[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: DFSG status of DFARS clause?

On Sun, Oct 14, 2001 at 10:44:57PM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote:
> particularly if the entire project was government financed.  I could
> only see this as a problem with something that was GPLed or otherwise
> copylefted (ex: GPLed software that is financed by the govt could be
> modified by the govt and combined with non-GPL-compatible software);

I don't see that as a concern. That's always the right of the copyright 
owner; the FSF could release a proprietary backend to GCC if they chose

> (I guess the question is: if I license software under a BSD-like
> license, but say in the license that people who use it to build
> nuclear power plants, have bad breath, or hang out with Osama bin
> Laden have to abide by the terms of the GPL with regards to the
> software, would that be non-free, even though both groups are covered
> by DFSG-free licenses?)

We can distribute it under a free license, so I guess it would be free.
I'd only accept that if there was one license everyone could use (i.e.
the GPL in this case); if one group could use it under the QPL and the
other under the GPL, it's not free IMO. (I once put this up on
opensource-discuss (I think), with Tom Christenson and Theo de Raadt
having to follow the GPL, and that was Bruce Peren's opinion at the

David Starner - dstarner98@aasaa.ofe.org
Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org
"I saw a daemon stare into my face, and an angel touch my breast; each 
one softly calls my name . . . the daemon scares me less."
- "Disciple", Stuart Davis

Reply to: