Re: Termination clauses, was: Choice of venue
Matthew Garrett <email@example.com> writes:
> Glenn Maynard <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>The patent situation is thrust upon us; we can't avoid it. That doesn't
>>imply that we should allow clauses which create more such situations,
>>allowing termination at any time according to the author's mood and whim.
> Why not? Again, what practical difference does it make to our users?
Right now, not much -- but it makes it harder for us to mistake
non-free licenses for free ones. The patent situation sucks, but to
take it as precedent would lead to there being no free software.
>>The "Tentacles of Evil" test enunciates the need for this better (FAQ 9 A c):
>>"Imagine that the author is hired by a large evil corporation and, now
>>in their thrall, attempts to do the worst to the users of the program:
>>to make their lives miserable, to make them stop using the program, to
>>expose them to legal liability, to make the program non-free, to
>>discover their secrets, etc. The same can happen to a corporation bought
>>out by a larger corporation bent on destroying free software in order to
>>maintain its monopoly and extend its evil empire. The license cannot
>>allow even the author to take away the required freedoms!"
> Yes. Why does the test say this? Which aspect of the DFSG is represented
> by this test?
The DFSG give some guidelines for how to identify Free Software. They
are not an exhaustive definition.
Brian Sniffen email@example.com