Re: New license for UW-IMAP
So is mozilla in main or non-free? If imap goes into non-free because of
this one clause, it'd be logical to reassess mozilla in light of it. BTW
Raul, which clause of the DFSG is violated in this case?
On Mon, 30 Oct 2000, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 08:44:55AM +0000, Colin Watson wrote:
> > Er, hang on. Isn't this similar to the restrictions in the NPL?
> > www.mozilla.org is giving me 502s, so I can't check directly, but in an
> > essay by Bruce Perens on the DFSG/OSD he says:
> > An important feature of the NPL is that it contains special privileges
> > that apply to Netscape and nobody else. It gives Netscape the
> > privilege of re-licensing modifications that you've made to their
> > software. They can take those modifications private, improve them, and
> > refuse to give you the result.
> No problem there.
> > To me, this looks like a fair summary of the UW licence too. The NPL is
> > a pain in many ways, and it's certainly GPL-incompatible, but
> > http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html acknowledges it as a
> > free software licence. Thus, simply allowing a privileged party to steal
> > your changes and make them proprietary is not sufficient to render a
> > licence non-DFSG-free.
> gnu's criteria are not the DFSG criteria.
> Which reminds me: I need to write up a proposal for the DFSG modification
> vote thingy..
Armageddon means never having to say you're sorry.
Who is John Galt? email@example.com, that's who!