Re: NEW ocaml licence proposal by upstream, will be part of the 3.08.1 release going into sarge.
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 09:55:26PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> This is where I disagree. Requiring modifiers to license changes as
> free for everyone to make proprietary is not free. I don't know of
> any other licenses in main that have that requirement.
So you're saying, I think, that any viral (GPL-ish "must be available under
these terms"/"may not add restrictions") license that does not require source
distribution (and therefore prohibits requiring it) is non-free. I'm not
sure I agree, though this is tangental to the DFSG#5 argument here.
Do you also disagree with my general argument that this type of requirement
doesn't fail DFSG#5, or do you not have an opinion on that? I ask because
disagreeing with this particular example doesn't imply disagreement with
the DFSG#5 counterargument, so I just want to be clear.
--
Glenn Maynard
Reply to: