Hi Florian,
Thank you for reinforcing the difference between commercial and
proprietary, I was being lazy.
To this day it is difficult to actually install a pure Open Source Linux on
a laptop, due to the need for proprietary firmware and some driver issues -
especially concerning 3D graphics. So, you can have marginally proprietary
distributions which are free to duplicate without charge and contain mostly
Open Source.
And I didn't actually want to dig up that old license and read it again.
So, I'll leave it at this.
Thanks
Bruce
On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 4:43 PM Florian Weimer <f...@deneb.enyo.de> wrote:
> * 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
