On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 08:46:52PM +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> * Andrew Suffield <asuffield@debian.org> [2003-09-02 18:46]:
> > On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 02:02:50PM +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> >> Isn't Section 10 of the OSL ("Mutual Termination for Patent Action") a
> >> violation of Section 5 of the DFSG ("No Discrimination Against Persons
> >> or Groups")? It clearly discriminates persons filing a law suite
> >> against a OSL licensed software.
> >
> > This sort of rationale is usually bogus.
> >
> > In its ultimate form, the MIT/X11 license is "non-free" because it
> > discriminates against people trying to sell the software.
>
> Thats one of the reason why we put software that is "for non-commercial
> use only" into non-free. Your point was?
That this is not one of the reasons why we put software that is "for
non-commercial use only" into non-free.
DFSG#5 and #6 are rarely used. Most of the time, you really want to be
looking at #1, including for "non-commercial use only" licenses.
The DFSG is a very loosely worded document; that's why "Guidelines" is
there. Trying to apply #5 outside the scope of things like "This
program may only be used by white american males" will usually lead to
nonsensical results - like declaring the MIT/X11 license non-free.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
Attachment:
pgppCIZs87MyS.pgp
Description: PGP signature