Re: OSD && DFSG - different purposes - constructive suggestion!
Scripsit Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au>
> On Sun, Mar 09, 2003 at 10:19:16PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > I believe that there IS a fundamental difficulty with such licenses.
> > Consider the case where a company's modifications encode certain business
> > logic details. =20
> This doesn't make something more difficult; it makes you likely to
> choose not to base your work on that piece of software.
Yes, and that means that software licensed in that way should not be
considered DFSG-free. It's part of what we promise our users: You can
take software in Debian main and modify it to include your business
secrets, and - if we on d-l have done our job properly - not risk
being legally compelled to disclosing those secrets to someone you
don't want to disclose them to.
> Sure. Compare this to some code using the GPL; same sort of information,
> same problem with it: their trade secrets are woven into the functionality
> of the code itself.
In that case you can simply choose to distribute the program only to
people you trust. You can't do this if the license carries an
obligation to distribute to a fixed third party, too.
> What's the difference? Why should Debian choose to ensure one company
> can merge in their trade secrets into any part of Debian, but not ensure
> the other company can do likewise?
Your analogy is flawed, that's the difference.
> The argument "not requiring public access is important because privacy
> is important" is circular, so invalid.
"Privacy is important" is not an argument - it's an axiom.
--
Henning Makholm "Det är alldeles för ansvarsfullt att skaffa en
flickvän. Det är ju som att skaffa en hundvalp."
Reply to: