Re: New CUPS license violates DFSG 6?
> Previously Peter Makholm wrote:
> > I think there are consensus for allowing positive discrimination.
> There is? That would be a mighty slippery slope.
It's been discussed before, but I couldn't point you to a thread. It's
okay to license something under the GPL for everybody, and add _extra_
permissions for others.
It's not very different from the old "In addition, you may link this
software against Qt (or XForms) and distribute the resulting binary,
under the restrictions in clause 3 of the GPL, even though the resulting
binary is not, as a whole, covered by the GPL." The above gave extra
permissions to Qt or XForms users.
I don't see a slipery slope here. What am I missing? Can you provide
an example of what you are thinking of?
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org