Re: LPPL and non-discrimination
Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:
> On Wed, May 07, 2003 at 12:32:04PM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
>> Why not? A license like the GPL, but with a clause requiring that Foo
>> Inc. have the right to relicense any derivative works as they please
>> is DFSG free?
>
> I'm not sure that's particularly like the GPL, but yes, it is.
>
> DFSG-free means that it can be included in Debian, maintained by our
> maintainers and used by our users.
Now you're being silly. Surely you're not proposing that as an
adequate reformulation of the DFSG?
Are you saying restrictions on modification are OK so long as they
don't narrow the scope of possible modifications? I.e., the license
can make you jump whatever hoops it likes before modifying, and the
bare fact that it allows modification is enough? So a license that
requires payment before modification, or ritual sacrifice, or dancing
a jig, or sending a postcard -- these are all DFSG free?
Assuming that you agree that a license that requires payment before
modifications can be made (i.e., no modifications are permitted, but
if you pay $X you can have a license that permits modifications) isn't
DFSG free, how is that different from requiring permission for a
specific party to relicense your work however they see fit?
--
Jeremy Hankins <nowan@nowan.org>
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
Reply to: