Re: Open Software License v2.1
Matthew Garrett <mgarrett@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
> Andrew Suffield <asuffield@debian.org> wrote:
>
>> This idea is a variation on "You may not use this software for
>> military applications" and goes against DFSG#5/#6. They're both
>> intrinsically non-free, no matter how laudable you may consider them
>> to be.
>
> Why is discrimination against people who want to sue you significantly
> different to discrimination against people who want to distribute
> binaries without source? Neither prevents or restricts use, modification
> or distribution of modified works.
Er, yes, discrimination against distribution without source is all
about protecting the ability to modify the code.
But in any case, the difference in my mind is about causality -- where
did each party get the property right in question? In a copyright
case, it's clear that the modified work comes from the original work,
so it's OK for the original author to control the modified work
somewhat. In a patent case, the property right to the patent existed
before the "original" software was ever written. For the person who
wrote the software *after* the invention was patented to try to
blackmail the inventor is horrible[1].
For example, imagine a license which said any attempt to sue over
>> You cannot use a license to enforce your political position.
>
> Why is copyleft other than the use of copyright to enforce a political
> position (ie, that the source should always be available to people with
> binaries)?
Copyleft is very narrowly targeted -- if I don't like your copyleft, I
can always reimplement the code. I can't reimplement around a patent
problem, because it's the method or technique that's patented.
-Brian
1: Acknowledged, software patents are foolishly and incorrectly
granted all the time. So fix that system, don't introduce a new
brokenness in the DFSG.
--
Brian Sniffen bts@alum.mit.edu
Reply to: