Re: please check new blitz license
On 12 Aug 1998, Rob Tillotson wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP DECRYPTED MESSAGE-----
> John Lapeyre <lapeyre@physics.Arizona.EDU> writes:
> > 2. You may not charge a fee for distributing the Library
> > (or portions of it) in source code form without specific prior
> > written permission of the Copyright Holder.
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > However, I think that they are not in conflict. It is just that the blitz
> > license does not explicitly allow what is prohibited in the DFSG.
>
> This provision violates DFSG points #5 "No Discrimination Against
> Persons or Groups" and/or #6 "No Discrimination Against Fields of
> Endeavour", in that it places an additional condition on
> redistribution in a commercial context. (I believe there are other
> programs in non-free for precisely this reason.)
>
> It might also be construed as violating the spirit of point #8
> "License Must Not Be Specific To Debian" in light of point #7
> "Distribution of License". The intent of point #8, it seems, is to
> make sure that DFSG-free software is DFSG-free no matter what, no
> extra permission required. Even if the "extra permission" amounts to
> no more than a rubber-stamp and grants all the expected Open Source
> rights, that is not enough ... the DFSG says, basically, that asking
> individual permission is out of the question.
It also fails point #1 - Free Redistribution
> In my opinion, this one goes in non-free...
I suggest the John points the author at the DFSG and suggests a slight
weakening of this...
Jules
/----------------+-------------------------------+---------------------\
| Jelibean aka | jules@jellybean.co.uk | 6 Evelyn Rd |
| Jules aka | | Richmond, Surrey |
| Julian Bean | jmlb2@hermes.cam.ac.uk | TW9 2TF *UK* |
+----------------+-------------------------------+---------------------+
| War doesn't demonstrate who's right... just who's left. |
| When privacy is outlawed... only the outlaws have privacy. |
\----------------------------------------------------------------------/
Reply to: