Re: software licensing
> Remco Blaakmeer <remco@Cal011205.student.utwente.nl>
> On Tue, 1 Sep 1998, Derek B. Noonburg wrote:
> > My fundamental belief is this: If I create a piece of software, I have
> > the right to determine who can distribute it (and modified versions of
> > it),
> No, any license which has a restriction on who can distribute (or use) the
> program is not DFSG compliant, according to sections 5 and 6 of the DFSG.
Right, but my point was that I have the right to put whatever
restrictions I like on my software. Of course, it won't be
DFSG-compliant at that point.
> > If you don't like my conditions,
> > you obviously have the right to not distribute my software.
> Of course.
This is really all I was trying to say.
> > On the other hand, I believe there are some conditions which are a Bad
> > Idea -- ranging from silly to annoying to just plain dumb.
> Could you name some?
I agree with the DFSG, at least on the major points. For example,
restricting use by certain people or for certain purposes is a bad
idea. Another example -- in the realm of free software, it doesn't
make much sense to restrict redistribution in weird ways, e.g., only
on the net, not on CD-ROM. But I'm sure I'm preaching to the choir
> > But I still
> > think that software authors have the right to place these kind of
> > conditions on their software if they want to.
> Sure. But the risk you take is that your software may not be distributed
> at all.
Right. The reason I posted this proposed license was to work out the
problems in it. Like I said, I fundamentally agree with the DFSG, and
I want my license to be compliant.