Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> On the other hand, the current phrasing has weird corner cases. A >>> hyopthetical license that said "This code is under a BSD-style license. >>> If you downloaded it via FTP, remove this license and attach the GNU GPL >>> version 2 or higher" probably /ought/ to be free, since there's never a >>> situation where it's not at least the GPL. But DFSG 3 appears to prevent >>> it. I don't think that's what it was intended to do, but the only person >>> who knows is Bruce. >> >> But with that license, we can just jump through the hoops and >> distribute it under the GPL, which is free. We can't take advantage >> of wacky privileges the author gives, but that's OK. > > Sigh. Yes. Postulate a similar license whose hoops we can't jump > through. Should it be free? If not, why not?
I can't imagine such a thing that isn't very clearly free or very clearly non-free for lots of other reasons. Can you come up with an example? Many of the imagined licenses on this list seem to be tricornered squares -- perhaps a sign that our terminology isn't good enough (i.e., orthogonal) yet. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
