Re: LPPL and non-discrimination

[Jonathan Fine <jfine@activetex.org>]

I think that there may have been a misunderstanding,
caused by an ambiguity in the term "free software".

(Now there's a surprise.)

Once it has been clarified, I think that there will
be more agreement.

So let's try.

1.  Software is executables, source files, etc.

2.  The copyright holder can license the software
to third parties.

3.  Licensed software is free, according to the
Debian Guidelines, if:
a)  the license meets the Debian Free Software
Guidelines.
b)  the software is available as unobfuscated
source, and not encumbered by patents or the like.

4.  The copyright holder can license software under
both free and proprietary licenses, if he/she wishes
to.

So ABC Software can if they wish release the software
they have written under a license that is Debian Free
(call it DFL) and a proprietary license also (call it
ABC-PL).

Typically, the ABC-PL will cost money, and will allow
creation of non-free derived works.

So far, I think we have agreement.

My concern is with the Debian Free License, and the
non-dsicrimination guideline.

Suppose ABC Software takes a DFL and from it creates
a new license (call it ABC-DFL) by adding the clause:
>   If the licensee is ABC Software Inc then the licensee
>   may freely incorporate this work into its proprietary
>   software.

My question is this:  Does this ABC-DFL license meet the
Debian Free Software Guidelines?

This is a question, of course, about the working of the
non-discrimination guideline.


Jonathan