear. I'm still haven't made up my mind on the DFSG #5 argument. Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
