* Bruce Perens: > Both Red Hat and Debian treat the terms of the distribution the same as > what they ask for in the software. When I last checked, Red Hat was using > the GPL Version 2 as a compilation license. Both wanted commercial > derivatives (Red Hat for their own use). So, this sort of restriction was > not allowable. We did think about this when drafting the DFSG, and drew up > OSD #8 and #9 because of it.
I'm confused by this comment. Aren't you confusing commercial and proprietary derivatives? I don't think the old OpenMotif terms were anti-commercial, they were anti-proprietary. (They may have been intended as anti-commercial, by not taking the GNU/Linux market seriously.) And due to the amount of software under copyleft licenses (and the difficulty of meeting notification requirements in the permissive licenses—without distributing source code), I think any further restriction on proprietary derivatives would be rather meaningless anyway. _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
