Re: Recently released QPL
On Fri, Mar 26, 1999 at 04:00:58AM -0800, Joseph Carter wrote:
> [stuff deleted]
>
> The GPL is not the only free license there is. If you have a problem
> with that, you have a problem with the DFSG. There are pieces of
> software the GPL is not compatible with SITTING IN MAIN. Yes, TRULY FREE
> SOFTWARE if you take the DFSG as any measure of definition is
> incompatible with the GPL.
I think we've chosen to live with some rather dubious license clauses like
advertising clauses, patch clauses, etc. because they don't take away the
most important benefits of Free Software. These clauses don't make the
software non-free, but they certainly make it less free.
Even Copyleft makes software less free than it would be otherwise. This is a
reasonable tradeoff for insurance that future versions of the software will
never become non-free. An advertising offers no positive tradeoff. It is a
limitation in exchange for no insurance. When the two clash, I blame the
resulting problems on the advertising clause.
>
> Don't even try to say that one bad example invalidates the argument. The
> BSD license on ash is incompatible with libreadline's GPL---is ash
> non-free? Not according to the DFSG. And yes, I do directly blame the
> GPL for this.
>
It is clause 3 in ash's license that creates incompatibility with the GPL.
Other software that uses an XFree86 style non-copyleft Free Software license
does not have this problem.
I don't like advertising clauses. I think the advertising clause makes ash
less free.
--
Brian Ristuccia
brianr@osiris.978.org
bristucc@baynetworks.com
bristucc@cs.uml.edu
Reply to: